![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Tim wrote: Ron Garret wrote: In article , Tim wrote: If you don't know you shouldn;t be filing IFR. Period. You can get someone (including yourself killed.) ... I know the answer. Then what is it? And please note that the question is not what do you do by the book. The question is what do you do in the real world. (Actually it turns out that there are some interesting subtleties involved in figuring out what to do in this case even by the book.) Spoon feeding pilots who are dangerous and ignorant is a sure way to disaster. I would think that allowing ignorant pilots to remain ignorant would be a much surer route to disaster. For the record, the weather was VFR the whole way (and I knew it) so I was a good deal more casual about it than I would have been if it had been IMC the whole way. (I also strongly suspect that if it had been IMC the whole way I would not have received a direct clearance. I've flown that route a zillion times and it's never happened before.) rg I am not sure how to answer this if you don't want to believe that you are expected to do what it says in part 91. If you want to make up your own stuff or do things other people do in the "real world" then go ahead. First, the regs explicitly sanction "making up your own stuff" (as you put it) in emergency situations, which lost comm in IMC can easily give rise to. Second, a lot of the regs were written before the advent of moving-map GPS. Many procedures that make sense if you're navigating on a VOR make less sense if you always know at a glance exactly where you are. Third, going by the book makes you do some overtly stupid things. The classic example is going NORDO while flying from AVX to FUL. Going by the book requires you to fly to SLI, reverse course, return to the exact spot you just came from (which is over water BTW), and reverse course again. This procedure is manifestly more dangerous than just flying the approach straight in (because it involves more maneuvering, more time in the air, more time over water). Moreover, under normal conditions the approach is ALWAYS flown straight in (via vectors) and under NORDO conditions the controllers expect you to fly the approach straight in (I know because I asked them) notwithstanding that this technically violates the regs. And fourth, the regs leave a lot of stuff unspecified. If you go by the regs in the current situation, you end up over KVNY at 11,000 feet, at which point you're supposed to initiate your descent. But there's no published hold at KVNY (to say nothing of the fact that KVNY is not an IAF for any approach to KVNY) so you have no choice but to improvise at that point. rg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Real-world IFR currency | Paul Folbrecht | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | March 23rd 05 04:19 PM |
Real World Problem in FS9 | The Real Cali Kid | Simulators | 12 | December 6th 03 11:15 AM |
Real World Weather (Isabelle) | [email protected] | Simulators | 1 | September 21st 03 09:53 PM |
Real-time real world air traffic in flight sims | Marty Ross | Simulators | 6 | September 1st 03 04:13 AM |
Real World Specs for FS 2004 | Paul H. | Simulators | 16 | August 18th 03 09:25 AM |