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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
CFII question for Approach Gurus
In article ,
B A R R Y wrote: Ron Garret wrote: Geez, Steven, do your eyes ever get sore from picking at these microscopic nits? How is pointing us to the specific document where we can read the controller's view picking nits? Because whether or not the AIM "imposes requirements" or merely describes requirements imposed by some other document or whatever is irrelevant to the point I was making, namely, that the section in question is talking about ATC actions and not pilot actions. (To which Steven would probably say something along the lines of "The AIM, being an inanimate object, cannot "talk" about anything.") rg |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
CFII question for Approach Gurus
In article , B wrote:
Ron Garret wrote: In article , B wrote: Ron Garret wrote: In article , B wrote: You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i, effective February, 2006 5-5-7-i doesn't say anything about procedure turns. In fact, it says nothing about pilot actions at all, only ATC actions. Now, it does impose requirements on ATC that would make it possible to fly the approach without the PT, which strongly implies that under these circumstances one ought to fly the approach without a PT, but it doesn't actually say so. Personally, if something went awry, I would much rather stand up in front of the NTSB board and explain why I did fly the PT than why I didn't. In any case, it seems to me that an ASRS form is in order. rg I guess you mean 5-4-7-1, not 5-5-7-i. Yes. What part of number 4 do you not understand? "Insure the aircraft is on a course that will intercept the intermediate segment at an angle not greater than 90 degrees and is at an altitude that will permit normal descent from the intermediate fix to the final approach fix." What part of number 4 do you think is at odds with what I said? rg The hold-in-lieu-of procedure turn is an initital approach segment. So what? ZARTO is both an IF and and IAF. How is the pilot supposed to know that the controller intended for him to treat it as an IF under the auspices of 5-4-7-i (it is an "i" by the way, not a "1") and not as a regular old approach with ZARTO as the IAF? And even if the pilot knew that this was what the controller intended, the language of 5-4-7-i is permissive, not restrictive. Nothing in that language requires the pilot to fly it that way if cleared "direct ZARTO cleared for the approach" instead of a vector to final. In fact, we don't even know for certain that 5-4-7-i applies at all because Bill never actually said whether or not he was filed /R or /G. (Not that it matters. My point is just that those who say that the pilot was wrong to fly the PT and cite 5-4-7-i as their evidence are making an awful lot of unwarranted assumptions.) rg |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
CFII question for Approach Gurus
Thanks to BillJ and B and all the group. I learned a great deal from this
thread today!!! John Severyn instrument student |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
CFII question for Approach Gurus
"Ron Garret" wrote in message ... Because whether or not the AIM "imposes requirements" or merely describes requirements imposed by some other document or whatever is irrelevant to the point I was making, namely, that the section in question is talking about ATC actions and not pilot actions. (To which Steven would probably say something along the lines of "The AIM, being an inanimate object, cannot "talk" about anything.") Steven wouldn't say anything like that because he knows one definition of "talk" is "to communicate ideas by means other than speech, as by writing, signs, or signals." |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
CFII question for Approach Gurus
"B" wrote in message ... The pilot is responsible for the AIM. The pilot is responsible for the FARs: "(j) Limitation on procedure turns. In the case of a radar vector to a final approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach for which the procedure specifies "No PT," no pilot may make a procedure turn unless cleared to do so by ATC." The FARs do not establish any limitation on PTs relevant to the case under discussion. This stuff was circulated to industry representatives, and represented by the air traffic folks to be a substitute for "vectors to final." Somebody forgot to inform pilots. The AIM does not state an equivalence between VTF and vectors to IF so that the FAR limitations would be applicable. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
CFII question for Approach Gurus
"Stan Prevost" wrote in message ... "B" wrote in message ... The pilot is responsible for the AIM. The pilot is responsible for the FARs: "(j) Limitation on procedure turns. In the case of a radar vector to a final approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach for which the procedure specifies "No PT," no pilot may make a procedure turn unless cleared to do so by ATC." The FARs do not establish any limitation on PTs relevant to the case under discussion. This stuff was circulated to industry representatives, and represented by the air traffic folks to be a substitute for "vectors to final." Somebody forgot to inform pilots. The AIM does not state an equivalence between VTF and vectors to IF so that the FAR limitations would be applicable. I misspoke. Replace "vectors to IF" with "direct to IF". |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
CFII question for Approach Gurus
Stan Prevost wrote:
"Stan Prevost" wrote in message ... "B" wrote in message ... The pilot is responsible for the AIM. The pilot is responsible for the FARs: "(j) Limitation on procedure turns. In the case of a radar vector to a final approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach for which the procedure specifies "No PT," no pilot may make a procedure turn unless cleared to do so by ATC." The FARs do not establish any limitation on PTs relevant to the case under discussion. This stuff was circulated to industry representatives, and represented by the air traffic folks to be a substitute for "vectors to final." Somebody forgot to inform pilots. The AIM does not state an equivalence between VTF and vectors to IF so that the FAR limitations would be applicable. I misspoke. Replace "vectors to IF" with "direct to IF". The feds who cobbled this together state in internal documents that it is the equivalent of vectors to the intermediate segment. Too bad they can't convey that to pilots. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
CFII question for Approach Gurus
"B" wrote in message ... Stan Prevost wrote: "Stan Prevost" wrote in message ... "B" wrote in message ... The pilot is responsible for the AIM. The pilot is responsible for the FARs: "(j) Limitation on procedure turns. In the case of a radar vector to a final approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach for which the procedure specifies "No PT," no pilot may make a procedure turn unless cleared to do so by ATC." The FARs do not establish any limitation on PTs relevant to the case under discussion. This stuff was circulated to industry representatives, and represented by the air traffic folks to be a substitute for "vectors to final." Somebody forgot to inform pilots. The AIM does not state an equivalence between VTF and vectors to IF so that the FAR limitations would be applicable. I misspoke. Replace "vectors to IF" with "direct to IF". The feds who cobbled this together state in internal documents that it is the equivalent of vectors to the intermediate segment. Too bad they can't convey that to pilots. Yes, it is. It also opens up another can of worms. The FAR refers to "vectors to final approach course", but the intermediate segment is not always aligned with the final segment. So vectors to an intermediate segment (or a supposedly equivalent action) not aligned with the final approach course do not strictly meet the NoPT criteria of the above-quoted FAR extract. But we have been around on that one before. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
question for tactics gurus | Moe | Naval Aviation | 7 | July 31st 06 06:38 PM |
Any OLC gurus? HELP PLEASE! | Mhudson126 | Soaring | 1 | March 21st 04 04:43 AM |
CFII question... | Ditch | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | January 13th 04 12:21 AM |
Question for Net Gurus My New Aviation Videos | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 24 | December 19th 03 07:35 PM |