![]() Or, more commonly in GA aircraft, one on the ILS, the other on the corresponding LOC, so that I can cross-check them. What about radio settings? When I’m on a full ILS, if I’ve got two receivers, I’d prefer them both tuned to the ILS during the final (when following the GS). You must be continuously saying to yourself, “Okay, self, I just passed DUMMY intersection, so the minimum altitude here is 1200′, and I’m out of 1,000′, so I must level off, or climb to 1200′ until I pass STUPID.” Or, “Okay, self, the MDA for the LOC-only here is 876′, and I’m now below that, so I MUST pull up to 876′ (plus or minus 50′), and level off.”Īnd you think this is a good idea? I think it’s damned stupid, myself. One part of your brain must keep track of a precision ILS approach, while the other part of your mind is keeping very close track of where you are in relation to the non-precision LOC-only approach. If you are going to plan on continuing with the LOC-only when the GS fails, then you must crank your brain into some kind of a dual mode. Should you stay at the altitude where you lost the GS? Oops, what if that perfectly legal altitude with the GS working is now below the MDA for the LOC-only approach? This would require an immediate missed approach, but would you be legal and safe to climb to the MDA, level off, and continue? This reversion mode is not a requirement of the FAA for the practical test, nor should it be, in my opinion, and it should not be considered for normal day-to-day operations, except for an emergency. It’s not wrong, but you’re adding difficulty to the procedure, and adding a task that is not required by the PTS. Where are you in relation to those fixes that determine the step-down points on the LOC-only approach? Have you been faithfully tracking them as you take that long slide down the GS? Should you climb back up to, and level off at, the desired altitude? ![]() So long as you remain on the LOC, you’re okay with regard to the trees, but now you have the task of changing your thinking over to a considerably more complex operation. Quick, where are you in relation to where you would be, if you’d been shooting the LOC-only? You are most likely already well below the proper altitude you should be holding or descending to on the LOC-only approach. , you’re out of 1,000′ AGL,and the GS flag pops up. You are shooting the ILS to Oxnard, Calif. If the airlines don’t do it with a cockpit full of highly trained pros and megabucks worth of equipment, should we be doing it in GA aircraft? Quick! Where Are You?Ĭonsider. Mentioning it, or doing it on a checkride is well outside my limits, and is not in accordance with any PTS (FAA Practical Test Standards) of which I am aware. In instrument training, I think even mentioning the possibility of a changeover in mid-approach is a very bad idea, one that should be avoided during the course of normal instruction. As a certain Far East airline discovered recently in Guam, even the LOC-only approach can be a challenge. I don’t know about you, but I find having to memorize that level of critically important data a formidable task, and it is not one I care to use in day-to-day operations, particularly in high-performance aircraft. ![]() In reality, they are two entirely different approach procedures, with different FAFs (Final Approach Fixes), different MAPs (Missed Approach Points), and entirely different descent profiles and altitudes. The ILS and the LOC-only procedures sometimes appear on the same chart only to save paper. If you wish to do this for training, then BOTH approaches must be carefully studied and understood ahead of time. Sure, with practice it may work, in many locations, and in light, slow aircraft, it may even be fairly graceful. ![]() I know of no airline that favors this, and with good reason. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |