![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Boy, will that ever slow down the IFR training routine. And
it will make the OPTION a real invitation to a violation. "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... | "Emily" wrote in message | . .. | For that matter, going around would be considered a low approach. | | Semantically speaking, sure. But that's not relevant here. | | In the case of a true go-around, the low-altitude approach was made for the | purpose of landing, even if no landing actually occurred. No such claim | could be made for an intentional low approach. | | |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:eAeyg.84403$ZW3.33597@dukeread04... Boy, will that ever slow down the IFR training routine. And it will make the OPTION a real invitation to a violation. Yup. As I mentioned earlier, technically speaking such operations are illegal under 91.119. However, as I also mentioned earlier, clearly the FAA sets aside that technicality for such operations, since they not only allow them, they encourage them. But that doesn't mean that any random low approach is legal, especially if not done for some FAA-sanctioned purpose. Pete |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The root problem is that many FAA Inspectors are mindless
authoritarians. The bureaucrats band together to defend their turf. The NTSB has too many political appointees with no aviation experience. The result is stupid application of the rules. Phone, write and email the FAA and your Congressman. Contact the AOPA and EAA, demand some changes, demand sanity. Just a quick sample from Google...land use map sparsely populated 826,000 pages [PDF] T. Kit 9-12/TG.1'99 File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML the size of each state is not related to the size of the land area. ... the cartogram to the standard US map. 7. Name a sparsely populated state other ... www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/912ch1.pdf - Similar pages SIZE IT UP(Map Literacy) Grades 9-10 Skills and Objectives .... Use the two maps on page 5 (the US Population Cartogram and the Standard US Map) to answer the ... Name a sparsely populated state other than Montana. 8. ... www.census.gov/dmd/www/text/9-12b.txt - 16k - Cached - Similar pages Web Sites Powered by ESRI Internet Solutions ... land use information, historical maps, and more. The Atlas has a powerful search function capable of finding locations even in sparsely populated areas. ... www.esri.com/software/internetmaps/index.html - 24k - Cached - Similar pages Zoning, CDFS-1265-99 He/she must have a thorough knowledge of the zoning text and map and use these ... Another reality, especially in sparsely populated areas, is staffing and ... ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/1265.html - 17k - Cached - Similar pages Land Use Debate Land use research materials; Maps (Local, regional, global) ... Have the students determine the common factors of the sparsely populated areas. ... http://www.wested.org/werc/earthsyst...y/landuse.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages So the US government in the form of the Census Bureau and the USDA and probably the Interior Department and Defense Department all can provide maps that define sparsely populated areas. The FAA can be forced to follow established definitions. "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... | "Jim Macklin" wrote in message | news:eAeyg.84403$ZW3.33597@dukeread04... | Boy, will that ever slow down the IFR training routine. And | it will make the OPTION a real invitation to a violation. | | Yup. As I mentioned earlier, technically speaking such operations are | illegal under 91.119. However, as I also mentioned earlier, clearly the FAA | sets aside that technicality for such operations, since they not only allow | them, they encourage them. | | But that doesn't mean that any random low approach is legal, especially if | not done for some FAA-sanctioned purpose. | | Pete | | |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jim Macklin" wrote in message news:eAeyg.84403$ZW3.33597@dukeread04... Boy, will that ever slow down the IFR training routine. And it will make the OPTION a real invitation to a violation. I'll bet the FAA was hacked off (not that I agree) because the low pass was down on the deck, at WOT. Ya' think? g -- Jim in NC |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In the case of the first posted report, two inspectors were
at a remote airport. One inspector heard an airplane that didn't sound like it was being flown properly. The other inspector said he didn't see anything. Sounds can be useful, like when you hear a Bonanza or C210 with the prop at low pitch[ hi rpm] on climb out and the tips are going supersonic because (a.) The pilot doesn't know enough to pull the prop back 50-100 rpm and (b.) because the governor is set too fast because the tach isn't properly calibrated. But I suspect the inspectors were missing a ball game and wanted to be at a big, concrete airport. So they decided to punish somebody. The FAA gets into a mood [or is it mode] where they start looking for somebody to violate because that makes a paper trail that will get them noticed by the higher-ups. One day I took a charter from Wichita to MKC [Kansas City Downtown]. It was scheduled IFR in the Duchess because the customer wanted to spend as little as possible. It was scheduled for a 7 AM departure. It was also in the spring so IFR conditions and ice were a certain possibility. I began calling the FSS [the Internet did not yet exist] about 5 AM. I got a full briefing and filed IFR. I called back several times for updates and asked for PIREPS each time, the last time about 5 minutes before engine start. The weather was 1,000 overcast and tops were reported by many pilots as being at 3,000, a layer about 800 feet thick. It was clear above and the PIREPS indicated temps above freezing, NO ICING on climb out. When I departed I saw no ice on the Duchess and the sky was clear above the layer. When I got back that afternoon there was a message to call the FSDO and speak to my friend Warren. I called Warren and he asked me why I was flying in icing conditions. Seems the Feds had been renting the King Air for some practice and had been making multiple IFR approaches, for about an hour. They had just landed as I was taxiing out and a lineboy told them I was on a charter to Kansas City, I of course said I was not flying in ice, had seen no ice all day and recounted the details of my flight. BUT there were lawyers from the Kansas City FAA office on that King Air and they had seen a Beech Duchess [BE-76] with nothing but carb heat and a heated pitot depart IFR. They had been getting ice while being vectored in the top of the layer at 3,000 for an hour. Anyway, the local FSDO was ordered [I was told] to begin action against me. I prepared my case for an informal meeting and the feds came in with stacks of paper, every telephone call I'd made, all the radio calls, the ATIS tapes and transcripts. It was during this meeting that my boos, who as Director of Operations also attended, and I learned that the feds had been getting ice in the pattern doing a dozen or so ILS and VOR approaches in the layer. The feds noted that I had made many phone calls and updated the weather. They noted that I had requested all PIREPS for the local airport and enroute, nobody had reported any icing. In the end they decided to drop the case, but the KC lawyers insisted I write a new page for our OPS manual on ICING. I did and put in exactly what I did, including that lack of PIREPS or PIREPS that reported ice, confirming a forecast required a switch to an ice approved aircraft, a delay or even a cancellation. The FAA approved that revision with no changes. I then asked the feds why they didn't report the ice during the hour they were flying, wasn't reporting ice a required report and were they going to violate the PIC of that King Air? It actually was fun. -- James H. Macklin ATP,CFI,A&P -- The people think the Constitution protects their rights; But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome. some support http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties. "Morgans" wrote in message ... | | "Jim Macklin" wrote in message | news:eAeyg.84403$ZW3.33597@dukeread04... | Boy, will that ever slow down the IFR training routine. And | it will make the OPTION a real invitation to a violation. | | I'll bet the FAA was hacked off (not that I agree) because the low pass was | down on the deck, at WOT. Ya' think? g | -- | Jim in NC | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Our runway is being bulldozed! | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 28 | July 23rd 06 03:02 AM |
"Cleared Straight-In Runway X; Report Y Miles Final" | Jim Cummiskey | Piloting | 86 | August 16th 04 06:23 PM |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Owning | 114 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Piloting | 114 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |
FA: WEATHER FLYING: A PRACTICAL BOOK ON FLYING | The Ink Company | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | November 5th 03 12:07 AM |