exactly, home brew was more than a drinkReminds me of all those legal circling only approaches up north that were safer than the straight in ones that didn’t exist

Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister
exactly, home brew was more than a drinkReminds me of all those legal circling only approaches up north that were safer than the straight in ones that didn’t exist
Flying an RCAP approach when you know you do not have the regulatory prerequisites is a choice. I think it is a bad choice and speaks to a disdain for operating inside regulatory boundaries. There is no grey here it is black and white.valleyboy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 03, 2020 5:11 pmRegardless you can be in denial but it happens often. I'm not condoning it just saying the regs are practically useless and very little fall out to those who choose to ignore them. Instead of burying our heads in the sand we should be aware it happens. I think we are past the school boy age and can accept the facts of life. Denial is a silly thing, just look at the world around us at the present time.I don’t see the point of the above statement. Flying an approach which you are not authorized is operating in
Exactly and the point I was making. It boils down to education and mentoring. Human factors and decision making are the two central causes of accidents and incidents. To quote a very knowledgeable "bad person", "there will be no new causes for aviation accidents"Only you can decide whether you want to operate legally or.not.....
In that post I inadvertently said "GPS" when I should have said "RCAP" but anyone reading my previous posts would have realized this typo. I have edited the change.ahramin wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 8:11 pm L39guy, you don't appear to know what an ILS is, what an RCAP approach is, or what a GPS approach is. The ILS approach into Nanaimo is an RCAP approach and cannot be flown without an OPS SPEC. It might be a good idea to review the AIM before commenting further.
I'm sure you do, but it was three separate GPS 'typos' in two different posts (two still remain unedited). So, you can see how it would appear as though you didn't know what you were talking about.L39Guy wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 9:58 amIn that post I inadvertently said "GPS" when I should have said "RCAP" but anyone reading my previous posts would have realized this typo. I have edited the change.ahramin wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 8:11 pm L39guy, you don't appear to know what an ILS is, what an RCAP approach is, or what a GPS approach is. The ILS approach into Nanaimo is an RCAP approach and cannot be flown without an OPS SPEC. It might be a good idea to review the AIM before commenting further.
FYI, I have a really, really good idea about what an ILS, GPS and other approaches are as I have had an instrument rating and flown professionally for the past 37 years; I have also been designing these things for the past 20.
Why should it matter ?Cliff Jumper wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:58 pm [
-Big Pistons, out of curiosity, are you aware of any private aircraft operator (not PORD/604), that has ever been issued an infraction for flying an RCAP or had an incident during an unapproved RCAP approach (that was actually related to the approach)? The legality of this is often debated, so I'd be curious if there is any semi-legal precedent.
Sorry for my lack of clarity BPF.Big Pistons Forever wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:14 pm Why should it matter ?
The pilot is either authorized to do the approach or not. If the pilot knows they are not authorized and do it anyway because they think they are unlikely to get busted, well that says a lot about the pilots decision making process, and not in a good way....
I would suggest CAR 602.127 appliesCliff Jumper wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:28 amSorry for my lack of clarity BPF.Big Pistons Forever wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:14 pm Why should it matter ?
The pilot is either authorized to do the approach or not. If the pilot knows they are not authorized and do it anyway because they think they are unlikely to get busted, well that says a lot about the pilots decision making process, and not in a good way....
What I was trying to say was ....your interpretation of the rules are generally excellent, and your background is without question, however could you possibly provide any formal legal interpretation of this rule? I think (know) that many people have different interpretations. We both know that regardless of the knowledge and background of an individual, their interpretation of a regulation is not the-final-say. I think that your interpretation and explanation is sound, I just wanted to know if it was supported elsewhere. I was unable to find anything myself, but you are clearly more connected.
Btw, I totally agree with the "don't knowingly break the rules" idea. However, I'm not sure that this person was aware that it was 'not authorized'.
But it says "RESTRICTED ILS RWY 27" in the procedures list, and when you click on it it says "RESTRICTED" on the left and right-hand sides of the chart (at least on FltPlan Go). Similar for the one at YCD.ahramin wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 10:13 pm In EFBs the plates are all together. CAP, RCAP, RNP, all approaches are there. If you are not expecting it, it's easy to think that an ILS is a CAP approach and miss the note that says Ops Spec.
Especially in Victoria where the ATIS says approach in use is ILS 27 and you're all set up for it and then your F/O points out you can't do it.
Yes but it is still on the plate. I get that a lot of plates are not exactly user friendly, especially with using notes for extra information but if the reason a pilot flew the RCAP without the required authorization is because they didn't read all the notes......well that's on the pilot
Maybe BPF could provide us an explanation of why a ILS would be restricted. And if it is simply due to missed approach climb gradient.....why(if true) would it not apply to a similar departure procedure gradient.iflyforpie wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 8:47 am Departures are different. Quite possibly since you are entering them from a static environment vs a dynamic one and the actual risk is less since most aircraft pass well above 35 above the departure end of the runways vs below DH or at MDA at the MAP.
They used to have missed approaches in the RCAP well in excess of 425ft per nautical mile (I want to say 460 or 500 ft in some cases) before the Advisory Circular or whatever came out restricting them to under 425. But lots of departures have 500ft/nm requirements which is pretty insane when you thing about it—especially if you’re dealing with an engine failure.
Both cause of a big honkin' smokestack that I suspect isn't even operational....
Reminds me of the Berlin Airlift where the Soviets erected a radio tower on one of the approaches. The Americans complained, the British protested, and the French with that typical Gallic indifference simply blew it up.rookiepilot wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 6:02 pmBoth cause of a big honkin' smokestack that I suspect isn't even operational....
The procedures are often statistically less safe because of what the pilots do with them. I believe that most non-precision approaches become accidents because the pilot doesn’t adhere to step down altitudes and MDAs, and are often combined with circling procedures done too close to the airport which makes a successful landing or subsequent missed approach more dangerous.
You're quite correct, departures are different. In addition to meeting the IFR departure climb gradient requirements, an air operator has to meet the aircraft performance requirements. In many cases, the IFR departure is more onerous than the aircraft performance as the captured area is larger and the obstacle requirements are less stringent. Aircraft performance gradients deal with things like second segment, etc. whereas IFR gradients are the average climb gradient to clear the obstacle with a very healthy obstacle clearance safety factor.iflyforpie wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 8:47 am Departures are different. Quite possibly since you are entering them from a static environment vs a dynamic one and the actual risk is less since most aircraft pass well above 35 above the departure end of the runways vs below DH or at MDA at the MAP.
They used to have missed approaches in the RCAP well in excess of 425ft per nautical mile (I want to say 460 or 500 ft in some cases) before the Advisory Circular or whatever came out restricting them to under 425. But lots of departures have 500ft/nm requirements which is pretty insane when you thing about it—especially if you’re dealing with an engine failure.
The title of that article is "A stroke of bad luck leads to instrument failure in IMC". But sometimes you make your own luck. The facts are that he took off with a known problem in the HSI, a known problem with the autopilot, with a novice passenger in the left seat, and did a restricted ILS approach in low IMC.rookiepilot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 6:08 pm Peter Garrison wrote an excellent post on this accident. He is very good at uncovering the potentially important issues, and avoids the irrelevant discussions all too common.
He takes issue with the TSB’s report as incomplete.
I don’t read checklists once in the entire article.
https://www.flyingmag.com/story/pilot-p ... indicator/