Full deflection = missed approach ???

I did not say that it is ALWAYS the right thing to do. Sometimes, yes.
Sometimes, no. If there is a requirement someplace, then that would seem to
trump my making the decison to recover the approach when I have decided that
that is a safe thing to do.

So yes, it DOES make a difference
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"pgbnh" wrote in message
...

It is common wisdom, and often common sense, that if a full deflection of
a CDI (or GS) is experienced, a missed approach is to be flown. But a lot
of people seem to think that it is REQUIRED. I have had a CFII tell me it
is required. But I can not find anything in FAR or AIM that states such a
requirement.

Again, in a lot of cases I can understand why to do it. But I can also
imagine others where it might make just as much sense to recover the
approach and not go missed.

Can anyone point me at a rule that requires a missed?

If you agree it's the proper thing to do, does it matter if it's required
or not?

"pgbnh" wrote in message
...

I did not say that it is ALWAYS the right thing to do. Sometimes, yes.
Sometimes, no. If there is a requirement someplace, then that would seem
to trump my making the decison to recover the approach when I have decided
that that is a safe thing to do.

So yes, it DOES make a difference


When is it not the right thing to do?

in an emergency, say low on fuel and not able to do a missed and another
approach.
Michelle

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"pgbnh" wrote in message
...


I did not say that it is ALWAYS the right thing to do. Sometimes, yes.
Sometimes, no. If there is a requirement someplace, then that would seem
to trump my making the decison to recover the approach when I have decided
that that is a safe thing to do.

So yes, it DOES make a difference




When is it not the right thing to do?

In article .net,
says...


in an emergency, say low on fuel and not able to do a missed and another
approach.


Well, I guess this pilot wouldn't be too worried about one more violation of
FAR's, would they!

Howdy!

In article ,
Greg Farris wrote:
In article .net,
says...


in an emergency, say low on fuel and not able to do a missed and another
approach.


Well, I guess this pilot wouldn't be too worried about one more violation of
FAR's, would they!

Which FAR? Your answer presupposes that it's a violation of the FARs, but
you haven't shared which one applies here.

yours,
Michael

--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

In article , says...

Which FAR? Your answer presupposes that it's a violation of the FARs, but
you haven't shared which one applies here.



I take the phrase "in an emergency, say low on fuel" to mean the emergency is
a fuel emergency, created by the pilot's mismanagement, in violation of 91.167
In this case, because it's an emergency, you may disregard other regulations
in the interest of responding to the emergency, but you may have some
explaining to do. . .

GF

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:48:20 +0200, Greg Farris wrote:

In article , says...

Which FAR? Your answer presupposes that it's a violation of the FARs, but
you haven't shared which one applies here.



I take the phrase "in an emergency, say low on fuel" to mean the emergency is
a fuel emergency, created by the pilot's mismanagement, in violation of 91.167
In this case, because it's an emergency, you may disregard other regulations
in the interest of responding to the emergency, but you may have some
explaining to do. . .

GF

But there are instances of being low on fuel that do NOT involve a
violation of 91.167.

First of all, 91.167 is for planning purposes and requires that you be
"considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions" These
are not always accurate.

In addition, mechanical problems can occur. These also do not involve any
violation of 91.167. Personal experience: I flight planned to have one
hour of fuel remaining at my destination (no alternate was required). A
fuel tank ran dry about 20 minutes before it should have. Problem turned
out to be a leaking gasket in the fuel servo. I wound up landing at the
closest airport (which was some distance away and was my planned
destination). I refueled with 50 gallons (tanks supposedly have 52 gallons
usable and some fraction of a gallon unusable).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"pgbnh" wrote in message
...

I did not say that it is ALWAYS the right thing to do. Sometimes, yes.
Sometimes, no. If there is a requirement someplace, then that would seem
to trump my making the decison to recover the approach when I have decided
that that is a safe thing to do.

So yes, it DOES make a difference


When is it not the right thing to do?

As you know, when first being vectored for the ILS, most times the
glideslope will be pegged.


--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." wrote in message
...

As you know, when first being vectored for the ILS, most times the
glideslope will be pegged.


What are you using for guidance when you're being vectored for the ILS?

Trust in some anonymous voice on the other end of the radio. Sprinkled
with a little situational awareness hopefully.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Peter R." wrote in message
...

As you know, when first being vectored for the ILS, most times the
glideslope will be pegged.



What are you using for guidance when you're being vectored for the ILS?