If an altitude is underlined, it is the MINIMUM altitude...
if an altitude is over-lined it is the maximum altitude. If
it is both under and over-lined the altitude is mandatory.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


wrote in message
oups.com...
| What I'm having difficulty reconciling is the following
statements of
| yours:
|
| "If you can receive the G/S prior to the PFAF, it's only
advisory in
| any
| case, so you are free to use it as you choose, provided
you don't
| violate any minimum segment altitude or stepdown fixes or
any aspect of
| an ATC clearance."
|
| I totally agree.
|
| "The new CFI is technically correct but the old CFI is far
more
| practical."
| "In the case cited, the CFI is nitpicking but is
nonetheless legally
| correct."
| "I agree that the CFI is procedurally wrong, although
legally correct."
|
|
| So how can you assert these, *given that in this
instance* it is
| physically and logically impossible to "violate any
minimum segment
| altitude or stepdown fixes or any aspect of
| an ATC clearance", because
| a) the ATC clearance was to maintain 2000 until
intercepting the
| localizer, and
| b) the procedure was to descend on the glide slope to the
minimum
| segment altitude (1800) at which point the G/S becomes
primary.
|
| The point is that blindly following the glideslope has
the potential
| at places *other than SCK* of causing violations of
published
| altitudes. Following the G/S is not a violation per se,
busting
| published or ATC assigned altitudes is.
| The CFI is not "technically correct" or "legally
correct". What he
| could have said, after the flight, is that if one chooses
to follow the
| G/S prior to the PFAF one needs to be mindful that
published and ATC
| assigned altitudes have to be complied with, but that at
SCK that was
| not an issue.
|