FAA "Flight Check" pilot - ask me anything

i don’t know how you guys do all that and watch for traffic!
It is a big concern. We brief every morning possible traffic issues, it comes up in our meetings, etc., etc. We do have ADS-B and TCAS, of course, which helps, and we are always on approach and CTAF at the same time if at an uncontrolled field.
 
It is a big concern. We brief every morning possible traffic issues, it comes up in our meetings, etc., etc. We do have ADS-B and TCAS, of course, which helps, and we are always on approach and CTAF at the same time if at an uncontrolled field.
You deserve a wide berth from us; we find it hard enough to avoid traffic without the mission you have
 
What about Radar commissioning flight checks. You got a guy on the ground grading the targets. What goes on in the back in the plane?
 
What about Radar commissioning flight checks. You got a guy on the ground grading the targets. What goes on in the back in the plane?
Those are rare enough that I've never done one. If I was given one to do, I'd have to do a lot of studying beforehand.
 
“the ILS localizer was out of tolerance by about 200 ft (61 m) to the right, a condition that had been noticed during six previous CommutAir flights, including by the accident first officer, but had not been properly reported to the FAA”

(not the only factor in the incident)
 
“the ILS localizer was out of tolerance by about 200 ft (61 m) to the right, a condition that had been noticed during six previous CommutAir flights, including by the accident first officer, but had not been properly reported to the FAA”

(not the only factor in the incident)

This accident shows the importance of reporting unusual observations to ATC.

The snow buildup had affected the localizer signal. This does definitely happen, to the glideslope too. A crew had noticed it and reported it to ATC. However, as I understand it from my time in ATC, ATC (by policy) needs a second, confirming report before they take any action. With only one report, it could very well be the aircraft instruments that are off. But with two reports, it is almost certainly the system itself. Unfortunately, while other airplanes saw the same thing, they did not report it.

If ATC had received a second report, the system would almost certainly have been NOTAMed OTS. A Flight Check crew may have been sent up to evaluate it, depending on whether the ground techs were able to confirm the problem or not.
 
no field monitors for ILS?
 
This accident shows the importance of reporting unusual observations to ATC.

The snow buildup had affected the localizer signal. This does definitely happen, to the glideslope too. A crew had noticed it and reported it to ATC. However, as I understand it from my time in ATC, ATC (by policy) needs a second, confirming report before they take any action. With only one report, it could very well be the aircraft instruments that are off. But with two reports, it is almost certainly the system itself. Unfortunately, while other airplanes saw the same thing, they did not report it.

If ATC had received a second report, the system would almost certainly have been NOTAMed OTS. A Flight Check crew may have been sent up to evaluate it, depending on whether the ground techs were able to confirm the problem or not.
Still that way.

2−1−10. NAVAID MALFUNCTIONS
a. When an aircraft reports a ground−based NAVAID malfunction, take the following actions:
1. Request a report from a second aircraft.
2. If the second aircraft reports normal operations, continue use and inform the first aircraft. Record the incident on FAA Form 7230−4 or appropriate military form.
3. If the second aircraft confirms the malfunction or in the absence of a second aircraft report, activate the standby equipment or request the monitor facility to activate.
4. If normal operation is reported after the standby equipment is activated, continue use, record the incident on FAA Form 7230−4 or appropriate military form, and notify technical operations personnel (the Systems Engineer of the ARTCC when an en route aid is involved).
5. If continued malfunction is reported after the standby equipment is activated or the standby equipment cannot be activated, inform technical operations personnel and request advice on whether or not the aid should be shut down. In the absence of a second aircraft report, advise the technical operations personnel of the time of the initial aircraft report and the estimated time a second aircraft report could be obtained.
b. When an aircraft reports a GPS or WAAS anomaly, request the following information and/or take the following actions:
1. Record the following minimum information:
(a) Aircraft make, model, and call sign.
(b) Location or position, and altitude at the time where GPS or WAAS anomaly was observed.
(c) Date/time of occurrence.
2. Request a report from a second aircraft.
3. Record the incident on FAA Form 7230−4 or appropriate military form.
4. Inform other aircraft of the anomaly as specified in subparagraph 4−8−1k, l, or m, as applicable.
PHRASEOLOGY−
ATTENTION ALL AIRCRAFT, GPS REPORTED UNRELIABLE (OR WAAS UNAVAILABLE) IN VICINITY/AREA (position).
EXAMPLE−
“Attention all aircraft, GPS reported unreliable (or WAAS unavailable) in the area 30 miles south of Waco VOR.”
c. When a pilot reports a WAAS anomaly, determine from the pilot what indications he or she observes and record the information in accordance with subparagraph b above.
 
no field monitors for ILS?
I am not an expert on field monitor requirements. However, FAAO 6750.24E does not require far field monitors for Cat I ILSes, which PQI is.

Subsequent to this accident (I am assuming "because of"), language was added to AC 150/5200-30D regarding snow buildup around Localizer antennas. Previously, it only discussed snow around glideslope antennas.
 
Speaking of monitoring; the VOR21 approach at KCEZ has been NA since 11/25. Expiration estimate 11/27. Reason: "VOR not monitored". Who monitors VOR's, what's broken and why does it take two years to fix it? I checked the decommissioning list and CEZ is not on it.
 
Last edited:
... I checked the decommissioning list and CEZ is not on it.

sorry, can't resist... if they wait long enough, they won't have to pay to decommission it... if you know what I mean.
 
Speaking of monitoring; the VOR21 approach at KCEZ has been NA since 11/25. Expiration estimate 11/27. Reason: "VOR not monitored". Who monitors VOR's, what's broken and why does it take two years to fix it? I checked the decommissioning list and CEZ is not on it.
You're reading two separate NOTAMs. The "not monitored" NOTAM means that the remote status monitoring system (picture an indicator light somewhere that tells if the VOR is working or not) is out of service. This doesn't greatly affect anyone for the most part, it just means that if the VOR goes down, the monitoring agency is not going to know, and therefore won't know to issue a NOTAM. So you need to make sure you properly ID the facility before starting an approach (which of course you should be doing anyway).

The other NOTAM is "Procedure NA". But this is a separate NOTAM and has nothing to do with the monitor status. You will note the end dates are different - the monitoring is expected to be restored fairly soon, while the Procedure NA is for a 2 year period.

Now, I don't know why the Procedure is NA. But here's a behind-the-scenes fun fact - if you see a NOTAM for a procedure that's effective for exactly two years, that almost always means that it needs a procedure amendment for some safety-related issue. Since it's hard to say when exactly that amendment is going to be published, a 2-year NOTAM is sent as a default. When the amendment is actually published, the NOTAM will be canceled.
 
We recently had an issue with our localizer, and I am still trying to figure out how and why ATC reported it. They called the airport about it instead of Tech Ops, to inquire if we knew of any issues. Turns out two or more pilots over the course of two or more days had reported not being able to pick up the localizer, but nothing more was ever done until they called the airport. No call to Tech Ops, no NOTAM. Seemed very odd.
 
I got interviewed!

The Stuck Mic AvCast (of which I am also a co-host) interviewed me for episode 358. Link below or get it through your preferred podcast player. I think it went very well, and we covered a lot of topics about what the flying is like, the hiring requirements, the travel, all that sort of stuff. Give it a listen, and let me know if you have any questions about anything!

 
Back
Top