A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

non-vectored NDB IAF



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 14th 04, 02:54 PM
C Kingsbury
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Michael) wrote in message . com...

(C Kingsbury) wrote
Needle position and movement trend will indicate what you're dealing
with. At best I will grant you there is a theoretical reduction of
precision of measuring the x-wind component, but I suspect in most
cases the difference in the two approaches will be nugatory.


In most cases, you can just fly IMC without talking to anyone and it's
fine.


Well, not around Boston you can't. But that's neither here nor there,
and my point remains. If you were to draw a bounding rectangle of the
airspace used by the two different procedure turn flightpaths, they
may not be identical, but I find it difficult to imagine a case where
the differences are actually significant from a perspective of utility
or safety. And again, it is clear beyond any argument that the full
procedure increases the pilot's workload, which in my view is among
the surest ways to reduce real safety.

At best, the full procedure might provide navigational precision of
5-10% on the inbound leg to the FAF, though I suspect this advnatage
washes out during the final approach segment, unless it is very short,
or nonexistent, as with a beacon on the field, in which case the
minimums are so high it makes little difference anyway.

My unqualified suspicion is that a lot more pilots, especially
lightplane single-pilot IFR ones, get into trouble with basic spatial
disorientation, than with modest navigational errors. Truly systematic
risk management looks at the effects each optimization has not just on
a particular variable, but on all variables.

Yes, and we allow people to drive 55MPH, despite the fact that some
people get killed doing just that.


Which means that sometimes it's NOT safe to drive 55, even when that's
the speed limit.


Yes, and it doesn't mean that we ought to lower it to 45 everywhere,
either. Your point that "I need to get into my head" that just because
the rules allow X doesn't mean X is safe smelled more than a bit
hyperbolic in this regard. To dismiss the rules completely because
there are one or two exceptions is no more intelligent than applying
them thoughtlessly in place of common sense.

Best,
-cwk.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vectored past the localizer Doug Instrument Flight Rules 28 December 30th 03 07:05 PM
IFR Routing Toronto to Windsor (CYTZ - CYQG) Rob Pesan Instrument Flight Rules 5 October 7th 03 01:50 PM
Established on the approach - Checkride question endre Instrument Flight Rules 59 October 6th 03 04:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.