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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: wrote in message ... You are correct. There is no end to what some flight instructors will dream up or invent. Everything the FAA does in the world of charting is predicated on IAS. Not quite everything. The approach timing table uses ground speed. More correctly, the Jeppesen timing table states ground speed. NACO does not. Whether they state it or not, there's nothing but ground speed that they *could* be using to calculate the time to traverse the stated distance. --Gary |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On 7/15/2005 12:57, Gary Drescher wrote:
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... When I've asked my CFI to show me the regs, he basically says that it makes sense to use the higher mins, and I haven't pushed it. But using ground speed instead of airspeed could result in selecting lower mins rather than higher. That's right. I don't know what he thinks about this case. --Gary -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student Sacramento, CA |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... The FAA doesn't provide timing tables in the source. The chart makers do those. Those are still indicated airspeed. If you choose to convert those values to TAS, then to G/S, that is your option and is a good operating practice. But, it is not mandatory, at least not in the sense that courses and altitudes on an IAP chart are mandatory. The FAA is a chart maker, the speeds in the timing tables on FAA charts are ground speed. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... More correctly, the Jeppesen timing table states ground speed. NACO does not. The speeds on NACO timing tables are ground speed. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message ... But using ground speed instead of airspeed could result in selecting lower mins rather than higher. And it will in most cases, as most approaches are flown into the wind. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Hansen wrote in
: In another case, he claimed that it was illegal to fly IFR without a flight plan and ATC clearance, but that rule applies only to Controlled airspace. Well, it can be illegal. My ops manual forbids it, so it's illegal for me. My ops manual obviously doesn't apply to you, though, nor any other aircraft not covered by it. That's just a small nit, though. If I were you, I would be seriously considering finding a new CFII, one who actually knows something about flying IFR. All too often, it's the blind leading the blind. -- Regards, Stan "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Hansen wrote in
: His reasoning is that the faster we're moving across the ground, the faster we'll move outside of the protected area, for example, on the circling maneuver, and that to use the higher minimums 'just made good common sense'. He has no idea what he's talking about. TERPS takes tailwinds into account, and it's not possible to exceed the protected airspace if you use the correct airspeed, and don't have a hurricane blowing behind you. And in that case, you need to reconsider flying that approach. -- Regards, Stan "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message
... If I were you, I would be seriously considering finding a new CFII, one who actually knows something about flying IFR. I don't dispute that it's worth considering; still, I think it's possible that the CFII is a good one. His interpretation of some regs may be sketchy, but not in a way that adversely affects safety. No pilot should ever take a CFI's word for what the regs say anyway, so a responsible pilot (as Mark gives every indication of being) won't be misled by a CFI's misinterpretation of the regs. --Gary |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Hansen wrote: Ya know ... I mentioned this to him as well. However, I think he's stuck on the Ground Speed reported by the GPS during the final approach as being the speed used to determine the approach category... That's just not what the FARs say. Reach over and turn the damn GPS off Thats what an examiner would do to you if you tried to do that on a test... "ooops.. GPS failed!" My recommendation is to get someone who has some good experience as a CFII, not someone who is probably a 300 hr CFII who was taught by another 300 hr CFII who was taught by another 300 hr CFII, none of whom have any actual instrument time or instruction in actual instrument conditions. As others have said to you, this guy isn't on the ball, and is not open to redirection. Dave |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On 7/15/2005 15:15, Gary Drescher wrote:
"Stan Gosnell" wrote in message ... If I were you, I would be seriously considering finding a new CFII, one who actually knows something about flying IFR. I don't dispute that it's worth considering; still, I think it's possible that the CFII is a good one. His interpretation of some regs may be sketchy, but not in a way that adversely affects safety. No pilot should ever take a CFI's word for what the regs say anyway, so a responsible pilot (as Mark gives every indication of being) won't be misled by a CFI's misinterpretation of the regs. Thanks for that, Gary. As a matter of fact, I think he is a good CFI. He knows how to use the IFR system, he knows how to work with ATC, etc. He's been able to answer all my questions and doesn't bull**** me, which I really like. When we have disagreements (which are few), he doesn't get all puffed up about it, which makes it possible for us to "discuss" it thoroughly. All in all, I think the discussions that are generated by these disagreements are better for me in the long run (perhaps for him as well), so I don't mind them at all. Besides, the CFI is only part of the resources I have available for my training. When he suggests something that I think doesn't line-up with what I've learned/read elsewhere, we talk about it. I'm quite pleased with his performance. He has a genuine desire to teach, and that make a real big difference, in my opinion. --Gary -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student Sacramento, CA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NTSB: USAF included? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 10 | September 11th 05 10:33 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 2nd 03 03:07 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 4 | August 7th 03 05:12 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | July 4th 03 04:50 PM |