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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Continuing below DH
On Mar 21, 10:57 am, "Barry" wrote:
Nitpicking here, 91.175(c)(3) does not mention the "rabbit" aka RAIL or Sequenced Flashers as an acceptable visual reference. You can descend to 100' using the *approach lights* as a reference... 91.175(c) was changed to make "the runway environment" explicit. RAILs or SFs are not on the list. I disagree, 91.175 (c)(3)(i) says "the approach light system" which certainly includes the sequenced flashers - see the AIM 2-1-1 which states "Some systems include sequenced flashing lights". So you don't have the "system" in sight if you only have the RAIL/ SF, but not the approach lights themselves, and the next clause refers to descending with the approach lights in sight. If "approach light system" is to be parsed as lights plus RAIL, you need both. If you parse it as the lights, you need the lights. It doesn't say "any part of the approach light system". From a practical point of view, in my experience, having *only* the RAIL as a visual reference is more of a distraction than a help. One important point that people often miss is that in addition to seeing the lights, the pilot must have the required flight visibility in order to continue the descent below DH. Since 100 feet above TDZE on glideslope is only about 1000 feet from the threshold, if you can't see the runway well before then, you probably don't have landing minimums, and are not authorized to go below DH. When you get to a 200' DH, you are 4000' from the fixed distance marker, 3500' from the beginning of the TDZ and 3000' feet from the threshold. So with a minimum 2400/1800 foot visibility, you won't be able to see the threshold yet. That's why you are allowed to descend to 100AGL with only the approach lights as a reference - you should be able to see *them* if you have the required visibility. (Parenthetically, if you can't, and can only see the RAIL, I find it not credible that you do have the required visibility) At 200AGL (DH), you get to decide whether to continue the approach on the basis of the visibility at that instant and the presence of at least one the visual references listed in 91.175. If at some time thereafter, eg at 100AGL you still can't see the threshold, or for that matter the beginning of the TDZ which is now 1500 feet away (the fixed distance marker is still 2000 feet away, so with a 1800RVR minimum, you maybe can't see it yet) *then* you have to miss the approach. So you haven't thought through the logic here. It's true you'll need to be able to see the runway before 100AGL, but you won't necessarily be able to see it before DH. So you can't say you shouldn't have gone below DH on the basis of not being able to see the runway at DH! You also can't say retroactively that you shouldn't have gone below DH on the basis of what you didn't see later. The required visibility is a requirement that applies continuously below DH. In addition, there are *specific* required visual references that apply at DH and 100AGL. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Passed Instrument Checkride!
Congratulations on your checkride! Now when you have your head in the
clouds, you can bring the airplane too! He asked what was the major problem with ice? I said the accumulation of the added weight. He was happy with this? Weight is an issue, but the bigger one is the change in shape of the airfoil, leading to loss of lift and/or tail effectiveness. Ice also tends to stay with you even after you exit icing conditions (unless it gets warm enough for long enough). Jose -- Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully understands this holds the world in his hands. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Passed Instrument Checkride!
If it is really low weather, all you'll see is the RAIL/SF
at 200 feet. But you're more correct about what words exactly are used. and "should" should have been show. wrote in message oups.com... On Mar 20, 3:57 pm, "Jim Macklin" wrote: DH, you make a decision AT DH while in a descent on GS, so if you decide to go-around you will be below DH before the airplane starts back up. It isn't 50 feet, you just have to decide and either continue or discontinue the approach. You can use the approach light rabbit to continue below DH, but only to 100 feet unless you get more of the required visual cues. Nitpicking here, 91.175(c)(3) does not mention the "rabbit" aka RAIL or Sequenced Flashers as an acceptable visual reference. You can descend to 100' using the *approach lights* as a reference. Below 100' you need either the red side or terminating bars of the approach lights (if the approach lights have them!) or one of the other acceptable references, to continue your descent. 91.175(c) was changed to make "the runway environment" explicit. RAILs or SFs are not on the list. Ice is aerodynamic spoiler, not weight. VOR check, to check properly, swing the OBS and make sure you get the proper deflection, 10 ° should be full scale 80° and the TO/FROM flag should be switching, if it doesn't your VOR has low sensitivity and may not should course deviation at 25-50 miles, the needle will just center while you drift off course... Other than that, congratulations. -- James H. Macklin ATP,CFI,A&P -- |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Continuing below DH
That's why the lengths of lights, TDZ markings and such are
given, so you have a known standard with which to compare. "Barry" wrote in message . .. | Nitpicking here, 91.175(c)(3) does not mention the "rabbit" aka RAIL | or Sequenced Flashers as an acceptable visual reference. You can | descend to 100' using the *approach lights* as a reference... | 91.175(c) was changed to make "the runway environment" explicit. | RAILs or SFs are not on the list. | | I disagree, 91.175 (c)(3)(i) says "the approach light system" which certainly | includes the sequenced flashers - see the AIM 2-1-1 which states "Some systems | include sequenced flashing lights". | | One important point that people often miss is that in addition to seeing the | lights, the pilot must have the required flight visibility in order to | continue the descent below DH. Since 100 feet above TDZE on glideslope is | only about 1000 feet from the threshold, if you can't see the runway well | before then, you probably don't have landing minimums, and are not authorized | to go below DH. | | |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Passed Instrument Checkride!
I think so, he sort of does the oral exam in a conversational way, and
I think I threw that out there while we were talking about it. One of us might've mentioned the changing of the airfoil's shape, but it's getting sketchy now... On Mar 21, 12:27 pm, Jose wrote: He asked what was the major problem with ice? I said the accumulation of the added weight. He was happy with this? Weight is an issue, but the bigger one is the change in shape of the airfoil, leading to loss of lift and/or tail effectiveness. Ice also tends to stay with you even after you exit icing conditions (unless it gets warm enough for long enough). Jose |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Passed Instrument Checkride!
I think so, he sort of does the oral exam in a conversational way, and
I think I threw that out there while we were talking about it. One of us might've mentioned the changing of the airfoil's shape, but it's getting sketchy now... Hmmm. Then maybe he wasn't really listening? Or he really =does= think that the weight of ice is the main factor? I had a flight instructor (from Florida) giving me instrument lessons (in the Northeast); after I had spent an hour unsuccessfully removing ice from the wings, I decided I didn't want to fly in that aircraft. He acted as if he was ready to go flying in it and was put out that we had to get another one. This wasn't too long after the airline crash in DC with a Florida pilot who didn't respect ice. Jose -- Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully understands this holds the world in his hands. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Passed Instrument Checkride!
Jose wrote:
Congratulations on your checkride! Now when you have your head in the clouds, you can bring the airplane too! He asked what was the major problem with ice? I said the accumulation of the added weight. He was happy with this? Weight is an issue, but the bigger one is the change in shape of the airfoil, leading to loss of lift and/or tail effectiveness. Ice also tends to stay with you even after you exit icing conditions (unless it gets warm enough for long enough). Jose He obviously didn;t really care about doing a real test - no partial panel? WTF? I think I read that in the original post. No wonder people plow into mountains all the time - anyone can pass the practical. Instructors send their students to the "easiest" DE and the rest is history (or statistics) No offense to the OP - I am sure you were prepared and can fly well, but the local examiner(s) here scare the **** out of me. The examiner here does all the radio work and the flight is probably about 40 minutes max. No way you can do three approaches, holds, partial panel, attitude recovery, takeoff and landing in that amount of time. Then there are the DEs who won't do the test in actual. That is just nuts. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Passed Instrument Checkride!
I was surprised also on having no partial panel during the test. I'm
guessing he thinks that the instructor has signed me off, so therefore I must know it, and he doesn't need to test on all tasks. For talking on the radio, my examiner didn't want to contact approach for the cross country portion because he wanted to control where we went. After the cross country portion, he had me do the talking for the approaches. On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, Tim wrote: He obviously didn;t really care about doing a real test - no partial panel? WTF? I think I read that in the original post. No wonder people plow into mountains all the time - anyone can pass the practical. Instructors send their students to the "easiest" DE and the rest is history (or statistics) No offense to the OP - I am sure you were prepared and can fly well, but the local examiner(s) here scare the **** out of me. The examiner here does all the radio work and the flight is probably about 40 minutes max. No way you can do three approaches, holds, partial panel, attitude recovery, takeoff and landing in that amount of time. Then there are the DEs who won't do the test in actual. That is just nuts. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
IFR checkride: passed | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | July 6th 05 10:14 PM |
Instrument Checkride passed (Long) | Paul Folbrecht | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | February 11th 05 02:41 AM |
Instrument Rating Checkride PASSED (Very Long) | Alan Pendley | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | December 16th 04 02:16 PM |
IFR checkride in IMC: PASSED! | gatt | Instrument Flight Rules | 25 | November 3rd 04 12:24 AM |
IFR checkride in IMC: PASSED! | gatt | Piloting | 44 | October 21st 04 06:02 PM |