Say Again #51

Bob Gardner wrote:
Mary Yodice, writing a legal column in either the AOPA Pilot or Flight
Training, I can't remember which, warned pilots that relying on the
non-regulatory status of the AIM was a mistake. An NTSB administrative law
judge gets to decide if a particular action or fail to act constitutes
"careless and reckless," and failing to use the guidance in the AIM puts you
right in their crosshairs.
Bob Gardner


Bob, thanks for the reference. It took a little while but here's the
link.

http://www.aopa.org/members/ftmag/ar...m?article=4421

So basically the AIM is non-regulatory but following those
'mere suggestions' is a good idea as they might come back
to haunt you in the worst of times.

thanks.

Gerald Sylvester

Don's interpretation of the AIM is that since the pilot was almost
certainly cleared to TYS, then that's his clearance limit. The regs say
fly to your clearance limit, and initiate your approach at the ETA.
That means a pilot would fly to VXV (his IAF), fly to the airport (?!),
fly back to VXV, then do full approach.

It seems a tad ridiculous, no?

The way I see it, if you are cleared to the airport (TYS), that
clearance would include the approach needed to get there, or at least to
within the DH or DA. Getting to the airport involves doing the approach
(beforehand). So, if the altitudes were appropriate, I'd start the
approach from the IAF (VXV) without overflying the airport.

In this case, it means arriving at VXV at our 6000 foot altitude, and
turning outbound to make the procedure turn, descending outbound to the
procedure altitude. I see no reason to head for the airport before
heading for the airport.

Jose
--
You may not get what you pay for, but you sure as hell pay for what you get.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Thanks to everyone who replied. I had no idea I would touch off so much
passionate conversation, without a whole lot of consenus. I think I
know what I would do in the situation in the article, but I'll keep it
to myself. I'll just say that the exercise of good judgement is the
essence of piloting.

I did want to comment on the possibility of radio failure in a light
aircraft while everything else navigational continued to work. I think
it's very possible. COM antennas snapping off with ice on them, and
stuck ptt's, broken headset cords (combined with missing hand
microphones and/or broken overhead speakers) come to mind as just a
few.

My opinion on whether being NORDO in IMC is an emergency or not is
simply that if you feel like you're in over your head, then that's an
emergency. Later, when you're on the ground, you can further consider
the point.

-- dave j

wrote in message
ups.com...

Thanks to everyone who replied. I had no idea I would touch off so much
passionate conversation, without a whole lot of consenus. I think I
know what I would do in the situation in the article, but I'll keep it
to myself. I'll just say that the exercise of good judgement is the
essence of piloting.

I did want to comment on the possibility of radio failure in a light
aircraft while everything else navigational continued to work. I think
it's very possible. COM antennas snapping off with ice on them, and
stuck ptt's, broken headset cords (combined with missing hand
microphones and/or broken overhead speakers) come to mind as just a
few.




The below paragraph is the essence of pilot judgment IMO Dave. The more one
flies, the more comfortable you can become with different situations,
including this one. Pilots flying frequently in IMC need to play stump the
dummy with their other pilot friends and read read read the CFRs and AIM to
know what they're gonna do when stuff like this happens. Good thread.

Jim

My opinion on whether being NORDO in IMC is an emergency or not is
simply that if you feel like you're in over your head, then that's an
emergency. Later, when you're on the ground, you can further consider
the point.

-- dave j