Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Cleared for the Approach' started by AggieMike88, Dec 14, 2015.
I think it's okay to say that you used the GPS as a legal substitute for the required ADF.
My mistake. I misread the post to somehow say at the FAF... Mixed up with the LOM, which isn't the FAF for the ILS.
And not everyone knows the "obvious" answer.
Even those that are trying to learn for their instrument rating?
I've met many...
"Does flown with" count if we were in different planes to the same destination (Cameron)? If not I've only flown with Fly'nGator
Given that a check of anything at a specific location requires the ability to determine that location, yes, even those who are trying to learn for their instrument rating should understand that a check of altitude at the LOM requires the ability to determine the aircraft is at the LOM.
This is all you have to do...activate the approach and fly the GD'mn ILS
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Some people don't know everything because they are students. Therefore it is worthwhile to spell out some things that are obvious to you because others don't know it yet. But choose how you wish to share your knowledge. It's up to you.
Those things by definition are not obvious.
"I saw us cross it there on the magenta line."
Are things that are obvious to you obvious to everyone?
Things that are obvious to me are obvious to everyone but the clueless.
He's not stupid, he knows exactly what he's doing.
He'd rather start an argument than anything else.
Shame, because I think he could be an asset here instead of a liability.
Ron may have excess attitude on this, but he's not wrong. By the time you start your IR training, you should already be familiar with what is required to fix your position in three dimensional space. If that isn't 'obvious' to someone, they will live longer by staying VFR pilots. This isn't to say anything against them, but not everyone is wired to think the same, and what is obvious to some, isn't obvious to others. That doesn't change the fact though that this trait is an important one for pilots who need to maintain situational awareness using a bank of 2D data inputs. If this is not an 'obvious' thing, interpreting a six pack will always be a chore for you. There is an IR solution for these people now though and that is SVT.
Neither obviousness nor cluelessness is an objective concept.
I was talking to Steve, not Ron. (Is that not obvious? )
Didn't feel like typing out the whole Roncachamp...
I disagree. It may be obvious to someone who has completed the IR training. It may even be obvious to someone part way through it. But we all have to learn a bunch to get to that point.
Is this subforum only for those that completed the IR? A student starting out at the beginning may not yet know everything that is supposedly "obvious." This subforum is, at least in part, here to help them.
In the old days, not too long ago, when the sound went off at the outer marker you knew to start coming down. When the sound went off at the middle marker, you knew to go missed if you couldnt see the runway. There was something to be said for using audible alarms. Now you have to look at the altitude or the GPS distance to the waypoint.
Does anyone know how to make my King KLN90B go BING when I get to a waypoint? That would be kind of neat.
Sorry, it should be obvious to you the first time you learn to fly a pattern, that you have a longitudinal, lateral, and vertical reference to fix your position when flying. Like I said, if that isn't obvious to you, interpreting a six pack for situational awareness will always be challenging for you.
Ahh, the shifting goal posts.
No, it's the exactly identical goal post. If that isn't obvious, heed my above advice and use SVT for IFR, you will enjoy life and flying IFR much more, and you will be more secure in your skills.
From the FAA order 6750.24e
b. Marker Beacons. An Outer Marker (OM) or suitable substitute (refer to subparagraph 9c and Appendix A) is only required to indicate the final approach fix (FAF) for Nonprecision Approach (NPA) operations (i.e., localizer only). The FAF on CAT I/II/III ILS approach operations is the published glideslope intercept altitude, not the OM. Therefore, an OM or suitable substitute is not required for CAT I/II/III ILS approach operations. Middle Marker (MM) beacons are not required for CAT I/II/III ILS. An IM is only required for CAT II operations below RVR 1600 that do not have a published RA minimum (refer to Appendix A). CAT II operations with a published RA minimum do not require an IM.
Every approach I have seen seems to have some means of the identifying the non precision Faf which will also aid in assuring you are on the correct glide slope on the full ILS
However, this order seems to confirm that no outer marker or similar is required for a normal full ILS
I think you and I talking about two different things. I think Russ was having an issue wrapping his head around why the glideslope/Localizer and altitude intercept is not sufficient to locate him at the FAF. I don't think that's particularly obvious. But that's a different issue than what you are talking about.
No, that wasn't the issue at all. The issue was whether an OM is required to identify the FAF on an ILS, and it is not, since by definition the FAF on an ILS is glideslope intercept at the published altitude, not the OM. I provided glossary references above. The OM serves only as a check altitude for the glideslope, for the purpose of identifying a false glideslope. However, a false glideslope will not be received if the intercept occurs from below, at the published altitude.
I do not argue that false glideslopes aren't dangerous, and I encourage people to monitor their position and descent rate as well to help eliminate that problem. But that wasn't the question being raised by AggieMike.
Also see c130flyr's reference.
You stated better what I poorly wrote. (Thank you.) My point is that is not the same thing as Henning is talking about.
And to further throw myself on the cross, it wasn't you that was having difficulty. It was fiveoboy who I was referring to, and the issue he said was not obvious was that the ILS FAF and the LOC FAF are not the same. And I agree with him, it isn't obvious to anyone who hasn't had some measure of instrument instruction.