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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Esres wrote: Well, if a person is unwilling to read and learn, then nothing will change his mind. I think that's a bit unfair. Whether a person was taught correctly or incorrectly is a matter of chance; when someone later seeks to change his mind, what authoritative evidence is available? Many people want to learn, but they aren't sure whom to trust. In the end, most are persuaded by the highest status individual with a firm opinion. No doubt about, especially in aviation, where there is no systematic hierarcy of academic protocols and credentials. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Rosenfeld wrote: On Wed, 5 May 2004 22:18:13 -0500, "Stan Prevost" wrote: I didn't mean to imply that either is standard procedure, and I'm quite sure neither is. I was just speculating that, given the combination of factors in this approach, the particular chart designer may have acted within the scope of his charting discretion to chart the PT barb at a logical point, even though the exact placement has no regulatory meaning. Stan Fair enough. In that case, my interpretation would be that it is there only by chance. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) The Interagency Air Cartographic Committee's manual states under plan-view specifications:: "The procedure turn shall be shown by a barb symbol as indicated on the appenices. The barb shall be a half arrowhead .10" long and .05" wide positioned on the maneuvering side. Inbound and outbound 45 degree off-course bearing values (a directional arrow with the inbound value only) shall be shown on either side of the procedure turn barb in solid color. The chart legend describing this feature shall indicate that the use of these values is not mandatory." |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
no systematic hierarcy of academic protocols and credentials.
Wouldn't it be nice if there were? A "graduate" program for those foolish enough to want to be career CFI's. I'd like to go to something like TERPS school; while the real deal might be overkill, maybe slight modification could produce highly qualified -II's. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Greg Esres wrote: no systematic hierarcy of academic protocols and credentials. Wouldn't it be nice if there were? In a sense, there is. If you get enough students to pass checkrides, you become a "Master CFI". Of course, it doesn't actually prove that you know anything more than how to prep students for checkrides :-) I'd like to go to something like TERPS school; while the real deal might be overkill, maybe slight modification could produce highly qualified -II's. Anybody can download the TERPS manual and read it. Not quite the same as attending a training class, but you get a whole lot more than you'd find in the AIM. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Smith wrote: Anybody can download the TERPS manual and read it. Not quite the same as attending a training class, but you get a whole lot more than you'd find in the AIM. The TERPs book is more like an Advanced Cooking book than an Advanced Driver's Manual. Without a lot of cooking classes and on the job work, the TERPs Manual (and now about 6, or so, related handbooks) leave much to be misunderstood. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Esres wrote: no systematic hierarcy of academic protocols and credentials. Wouldn't it be nice if there were? A "graduate" program for those foolish enough to want to be career CFI's. I'd like to go to something like TERPS school; while the real deal might be overkill, maybe slight modification could produce highly qualified -II's. The parts are fragmented. Procedure concepts and designs need to be melded with aircraft performance and ATC procedures. So far as I know, no one person or entity in the FAA has a global perspective on it all. The air traffic procedures designers are mostly clueless as to TERPs and the TERPs criteria designers, some of which are very good at what they do, don't have a really good feeling for the nuances of ATC. As an example, last August, air traffic management put out an order that modified a section in the ATC handbook that was supposed to solve a long-standing issue brought up before ATPAC 3 years ago concerning clearances direct-to the intermediate waypoint of RNAV IAPs. But, the order was very poorly written and without consulting the TERPs designers in Flight Standards. The order was supposed to have been incorporated formally into the "P" release of 7110.65 on February 19th. Instead, it dropped dead without any further explanation. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
In a sense, there is. If you get enough students to pass
checkrides, you become a "Master CFI". A meaningless, political designation, IMO. That's a NAFI program and there are some other requirements to it, as I recall. Sorta like a Boy Scout merit badge. ;-) Anybody can download the TERPS manual and read it. Not quite the same as attending a training class, but you get a whole lot more than you'd find in the AIM. I acquired a copy as an instrument student and I use it regularly. Useful, but it would take an expert to be able to say how the criteria are applied in the real world. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
The parts are fragmented. Procedure concepts and designs need to be
melded with aircraft performance and ATC procedures. Yes! There might well be a market for such training. An online training course might find a larger market, though. But it would have to be tough and thorough, not a "fluff" course. The fact that all this is fragmented is something in particular that an instrument pilot needs to hear. It would explain a lot of inconsistencies. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Airport Radial/Distance/Fix on Jepp Airport Chart | Dave Johnson | Instrument Flight Rules | 9 | May 2nd 04 11:03 PM |
JEPP Chart Users | Ross Richardson | Instrument Flight Rules | 6 | March 29th 04 10:58 PM |
who moved SAV, forgot to tell Jepp? | Dave Butler | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | November 9th 03 02:16 AM |
Jepp Charts - Subscription Only? | Peter Gibbons | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | November 8th 03 02:01 PM |
req: a favor from someone who subscribes to Jepp for Hawaii | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | October 22nd 03 07:24 PM |