Jepp vs NOS at PRB

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Wed, 05 May 2004 15:23:07 GMT, Greg Esres wrote:

Exactly what resources exist which could relieve him of this
misconception once he has acquired it?

The AIM, for one.

Where in the AIM? I don't think this issue would be clarified without the
use of common sense (i.e., reading the entire chart in context...profile
and plan views) or a good reading of both the NACO and Jeppesen approach
chart legends.

On Wed, 05 May 2004 10:09:36 -0700, wrote:



Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Wed, 05 May 2004 15:23:07 GMT, Greg Esres wrote:

Exactly what resources exist which could relieve him of this
misconception once he has acquired it?

The AIM, for one.

Where in the AIM? I don't think this issue would be clarified without the
use of common sense (i.e., reading the entire chart in context...profile
and plan views) or a good reading of both the NACO and Jeppesen approach
chart legends.

5-4-8 a.1. ... However, the point at which the turn may be commenced and
the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of the pilot.

These types of issues get discussed in many places from time to time, as
well as in various publications. This very issue was the topic of a long
discussion on another aviation news group a few years ago. It was also a
California approach, but not this one.

Relief of misconceptions does not occur without a willingness to learn,
however.


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

5-4-8 a.1. ... However, the point at which the turn may be
commenced and the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of
the pilot.

That just begs the question. If the person is under the impression
that the PT can't begin until some irrelevant fix in the planview,
then all the AIM tells him is that once he reaches that fix, THEN he
can begin the PT whenver and however he wants.

A person who has a misconception is likely to interpret anything he
sees or hears in light of his misconception. Unless there is
*specific*, authoritative information to root out the initial error,
getting him to change his mind will be difficult.

The only reason that the error of this present belief was instantly
obvious to me was that I had read a number of articles (Wally Roberts)
and publications (TERPS, etc) describing how the PT protected areas
are constructed.

On Wed, 05 May 2004 20:45:04 GMT, Greg Esres wrote:

5-4-8 a.1. ... However, the point at which the turn may be
commenced and the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of
the pilot.

That just begs the question. If the person is under the impression
that the PT can't begin until some irrelevant fix in the planview,
then all the AIM tells him is that once he reaches that fix, THEN he
can begin the PT whenver and however he wants.

A person who has a misconception is likely to interpret anything he
sees or hears in light of his misconception. Unless there is
*specific*, authoritative information to root out the initial error,
getting him to change his mind will be difficult.

The only reason that the error of this present belief was instantly
obvious to me was that I had read a number of articles (Wally Roberts)
and publications (TERPS, etc) describing how the PT protected areas
are constructed.

Well, if a person is unwilling to read and learn, then nothing will
change his mind.


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

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

Well, if a person is unwilling to read and learn, then nothing will
change his mind.

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

Well stated. Nonetheless, use of both the plan and profile views of an IAP
is probably best enhanced by some ground school in the chart legends for
both NACO and Jepp.

Alas, some feds assume all this stuff is self-evident. And, the PRB is a
great example of where you really do need to understand what the chart is
conveying.

Well, if a person is unwilling to read and learn, then nothing will
change his mind.

I think that's a bit unfair. Whether a person was taught correctly or
incorrectly is a matter of chance; when someone later seeks to change
his mind, what authoritative evidence is available?

Many people want to learn, but they aren't sure whom to trust. In the
end, most are persuaded by the highest status individual with a firm
opinion.

Greg Esres wrote:

Well, if a person is unwilling to read and learn, then nothing will
change his mind.

I think that's a bit unfair. Whether a person was taught correctly or
incorrectly is a matter of chance; when someone later seeks to change
his mind, what authoritative evidence is available?

Many people want to learn, but they aren't sure whom to trust. In the
end, most are persuaded by the highest status individual with a firm
opinion.

No doubt about, especially in aviation, where there is no systematic
hierarcy of academic protocols and credentials.

no systematic hierarcy of academic protocols and credentials.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were? A "graduate" program for those
foolish enough to want to be career CFI's. I'd like to go to
something like TERPS school; while the real deal might be overkill,
maybe slight modification could produce highly qualified -II's.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Wed, 05 May 2004 10:09:36 -0700, wrote:



Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

Where in the AIM? I don't think this issue would be clarified without the
use of common sense (i.e., reading the entire chart in context...profile
and plan views) or a good reading of both the NACO and Jeppesen approach
chart legends.

5-4-8 a.1. ... However, the point at which the turn may be commenced and
the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of the pilot.

I fail to see where that AIM language helps me read the chart if I am otherwise
of limited clues. ;-)