Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Cleared for the Approach' started by bcool, May 2, 2020.
I fly what the controller tells you to expect.
I tell the controller what I want to fly.
Do you mean by "alternate missed approach instruction" a radar vector instead of the published missed approach or a non-radar missed approach, which is indicated by an alternate missed approach holding pattern on the chart? The latter is published (on the 8260-3/5) only when a second nav aid is required for the charted missed approach.
i was referring to a radar vector miss, not the NOTAM'ed use of the published alternate missed approach hold.
I prefer LPV. Sometimes the controllers want you on the ILS like everyone else, even if it's the same FAC sometimes the fixes are different so if they're putting everyone on the ILS often we'll just take that to not confuse anyone.
But I do prefer the LPV.
I'm a believer in that same thought pattern.
And LPV over an ILS for me
On our trip into Waco, TX.
We were just past the two hour mark and in the clag, moderate turbulence and intermittent showers. I provided approach with a PIREP.
The remainder of this leg was more work than fun. Cloud surfing was pretty sweet until we got tossed around a bit. I know, it comes with the instrument rating. I was handed off to Waco approach and was given vectors to an intermediate fix. Maybe that was easier for approach but I had briefed the RNAV GPS 19 and already had my mind set. As a friend and fellow pilot pointed out, the ILS would have a lower decision height, but in fact they are both 704'. The ILS also had a NOTAM for a change in the missed procedure. I advised approach I did not have the fix on the RNAV selected and instead I advised I wanted FEPHY on the RNAV GPS 19 approach.
Sometimes you just have to play the PIC card. Approach approved and I was on my way, more relaxed and with a clear picture in my minds eye. I managed an ok landing and taxied for the ramp at Texas Aero.
If I'm using a laser ring gyro coupled to an IFR GPS with auto course setting, I'll fly an advertised ILS with equivalent minimums so the controller doesn't need to think about the fact that I'm flying exactly the same approach. Otherwise, I prefer an LPV. If I'm in something with round dial radio CDIs, I want the RNAV every time.
I'll never understand people who do practice approaches coupled. Maybe 1 to test out that the AP is working correctly, but otherwise? Forget it. What's the point of doing that in VMC? I couple probably half my actual IMC approaches, though sometimes I end up taking over from the AP because of a bad vector or whatever.
From what I've seen during IPCs and checkouts you need both. An awful lot of pilots don't understand their autopilots that well. I always insist on at least one approach with an autopilot during an IPC. If it's an autopilot I don't know hat well, I try to learn at least one "glitch" to use.
You can see it in YouTube videos too. In one series, the pilot, who generally understands his avionics pretty well, was completely flummoxed because he expected his autopilot to fly a GTN750 vertical navigation profile down a series of stepdowns on an approach, eventually transitioning to the LPV glidepath. Ended up behind the airplane when he tried. Eventually it was resolved, but it was all about the pilot/autopilot interface.
I agree. Hence why at least one of the approaches should be coupled, but it's a lot easier to use routing VMC and even VFR flying to get familiar with avionics than to maintain hand flying proficiency.
Which is probably one of the reasons the ATP ACS requires an approach using autopilot.
Autopilot is a perishable skill, as is advanced avionics. Good to keep practiced in both hand flying and autopilot.
Really? Huh. Was going to ask about the ILS to 4 at LGA, but those mins are 3/4 miles anyway.
Should have put an asterisk. Except when an approach notes dictate otherwise like the ILS 4 into LGA. I asked the sim instructor and he’s like, we’ll never make you do a hand flown non precision for practice or on a checkride because Delta prohibits it in IMC. We did hand flown single engine non precisions all the time at Endeavor. My last recurrent was a two engine hand flown RNAV 22 LGA to mins.
I see. We don't have any restrictions down to 1800 RVR for an ILS (incidentally below that I'm *required* to hand fly down to 600 RVR using the HUD), but for a non-ILS it's similar to you - we need 1000/3 to hand fly unless we have the runway environment in sight.
I get an "Expect the XXX Approach" unsolicited. If it's not what I want, I request what I do want. Can't say I've ever been turned down.
I was thinking about this thread when I shot an LPV approach today. I flew autopilot in VMC to minimums yesterday, so I hand flew out of 5000 on the vectors to final, down into a small cloud layer (approach counted). Of course, the controller was one of those who gives such smooth vectors that I may as well have been on autopilot.
You'd have to put an asterisk next to everything.*
* except when you don't.
What is the difference between a smooth vector and a rough vector?
Depends on the degrees.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
that's the big one. Although it always feels "fake" to me.. like I'm not pressing enough buttons or something. The glideslope is just there..
I always dial the ILS freq into the NAV though, just in case, to have it. GPS still feels a little bit like witchcraft to me
Some navigators will auto switch to ILS depending on which angle you are intercepting it from
This is why ILS critical areas exist
LGA ILS4 mins are RVR5000 or 1SM, but there is also a note where coupled approaches must be hand flown. There's constant ground interference and buildings surrounding the entire approach course. Into LGA the needles have a mind of their own, especially ILS4. The funny thing is, it's such a small note and cause an easy bust on a check ride if you miss it.
Right - that was the reason for my post.
Um...how do you hand fly a coupled approach?
technically, the note says “autopilot coupled approach not authorized”.
Eh? How can you hand-fly a coupled approach? OK, it doesn't say that. It says, "coupled approaches NA."
M/S beat me to it by seconds!
Yes, you’re right. That was a test! You guys are good!
Speed is life!
Yep, but they aren't protected unless the weather is low, and if the airport is uncontrolled, most pilots don't know when they have to hold short of the ILS critical area. It is one of the few regs I know.
Got a reference to that reg?
Looks like an AIM reference, not a reg.
AIM, reg, tomato/tomato. Yes, the AIM isn’t regulatory, but you’d better have a damn good excuse for not following it.
It is a very real thing, especially in transport category aircraft that use Autoland. Here is an example of what happens when an aircraft enters the critical area. On a side note, the crew did not notify the tower they were executing an autoland - thus, the blame falls on the crew.
Let's call the whole thing off.
The directive parts of the AIM are de facto regulatory. There have been more than a few enforcement actions for not following AIM directive procedures. 91.13 is the hook.