FAR Part 97: Aircraft Approach Categories - IAS vs Ground Speed

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

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

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.

wrote in message ...

More correctly, the Jeppesen timing table states ground speed. NACO does
not.


The speeds on NACO timing tables are ground speed.

"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.

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

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

"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

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

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