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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
That is what I said. read the post.
Mike MU-2 "Dan Malcolm" wrote in message ... Mike, Actually, niether Vbg nor minimum sink is correct in all circumstances. Vbg will yield the greatest distance by definition, and minimum sink will yield the greatest time. Which one is the most beneficial? Gotta look at the circumstances. There is a good discussion at http://www.auf.asn.au/emergencies/aircraft.html#vbg Dan Malcolm "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message ink.net... I had a primary instructor who insisted that the best speed to use in the event of an engine failure was the published best glide speed. I said that it must depend on the wind and pointed out that if there was a headwind equal to Vbg that any speed over the Vbg was better. I also pointed out that with a strong tailwind that the minimium sink speed would get more distance. He continued to insist that Vbg was the speed to use. That was our last flight. We all harbor misconceptions but there is no excuse for being too stubborn to learn. Mike MU-2 "Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... On 7/15/2005 12:12, Mike Rapoport wrote: "Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... On 7/15/2005 11:52, Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... No, Actually, he's not (unfortunately). Well, he had to get the idea they were ground speeds somewhere. The timing table is pretty much the only possible source. 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'. However, he's interpreting the rule using this 'common sense' and claiming that this is what the rule implies. He made it clear to me that he was talking about the approach category minimums and not just the time from FAF to MAP (which, of course, is based on ground speed). -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student Sacramento, CA This CFII is stupid. Once you start circling the winds change and will become a headwind at some point. 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. Mike MU-2 -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student Sacramento, CA |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Just look at the NOS charts. Categories are based on IAS. It tells
you that. When flying to the MAP from the FAF you have the distance given and can often use GPS, or DME for the distance to the MAP, but you still have a time to calculate time (or take it off a chart) and that is based on a distance which has to be based on ground speed. They come right out and tell you. It doesn't get much more simple than that. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
On 7/22/2005 11:29, Roger wrote:
Just look at the NOS charts. Categories are based on IAS. It tells you that. Where does it say that? I don't see anything on the IAP that says this. I've looked in the FARs and AIM (see the initial posting of this thread) and they simply say "speed" and don't specifically state indicated or ground speed. When flying to the MAP from the FAF you have the distance given and can often use GPS, or DME for the distance to the MAP, but you still have a time to calculate time (or take it off a chart) and that is based on a distance which has to be based on ground speed. Note that I'm not talking about the FAF to MAP times (although this thread has morphed into that discussion by others). Those times must be based on ground speed. They come right out and tell you. It doesn't get much more simple than that. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student Sacramento, CA |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
I did read the post and if you think that's what you said, then so be
it. Dan "Mike Rapoport" wrote in ink.net: That is what I said. read the post. Mike MU-2 "Dan Malcolm" wrote in message ... Mike, Actually, niether Vbg nor minimum sink is correct in all circumstances. Vbg will yield the greatest distance by definition, and minimum sink will yield the greatest time. Which one is the most beneficial? Gotta look at the circumstances. There is a good discussion at http://www.auf.asn.au/emergencies/aircraft.html#vbg Dan Malcolm "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message ink.net... I had a primary instructor who insisted that the best speed to use in the event of an engine failure was the published best glide speed. I said that it must depend on the wind and pointed out that if there was a headwind equal to Vbg that any speed over the Vbg was better. I also pointed out that with a strong tailwind that the minimium sink speed would get more distance. He continued to insist that Vbg was the speed to use. That was our last flight. We all harbor misconceptions but there is no excuse for being too stubborn to learn. Mike MU-2 "Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... On 7/15/2005 12:12, Mike Rapoport wrote: "Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... On 7/15/2005 11:52, Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... No, Actually, he's not (unfortunately). Well, he had to get the idea they were ground speeds somewhere. The timing table is pretty much the only possible source. 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'. However, he's interpreting the rule using this 'common sense' and claiming that this is what the rule implies. He made it clear to me that he was talking about the approach category minimums and not just the time from FAF to MAP (which, of course, is based on ground speed). -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student Sacramento, CA This CFII is stupid. Once you start circling the winds change and will become a headwind at some point. 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. Mike MU-2 -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student Sacramento, CA |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
OK.
I don't see what is ambigous about "it must depend on the wind" Mike MU-2 ATP "PilotCFI" wrote in message 4... I did read the post and if you think that's what you said, then so be it. Dan "Mike Rapoport" wrote in ink.net: That is what I said. read the post. Mike MU-2 "Dan Malcolm" wrote in message ... Mike, Actually, niether Vbg nor minimum sink is correct in all circumstances. Vbg will yield the greatest distance by definition, and minimum sink will yield the greatest time. Which one is the most beneficial? Gotta look at the circumstances. There is a good discussion at http://www.auf.asn.au/emergencies/aircraft.html#vbg Dan Malcolm "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message ink.net... I had a primary instructor who insisted that the best speed to use in the event of an engine failure was the published best glide speed. I said that it must depend on the wind and pointed out that if there was a headwind equal to Vbg that any speed over the Vbg was better. I also pointed out that with a strong tailwind that the minimium sink speed would get more distance. He continued to insist that Vbg was the speed to use. That was our last flight. We all harbor misconceptions but there is no excuse for being too stubborn to learn. Mike MU-2 "Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... On 7/15/2005 12:12, Mike Rapoport wrote: "Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... On 7/15/2005 11:52, Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... No, Actually, he's not (unfortunately). Well, he had to get the idea they were ground speeds somewhere. The timing table is pretty much the only possible source. 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'. However, he's interpreting the rule using this 'common sense' and claiming that this is what the rule implies. He made it clear to me that he was talking about the approach category minimums and not just the time from FAF to MAP (which, of course, is based on ground speed). -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student Sacramento, CA This CFII is stupid. Once you start circling the winds change and will become a headwind at some point. 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. Mike MU-2 -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student Sacramento, CA |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:36:15 -0700, Mark Hansen
wrote: On 7/22/2005 11:29, Roger wrote: Just look at the NOS charts. Categories are based on IAS. It tells you that. Where does it say that? I don't see anything on the IAP that says this. I've looked in the FARs and AIM (see the initial posting of this thread) and they simply say "speed" and don't specifically state indicated or ground speed. As I said, get out a set of NOS approach charts. It's right there in B & W. Actually, it's on page A2. Approach category and the explanation in reference to Vso Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com When flying to the MAP from the FAF you have the distance given and can often use GPS, or DME for the distance to the MAP, but you still have a time to calculate time (or take it off a chart) and that is based on a distance which has to be based on ground speed. Note that I'm not talking about the FAF to MAP times (although this thread has morphed into that discussion by others). Those times must be based on ground speed. They come right out and tell you. It doesn't get much more simple than that. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Because wind may not be the only determining factor. Can I name them
all? No. But you should take into account 1. Wind (of course) 2. Where are trying to get to for landing 3. What is the condition of the aircraft and pilot. 4. In addition to wind, what is happening with the weather? 5. There are undoubtedly more. So is the additional airtime a benefit? Each circumstance will dictate the appropriate answer. Not just wind. Dan CFI/CFII "Mike Rapoport" wrote in news:cpcEe.6612 : OK. I don't see what is ambigous about "it must depend on the wind" Mike MU-2 ATP "PilotCFI" wrote in message 4... I did read the post and if you think that's what you said, then so be it. Dan "Mike Rapoport" wrote in ink.net: That is what I said. read the post. Mike MU-2 "Dan Malcolm" wrote in message ... Mike, Actually, niether Vbg nor minimum sink is correct in all circumstances. Vbg will yield the greatest distance by definition, and minimum sink will yield the greatest time. Which one is the most beneficial? Gotta look at the circumstances. There is a good discussion at http://www.auf.asn.au/emergencies/aircraft.html#vbg Dan Malcolm "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message ink.net... I had a primary instructor who insisted that the best speed to use in the event of an engine failure was the published best glide speed. I said that it must depend on the wind and pointed out that if there was a headwind equal to Vbg that any speed over the Vbg was better. I also pointed out that with a strong tailwind that the minimium sink speed would get more distance. He continued to insist that Vbg was the speed to use. That was our last flight. We all harbor misconceptions but there is no excuse for being too stubborn to learn. Mike MU-2 "Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... On 7/15/2005 12:12, Mike Rapoport wrote: "Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... On 7/15/2005 11:52, Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... No, Actually, he's not (unfortunately). Well, he had to get the idea they were ground speeds somewhere. The timing table is pretty much the only possible source. 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'. However, he's interpreting the rule using this 'common sense' and claiming that this is what the rule implies. He made it clear to me that he was talking about the approach category minimums and not just the time from FAF to MAP (which, of course, is based on ground speed). -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student Sacramento, CA This CFII is stupid. Once you start circling the winds change and will become a headwind at some point. 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. Mike MU-2 -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student Sacramento, CA |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... Most everything pertaining to instrument procedures is predicated on fixes, facilities or waypoints either on the ground or geo-referenced to a precise location on the ground. Yet, many (most) of these procedures are predicated on indicated airspeed. The origin of the timing table was not specifically referenced to ground speed. In fact, the KISS concept in pre-GPS days favored simply applying IAS on final, as in managing human factors and keeping the priority tasks at the top of the list, so to speak. So, the discussion is not silly at all. It's your position that is silly. When others stated the speeds in the timing tables were ground speeds you asked for a reference showing that the speeds on NACO charts are ground speeds. It has since been demonstrated that the speeds are ground speeds, yet you still insist they're IAS. Where's your reference that the speeds on NACO charts are IAS? |
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 |