Changes in Instrument Proficiency Check Requirements

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

They are advisory until there is an accident. Then they were binding.

OK, then let me ask a question which is now extremely appropriate to this
thread.

Suppose I am flying a real circling approach to minimums at an uncontrolled
field and the only way I can safely comply with the circling visibility and
runway distance requirements is by flying a non-standard pattern. Is it
OK to consider the AIM advisory only in this case?
--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 22:16:55 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
wrote:

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

They are advisory until there is an accident. Then they were binding.

OK, then let me ask a question which is now extremely appropriate to this
thread.

Suppose I am flying a real circling approach to minimums at an uncontrolled
field and the only way I can safely comply with the circling visibility and
runway distance requirements is by flying a non-standard pattern. Is it
OK to consider the AIM advisory only in this case?
--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

What do you mean by "non-standard pattern"? Outside of any circling
restrictions placed on the approach chart, there are no restrictions
to type of pattern or direction, as long as you stay within circling
visibility radius. Left/right traffic is irrelevant. You can circle
the field multiple times in both directions, if you really want to.

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 22:16:55 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"

What do you mean by "non-standard pattern"? Outside of any circling
restrictions placed on the approach chart, there are no restrictions
to type of pattern or direction, as long as you stay within circling
visibility radius. Left/right traffic is irrelevant. You can circle
the field multiple times in both directions, if you really want to.

From AIM 4-3-4 -- Is this regulatory or advisory?

c. Preparatory to landing at an airport without a control tower, or when the
control tower is not in operation, pilots should concern themselves with the
indicator for the approach end of the runway to be used. When approaching
for landing, all turns must be made to the left unless a traffic pattern
indicator indicates that turns should be made to the right. If the pilot
will mentally enlarge the indicator for the runway to be used, the base and
final approach legs of the traffic pattern to be flown immediately become
apparent. Similar treatment of the indicator at the departure end of the
runway will clearly indicate the direction of turn after takeoff.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 03:20:51 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
wrote:


"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
.. .

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 22:16:55 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"

What do you mean by "non-standard pattern"? Outside of any circling
restrictions placed on the approach chart, there are no restrictions
to type of pattern or direction, as long as you stay within circling
visibility radius. Left/right traffic is irrelevant. You can circle
the field multiple times in both directions, if you really want to.

From AIM 4-3-4 -- Is this regulatory or advisory?

c. Preparatory to landing at an airport without a control tower, or when the
control tower is not in operation, pilots should concern themselves with the
indicator for the approach end of the runway to be used. When approaching
for landing, all turns must be made to the left unless a traffic pattern
indicator indicates that turns should be made to the right. If the pilot
will mentally enlarge the indicator for the runway to be used, the base and
final approach legs of the traffic pattern to be flown immediately become
apparent. Similar treatment of the indicator at the departure end of the
runway will clearly indicate the direction of turn after takeoff.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

This does not apply to IFR arrivals desiring to circle in instrument
conditions. The approach chart limitations/notations are the only
limitation. What are you teaching your students? You should read the
TERPS.

"Bill Zaleski" wrote in message
...

This does not apply to IFR arrivals desiring to circle in instrument
conditions. The approach chart limitations/notations are the only
limitation. What are you teaching your students? You should read the
TERPS.

I agree with you completely and I do not teach my students any differently
than you suggest.

I am simply giving an example of how FAA publications/documents/regulations
need to be interpreted in an overall context rather than in isolation.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

I am simply giving an example of how FAA publications/documents/regulations
need to be interpreted in an overall context rather than in isolation.


They all need to be interpted in overall context. As long as there isn't an
accident, your interpretation is probably fine (with the FAA). If there's an
accident, then the FAA can choose to bring the AIM and the "careless and
reckless" clause into play. It might not always pass, but it's always above
you.

Here's a better one. Flight into known icing is prohibited (for a certain
subset of aircraft). Known icing and forecast icing are identical (to the
FAA).

So, you get a briefing, and find that the freezing level is forecast to be
6000. Freezing level at your destination will be at the surface three hours
after your arrival (before which the freezing level is 6000). You file for and
get 4000. You take off into the soup, and find that the weather is moving
faster. The temperature at 4000 is plus one. You get no ice. The minimum IFR
altitude is 2000, the cloud tops are 6000. You have several outs should you
pick up ice.

You continue (it's one of the options) to your destination which is reporting
clear and 6, and is an hour away. The temperature at 4000 drops to zero and you
start picking up a little ice. You ask to descend, ATC says unable. You ask
to climb, they clear you to 8000. This is above the clouds, and your
destination is clear. You accept, it being only a 2000 foot climb.

By doing so you are explicitly flying into known icing conditions.
Nonetheless, this is one of the recommended options in the new FAA Icing video.
IT doesn't appear to me to be a bad option, and turning around might not be
any better. You could declare an emergency, but you decide the situation
doesn't really warrant it yet.

You climb. Something Bad Happens. Nonetheless you survive, and after you get
out of the hospital, you face the FAA.

Did you violate the FARs? I bet they are lighting the grill for your goose.

In your example (IFR circling and the AIM) the case is weaker. But the AIM
recommends certain procedures (like altitudes and such), and if failure to
adhere to those recommendations causes grief, I bet they magically become
regulatory.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)