Full deflection = missed approach ???

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"pgbnh" wrote in message
...

I did not say that it is ALWAYS the right thing to do. Sometimes, yes.
Sometimes, no. If there is a requirement someplace, then that would seem
to trump my making the decison to recover the approach when I have decided
that that is a safe thing to do.

So yes, it DOES make a difference


When is it not the right thing to do?

As you know, when first being vectored for the ILS, most times the
glideslope will be pegged.


--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

If you have full scale deflection, you may not even be on the approach
anymore, but I am unaware of any regulatory requirment to initiate the
missed. If you see full deflection you should probably train some because
you are not competent.

Mike
MU-2


"pgbnh" wrote in message
...
I did not say that it is ALWAYS the right thing to do. Sometimes, yes.
Sometimes, no. If there is a requirement someplace, then that would seem to
trump my making the decison to recover the approach when I have decided
that that is a safe thing to do.

So yes, it DOES make a difference
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"pgbnh" wrote in message
...

It is common wisdom, and often common sense, that if a full deflection
of a CDI (or GS) is experienced, a missed approach is to be flown. But a
lot of people seem to think that it is REQUIRED. I have had a CFII tell
me it is required. But I can not find anything in FAR or AIM that states
such a requirement.

Again, in a lot of cases I can understand why to do it. But I can also
imagine others where it might make just as much sense to recover the
approach and not go missed.

Can anyone point me at a rule that requires a missed?

If you agree it's the proper thing to do, does it matter if it's required
or not?

Mike Rapoport wrote:

If you have full scale deflection, you may not even be on the approach
anymore, but I am unaware of any regulatory requirment to initiate the
missed. If you see full deflection you should probably train some because
you are not competent.

Sure, you are no longer flying the courses and/or altitudes specified on the
approach chart, which come from the Form 8260-3/5 that is an amendment to FAR
97.

In article .net,
says...


in an emergency, say low on fuel and not able to do a missed and another
approach.


Well, I guess this pilot wouldn't be too worried about one more violation of
FAR's, would they!

In article .net,
says...


When is it not the right thing to do?




When you are over, or very close to the station - you expect it to go
full-scale, and you have to wait it out a bit. (VOR)

In turbulence, you may see a momentary, full-scale GS needle (it only takes
0.7°, either way). If you see it happen and you are confident in recovering
rapidly. (GS)

When another aircraft passes (or parks!!) in front of the loc emitter, you may
get a momentary spurious deflection. (LOC)

When you are in sight of the runway, and able to make a normal landing, to the
intended runway, using normal maneuvers!


I don't mean to be facetious in stating the "obvious" - but perhaps that's why
there's no specific rule. We are not mechanical "needle-chasers"- we're
expected to understand what we're doing, and exercise good judgment. On the
other hand, if you are in IMC and you have one or the other pegged for some
time, you have not flown the approach to an acceptable standard and the only
logical thing to do is to break it off. Failing to do so may not be a direct
violation of regs the instant the needle goes to the peg, but after some time
you are likely to run afoul of FARs or terrain. G/S high? You haven't busted
minimum altitude, but you haven't flown the published approach either (a
requirement) Too high and you can get a false GS. GS low - no comment.

I see another case where, while you may want to abandon the approach,
you may not want to automatically fly the missed approach. The issue
would be a full L/R deflection, especially significantly before the
MAP, in mountainous terrain. A missed approach procedure which calls
for a left or right climbing turn may put you into the granite, where
the correct option would be to get back closer to the centerline and
maybe closer to the official MAP point first.

Howdy!

In article ,
Greg Farris wrote:
In article .net,
says...


in an emergency, say low on fuel and not able to do a missed and another
approach.


Well, I guess this pilot wouldn't be too worried about one more violation of
FAR's, would they!

Which FAR? Your answer presupposes that it's a violation of the FARs, but
you haven't shared which one applies here.

yours,
Michael

--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

In article , says...

Which FAR? Your answer presupposes that it's a violation of the FARs, but
you haven't shared which one applies here.



I take the phrase "in an emergency, say low on fuel" to mean the emergency is
a fuel emergency, created by the pilot's mismanagement, in violation of 91.167
In this case, because it's an emergency, you may disregard other regulations
in the interest of responding to the emergency, but you may have some
explaining to do. . .

GF

This happened to me just the other day. The FAF of a VOR approach is
the station, so the needle goes full deflection as you reach FAF. You
then have to wait until about 1/3 of the way to MAP before it comes
back in. As long as you were stabilized before loosing the needle,
you just have to stick it out. Of course, one problem is that, with
strong winds, you begin your dive at the FAF, winds shift, and you may
very well come out quite a bit off the center.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:48:20 +0200, Greg Farris wrote:

In article , says...

Which FAR? Your answer presupposes that it's a violation of the FARs, but
you haven't shared which one applies here.



I take the phrase "in an emergency, say low on fuel" to mean the emergency is
a fuel emergency, created by the pilot's mismanagement, in violation of 91.167
In this case, because it's an emergency, you may disregard other regulations
in the interest of responding to the emergency, but you may have some
explaining to do. . .

GF

But there are instances of being low on fuel that do NOT involve a
violation of 91.167.

First of all, 91.167 is for planning purposes and requires that you be
"considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions" These
are not always accurate.

In addition, mechanical problems can occur. These also do not involve any
violation of 91.167. Personal experience: I flight planned to have one
hour of fuel remaining at my destination (no alternate was required). A
fuel tank ran dry about 20 minutes before it should have. Problem turned
out to be a leaking gasket in the fuel servo. I wound up landing at the
closest airport (which was some distance away and was my planned
destination). I refueled with 50 gallons (tanks supposedly have 52 gallons
usable and some fraction of a gallon unusable).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)