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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim" wrote
To think that every IMC approach needs to be flown all the way the MAP or DH in IMC before it is loggable is simply not practical. I would agree, not practical at all. I would pose the following situations to Mr. Gary. 1. Wx is 200x1/2...I break-out of the ILS at 200', can I log it? What if I was using CAT II mins? Same ILS, same instruments, but I broke out 100' above minimuns...can I log an approach? 2. Same approach except on the final vector, I engage the autopilot and do not touch the controls again untill minimums. Can I log it? 3. Same approach except that the Wx is reported as visibility 1/4 in ground fog. I engage the autopilot and auto-land and sit back and enjoy the ride. Can I log it as an approach???...a landing???? 4. Same approach except the Wx is now CAVU, I program the autopilot the same as in number 3. Did I fly an ILS? You bet I did. Did I log a landing? You bet! It ain't as cut-and-dried as Mr. Gary would have it be. Bob Moore ATP B-727 B-707 L-188 CFII PanAm (retired) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"David Brooks" wrote in message
I had thought that was what John Lynch meant, but now I read this extract again I'm not so sure. What he actually says is that you fly all the way to the conclusion of the approach, not that you fly to the conclusion in IMC. His reference to "fly to the FAF and break it off" seems gratuitous otherwise. I don't think anyone is actually asking that, so he may be, in his mind, answering a slightly different question. The question he's answering is not whether the approach can be logged at all, but whether it can be logged as an approach in actual conditions (see the phrase ["actual" approach]). -- John T http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer _______________ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I would pose the following situations to Mr. Gary.
To add to that, I fly in solid IMC until shortly before the IAP, whereupon I break out inbetween layers. I fly the approach, able to see the horizon and 200 feet above minimums go into the next layer. I break out at minimums and land. (Or don't break out at minimums and execute a missed). Loggable? If not, shorten the visual time until it is. How short is it? I figure if I pretty much have to be on the gauges pretty much most of the way (to some applicable minimum), I can pretty much log it. Jose (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Time to pull out my handy-dandy personal FAQ on the issue. You'll note
that it gives a bit of history surrounding this stupid controversy, but leaves the decision to you. Me? I agree with Bob Gardner. When can I log the approach? A historical perspective: If you look at 61.57(c) (instrument currency) you'll see that the 6 instrument approaches that have to have been done in the prior 6 months must be "performed and logged under actual or simulated instrument conditions..." Some of the other requirements have changed through the years, but this one has been with us for a while. Sounds pretty simple, doesn't it? Except some idiot thought to ask, "How much actual is actual?" What if you pass through a single scattered cloud on the way down for a total of 5 seconds of "actual"? Can you count the approach? Sometime in 1989 or 1990, it seems FAAviation News ran an article that said that you had to fly the approach to minimums in IMC in order for it to count. Someone wrote in pointing out the illogic of a rule that meant that a very experienced pilot who flew hard IMC all the time would probably not be able to log the approaches, since most approaches don't involve breaking out at minimums. In the July/August 1990 issue, FAAAviation News replied to the writer: ============================== "Once you have been cleared for and have initiated an approach in IMC, you may log that approach for instrument currency, regardless of the altitude at which you break out of the clouds" ============================== Problem is that this answer doesn't work either. Now, you're on a feeder route to the IAF above the cloud deck when you're cleared for the approach. You fly the full approach, enter the clouds just below glideslope intercept and break out at 200 AGL with 1/4 mile visibility. Oops! Sorry! You were not "cleared for and have initiated an approach in IMC". (You're starting to see why I called the person who asked the "How much" question for the first time an idiot.) In 1992, the FAA legal counsel chimed in: ============================== "Second, you questioned how low a pilot must descend (i.e., minimum descent altitude or decision height or full stop landing) on the six instrument approaches he must log to meet the recent IFR experience requirements specified in FAR Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) (14 CFR Sec. 61.57 (e)(1)(i)). You also asked if an instrument approach "counts" if only part of the approach is conducted in actual IFR conditions. Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) states that: No pilot may act as pilot in command under IFR, nor in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless he has, within the past 6 calendar months - (i) In the case of an aircraft other than a glider, logged at least 6 hours of instrument time under actual or simulated IFR conditions, at least 3 of which were in flight in the category of aircraft involved, including at least six instrument approaches, or passed an instrument competency check in the category of aircraft involved. For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section 61.57(e) (1)(i) may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR conditions. Further, unless the instrument approach procedure must be abandoned for safety reasons, we believe the pilot must follow the instrument approach procedure to minimum descent altitude or decision height." ============================== Uh-oh! If you take the opinion at face value, there's that reasoning again that essentially says that if you don't go missed, you can't log it. There is a strong school of thought out there that says that what it "looks like" the FAA Counsel said is not what they meant. Note that despite the question, although the answer says that you have to follow the =procedure= all the way (unless it's not safe), it does not say that you have to follow the procedure all the way "in actual IFR conditions." (You can see where this is much better fodder for arguments than anything else in the logging arena.) The camp that says that the legal counsel didn't mean all the way in IMC (call them the "Rule of Reason" school) are essentially saying that "How much" is one of those undefined terms. Not everything is susceptible to precise definition. Try to think of all of the scenarios and come out with a rule that covers every probable (let alone possible) approach scenario. How many pages did you use? When Part 61 was revised in 1997, there was a proposal to write the rule to specifically say that approaches had to be flown to MDA or DA to count. They got a lot of comments, including one that said, ============================== "One commenter suggests revising the definition to permit the pilot to terminate the approach prior to DH or MDA for safety reasons. Another commenter proposes to define "instrument approach" as " * * * an approach procedure defined in part 97 and conducted in accordance with that procedure or as directed by ATC to a point beyond an initial approach fix defined for that procedure." The commenter explains that this definition would allow for logging instrument approaches that require some portion of the published approach procedure to be followed in order for the pilot to establish visual references to the runway" ============================== The FAA decided against the new requirement. Some point to the fact that the FAA posted this comment as support for the rule of reason approach. Whew! Mark Kolber APA/Denver, Colorado www.midlifeflight.com ====================== email? Remove ".no.spam" |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Hi!
within the past 6 calendar months - (i) In the case of an aircraft other than a glider, logged at least 6 hours of instrument time under actual or simulated IFR conditions, at least 3 of which were in flight in the category of aircraft involved, including at least six instrument approaches, or passed an instrument competency check in the category of aircraft involved. Actually, when I read this it says "IFR conditions", not IMC. IFR conditions means less than VFR conditions. So if I shoot a non-precision approach (MDA is 500ft AGL) on a field (assume E airspace) with a ceiling of 900ft AGL, when I break out I will be 400ft above MDA but still in IFR conditions (less than 500ft. below the ceiling). With this reasoning, I anything where I break out less than 500ft. above MDA/DH would be in IFR conditions, hence loggable. Any comments on that spin? Cheers, Hendrik |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
While the FAA article you quote is anecdotal, here is some precedent- please
read the following FAA Chief Counsel Opinion about approaches for Instrument Currency. This FAA Chief Counsel Opinion is the only official opinion I have found on the issue. Keep in mind that a chief counsel opinion is legally binding as to how the agancy will enforce the issue. I welcome any additional contrary leads anyone may provide in that regard. "January 28, 1992 (no name given) .... For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR conditions. Further, unless the instrument approach procedure must be abandoned for safety reasons, we believe the pilot must follow the instrument approach procedure to minimum descent altitude or decision height. Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel" (Source: Summit Aviation CD Chief Counsel Opinions section) Keep in mind that a Chief Counsel Opinion is only that: an opinion. It is not a law. You are free to argue with the FAA and an NTSB judge about it. However, absent specific information in an FAR or information in the Preamble to the FAR, in an enforcement proceeding against a pilot whose IFR currency is in question, the NTSB judge would look to a Chief Counsel Opinion to determine how the FAA wished to enforce what constitutes a "useable" approach for currency purposes, and follow that opinion. Rarely does an NTSB judge rule contrary to an FAA Chief Counsel Opinion. I neither agree with it nor like it, but it is the ONLY official legal opinion out there on this issue. Therefore, I'm mindful of its existence when doing my approaches for currency purposes.. Tailwinds. "Bill Zaleski" wrote in message ... This is the most definitive guidance that I have seen. Although not regulatory, it is apparently FAA policy or the Feds wouldn't have printed it. Don't slam me, I'm only the messenger..... FAAviation News , July-Aug 1990. "Once you have been cleared for and have initiated an approach in IMC, you may log that approach for instrument currency, regardless of the altitude at which you break out of the clouds" The July-August 1990 issue of FAAviation News, in response to a reader inquiry, said: "The wording of our reply was not clear. Once you have been cleared for and have initiated an instrument approach in IMC, you may log that approach regardless of the altitude at which you break out of the clouds. When doing a simulated IFR approach you should fly the prescribed instrument approach procedure to DH or MDA to maximize the training benefit." On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:03:14 +0000 (UTC), (Paul Tomblin) wrote: 1. Vectored for the VOR 27 at Oshkosh in pouring rain, broke out and saw the runway after I got established but before I started my descent, cancelled IFR to help the guy behind me, did a visual descent and landed on the green dot. 2. Vectored for the ILS 24(?) at Muskegeon, descended on the glide slope, saw the runway almost as soon as I started descending, but did the ILS on the gauges all the way down for practice (not wearing foggles). 3. Vectored for the ILS 22 at Rochester, was in the soup at 2500 feet at the top of the glideslope, broke out on the glide slope just above traffic pattern altitude (1400), asked for and got right traffic to runway 25. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
This says that the approach procedure must be followed to the MAP, it does not
say anything about the conditions, since you can follow the approach procedure in visual as well as instrument conditions. I find it easier just to schedule an IPC every 6 months, that way I get an instructor checking me for any bad habits I might be picking up, and I get to practice stuff I might not do on my own. The instructor I fly with puts me partial panel most of the flight, for example. Barry wrote: While the FAA article you quote is anecdotal, here is some precedent- please read the following FAA Chief Counsel Opinion about approaches for Instrument Currency. This FAA Chief Counsel Opinion is the only official opinion I have found on the issue. Keep in mind that a chief counsel opinion is legally binding as to how the agancy will enforce the issue. I welcome any additional contrary leads anyone may provide in that regard. "January 28, 1992 (no name given) ... For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR conditions. Further, unless the instrument approach procedure must be abandoned for safety reasons, we believe the pilot must follow the instrument approach procedure to minimum descent altitude or decision height. Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel" (Source: Summit Aviation CD Chief Counsel Opinions section) Keep in mind that a Chief Counsel Opinion is only that: an opinion. It is not a law. You are free to argue with the FAA and an NTSB judge about it. However, absent specific information in an FAR or information in the Preamble to the FAR, in an enforcement proceeding against a pilot whose IFR currency is in question, the NTSB judge would look to a Chief Counsel Opinion to determine how the FAA wished to enforce what constitutes a "useable" approach for currency purposes, and follow that opinion. Rarely does an NTSB judge rule contrary to an FAA Chief Counsel Opinion. I neither agree with it nor like it, but it is the ONLY official legal opinion out there on this issue. Therefore, I'm mindful of its existence when doing my approaches for currency purposes.. Tailwinds. "Bill Zaleski" wrote in message ... This is the most definitive guidance that I have seen. Although not regulatory, it is apparently FAA policy or the Feds wouldn't have printed it. Don't slam me, I'm only the messenger..... FAAviation News , July-Aug 1990. "Once you have been cleared for and have initiated an approach in IMC, you may log that approach for instrument currency, regardless of the altitude at which you break out of the clouds" The July-August 1990 issue of FAAviation News, in response to a reader inquiry, said: "The wording of our reply was not clear. Once you have been cleared for and have initiated an instrument approach in IMC, you may log that approach regardless of the altitude at which you break out of the clouds. When doing a simulated IFR approach you should fly the prescribed instrument approach procedure to DH or MDA to maximize the training benefit." On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:03:14 +0000 (UTC), (Paul Tomblin) wrote: 1. Vectored for the VOR 27 at Oshkosh in pouring rain, broke out and saw the runway after I got established but before I started my descent, cancelled IFR to help the guy behind me, did a visual descent and landed on the green dot. 2. Vectored for the ILS 24(?) at Muskegeon, descended on the glide slope, saw the runway almost as soon as I started descending, but did the ILS on the gauges all the way down for practice (not wearing foggles). 3. Vectored for the ILS 22 at Rochester, was in the soup at 2500 feet at the top of the glideslope, broke out on the glide slope just above traffic pattern altitude (1400), asked for and got right traffic to runway 25. -- --Ray Andraka, P.E. President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc. 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950 http://www.andraka.com "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
It says "actual or simulated" conditions - visual is neither.
Mat -- Matthew Waugh Comm. SEL MEL, CFI-AI http://home.nc.rr.com/mwaugh/learn2fly/index.htm "Ray Andraka" wrote in message ... This says that the approach procedure must be followed to the MAP, it does not say anything about the conditions, since you can follow the approach procedure in visual as well as instrument conditions. I find it easier just to schedule an IPC every 6 months, that way I get an instructor checking me for any bad habits I might be picking up, and I get to practice stuff I might not do on my own. The instructor I fly with puts me partial panel most of the flight, for example. Barry wrote: While the FAA article you quote is anecdotal, here is some precedent- please read the following FAA Chief Counsel Opinion about approaches for Instrument Currency. This FAA Chief Counsel Opinion is the only official opinion I have found on the issue. Keep in mind that a chief counsel opinion is legally binding as to how the agancy will enforce the issue. I welcome any additional contrary leads anyone may provide in that regard. "January 28, 1992 (no name given) ... For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR conditions. Further, unless the instrument approach procedure must be abandoned for safety reasons, we believe the pilot must follow the instrument approach procedure to minimum descent altitude or decision height. Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel" (Source: Summit Aviation CD Chief Counsel Opinions section) Keep in mind that a Chief Counsel Opinion is only that: an opinion. It is not a law. You are free to argue with the FAA and an NTSB judge about it. However, absent specific information in an FAR or information in the Preamble to the FAR, in an enforcement proceeding against a pilot whose IFR currency is in question, the NTSB judge would look to a Chief Counsel Opinion to determine how the FAA wished to enforce what constitutes a "useable" approach for currency purposes, and follow that opinion. Rarely does an NTSB judge rule contrary to an FAA Chief Counsel Opinion. I neither agree with it nor like it, but it is the ONLY official legal opinion out there on this issue. Therefore, I'm mindful of its existence when doing my approaches for currency purposes.. Tailwinds. "Bill Zaleski" wrote in message ... This is the most definitive guidance that I have seen. Although not regulatory, it is apparently FAA policy or the Feds wouldn't have printed it. Don't slam me, I'm only the messenger..... FAAviation News , July-Aug 1990. "Once you have been cleared for and have initiated an approach in IMC, you may log that approach for instrument currency, regardless of the altitude at which you break out of the clouds" The July-August 1990 issue of FAAviation News, in response to a reader inquiry, said: "The wording of our reply was not clear. Once you have been cleared for and have initiated an instrument approach in IMC, you may log that approach regardless of the altitude at which you break out of the clouds. When doing a simulated IFR approach you should fly the prescribed instrument approach procedure to DH or MDA to maximize the training benefit." On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:03:14 +0000 (UTC), (Paul Tomblin) wrote: 1. Vectored for the VOR 27 at Oshkosh in pouring rain, broke out and saw the runway after I got established but before I started my descent, cancelled IFR to help the guy behind me, did a visual descent and landed on the green dot. 2. Vectored for the ILS 24(?) at Muskegeon, descended on the glide slope, saw the runway almost as soon as I started descending, but did the ILS on the gauges all the way down for practice (not wearing foggles). 3. Vectored for the ILS 22 at Rochester, was in the soup at 2500 feet at the top of the glideslope, broke out on the glide slope just above traffic pattern altitude (1400), asked for and got right traffic to runway 25. -- --Ray Andraka, P.E. President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc. 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950 http://www.andraka.com "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
But it doesn't say that it has to be flown *TO* the MAP in IMC or simulated IMC.
Matthew Waugh wrote: It says "actual or simulated" conditions - visual is neither. Mat -- Matthew Waugh Comm. SEL MEL, CFI-AI http://home.nc.rr.com/mwaugh/learn2fly/index.htm "Ray Andraka" wrote in message ... This says that the approach procedure must be followed to the MAP, it does not say anything about the conditions, since you can follow the approach procedure in visual as well as instrument conditions. I find it easier just to schedule an IPC every 6 months, that way I get an instructor checking me for any bad habits I might be picking up, and I get to practice stuff I might not do on my own. The instructor I fly with puts me partial panel most of the flight, for example. Barry wrote: While the FAA article you quote is anecdotal, here is some precedent- please read the following FAA Chief Counsel Opinion about approaches for Instrument Currency. This FAA Chief Counsel Opinion is the only official opinion I have found on the issue. Keep in mind that a chief counsel opinion is legally binding as to how the agancy will enforce the issue. I welcome any additional contrary leads anyone may provide in that regard. "January 28, 1992 (no name given) ... For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR conditions. Further, unless the instrument approach procedure must be abandoned for safety reasons, we believe the pilot must follow the instrument approach procedure to minimum descent altitude or decision height. Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel" (Source: Summit Aviation CD Chief Counsel Opinions section) Keep in mind that a Chief Counsel Opinion is only that: an opinion. It is not a law. You are free to argue with the FAA and an NTSB judge about it. However, absent specific information in an FAR or information in the Preamble to the FAR, in an enforcement proceeding against a pilot whose IFR currency is in question, the NTSB judge would look to a Chief Counsel Opinion to determine how the FAA wished to enforce what constitutes a "useable" approach for currency purposes, and follow that opinion. Rarely does an NTSB judge rule contrary to an FAA Chief Counsel Opinion. I neither agree with it nor like it, but it is the ONLY official legal opinion out there on this issue. Therefore, I'm mindful of its existence when doing my approaches for currency purposes.. Tailwinds. "Bill Zaleski" wrote in message ... This is the most definitive guidance that I have seen. Although not regulatory, it is apparently FAA policy or the Feds wouldn't have printed it. Don't slam me, I'm only the messenger..... FAAviation News , July-Aug 1990. "Once you have been cleared for and have initiated an approach in IMC, you may log that approach for instrument currency, regardless of the altitude at which you break out of the clouds" The July-August 1990 issue of FAAviation News, in response to a reader inquiry, said: "The wording of our reply was not clear. Once you have been cleared for and have initiated an instrument approach in IMC, you may log that approach regardless of the altitude at which you break out of the clouds. When doing a simulated IFR approach you should fly the prescribed instrument approach procedure to DH or MDA to maximize the training benefit." On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:03:14 +0000 (UTC), (Paul Tomblin) wrote: 1. Vectored for the VOR 27 at Oshkosh in pouring rain, broke out and saw the runway after I got established but before I started my descent, cancelled IFR to help the guy behind me, did a visual descent and landed on the green dot. 2. Vectored for the ILS 24(?) at Muskegeon, descended on the glide slope, saw the runway almost as soon as I started descending, but did the ILS on the gauges all the way down for practice (not wearing foggles). 3. Vectored for the ILS 22 at Rochester, was in the soup at 2500 feet at the top of the glideslope, broke out on the glide slope just above traffic pattern altitude (1400), asked for and got right traffic to runway 25. -- --Ray Andraka, P.E. President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc. 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950 http://www.andraka.com "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759 -- --Ray Andraka, P.E. President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc. 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950 http://www.andraka.com "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
You don't believe the 2 sentences are related? One says the instrument
approach must be actual or simulated and the other says it must be flown to the MAP? I guess I don't get your reasoning, but it wouldn't be the first time I've been confused. Mat -- Matthew Waugh Comm. SEL MEL, CFI-AI http://home.nc.rr.com/mwaugh/learn2fly/index.htm "Ray Andraka" wrote in message ... But it doesn't say that it has to be flown *TO* the MAP in IMC or simulated IMC. Matthew Waugh wrote: It says "actual or simulated" conditions - visual is neither. Mat -- Matthew Waugh Comm. SEL MEL, CFI-AI http://home.nc.rr.com/mwaugh/learn2fly/index.htm "Ray Andraka" wrote in message ... This says that the approach procedure must be followed to the MAP, it does not say anything about the conditions, since you can follow the approach procedure in visual as well as instrument conditions. I find it easier just to schedule an IPC every 6 months, that way I get an instructor checking me for any bad habits I might be picking up, and I get to practice stuff I might not do on my own. The instructor I fly with puts me partial panel most of the flight, for example. Barry wrote: While the FAA article you quote is anecdotal, here is some precedent- please read the following FAA Chief Counsel Opinion about approaches for Instrument Currency. This FAA Chief Counsel Opinion is the only official opinion I have found on the issue. Keep in mind that a chief counsel opinion is legally binding as to how the agancy will enforce the issue. I welcome any additional contrary leads anyone may provide in that regard. "January 28, 1992 (no name given) ... For currency purposes, an instrument approach under Section 61.57(e)(1)(i) may be flown in either actual or simulated IFR conditions. Further, unless the instrument approach procedure must be abandoned for safety reasons, we believe the pilot must follow the instrument approach procedure to minimum descent altitude or decision height. Donald P. Byrne Assistant Chief Counsel" (Source: Summit Aviation CD Chief Counsel Opinions section) Keep in mind that a Chief Counsel Opinion is only that: an opinion. It is not a law. You are free to argue with the FAA and an NTSB judge about it. However, absent specific information in an FAR or information in the Preamble to the FAR, in an enforcement proceeding against a pilot whose IFR currency is in question, the NTSB judge would look to a Chief Counsel Opinion to determine how the FAA wished to enforce what constitutes a "useable" approach for currency purposes, and follow that opinion. Rarely does an NTSB judge rule contrary to an FAA Chief Counsel Opinion. I neither agree with it nor like it, but it is the ONLY official legal opinion out there on this issue. Therefore, I'm mindful of its existence when doing my approaches for currency purposes.. Tailwinds. "Bill Zaleski" wrote in message ... This is the most definitive guidance that I have seen. Although not regulatory, it is apparently FAA policy or the Feds wouldn't have printed it. Don't slam me, I'm only the messenger..... FAAviation News , July-Aug 1990. "Once you have been cleared for and have initiated an approach in IMC, you may log that approach for instrument currency, regardless of the altitude at which you break out of the clouds" The July-August 1990 issue of FAAviation News, in response to a reader inquiry, said: "The wording of our reply was not clear. Once you have been cleared for and have initiated an instrument approach in IMC, you may log that approach regardless of the altitude at which you break out of the clouds. When doing a simulated IFR approach you should fly the prescribed instrument approach procedure to DH or MDA to maximize the training benefit." On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 12:03:14 +0000 (UTC), (Paul Tomblin) wrote: 1. Vectored for the VOR 27 at Oshkosh in pouring rain, broke out and saw the runway after I got established but before I started my descent, cancelled IFR to help the guy behind me, did a visual descent and landed on the green dot. 2. Vectored for the ILS 24(?) at Muskegeon, descended on the glide slope, saw the runway almost as soon as I started descending, but did the ILS on the gauges all the way down for practice (not wearing foggles). 3. Vectored for the ILS 22 at Rochester, was in the soup at 2500 feet at the top of the glideslope, broke out on the glide slope just above traffic pattern altitude (1400), asked for and got right traffic to runway 25. -- --Ray Andraka, P.E. President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc. 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950 http://www.andraka.com "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759 -- --Ray Andraka, P.E. President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc. 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950 http://www.andraka.com "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Logging instrument approaches | Slav Inger | Instrument Flight Rules | 33 | July 27th 03 11:00 PM |
Suppose We Really Do Have Only GPS Approaches | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | July 20th 03 05:10 PM |
Garmin Behind the Curve on WAAS GPS VNAV Approaches | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | July 18th 03 01:43 PM |
NDB approaches -- what are they good for? | Dylan Smith | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | July 10th 03 09:15 PM |