A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Jepp vs NOS at PRB



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old May 6th 04, 02:12 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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  
Old May 6th 04, 02:18 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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  
Old May 6th 04, 03:32 PM
Greg Esres
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 6th 04, 04:54 PM
Roy Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 6th 04, 05:02 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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  
Old May 6th 04, 05:08 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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  
Old May 6th 04, 05:34 PM
Greg Esres
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 6th 04, 05:40 PM
Greg Esres
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 03:16 AM
Jepp Charts - Subscription Only? Peter Gibbons Instrument Flight Rules 8 November 8th 03 03:01 PM
req: a favor from someone who subscribes to Jepp for Hawaii [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 2 October 22nd 03 07:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.