If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
I had the same experience a few years ago when I went for an IPC. At that
point I had about 1000 hours with about 100 approaches in actual. First he refused to fly in my plane, which is a hell of a lot better maintained and a much better IFR platform than the FBO planes. Then he added that he was uncomfortable flying in actual since he didn't know me. Needless to say I found another CFII. jeez, I had my IFR checkride scheduled for may 7th. I have about 11 out of 50 hours in actual with about 25 of that at night which is a good substitute for actual when under the hood. I told my instructor that I wanted to fly in the worst crap out there so I'm comfortable when the **** hits the fan. I had a few flights that were very bumpy and weird ATC routings. I'm glad I did it as I wouldn't say I'm comfortable in hard IMC but in smooth IMC I think I'd do quite well. I do think I'm more comfortable than most instructors as most instructors I think have mostly private students and don't stay IFR current and IFR proficient themselves. So my FBO is ****ing me off because what they consider IFR capable is not so in my book. I don't trust anyone who says a plane with an AI that takes "10 or 15 minutes" to erect is IFR capable even in severe clear. well I'll get my shot in a couple of weeks in a well maintained airplane. Gerald |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Fleischman k wrote
in news:2005050612522816807%bodhijunkoneeightyeightju nkatmacdotcom@junkjunk: On 2005-05-06 09:48:46 -0400, "Peter R." said: snip Regardless of who was flying the instructor was doubtless PIC. Now I know that the Passeur Airport Monitor (http://www4.passur.com/hpn.html) does not give an officially recognized altitude readout, but if you set that site to begin on 4/23 at about 16:15 local time you can track the flight. If you compare their altitude readout to other aircraft flying the same approach it seems evident that they were below the approach segment altitude even before they crossed the outer marker. In fact it shows them crossing HESTR already 100' too low (1900'). I can not fathom what this instructor was thinking continuing the approach so far below the glideslope, even after an altitude alert from the tower. snip If you go back to about 15:10 and set the window to 20 miles you can pick him up as low as 1600' just south of Yorktown Heights over 134, which I believe is inside the FARAN intersection, but clearly outside the Outer Marker - ie: Minimum Safe Altitude is 2000', and he is 400' low... It's tough to say how accurate and to-scale the Passur site is, but if you set the scale to 5 miles and watch as he enters the area, it would imply that he passed the Outer Marker at around 1200'... Maybe he was tracking a harmonic? |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Michael wrote:
You lack imagination. Lack instructing experience and knowledge, definitely, but lack imagination? Absolutely not. During minor outpatient surgery many years ago I was hooked up to an IV and awaiting the arrival of the doctor. With nothing else to occupy my mind, I started to imagine what the IV needle must have looked like inside my vein, the tip of the submerged needle pressing against the inside wall of the vein and the suger-water dripping out of the point to mix with my blood, creating a pinkish hue as the mixture was carried off downstream. The image in my mind was so vivid I then passed out. :-) Sorry to digress but I had to rebut ... -- 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 =---- |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Fleischman k wrote:
Things like this just give all of us as pilots a black eye because in todays society the general public seems to paint everything with a very broad brush . That is what really disturbs me. I am in total agreement with you. -- 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 =---- |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Tom Fleischman wrote:
Baloney, it contains a lot that is new. 1 - There was communication with the tower throughout the approach and the pilot was WARNED that he was too low and continued to descend anyway. Do you think that a descent rate of more than 1200 fpm (300' in 14 seconds) is normal after being warned that he was too low? Since something around 500 fpm would be more 'normal', perhaps there was something else gong on other than he "continued to descend anyway"? 2 - It appears that his medical was out of date and he was not legal to be PIC on that flight. Perhaps the web site does not have the latest data and the pilot just came from the doc? 3 - There was nothing wrong with the major aircraft systems that could be evaluated on the preliminary report suggesting that a mechanical problem was not a likely cause. Exactly - nothing on the *preliminary* report - that's why they don't stop there. This does not suggest that "mechanical problem was not likely the cause". All it says is that the preliminary report showed nothing wrong with the major aircraft systems. Do you know that his static port wasn't blocked, that his altimeter was set correctly and reading correctly, that he didn't suffer a heart attack, that the student didn't committed suicide, ... 4 - It appears that American Flyers is incapable of even keeping track of the medical currency of their instructors, a fairly simple task. See my above comment on his medical. That is gross negligence IMHO. I would consider making unsubstantiated and potentially completely false claims with minimal knowledge of the real facts gross negligence. I don't know where you get the idea that I have set myself up as judge and jury on this. Read your post again. Hilton |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Moore" wrote in message
... I started IFR instruction with an instructor that refused to fly in actual. I fired him and got another instructor. Nothing more goddam useless than an IFR instructor who won't fly IFR. You should try the instructors at my club then. If you're out on a checkride or some other such exercise that has no formal content requirement (e.g. the club has a new aircraft and they want you to do a dual hour so they can show you the knobs and dials) they'll almost certainly try to find some cloud to go and play in, icing conditions permitting. When we got our "new" PA-28 with different radio navaids than I was used to, when we went out for my check ride I found myself in the grey stuff doing holds and finishing with an ILS down to a 1,200' cloudbase. Not minima, I'll admit, but it's good that all our instructors are of the opinion that the more you fly in IMC, the more likely you are to stay in one piece when the cloud is lower than you thought. D. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Farris" wrote in message
... As you know, when this happens the VOR1 instrument would show the CDI alive (but really tracking the GPS's course for the localizer). The glideslope needle, however, would be flagged and remain perfectly centered, as if the pilot were flying a perfect glideslope. The 172R has the same switch (button actually) and yes, it is easy to forget. But as you correctly state, this produces a flagged, immobile GS indicator. This would be very difficult to stare at for very long before realizing that something was wrong. I've been surprised, in the half-dozen or so different aircraft I've sat in the front seat of, how much the visibility of the flags in instruments varies. A PA-28 I got into recently had instruments with flags that all but obscured the dial - so you absolutely couldn't miss them. An aircraft I flew a while back, though, had rather smaller flags, and I strongly suspect that under stress, one's brain could have completely failed to acknowledge they were there. D. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Fleischman" k wrote in
message news:2005050607023016807%bodhijunkoneeightyeightju nkatmacdotcom@junkjunk... Let's see, you are maybe a few hundred feet above the ground in the clouds when you get a low altitude alert and new altimeter setting from the tower. Multiple choice: a) you acknowledge the tower call, look over to the other side of the cockpit to check the altimeter setting, look at the approach plate, calm down the student pilot in the right seat and say, in about 14 seconds, hit the cumulogranite; or b) you add power and climb in a go-around, realizing something is wrong and sort it out at a safe altitude. I've kinda been there in an IMC training flight (in proper IMC). The reports and the tower said the cloudbase was 800 feet, and althought the instruments were telling us everything was normal (i.e. glideslope, DME and altimeter cross-matched), we still couldn't see civilisation at 500 feet. We took option (b) - up is a very good way to go until you know what's going on. D. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter R." wrote in message
... In hindsight, the fact that his medical had expired by a month (Class III expires in two years from March '03, right?) was somewhat interesting for a large flight school such as AF. Did it expire because of oversight or did it expire because the instructor had a condition that wouldn't allow him to pass? We don't know. And as someone else said, if memory serves, it could well be that he'd just renewed it and the paperwork hadn't caught up. I don't know about the US, but in the UK the doctor issues a new medical certificate directly to the pilot, and then sends notification to the authorities. It's believable that there could be a few days/weeks before stuff shows up on the official records. D. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Fleischman" k wrote in
message news:2005050612522816807%bodhijunkoneeightyeightju nkatmacdotcom@junkjunk... Now I know that the Passeur Airport Monitor (http://www4.passur.com/hpn.html) does not give an officially recognized altitude readout, but if you set that site to begin on 4/23 at about 16:15 local time you can track the flight. If you compare their altitude readout to other aircraft flying the same approach it seems evident that they were below the approach segment altitude even before they crossed the outer marker. In fact it shows them crossing HESTR already 100' too low (1900'). True, but 100' is within PTS tolerance prior to the FAF. After the FAF, they just need to stay on the GS. I can not fathom what this instructor was thinking continuing the approach so far below the glideslope, even after an altitude alert from the tower. Yup, that's where it was totally botched. --Gary |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Looking for a See and Avoid NTSB report | Ace Pilot | Piloting | 2 | June 10th 04 01:01 PM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |
Wellston Crash Report Quote | EDR | Piloting | 26 | November 21st 03 10:50 PM |
Report blames pilots in crash of two Navy jets | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 26th 03 01:27 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |