Air Wagner..... He’s baaaaackk.

I don't know the A/P he has, but why not only use the lateral guidance, and manually hit the step downs with trim/power rather than VTF?
 
EdFred said:
I don't know the A/P he has, but why not only use the lateral guidance, and manually hit the step downs with trim/power rather than VTF?
Click to expand...
He could do that. But why not stabilize the approach by capturing the glidepath early and making one configuration change ("keep your speed up" requests aside) instead of a series of descents and level offs?

Yes, I know it's Jerry to whom "stabilized approach" is an oxymoron.
 
midlifeflyer said:
He could do that. But why not stabilize the approach by capturing the glidepath early and making one configuration change ("keep your speed up" requests aside) instead of a series of descents and level offs?

Yes, I know it's Jerry to whom "stabilized approach" is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

Well, there are a couple approaches out there where the glidepath does take you below the stepdown fixes - although, that may be limited to a couple ILS approaches, but it's still a possibility for GPS also I would think.
 
EdFred said:
Well, there are a couple approaches out there where the glidepath does take you below the stepdown fixes - although, that may be limited to a couple ILS approaches, but it's still a possibility for GPS also I would think.
Click to expand...
That’s true and it’s why most people read and comprehend the approach plate prior to flying the procedure. The only strategy that works for every approach is to comply with the procedure as published.
 
And by activating VTF, you have eliminated all of the step down fixes outside of the FAF, so you have increased your workload trying to make sure you haven’t gone below the required altitudes.
 
Dave Theisen said:
And by activating VTF, you have eliminated all of the step down fixes outside of the FAF, so you have increased your workload trying to make sure you haven’t gone below the required altitudes.
Click to expand...

That depends on the avionics. The G1000 keeps the waypoints on the final approach course, Jerry's avionics probably do too.
 
PaulS said:
That depends on the avionics. The G1000 keeps the waypoints on the final approach course, Jerry's avionics probably do too.
Click to expand...

Will the G1000 keep you above the step downs if the glidepath from intercept to MAP goes below an intermediate fix if you go VTF?
 
EdFred said:
Will the G1000 keep you above the step downs if the glidepath from intercept to MAP goes below an intermediate fix if you go VTF?
Click to expand...

No, you have to watch for that, it happened to me once, I just hit the ALT button, stopped the descent, then did the rest of the steps using the VS button.
 
EdFred said:
Well, there are a couple approaches out there where the glidepath does take you below the stepdown fixes - although, that may be limited to a couple ILS approaches, but it's still a possibility for GPS also I would think.
Click to expand...
Of course there are. But let's translate this to old school. Make it the days before GPS. There were (and are) ILS approaches where the glideslope goes below pre-FAF step down fixes. There are two techniques to deal with it.
  1. Capture the glideslope and watch for the stepdowns, adjusting as necessary
  2. Dive and drive to each step down.
I don't see anything wrong with either. And I don't think RNAV changes that.
upload_2021-7-16_11-0-42.png
 
midlifeflyer said:
Of course there are. But let's translate this to old school. Make it the days before GPS. There were (and are) ILS approaches where the glideslope goes below pre-FAF step down fixes. There are two techniques to deal with it.
  1. Capture the glideslope and watch for the stepdowns, adjusting as necessary
  2. Dive and drive to each step down.
I don't see anything wrong with either. And I don't think RNAV changes that.
View attachment 98329
Click to expand...

Do you think certain people really look for the step down alts if they hit VTF and let it do what it does, though? I'm fairly certain some just let the A/P do what it's gonna do, and if they bust an altitude, oh well.
 
Dave Theisen said:
And by activating VTF, you have eliminated all of the step down fixes outside of the FAF, so you have increased your workload trying to make sure you haven’t gone below the required altitudes.
Click to expand...
Not with Jerry's. He's flying with a GTN. The fixes along the FAC remain, so it doesn't matter.
 
EdFred said:
Do you think certain people really look for the step down alts if they hit VTF and let it do what it does, though? I'm fairly certain some just let the A/P do what it's gonna do, and if they bust an altitude, oh well.
Click to expand...
Certain people absolutely look for the step owns. Others don't even know they are required to remain at or above them. But that's true with or without an autopilot.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Not with Jerry's. He's flying with a GTN. The fixes along the FAC remain, so it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
Edit: That's wrong. It actually doesn't work. Not well, anyway. Yes the along tack waypoints remain in the flight plan, so they are accessible, but whether you use activate leg or VTF, you don't get waypoint sequencing before the FAF - the active waypoint is the FAF. So you end up using the moving map or some other situational awareness tool - or a second unit, which would be fine - to keep track of your progress. Now Jerry does have that but I doubt he would use it for the purpose.
 
PaulS said:
That depends on the avionics. The G1000 keeps the waypoints on the final approach course, Jerry's avionics probably do too.
Click to expand...

midlifeflyer said:
Not with Jerry's. He's flying with a GTN. The fixes along the FAC remain, so it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

That’s great, I always hated that the 430/530 dumped them. We are getting one of our airplanes back this week which has been upgraded to the GTN’s this week, so I am looking forward to using them.
 
PaulS said:
That depends on the avionics. The G1000 keeps the waypoints on the final approach course, Jerry's avionics probably do too.
Click to expand...
Yes but does the G1000 let you know when - with a primary nav function - you are crossing them once you to to VTF or activate the leg to the FAF?
 
midlifeflyer said:
Of course there are. But let's translate this to old school. Make it the days before GPS. There were (and are) ILS approaches where the glideslope goes below pre-FAF step down fixes. There are two techniques to deal with it.
  1. Capture the glideslope and watch for the stepdowns, adjusting as necessary
  2. Dive and drive to each step down.
I don't see anything wrong with either. And I don't think RNAV changes that.
View attachment 98329
Click to expand...

So this is where all the Cleared for the Approach forum stuff has gone. I haven't looked at the Jerry thread for a long time. @EdFred 's "oh well" above is really not all that cavalier. In the area were talkin about here, closer in, it is kinda a 'no harm, no foul' thang. The reason for the rule is about traffic underneath you. The Glideslope keeps you off the rocks regardless of how hot it is. It's the effect that the heat has on the other planes altimeter that is the problem. That airplane's 'actual' altitude is going to be higher than what it's altimeter reads. Heat don't affect the Glideslope so your altimeter is going to be lower than your 'actual' altitude. Now, ATC running another airplane underneath you at NIXDE at 1100 just ain't gonna be happening. And the effect that each degree of temperature has on how many feet difference is less at lower altitudes then up higher where the whole column of air has expanded.
It was way out there on the ILS's to KLAX RWY's 24/25 where it was causing problems. Planes getting on the Glideslope around 35 miles out up around 9000 were picking off traffic underneath them assigned altitudes a 1000 feet below the ILS Chart altitudes. It was on those hot LA basin temperature inversions. I know you know all this, just replying to you to set the context and you had the pictures
 
luvflyin said:
So this is where all the Cleared for the Approach forum stuff has gone. I haven't looked at the Jerry thread for a long time. @EdFred 's "oh well" above is really not all that cavalier. In the area were talkin about here, closer in, it is kinda a 'no harm, no foul' thang. The reason for the rule is about traffic underneath you. The Glideslope keeps you off the rocks regardless of how hot it is. It's the effect that the heat has on the other planes altimeter that is the problem. That airplane's 'actual' altitude is going to be higher than what it's altimeter reads. Heat don't affect the Glideslope so your altimeter is going to be lower than your 'actual' altitude. Now, ATC running another airplane underneath you at NIXDE at 1100 just ain't gonna be happening. And the effect that each degree of temperature has on how many feet difference is less at lower altitudes then up higher where the whole column of air has expanded.
It was way out there on the ILS's to KLAX RWY's 24/25 where it was causing problems. Planes getting on the Glideslope around 35 miles out up around 9000 were picking off traffic underneath them assigned altitudes a 1000 feet below the ILS Chart altitudes. It was on those hot LA basin temperature inversions. I know you know all this, just replying to you to set the context and you had the pictures
Click to expand...
Absolutely. We think of altitudes as having an obstacle function but they can also have a traffic separation function. Either way, it is our job to understand and comply with minimum, maximum, and mandator altitudes in published procedures. The OAK approach just happens to be a no-harm/no-foul - pretty sure somewhere along the way I saw that the GS actually meets the crossing restrictions.

That's actually my issue with Jerry and his automatic VTF. I understand why he does it at KOAK. It's been vetted, so to speak - by repeated use. But finding something which works in one situation doesn't necessarily mean it is appropriate for all. If you don't understand why it works, you end up with the LAX approach problem.
 
Dave Theisen said:
That’s great, I always hated that the 430/530 dumped them. We are getting one of our airplanes back this week which has been upgraded to the GTN’s this week, so I am looking forward to using them.
Click to expand...

upload_2021-7-16_13-9-2.png
 
midlifeflyer said:
Yes but does the G1000 let you know when - with a primary nav function - you are crossing them once you to to VTF or activate the leg to the FAF?
Click to expand...

Honestly, it's been a while since I've done a VTF non-precision, I believe it does, in fact, I think the Vnav function works too, but I'm not sure. I'll see what the manual says later.
 
Latest video comments on other YouTubers, his takeoff/departure/terrain clearance philosophy, and address the call sign issue.
 
Van Johnston said:
Latest video comments on other YouTubers, his takeoff/departure/terrain clearance philosophy, and address the call sign issue.
Click to expand...
What philosophy could there possibly be? Just follow the damn procedure.
 
EdFred said:
What philosophy could there possibly be? Just follow the damn procedure.
Click to expand...

the jerry philosophy of "I'm always right and anything other people perceive as me doing wrong is someone else's fault".
 
eman1200 said:
the jerry philosophy of "I'm always right and anything other people perceive as me doing wrong is someone else's fault".
Click to expand...

"Yeah ... are you gonna believe me or your lying eyes?" :dunno:
 
Van Johnston said:
Latest video comments on other YouTubers, his takeoff/departure/terrain clearance philosophy, and address the call sign issue.
Click to expand...
The latest one that I see, he discusses the 421C crash at Monterey. His discussion also gets the departure wrong and would theoretically turn into terrain instead of away from it. Is that the one?
upload_2021-7-18_8-2-28.png
upload_2021-7-18_8-2-44.png
 
Last edited:
asicer said:
The latest one that I see, he discusses the 421C crash at Monterey. His discussion also gets the departure wrong and would theoretically turn into terrain instead of away from it. Is that the one?
Click to expand...
You mean you don't agree turning left in advance in case the right engine fails is a good reason for not flying the procedure as published?
upload_2021-7-18_12-0-53.png
 
Flying Keys said:
He took the KLLR-KOAK vid with the botched ODP down
Click to expand...

He’s taken several videos down before due to the uproar they caused. He’s even shut his entire channel down for a while. And the thing is, HE STILL WONT GET IT and will continue to defend his actions and blame everyone else but himself, and from what we can see he makes zero effort to attempt to fix any of his mistakes. Ever. To him, he’s getting annoyed at all the negative comments (and probably gets tired of deleting them and only keeping the good comments), not saying “hhmmmm, hey wait a second, maybe there’s a learning opportunity here…”
 
It's all about the clicks. Smooth proper IFR flying is about as exciting as watching sap run in January. Dropping out of the clouds at a 45* angle and then "saving" the approach, now that's some exciting stuff right there!
 
luvflyin said:
Maybe this guy subscribes to the old adage, ‘a bad reputation is better than no reputation at all.’
Click to expand...

It would be great if Wagner would become Peter’s test pilot for the Raptor.

We can then combine the two threads into one catastrophic crescendo of palm slabs to the forehead!
 
Bill said:
It's all about the clicks. Smooth proper IFR flying is about as exciting as watching sap run in January. Dropping out of the clouds at a 45* angle and then "saving" the approach, now that's some exciting stuff right there!
Click to expand...


Doesn't he know the way to get clicks is to pimp your wife/girlfriend/wife's girlfriend in the still of the video?
 
Deelee said:
Another JFR classic.... turn the way you want...

And hey, three lefts = a right, amirite?
Click to expand...

No, you're three lefts. :D :rofl:

EdFred said:
"NORCAL, request."

"Go ahead"

"request vectors to deviate 40 degrees left or right of course to avoid the clown in the 421."
Click to expand...

They'd probably give it to you. The Norcal controllers know his tail number - They are on their best behavior when they hear it because they know that recording is likely to be listened to (after Jerry crashes).
 
flyingcheesehead said:
No, you're three lefts. :D :rofl:



They'd probably give it to you. The Norcal controllers know his tail number - They are on their best behavior when they hear it because they know that recording is likely to be listened to (after Jerry crashes).
Click to expand...
Hmm. Maybe he should get an award for promoting excellence in Air Traffic Control. Not the Archie. It’ll be known as the Jughead Award.
 
I need to avoid this guy. He fly's not too far from me. What's his tail number?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top