Full deflection = missed approach ???

[pgbnh]

It is common wisdom, and often common sense, that if a full deflection of a
CDI (or GS) is experienced, a missed approach is to be flown. But a lot of
people seem to think that it is REQUIRED. I have had a CFII tell me it is
required. But I can not find anything in FAR or AIM that states such a
requirement.

Again, in a lot of cases I can understand why to do it. But I can also
imagine others where it might make just as much sense to recover the
approach and not go missed.

Can anyone point me at a rule that requires a missed?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"pgbnh" > wrote in message
...
>
> It is common wisdom, and often common sense, that if a full deflection of
> a CDI (or GS) is experienced, a missed approach is to be flown. But a lot
> of people seem to think that it is REQUIRED. I have had a CFII tell me it
> is required. But I can not find anything in FAR or AIM that states such a
> requirement.
>
> Again, in a lot of cases I can understand why to do it. But I can also
> imagine others where it might make just as much sense to recover the
> approach and not go missed.
>
> Can anyone point me at a rule that requires a missed?

If you agree it's the proper thing to do, does it matter if it's required or
not?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"pgbnh" > wrote in message
...
>
> I did not say that it is ALWAYS the right thing to do. Sometimes, yes.
> Sometimes, no. If there is a requirement someplace, then that would seem
> to trump my making the decison to recover the approach when I have decided
> that that is a safe thing to do.
>
> So yes, it DOES make a difference
>

When is it not the right thing to do?

[pgbnh]

I did not say that it is ALWAYS the right thing to do. Sometimes, yes.
Sometimes, no. If there is a requirement someplace, then that would seem to
trump my making the decison to recover the approach when I have decided that
that is a safe thing to do.

So yes, it DOES make a difference
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "pgbnh" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> It is common wisdom, and often common sense, that if a full deflection of
>> a CDI (or GS) is experienced, a missed approach is to be flown. But a lot
>> of people seem to think that it is REQUIRED. I have had a CFII tell me it
>> is required. But I can not find anything in FAR or AIM that states such a
>> requirement.
>>
>> Again, in a lot of cases I can understand why to do it. But I can also
>> imagine others where it might make just as much sense to recover the
>> approach and not go missed.
>>
>> Can anyone point me at a rule that requires a missed?
>
> If you agree it's the proper thing to do, does it matter if it's required
> or not?
>

[Michelle P]

in an emergency, say low on fuel and not able to do a missed and another
approach.
Michelle

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>"pgbnh" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>I did not say that it is ALWAYS the right thing to do. Sometimes, yes.
>>Sometimes, no. If there is a requirement someplace, then that would seem
>>to trump my making the decison to recover the approach when I have decided
>>that that is a safe thing to do.
>>
>>So yes, it DOES make a difference
>>
>>
>>
>
>When is it not the right thing to do?
>
>
>
>

[Jose]

> If you agree it's the proper thing to do, does it matter if it's required or
> not?

He doesn't. He agrees it's =often= proper.

If you have full deflection, you don't know how far off course you are
(although you do know how far off course you aren't). You don't know
what the terrain clearance is, since you are no longer in the protected
area (although I believe "some" protection is provided for "some
distance" outside the zone). So, if you don't know where you are or
what's below you, then continuing the approach doesn't make sense, and
the "careless and reckless" clause could be applied.

However, in some circumstances, for example in broken clouds and with
some ground contact to give you terrain assurance, when you =just= went
full deflection so you do know where you are (it's just not where you
want to be), and a low fuel or other critical situation in busy
airspace, and you know why you went full deflection and can come right
back (you didn't just zone out), it =may= make more sense to recover the
approach.

I know of no specific rule for part 91 ops that requires a missed.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Michelle P]

Think about it it just makes sense. Once you have full deflection you
can no longer tell where you are latterly on the approach. An unsafe
situation.
Michelle

pgbnh wrote:

>It is common wisdom, and often common sense, that if a full deflection of a
>CDI (or GS) is experienced, a missed approach is to be flown. But a lot of
>people seem to think that it is REQUIRED. I have had a CFII tell me it is
>required. But I can not find anything in FAR or AIM that states such a
>requirement.
>
>Again, in a lot of cases I can understand why to do it. But I can also
>imagine others where it might make just as much sense to recover the
>approach and not go missed.
>
>Can anyone point me at a rule that requires a missed?
>
>
>
>

[pgbnh]

I can think of the following situations where I might encounter a full
deflection yet a recovery is the right thing to do:
1. Flying an ILS behind a heavy to a 9000 foot runway with an 800 reported
ceiling. I want to land long, stay well above GS and might accept a full
deflection high.

2. I have a full lateral deflection, but I just WATCHED it deflect full and
I therefore know where I am, my distance from where I want to be, and I know
that I can recover. (as opposed to I was distracted, lost my scan, look up
and see a full deflection but I have NO idea how long it has been deflected
full)

3. On a VOR approach, I just passed the VOR as FAF and the CDI swings to a
full deflection. I know I am on course because I was only one dot off a half
mile before the vor and I will likely be the same one dot off shortly.

"Michelle P" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Think about it it just makes sense. Once you have full deflection you can
> no longer tell where you are latterly on the approach. An unsafe
> situation.
> Michelle
>
> pgbnh wrote:
>
>>It is common wisdom, and often common sense, that if a full deflection of
>>a CDI (or GS) is experienced, a missed approach is to be flown. But a lot
>>of people seem to think that it is REQUIRED. I have had a CFII tell me it
>>is required. But I can not find anything in FAR or AIM that states such a
>>requirement.
>>
>>Again, in a lot of cases I can understand why to do it. But I can also
>>imagine others where it might make just as much sense to recover the
>>approach and not go missed.
>>
>>Can anyone point me at a rule that requires a missed?
>>
>>

[[email protected]]

pgbnh wrote:

> It is common wisdom, and often common sense, that if a full deflection of a
> CDI (or GS) is experienced, a missed approach is to be flown. But a lot of
> people seem to think that it is REQUIRED. I have had a CFII tell me it is
> required. But I can not find anything in FAR or AIM that states such a
> requirement.
>
> Again, in a lot of cases I can understand why to do it. But I can also
> imagine others where it might make just as much sense to recover the
> approach and not go missed.
>
> Can anyone point me at a rule that requires a missed?

The rule is implied. The procedure is an FAR. If the needles are fully
deflected you are no longer flying the courses or altitudes specified in the
procedure. Thus, if you don't miss you are continuing the procedure without
following the requirements set forth on the approach chart.

The feds won't bust you for violating Part 97, though, they'll bust you for
careless and reckless.

[[email protected]]

pgbnh wrote:

> I can think of the following situations where I might encounter a full
> deflection yet a recovery is the right thing to do:
> 1. Flying an ILS behind a heavy to a 9000 foot runway with an 800 reported
> ceiling. I want to land long, stay well above GS and might accept a full
> deflection high.
>

A full deflection above the G/S is not violating a minimum altitude.

>
> 2. I have a full lateral deflection, but I just WATCHED it deflect full and
> I therefore know where I am, my distance from where I want to be, and I know
> that I can recover. (as opposed to I was distracted, lost my scan, look up
> and see a full deflection but I have NO idea how long it has been deflected
> full)
>
> 3. On a VOR approach, I just passed the VOR as FAF and the CDI swings to a
> full deflection. I know I am on course because I was only one dot off a half
> mile before the vor and I will likely be the same one dot off shortly.

A full deflection over the station is a transitory condition, like the old cone
of silence on a range station. A full deflection other than over or near the
station is because of a serious tracking error.

>
>
> "Michelle P" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> > Think about it it just makes sense. Once you have full deflection you can
> > no longer tell where you are latterly on the approach. An unsafe
> > situation.
> > Michelle
> >
> > pgbnh wrote:
> >
> >>It is common wisdom, and often common sense, that if a full deflection of
> >>a CDI (or GS) is experienced, a missed approach is to be flown. But a lot
> >>of people seem to think that it is REQUIRED. I have had a CFII tell me it
> >>is required. But I can not find anything in FAR or AIM that states such a
> >>requirement.
> >>
> >>Again, in a lot of cases I can understand why to do it. But I can also
> >>imagine others where it might make just as much sense to recover the
> >>approach and not go missed.
> >>
> >>Can anyone point me at a rule that requires a missed?
> >>
> >>

[Peter R.]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "pgbnh" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I did not say that it is ALWAYS the right thing to do. Sometimes, yes.
>> Sometimes, no. If there is a requirement someplace, then that would seem
>> to trump my making the decison to recover the approach when I have decided
>> that that is a safe thing to do.
>>
>> So yes, it DOES make a difference
>>
>
> When is it not the right thing to do?

As you know, when first being vectored for the ILS, most times the
glideslope will be pegged.


--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mike Rapoport]

If you have full scale deflection, you may not even be on the approach
anymore, but I am unaware of any regulatory requirment to initiate the
missed. If you see full deflection you should probably train some because
you are not competent.

Mike
MU-2


"pgbnh" > wrote in message
...
>I did not say that it is ALWAYS the right thing to do. Sometimes, yes.
>Sometimes, no. If there is a requirement someplace, then that would seem to
>trump my making the decison to recover the approach when I have decided
>that that is a safe thing to do.
>
> So yes, it DOES make a difference
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "pgbnh" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> It is common wisdom, and often common sense, that if a full deflection
>>> of a CDI (or GS) is experienced, a missed approach is to be flown. But a
>>> lot of people seem to think that it is REQUIRED. I have had a CFII tell
>>> me it is required. But I can not find anything in FAR or AIM that states
>>> such a requirement.
>>>
>>> Again, in a lot of cases I can understand why to do it. But I can also
>>> imagine others where it might make just as much sense to recover the
>>> approach and not go missed.
>>>
>>> Can anyone point me at a rule that requires a missed?
>>
>> If you agree it's the proper thing to do, does it matter if it's required
>> or not?
>>
>
>

[[email protected]]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> If you have full scale deflection, you may not even be on the approach
> anymore, but I am unaware of any regulatory requirment to initiate the
> missed. If you see full deflection you should probably train some because
> you are not competent.

Sure, you are no longer flying the courses and/or altitudes specified on the
approach chart, which come from the Form 8260-3/5 that is an amendment to FAR
97.

[Greg Farris]

In article . net>,
says...
>
>
>in an emergency, say low on fuel and not able to do a missed and another
>approach.


Well, I guess this pilot wouldn't be too worried about one more violation of
FAR's, would they!

[Greg Farris]

In article . net>,
says...

>
>When is it not the right thing to do?
>



When you are over, or very close to the station - you expect it to go
full-scale, and you have to wait it out a bit. (VOR)

In turbulence, you may see a momentary, full-scale GS needle (it only takes
0.7°, either way). If you see it happen and you are confident in recovering
rapidly. (GS)

When another aircraft passes (or parks!!) in front of the loc emitter, you may
get a momentary spurious deflection. (LOC)

When you are in sight of the runway, and able to make a normal landing, to the
intended runway, using normal maneuvers!


I don't mean to be facetious in stating the "obvious" - but perhaps that's why
there's no specific rule. We are not mechanical "needle-chasers"- we're
expected to understand what we're doing, and exercise good judgment. On the
other hand, if you are in IMC and you have one or the other pegged for some
time, you have not flown the approach to an acceptable standard and the only
logical thing to do is to break it off. Failing to do so may not be a direct
violation of regs the instant the needle goes to the peg, but after some time
you are likely to run afoul of FARs or terrain. G/S high? You haven't busted
minimum altitude, but you haven't flown the published approach either (a
requirement) Too high and you can get a false GS. GS low - no comment.

[jmk]

I see another case where, while you may want to abandon the approach,
you may not want to automatically fly the missed approach. The issue
would be a full L/R deflection, especially significantly before the
MAP, in mountainous terrain. A missed approach procedure which calls
for a left or right climbing turn may put you into the granite, where
the correct option would be to get back closer to the centerline and
maybe closer to the official MAP point first.

[Michael Houghton]

Howdy!

In article >,
Greg Farris > wrote:
>In article . net>,
says...
>>
>>
>>in an emergency, say low on fuel and not able to do a missed and another
>>approach.
>
>
>Well, I guess this pilot wouldn't be too worried about one more violation of
>FAR's, would they!
>
Which FAR? Your answer presupposes that it's a violation of the FARs, but
you haven't shared which one applies here.

yours,
Michael

--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
| White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/

[Greg Farris]

In article >, says...

>Which FAR? Your answer presupposes that it's a violation of the FARs, but
>you haven't shared which one applies here.
>


I take the phrase "in an emergency, say low on fuel" to mean the emergency is
a fuel emergency, created by the pilot's mismanagement, in violation of 91.167
In this case, because it's an emergency, you may disregard other regulations
in the interest of responding to the emergency, but you may have some
explaining to do. . .

GF

[Curtis Dean Smith]

This happened to me just the other day. The FAF of a VOR approach is
the station, so the needle goes full deflection as you reach FAF. You
then have to wait until about 1/3 of the way to MAP before it comes
back in. As long as you were stabilized before loosing the needle,
you just have to stick it out. Of course, one problem is that, with
strong winds, you begin your dive at the FAF, winds shift, and you may
very well come out quite a bit off the center.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:48:20 +0200, Greg Farris > wrote:

>In article >, says...
>
>>Which FAR? Your answer presupposes that it's a violation of the FARs, but
>>you haven't shared which one applies here.
>>
>
>
>I take the phrase "in an emergency, say low on fuel" to mean the emergency is
>a fuel emergency, created by the pilot's mismanagement, in violation of 91.167
>In this case, because it's an emergency, you may disregard other regulations
>in the interest of responding to the emergency, but you may have some
>explaining to do. . .
>
>GF

But there are instances of being low on fuel that do NOT involve a
violation of 91.167.

First of all, 91.167 is for planning purposes and requires that you be
"considering weather reports and forecasts and weather conditions" These
are not always accurate.

In addition, mechanical problems can occur. These also do not involve any
violation of 91.167. Personal experience: I flight planned to have one
hour of fuel remaining at my destination (no alternate was required). A
fuel tank ran dry about 20 minutes before it should have. Problem turned
out to be a leaking gasket in the fuel servo. I wound up landing at the
closest airport (which was some distance away and was my planned
destination). I refueled with 50 gallons (tanks supposedly have 52 gallons
usable and some fraction of a gallon unusable).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> As you know, when first being vectored for the ILS, most times the
> glideslope will be pegged.
>

What are you using for guidance when you're being vectored for the ILS?

[Robert Chambers]

Trust in some anonymous voice on the other end of the radio. Sprinkled
with a little situational awareness hopefully.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>As you know, when first being vectored for the ILS, most times the
>>glideslope will be pegged.
>>
>
>
> What are you using for guidance when you're being vectored for the ILS?
>
>

[Peter R.]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> As you know, when first being vectored for the ILS, most times the
>> glideslope will be pegged.
>>
>
> What are you using for guidance when you're being vectored for the ILS?

The method of guidance was not a stated criterion in this thread.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> The method of guidance was not a stated criterion in this thread.
>

Did it have to be? Full deflection of the localizer or glideslope is rather
meaningless when neither is being used for guidance.

[S Narayan]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> As you know, when first being vectored for the ILS, most times the
>> glideslope will be pegged.
>>
>
> What are you using for guidance when you're being vectored for the ILS?

Nothing, you are on a vector. You have to trust the controller that he (or
she) knows what he's doing and doesn't forget about you. It would be wise to
be situationally aware by using GPS or VOR radials (or other means) to tell
if you are likely to run into rocks.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"S Narayan" > wrote in message
news:1129756596.12a76fd6c4f812e4bd3f4ab173da5476@t eranews...
>>>
>>> As you know, when first being vectored for the ILS, most times the
>>> glideslope will be pegged.
>>>
>>
>> What are you using for guidance when you're being vectored for the ILS?
>>
>
> Nothing, you are on a vector. You have to trust the controller that he (or
> she) knows what he's doing and doesn't forget about you. It would be wise
> to be situationally aware by using GPS or VOR radials (or other means) to
> tell if you are likely to run into rocks.

Correct. You are not yet using the glideslope or localizer for guidance so
a full deflection of either is meaningless.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> Correct. You are not yet using the glideslope or localizer for guidance so
> a full deflection of either is meaningless.

Also, a lot of the high end stuff won't even try to resolve deflections beyond a
certain angle, so the needles are centered with off flags even though there's a
LOC ident.

[[email protected]]

S Narayan wrote:

> Nothing, you are on a vector. You have to trust the controller that he (or
> she) knows what he's doing and doesn't forget about you. It would be wise to
> be situationally aware by using GPS or VOR radials (or other means) to tell
> if you are likely to run into rocks.

TCAS, or even a Garmin 296, removes a lot of concern about rocks during
vectors. A moving map of the MVA would even be better and is being evaluated by
some high-end avionics vendors.

[Peter Clark]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 02:02:21 -0700, wrote:

>
>TCAS, or even a Garmin 296, removes a lot of concern about rocks during
>vectors.

Rocks have transponders? Cool! ;)

[Robert Chambers]

Peter Clark wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 02:02:21 -0700, wrote:
>
>
>>TCAS, or even a Garmin 296, removes a lot of concern about rocks during
>>vectors.
>
>
> Rocks have transponders? Cool! ;)

Only the high-end rocks.

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>
>
>Peter Clark wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 02:02:21 -0700, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>TCAS, or even a Garmin 296, removes a lot of concern about rocks during
>>>vectors.
>>
>>
>> Rocks have transponders? Cool! ;)
>
>Only the high-end rocks.

Generally all you need - You tend to hit the high end first!

GF

[[email protected]]

Peter Clark wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 02:02:21 -0700, wrote:
>
> >
> >TCAS, or even a Garmin 296, removes a lot of concern about rocks during
> >vectors.
>
> Rocks have transponders? Cool! ;)

Read my lips: 1. Rocks do not have transponders.
2. Some transponders have rocks
Therefore, some light aircraft amatuer pilots have
rocks for brains.

[Scott Skylane]

wrote:


>
> Read my lips: 1. Rocks do not have transponders.
> 2. Some transponders have rocks
> Therefore, some light aircraft amatuer pilots have
> rocks for brains.
>
>

Explain to me, oh heavy aircraft professional one, how TCAS would help
me avoid being vectored into rocks???

[[email protected]]

Scott Skylane wrote:

> wrote:
>
> >
> > Read my lips: 1. Rocks do not have transponders.
> > 2. Some transponders have rocks
> > Therefore, some light aircraft amatuer pilots have
> > rocks for brains.
> >
> >
>
> Explain to me, oh heavy aircraft professional one, how TCAS would help
> me avoid being vectored into rocks???

It wouldn't. I meant to say EGPWS.