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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Somerset" wrote in message ... On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:54:52 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" wrote: Don't Time That ILS Approach! - http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182042-1.html I have no problem with the article as far as not continung the approach as a LOC-only one, just vecause you are timing it. The whole reason to tinme the ILS is in case of GS failure, you can still locate the MAP. An immediate climb is safe, but any turns on the missed approach segment assume that you initiated the miss at the MAP. If the GS flags, the only way you can begin to determine where the MAP is, is by the time. So, time all ILS approaches, and use the time ONLY to identify the MAP on a missed approach. I'd agree with this last, but only in using time as a cross-check to other measurements such as VOR, DME, GPS. Changing winds and other conditions can throw time checks out the window very quickly. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 20:19:10 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
"Jay Somerset" wrote in message ... On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:54:52 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" wrote: Don't Time That ILS Approach! - http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182042-1.html I have no problem with the article as far as not continung the approach as a LOC-only one, just vecause you are timing it. The whole reason to tinme the ILS is in case of GS failure, you can still locate the MAP. An immediate climb is safe, but any turns on the missed approach segment assume that you initiated the miss at the MAP. If the GS flags, the only way you can begin to determine where the MAP is, is by the time. So, time all ILS approaches, and use the time ONLY to identify the MAP on a missed approach. I'd agree with this last, but only in using time as a cross-check to other measurements such as VOR, DME, GPS. Changing winds and other conditions can throw time checks out the window very quickly. If the time is accurate enough to identify the MAP on the LOC approach. then it is adequate for the ILS appraoch as well. If you are on on ILS approach, and the GS flags, you really don't want to be messing around with setting up cross-checks that are only used with the LOC approach, and which you don't have already set up. I think we are basically in agreement, but I would emphasize that timing the ILS is prudent, but as a way to do a missed, and not to convert a flagged GS into a LOC approah. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
If you are on on ILS approach, and the GS flags, you really don't want to be messing around with setting up cross-checks that are only used with the LOC approach, and which you don't have already set up. If you are on the GS when it goes kerflooey, eh?, then you are probably beyond many of these cross checks. The GS itself is kind of a cross check, though it doesn't place you relative to any fixes, it does place you reliably beyond terrain. Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Somerset" wrote in message ... On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 20:19:10 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" wrote: "Jay Somerset" wrote in message ... On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 17:54:52 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" wrote: Don't Time That ILS Approach! - http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182042-1.html I have no problem with the article as far as not continung the approach as a LOC-only one, just vecause you are timing it. The whole reason to tinme the ILS is in case of GS failure, you can still locate the MAP. An immediate climb is safe, but any turns on the missed approach segment assume that you initiated the miss at the MAP. If the GS flags, the only way you can begin to determine where the MAP is, is by the time. So, time all ILS approaches, and use the time ONLY to identify the MAP on a missed approach. I'd agree with this last, but only in using time as a cross-check to other measurements such as VOR, DME, GPS. Changing winds and other conditions can throw time checks out the window very quickly. If the time is accurate enough to identify the MAP on the LOC approach. then it is adequate for the ILS appraoch as well. Sounds like you're describing more of a stablized/precision approach.?? If you are on on ILS approach, and the GS flags, you really don't want to be messing around with setting up cross-checks that are only used with the LOC approach, and which you don't have already set up. Which is why I said I'd use time primarily a a cross-check. By the very meaning of the word (okay...somebody with a PhD in English Lit can chime in) cross-checking is done from the beginning and monitored. I think we are basically in agreement, but I would emphasize that timing the ILS is prudent, but as a way to do a missed, and not to convert a flagged GS into a LOC approah. I think we're more in agreement than you realize, but in an approach with a lot of wind (particularly swirling winds as the have around the front range lf the mountains) and a lot of turns, that'll mean a hell of a lot more time recalculating and less time actually flying the approach. So, yes, I'd saying time every approach, but I'd be damn concerned about relying on it for much of anything. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Ray Andraka wrote in message ...
THat's how I do it, although I've had instructors doing my IPC ding me for not starting the timer on an ILS. As politely as I can, I remind them that the times are for a localizer only approach and that if the glideslope screws the pooch, I'm going missed. As a flight instructor, I'd ding you on it, too. Now, I don't expect anyone to convert midstream (I wouldn't do it either), but I've seen too many pilots get out of the habit of starting the timer at the FAF. This directly correlates to missing the timer on non-precision approaches. (I know... I fell into that trap personally, and am still trying to climb out of it.) -Rob |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
You've got a valid point there, and if he'd put it that way I'd have to aggree with him.
The other valid point raised here was timing as a cross check for the missed. The instructor I had for a good deal of my inst training always did a "what are you setting that for" when passed the FAF on an ILS. LIke you said, old habits die hard. Based on the reasons given here, I'm going to make a concerted effort to start timing the ILSs if for no other reason, just to make all approaches the same. Thanks guys. Rob Montgomery wrote: Ray Andraka wrote in message ... THat's how I do it, although I've had instructors doing my IPC ding me for not starting the timer on an ILS. As politely as I can, I remind them that the times are for a localizer only approach and that if the glideslope screws the pooch, I'm going missed. As a flight instructor, I'd ding you on it, too. Now, I don't expect anyone to convert midstream (I wouldn't do it either), but I've seen too many pilots get out of the habit of starting the timer at the FAF. This directly correlates to missing the timer on non-precision approaches. (I know... I fell into that trap personally, and am still trying to climb out of it.) -Rob -- --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 |
TKM MB75 Marker Beacon Receiver | Darrel Toepfer | Home Built | 0 | August 18th 04 10:31 PM |
KR-21 marker beacon pinout? | JFLEISC | Home Built | 0 | March 17th 04 10:46 PM |
Canard planes swept wing outer VG's? | Paul Lee | Home Built | 8 | January 4th 04 08:10 PM |
Marker Beacon Antenna - Paging Jim Weir. | Bart D. Hull | Home Built | 1 | November 27th 03 10:31 PM |
marker beacon | Gary Gunn | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | November 3rd 03 05:20 PM |