Busted minimums on landing ... Now what?
Paul Anderson
fifty or a hundred feet) to make a landing in heavy fog the other day. Tower
didn't have anything to say about it, but should I be worried about
receiving a letter or phone call from the FAA? Wouldn't my altitude and
position be on a radar tape somewhere?
What are the consequences (other than the obvious -- crashing and dying) of
descending below minimums?
Should I be working on my "get out of jail, free" NASA form?
Ronald van Riet
If you hadn't told anybody, only you should know. The radar may show how
high (low) you were, but it doesn't show the ceiling.
If Tower (who could have been aware of ceiling, although it is doubtful
whether they checked at the exact moment and position where you could have
sen the approach lights which, of course, they had turned to full intensity)
remained silent, they probably helped you so you shouldn't worry about them.
I have been told of a situation in The Netherlands (no night VFR!) where one
minute before end-of-daylight a VFR pilot got a "cleared to land" while
being about 15 miles out. If he hadn't reported "short final" well into
official night time, no one would have noticed. Now he got fined and
probably got Tower into an awkward situation as well.....
"Paul Anderson" <paul...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B80F6EA5.13544%paul...@hotmail.com...
Flighthawk
Nobody will care unless you cause a traffic conflict or have a mishap which
in this case I assume didn't happen. Under those circumstances the
controllers would understandably have to make some sort of report.
The more important issue is to not develop a bad habit. You might want to go
out and do a few practice missed approaches so you'll be in better form next
time. A PC sim comes in real handy for doing it cheaply.
Happy Flying,
PD
Paul Anderson <paul...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B80F6EA5.13544%paul...@hotmail.com...
Marcelo Pacheco
you. As long as there were no FAA inspectors that noticed it, then you probably
were ok, but of course as the others said, now someone might want to go after
you with this e-mail confession.
MDA/DH shouldn't be busted ever. The safety margins built into those are needed
for altimeter errors, plus non-standard temperature/pressures, plus some extra.
Marcelo Pacheco
PP-ASEL IFR
wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net
Newps
JerryK
sin no more.
"Paul Anderson" <paul...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B80F6EA5.13544%paul...@hotmail.com...
Roy Smith, CFI
> What are the consequences (other than the obvious -- crashing and dying) of
> descending below minimums?
Crashing and dying (and maybe taking other people on the ground out with
you) pretty much covers the important consequences.
As far as anybody tracking your position and altitude, the only way they'd
have of getting your altitude besides you telling them is your mode-c, and
that only has a +/- 100 (or is it 200?) foot resolution. And, unless you
were landing at an airport with radar on the field, it's unlikely you were
even in radar coverage that low down.
It doesn't hurt to file a NASA form.
--
Roy Smith, CFI-ASE-IA
John R. Copeland
---JRC---
"Roy Smith, CFI" <r...@panix.com> wrote in message news:roy-CB894E.1...@news1.panix.com...
Robert M. Gary
or approach noticed or cared. Its really your butt
that was at risk. We all make mistakes, the trick is
to remember them when you are in the same situation next time.
Scott Moore
and address here online, we could check into this matter for you.
--
We got attacked by Osama who came from Saudi Arabia which was attacked
by Iraq, and we saved them. He went to live in Afghanistan which was
invaded by the USSR and we helped to save them. And its about Israel/
Palistine, a place Osama has, to my knowledge, never BEEN. So WHO has
"a bad international policy" ?
Bob Anderson
<sam...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Perhaps if you listed yor tail number, pilots certificate, and name
> and address here online, we could check into this matter for you.
>
Okay, my real name is ... Hey, wait a minute, is this a trick? :-)
Seriously, I appreciate all the responses. I can assure any FAA
representatives reading this thread that I already have scheduled a few
refresher sessions with my instructor in both a sim and my plane. Now if I
can just schedule a cooperative heavy marine layer ...
I think it points out the weakness of training in foggles. During my IFR
training, we flew the same three or four VOR approaches maybe a dozen times
each in clear VFR weather. I got to the point I could almost do it with my
eyes closed. Which might have been better because those little peeks through
the edges of the foggles lead to a very false sense of security.
Going into a strange airport in very poor actual IMC with no instructor in
the right seat and no foggles to peek through is completely different.
It also shows the truth behind the "get-home-itis" desease we easily suffer
from. I wanted to be at this airport as I had friends waiting to pick me up.
Had I diverted to a better location, it would have meant maybe a half-hour
of flying time with me unable to contact my ride until landing and they
would have then had about an hour drive to come get me.
I'll know better next time. I just thank God I survived this learning
experience and have an opportunity for there to be a next time.
Jay Somerset
The original post came from: Paul Anderson <paul...@hotmail.com>.
Now you reply, as though you were the original person, as: Bob Anderson
<b...@hotmail.com>
Twins? Impersonation? falsified newsgroup headers? Please let us in on
this -- enquiring minds want to know.
Suresh Pajaniradja
The most inportant part is the flight visibility. The FAA will only take action
(if they decide to ) if you broke the visibility minimums.
50 or 100ft is not that much anyway. tower can't prove you were not in the
clear. If the difference was 500 ft they could question your good faith....
anyway, I don't think the problem here is your intrument proficiency. maybe you
should review you personal minimums.Hopefully you are not challenging the
approach minimums every time you shoot an approach.
Norm Melick
>
> I'm not positive, but I'm pretty certain I descended below minimums (maybe
> fifty or a hundred feet) to make a landing in heavy fog the other day.
I'm curious.
1. Was this a precision or non-precision approach?
1. Was RVR being reported?
2. What was the visibility when you broke out and acquired the runway?
Norm
Bob Anderson
Melick" <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
1. VOR-A approach
2. Visibility was reported at 1.75 mi and the ceiling was "few at 600"
The approach minimums are MDA(H) 660 (485) - 1
3. That's where the uncertainty comes in. I got down pretty low and could
see the ground between cloud breaks and I focused on looking for the runway
environment. In the process I may have (stress may, not certain) drifted
lower. I spotted the runway about a half-mile out and I could see to the
end, so the reported visibility was about right.
Bob Anderson
"Jay Somerset" <jss...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Are there two of you?
>
> The original post came from ....
> Now you reply, as though you were the original person, as ...
>
> Twins? Impersonation? falsified newsgroup headers? Please let us in on
> this -- enquiring minds want to know.
Umm .. Different computers .. Different identities .. I didn't pay too much
attention to it .. just an effort to avoid getting on spammer's lists.
I see people I know who use their real e-mail addresses and I can't imagine
why. Even with this minimal level of protection, I still get several spam
messages a day. And my original AOL account is essentially useless due to
dozens of messages a day promoting sex, viagra, spying on friends, and easy
money.
I don't want to risk polluting my real email accounts with this crap.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Bob Anderson" <b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B810C7B5.13A4F%b...@hotmail.com...
>
> 2. Visibility was reported at 1.75 mi and the ceiling was "few at 600"
> The approach minimums are MDA(H) 660 (485) - 1
>
"Few at 600" does not constitute a ceiling.
wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net
Reported ceiling has nothing to do with minimums for landing.
LA Guy
> > The approach minimums are MDA(H) 660 (485) - 1
> >
>
> "Few at 600" does not constitute a ceiling.
You know what he meant.
Steven P. McNicoll
<wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net> wrote in message
news:3bebce99...@netnews.att.net...
>
> Reported ceiling has nothing to do with minimums for landing.
>
I didn't say they did.
Steven P. McNicoll
"LA Guy" <n...@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:fvRG7.7388$9i2.8...@typhoon.jacksonville.mediaone.net...
>
> You know what he meant.
>
No I don't, I only know what he wrote.
BARR DOUG
the lights at the DH, then you can go down another 100'.
Robert M. Gary
>
> Was this on an ILS? I believe (correct me if I am wrong), if you can see
> the lights at the DH, then you can go down another 100'.
Correct, there is also no MDA on an ILS, only a DH. Going
below the DH is expected since you can't decide and climb in the
same nano-second. And yes, the DH on an ILS once you see
the approach lights is 100 above TDZE.
wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net
I don't believe the DH becomes 100 feet.
I think you can go no lower than 100 feet until seeing red terminating
lights or bars. The 100 feet is thus more of an "mda" than a 'DH". I
believe you can remain at 100 feet until you see them.
Norm Melick
>
> Was this on an ILS? I believe (correct me if I am wrong), if you can see
> the lights at the DH, then you can go down another 100'.
1. You must be continually in a position to land using a normal rate of
descent and normal maneuvering.
2. Flight visibility must not be less than that specified for the SIAP.
3. You may not descend below 100 feet above TZDE using the approach
light system as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red
side row bars are distinctly visible and identifiable.
The sequence would be to acquire the approach lights, then at DH,
descend no lower than 100 more feet, and if the red terminating bars or
the red side row bars do not come into view, go missed. Not all approach
lights have the the red terminating bars or the red side row bars, so
knowing the ALS is critical.
Norm
Norm Melick
>
> In article <3BEC18BB...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Norm Melick <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >The sequence would be to acquire the approach lights, then at DH,
> >descend no lower than 100 more feet,
>
Wrong. You may not descend below 100 feet above TZDE.
Since you descended to 200' above TDZE, descending "100' more feet"
would be 100' above TDZE, which is consistant with my initial post.
Norm Melick
Norm Melick
> Wrong. You can descend to 100 AGL.
Wrong. You descend to 100' above TDZE.
Norm Melick
wilburfor...@repentyoursins.net
Stanley) wrote:
>In article <3BEC0AF7.99223ED3@nospam_osi.com>,
>Robert M. Gary <robert.gary@nospam_osi.com> wrote:
>>BARR DOUG wrote:
>>>
>>> Was this on an ILS? I believe (correct me if I am wrong), if you can see
>>> the lights at the DH, then you can go down another 100'.
>>
>>Correct,
>
>Wrong. You can descend to 100 AGL. There is a whole list of things that
>allow this if you can see them.
>
Really? I think the regs say "approach lights".
>>same nano-second. And yes, the DH on an ILS once you see
>>the approach lights is 100 above TDZE.
>
>Wrong again. The DH is still the DH, you just get to go down further to
>take a look.
>
Ron Natalie
Norm Melick wrote:
>
> Since you descended to 200' above TDZE, descending "100' more feet"
> would be 100' above TDZE, which is consistant with my initial post.
That presumes the ILS has the standard 200' DH. It is never less than
this value, but it may be higher if there are obstacles on the approach.
Regardless of the DH, you can go down to 100' above the TDZE, not just
another 100' as the original poster stated.
Norm Melick
>
> Norm Melick wrote:
>
> >
> > Since you descended to 200' above TDZE, descending "100' more feet"
> > would be 100' above TDZE, which is consistant with my initial post.
>
> That presumes the ILS has the standard 200' DH.
Yes.
> It is never less than this value, but it may be higher if there are obstacles on the approach.
Yep.
> Regardless of the DH, you can go down to 100' above the TDZE,
Yep.
> not just another 100' as the original poster stated.
I was the original poster, and I was assuming a standard 200' approach,
which would make my original statement correct. If the DH were higher,
my "another 100'" would obviously be incorrect.
Norm Melick
Norm Melick
>
> Norm Melick wrote:
>
> >
> > Since you descended to 200' above TDZE, descending "100' more feet"
> > would be 100' above TDZE, which is consistant with my initial post.
>
> That presumes the ILS has the standard 200' DH.
Yes.
> It is never less than this value, but it may be higher if there are obstacles on the approach.
Yep.
> Regardless of the DH, you can go down to 100' above the TDZE,
Yep.
> not just another 100' as the original poster stated.
I was the original poster, and I was assuming a standard 200' approach,
(Since you descended to 200' above TDZE, descending "100' more feet"
would be 100' above TDZE...), which would make my original statement
correct. If the DH were higher, my "another 100'" would obviously be
incorrect.
Norm Melick
Norm Melick
John Stanley wrote:
>
> In article <3BEC458B...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Norm Melick <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >John Stanley wrote:
> >
> >> Wrong. You can descend to 100 AGL.
> >
> >Wrong. You descend to 100' above TDZE.
>
> Please provide an example of where the TDZ is not on the ground.
Please read and comprehend the definition of TDZE. Perhaps then you will
discover your error.
Norm Melick
Norm Melick
>
> In article <3BEC579C...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Norm Melick <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >I was the original poster, and I was assuming a standard 200' approach,
>
> particular one.
What part of "Since you descended to 200' above TDZE, descending "100'
more feet"
would be 100' above TDZE" do you not understand?
>
> >(Since you descended to 200' above TDZE,
> Which may be a violation of the FAR, if the DH isn't 200' above TDZE.
OK.
Norm Melick
Norm Melick
>
> In article <3BEC4537...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Norm Melick <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >John Stanley wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3BEC18BB...@worldnet.att.net>,
> >> Norm Melick <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> >The sequence would be to acquire the approach lights, then at DH,
> >> >descend no lower than 100 more feet,
> >>
> >> Not "100 more feet", 100 feet AGL.
> >
> >Wrong.
>
>
> >You may not descend below 100 feet above TZDE.
>
Which is a wrong statement.
> You said "100 more feet" which is not what the FAR says.
Since you descended to 200' above TDZE, descending "100' more feet"
would be 100' above TDZE. That would be in compliance with the FAR.
I even quoted you saying it, so you can't have forgotten. Or maybe you
did.
> And no, it isn't the same thing at all. You may have been fooled into
> thinking that ILS DH are always 200' AGL, but then you'd run into the
> ILS 10L at KPDX where you have to decide at 450' above TDZE.
Your posts' indicate that you have been fooled into thinking "AGL" and
"TDZE" are the same thing.
Norm Melick
Newps
Larry Fransson
Bob Anderson <b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 2. Visibility was reported at 1.75 mi and the ceiling was "few at 600"
> The approach minimums are MDA(H) 660 (485) - 1
Review the definition of "ceiling". I think you'll find that "few" does
not constitute a ceiling.
Beyond that, nobody really cares how you got in. Conditions being
reported were clearly above minimums, and nobody knows or cares how you
got on the ground. On the other hand, if you landed from this approach
when conditions were being reported as 200 and 1/2, you might get
somebody's attention.
Larry
aterpster
BARR DOUG wrote:
> Was this on an ILS? I believe (correct me if I am wrong), if you can see
> the lights at the DH, then you can go down another 100'.
That is true only if the DA/H is 200 feet, HAT. You can go down to 100
feet, HAT, based on ALS alone, from any DA or MDA. Not smart, perhaps, but
legal.
aterpster
John Stanley wrote:
>
> Wrong. You can descend to 100 AGL. There is a whole list of things that
> allow this if you can see them.
>
Actually, that is wrong, too. You can go to 100 feet HAT, which is probably
close to AGL, but not necessarily so.
aterpster
John Stanley wrote:
> Please provide an example of where the TDZ is not on the ground.
Well, the TDZ elevation is always on the ground, but it is not beneath
you until you get to the runway. "AGL" is always in the present tense,
in this context. Take Seattle Runway 16R for instance, !00 feet AGL, at
1/2 mile prior to the runway would be below the runway elevation.
In other situations, with a high MDA, you might have terrain directly
below you that is several hundred feet higher than the TDZE.
aterpster
John Stanley wrote:
> In article <3BEC579C...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Norm Melick <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >I was the original poster, and I was assuming a standard 200' approach,
>
> How nice. You didn't say that, you were talking about an ILS, not any
> particular one.
>
> >(Since you descended to 200' above TDZE,
>
> Which may be a violation of the FAR, if the DH isn't 200' above TDZE.
Why? 91.175(c) applies to both MDAs and DHs.
aterpster
> And no, it isn't the same thing at all. You may have been fooled into
> thinking that ILS DH are always 200' AGL, but then you'd run into the
> ILS 10L at KPDX where you have to decide at 450' above TDZE.
And, again I say, why do you believe descent based on ALS alone, is limited
to an ILS approach?
Curtis Suter
2. Visibility was reported at 1.75 mi and the ceiling was "few at 600"
The approach minimums are MDA(H) 660 (485) - 1
What does ceiling have to do about anything on an approach? Lets say it's
OVC001 but visibility is 1, then I can shoot the approach and land assuming
I have the landing criteria upon reaching MDA.
Newps
the TDZE for any approach at that airport. They are almost always different.
John Stanley wrote:
> In article <3BECC346...@home.com>, Newps <scn...@home.com> wrote:
> >TDZE and 0 AGL are different at virtually every airport.
>
> Not at the TDZ.
Norm Melick
>
> In article <3BEC9038...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Norm Melick <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> You said "100 more feet" which is not what the FAR says.
> >
> >Since you descended to 200' above TDZE, descending "100' more feet"
> >would be 100' above TDZE. That would be in compliance with the FAR.
>
Which is what I said. You said "AGL", and you're wrong.
> "100 more feet" from "200 feet HAT" may be a violation of the regs unless the ILS
> happens to have a DH of 200' HAT.
How could descending another 100' from a 200' HAT be a violation? Do you
know what "HAT" is?
> Not all of them do. You are aware of this, aren't you?
Yes. Did you get a chance to look up the definition of TDZE yet?
> The regs simply do not state "100 more feet".
I never said they did. I said:
1. You must be continually in a position to land using a normal rate of
descent and normal maneuvering.
2. Flight visibility must not be less than that specified for the SIAP.
3. You may not descend below 100 feet above TZDE using the approach
light system as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red
side row bars are distinctly visible and identifiable.
> "100 more feet" is a common mistake, which you are propogating,
I'm not "propogating" anything. I was assuming a "normal" ILS. I guess
you missed that.
> but careful reading of the regulations will correct your misunderstanding.
I do know the difference between TDZE, HAT and AGL. Obviously you don't.
> >> And no, it isn't the same thing at all. You may have been fooled into
> >> thinking that ILS DH are always 200' AGL,
You're the only one who is fooled into thinking AGL and TDZE are the
same. Certainly not me.
> >>but then you'd run into the ILS 10L at KPDX where you have to decide at 450' above TDZE.
Why would I "have" to decide at "450' above TDZE"?
> >Your posts' indicate that you have been fooled into thinking "AGL" and
> >"TDZE" are the same thing.
>
> They are a lot closer than "100 more feet" is to "100 feet HAT", and, in
> fact, are identical at the TDZ.
Bullshit. Do you have an instrument rating?
> But, you're right Norm. Thanks for setting me straight.
We're not there yet, but a few of us are trying.
> At least you'll only fail to make a landing if you stick to your "100 more feet" rule.
I won't fail to make a landing, and it is not my "100 more feet" rule".
> You might get people busted on checkrides when they quote you,
Never happen.
> but if they didn't read the regs, that's their fault.
This is the only true statement you've made so far.
Norm Melick
Norm Melick
>
> In article <3BEC8EBB...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Norm Melick <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> Please provide an example of where the TDZ is not on the ground.
> >
> >Please read and comprehend the definition of TDZE. Perhaps then you will
> >discover your error.
>
> on the ground.
Well, shit, that was a stupid question.
> Whatever you say, Norm. You win.
Whatever you say.
Norm Melick
David Brooks
news:B810470E.13963%b...@hotmail.com...
> I think it points out the weakness of training in foggles. During my IFR
> training, we flew the same three or four VOR approaches maybe a dozen
times
> each in clear VFR weather. I got to the point I could almost do it with my
> eyes closed. Which might have been better because those little peeks
through
> the edges of the foggles lead to a very false sense of security.
>
> Going into a strange airport in very poor actual IMC with no instructor in
> the right seat and no foggles to peek through is completely different.
>
> It also shows the truth behind the "get-home-itis" desease we easily
suffer
> from. I wanted to be at this airport as I had friends waiting to pick me
up.
> Had I diverted to a better location, it would have meant maybe a half-hour
> of flying time with me unable to contact my ride until landing and they
> would have then had about an hour drive to come get me.
Sounds to me that you have just about written your ASRS report. However, if
this results in a new FAR that mandates a number of actual IMC hours, you
might become less popular with other pilots :-)
-- David Brooks
Norm Melick
>
> In article <3BED4D19...@hotmail.com>,
> aterpster <ater...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >John Stanley wrote:
> >
> >> Please provide an example of where the TDZ is not on the ground.
> >
> >Well, the TDZ elevation is always on the ground,
>
> "100 more feet", wouldn't you think, especially when the DH is, say,
> 450 feet above TDZE?
No.
> >but it is not beneath
> >you until you get to the runway. "AGL" is always in the present tense,
>
> I know this. Thanks for your lecture.
He wasn't lecturing you, although God knows you could use it.
> When you are descending on a
> glideslope, at 100 feet AGL you are pretty close to the touchdown zone,
> not miles away, you know.
AGL is not part of ILS terminology. Why do you insist on using it?
>
> When you are looking for 100 feet AGL on the altimiter,
You are not looking for 100 feet AGL on the altimeter.
> the number you are looking for is TDZE plus 100 feet,
The "number" you are looking for is an MSL altitude, directly read off
the altimeter.
> since the charts don't tell you the ground level of every inch along the localizer.
There is no need to.
> So pick the nit with someone else.
Pick it with me moron. I'm loving it.
Norm Melick
Norm Melick
>
> In article <3BED4DC4...@hotmail.com>,
> aterpster <ater...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >(Since you descended to 200' above TDZE,
> >>
> >> Which may be a violation of the FAR, if the DH isn't 200' above TDZE.
> >
> >Why?
>
> prior to descending to 200' HAT.
The regulations don't tell you to piss before you go fly either. I guess
you'd have to be pretty stupid to ignore the ALS, VASI, touchdown zone
lights, etc., etc., etc., or the friggin runway prior to reaching DA.
He said:
1. VOR-A approach
2. Visibility was reported at 1.75 mi and the ceiling was "few at 600"
The approach minimums are MDA(H) 660 (485) - 1
3. That's where the uncertainty comes in. I got down pretty low and
could
see the ground between cloud breaks and I focused on looking for the
runway
environment. In the process I may have (stress may, not certain) drifted
lower. I spotted the runway about a half-mile out and I could see to the
end, so the reported visibility was about right.
> They just "descended to 200' above HAT".
He never said that.
> Try that in zero-zero at PDX on the ILS 10 L (I think is was) and you
> will have broken a regulation by several feet.
>
> >91.175(c) applies to both MDAs and DHs.
>
> So what?
So read and comprehend 91.175.
Norm Melick
Norm Melick
>
> In article <3BED4E01...@hotmail.com>,
> approaches. The discussion was about an ILS approach. I'm speaking about
> ILS approaches. I've said nothing about non-precision approaches.
Is Flighthawk your sister?
Norm Melick
Norm Melick
>
> In article <3BF0256F...@home.com>, Newps <scn...@home.com> wrote:
> >Yes they are.
>
> Yes what are? You've not provided an antecedant for your comment.
>
> >Look at the published elevation for any airport. Then look at
> >the TDZE for any approach at that airport. They are almost always different.
>
> zone. The "published elevation" is the elevation of that one point.
> The TDZE is the elevation of the touchdown zone.
>
> I'd have thought that someone who was going to pick a nit that AGL
> wasn't the same as HAT would know that.
He does. TDZE is the highest elevation within the first 3000' of runway.
Norm Melick
Norm Melick
>
> In article <3BF03376...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Norm Melick <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> So then, the error in saying "100 feet AGL" is much less than saying
> >> "100 more feet", wouldn't you think, especially when the DH is, say,
> >> 450 feet above TDZE?
> >
> >No.
>
> than the TDZE when you are 100 feet HAT, then you are 105 feet AGL.
Lets see. TDZE is the highest elevation within the first 3000' of
runway. HAT is the height above touchdown zone elevation. AGL is
meaningless in ILS approaches. So when you descend to minimums, no
matter about ground slopes or dips, and you arrive at 200' HAT, you are
200' above the highest terrain in the first 3000' of runway, no matter
what is below you.
> If the DH is 450 feet HAT, and you go "100 more feet" lower, you are 350
> feet HAT.
True.
> In truth, you can descend to 100 feet HAT.
Problem is Johnny, in your example using RWY 10L at KPDX, you don't have
the ALS to allow you to descend to 100' above TDZE. That's the truth.
> So, I'm off by 5 feet, you're off by 345 feet.
I'm not off anything. I'm going to land or go missed at DA, which is
480', as indicated on my altimeter.
> I think a five foot error is less than a 345 foot error, don't you? No, you probably don't.
Yes. A 5' error is less than a 345' error.
> >> When you are looking for 100 feet AGL on the altimiter,
> >
> >You are not looking for 100 feet AGL on the altimeter.
>
> Then what instrument do you look for it on? I'm sorry, I don't have a
> radar altimeter in any of the planes I fly.
Then why are you using AGL?
> Maybe you do.
Sometimes.
> When someone tells me I can descend to 100 feet AGL on an ILS approach,
WHO told you this?
> I look at the TDZE and add 100 feet. That's what I look for on the altimeter.
That's stupid. The TDZE is 30' on 10L at KPDX. So your telling us that
your looking for 130' on your altimeter?
> Maybe you don't.
No. I'm not stupid.
> >> the number you are looking for is TDZE plus 100 feet,
> >
> >The "number" you are looking for is an MSL altitude, directly read off
> >the altimeter.
>
> Gosh, for someone who thinks that translating FARs into relative
> measurements, I'd think you'd know that "TDZE plus 100 feet" is already
> an MSL number, but it is also close enough to AGL IN THIS CONTEXT.
You're full of shit.
> >> since the charts don't tell you the ground level of every inch along the localizer.
> >
> >There is no need to.
>
> Where did I say there was a need to?
You brought it up, I didn't.
> >> So pick the nit with someone else.
> >
> >Pick it with me moron. I'm loving it.
>
> Goodbye Norm. Harass someone else.
Gosh. I thought you wanted some education.
Norm Melick
RCO
zero/zero....
Norm Melick
>
> In article <3BF04B2A...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Norm Melick <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> Well, let's see. If the ground slopes gently so that it is 5 feet lower
> >> than the TDZE when you are 100 feet HAT, then you are 105 feet AGL.
> >
> >Lets see. TDZE is the highest elevation within the first 3000' of
> >runway. HAT is the height above touchdown zone elevation. AGL is
> >meaningless in ILS approaches.
>
Hardly what?
> >> If the DH is 450 feet HAT, and you go "100 more feet" lower, you are 350
> >> feet HAT.
> >
> >True.
>
> Which is not the limit, according to the FAR.
I quoted the FAR. Remember?
> Going "100 more feet" is the wrong answer when the DE asks "how low can you descend when...".
Not in the scenario I made up, it would be correct, because you would be
100' above TDZE.
> >> In truth, you can descend to 100 feet HAT.
> >
> >Problem is Johnny, in your example using RWY 10L at KPDX, you don't have
> >the ALS to allow you to descend to 100' above TDZE. That's the truth.
>
> Hmmm. Sorry, Norm, that's a lie. My charts show a MALSR.
What's a lie? KPDX does not have the ALS system that has the red side
row bars or the red terminating bars that you need to descend to 100'
above touchdown zone elevation. Your the liar.
> I wonder if you know what the "ALS" part of MALSR stands for.
Yes. I wonder if you know which approach systems have the red side row
bars or the red terminating bars.
MALSR's do not. 10L at KPDX does not. You'd know that if you were a
current and competent IFR pilot.
> But you've misread the regs again, it seems.
No. It seems you can't keep the thread straight and haven't a clue as to
the definitions of TDZE, HAT, or conducting low visibility approaches
utilizing the ILS and the appropriate ALS system. Do you have an
instrument rating?
> You don't need to see, nor does there need to be, an ALS to descend to 100' HAT.
You do if your using the ALS system as a reference, which started this
thread. Which 10L at KPDX does not.
Stick to the thread Johnny, and stop your crawfishing.
> The 100' HAT is IF you see the ALS and you DON'T see the red bars and don't see any of the
> other things like the threshold, threshold markings, lights, etc.
So now you agree with me that were using touchdown zone elevation, and
not AGL. Good. Now your learning.
> I don't need an ALS to descend to 100' HAT.
You do if your using the ALS system as a reference, which started this
thread, which 10L at KPDX does not.
Stick to the thread Johnny, and stop your crawfishing.
>
> >> So, I'm off by 5 feet, you're off by 345 feet.
> >
> >I'm not off anything. I'm going to land or go missed at DA, which is
> >480', as indicated on my altimeter.
>
> We're talking about the case when you see the approach lights, which you
> said get you "100 more feet", and I said get you to "100 feet AGL".
They don't get you to 100' AGL, they allow you to descend to 100' above
touchdown zone elevation.
> So AGL isn't the exactly correct term,
Nope. Not even close.
> at least the concept "down to 100 feet" is more correct than "100 more feet".
Read the original thread Johnny. Perhaps then you'll figure it out.
> And since the way you'd calculate (I'm sorry, a sane person would calculate) the altitude you
> can descend to is take TDZE and add 100, the results are identical.
Identical to what, AGL? Not necessarily.
> >> I think a five foot error is less than a 345 foot error, don't you? No, you probably don't.
> >
> >Yes. A 5' error is less than a 345' error.
>
> Thank you.
For what, third grade math?
> You may go back into your hole now.
And miss a chance to educate someone like you? No, I'm enjoying this
waaay too much.
> >> Then what instrument do you look for it on? I'm sorry, I don't have a
> >> radar altimeter in any of the planes I fly.
> >
> >Then why are you using AGL?
>
> Because the touchdown zone is on the ground.
And this helps you how?
> >> I look at the TDZE and add 100 feet. That's what I look for on the altimeter.
> >
> >That's stupid. The TDZE is 30' on 10L at KPDX. So your telling us that
> >your looking for 130' on your altimeter?
>
> My what? Well, gosh, Norm, if I see the approach lights and not the red
> bars or other things that would allow me to land, yes, I'm watching for
> 130' on my altimeter as lowest I can descend. That's what "100' above
> TDZE" would be. What would YOU be looking for on YOUR altimeter? No, I
> don't care.
I had the wrong approach plate out, but I would be looking at my
altimeter, and not concerned with the AGL altitude. I also know, from
experience, that if you are doing an ILS approach with the visibility at
1/2 mile, and I'm doing the 10R approach, I'll be on the ground and
shutdown while your still trying to find the threshold, threshold
markings, threshold lights, runway end identifier lights, visual
approach slope indicator, touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings,
touchdown zone lights, runway or runway markings, or the runway lights.
> >> Gosh, for someone who thinks that translating FARs into relative
> >> measurements, I'd think you'd know that "TDZE plus 100 feet" is already
> >> an MSL number, but it is also close enough to AGL IN THIS CONTEXT.
> >
> >You're full of shit.
>
> Then tell me of a case where TDZE is not on the ground. Just one.
Johnny, you stupid shit. It's not that TDZE isn't on the ground. It's
the fact that TDZE is somewhere in the first 3000' of the landing
runway, and you don't know where it is, given the terrain features of a
lot of airports. It's also the fact that you are not authorized to
descend to 100' AGL. The regs specifically state TDZE.
> >> Where did I say there was a need to?
> >
> >You brought it up, I didn't.
>
> Where did I say there was a need to?
You brought it up, I didn't.
> >> Goodbye Norm. Harass someone else.
> >
> >Gosh. I thought you wanted some education.
>
> I do, but you aren't capable.
Are you that stupid?
Norm Melick
Ron Natalie
Norm Melick wrote:
>
>
> Problem is Johnny, in your example using RWY 10L at KPDX, you don't have
> the ALS to allow you to descend to 100' above TDZE. That's the truth.
>
How so? According to my directory it has MALSR.
Mark Kramer
Norm Melick <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Hmmm. Sorry, Norm, that's a lie. My charts show a MALSR.
>
>What's a lie? KPDX does not have the ALS system that has the red side
>row bars or the red terminating bars that you need to descend to 100'
>above touchdown zone elevation. Your the liar.
You do not need an ALS with red side bars or red terminating bars to
descend to 100' HAT, you need them and to see them to descend BELOW
100' HAT if you haven't seen any of the other things on the list.
And 'your' an illiterate moron.
>Now your learning.
Write complete sentences. What about his learning?
>> I don't need an ALS to descend to 100' HAT.
>
>You do if your using the ALS system as a reference, which started this
>thread, which 10L at KPDX does not.
10L has a MALSR, which gets you to 100' HAT. Why don't you read the
regs and stop making a fool out of yourself?
>Stick to the thread Johnny, and stop your crawfishing.
My God, Norm actually used the possesive 'your' the correct way. Must
be random chance.
>Johnny, you stupid shit.
Pot. Kettle.
>The regs specifically state TDZE.
The regs specifically state "100 feet above touchdown zone elevation",
not "100 more feet", too. If you don't allow anyone else to say things
that mean the same thing, then you don't get to either.
>Are you that stupid?
Don't you mean "are your that stupid?"
The fact that you CAN make a fool of yourself in public doesn't mean
you have to do it so often, Norm. Why don't you go down to the daycare
center and have a nice game of Chutes and Ladders and leave the adults
alone to discuss the serious stuff? That's a good boy, now.
aterpster
John Stanley wrote:
> In article <3BED4E01...@hotmail.com>,
> aterpster <ater...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Norm Melick
> How so? According to my directory it has MALSR.
Doug Barr wrote:
"Was this on an ILS? I believe (correct me if I am wrong), if you can
see the lights at the DH, then you can go down another 100'."
I answered:
"1. You must be continually in a position to land using a normal rate of
descent and normal maneuvering.
2. Flight visibility must not be less than that specified for the SIAP.
3. You may not descend below 100 feet above TZDE using the approach
light system as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red
side row bars are distinctly visible and identifiable."
"The sequence would be to acquire the approach lights, then at DH,
descend no lower than 100 more feet, and if the red terminating bars or
the red side row bars do not come into view, go missed. Not all approach
lights have the the red terminating bars or the red side row bars, so
knowing the ALS is critical."
My answer to him was clearly based on descending to 100' above touchdown
zone elevation using the ALS. 91.175(c)(3)(i) says that the pilot may
not descend below 100' above the TDZE using the approach lights as a
reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side row bars are
also distinctly visible and identifiable.
John Stanely wrote:
"Wrong. You can descend to 100 AGL. There is a whole list of things that
allow this if you can see them."
This is wrong, and I told him so. I wrote back:
"Wrong. You descend to 100' above TDZE."
He wrote back:
Please provide an example of where the TDZ is not on the ground."
Two people wrote back and attempted to explain to him what TDZE was, and
he refuses to understand.
Clearly, we were initially speaking of descending to 100' above TDZE
using the ALS. Johnny tried to muddy the waters using the ILS 10R at
KPDX. That is when I pointed out to him that the ALS system at KPDX
doesn't have the red terminating bars or the red side row bars.
Therefore, you can't use the 10R ALS at KPDX to descend to 100' above
TDZE. As I said before, not all approach lights have the the red
terminating bars or the red side row bars, so knowing the ALS is
critical.
Norm Melick
Norm Melick
Hey shit for brains. Glad you can join us.
> You do not need an ALS with red side bars or red terminating bars to
> descend to 100' HAT, you need them and to see them to descend BELOW
> 100' HAT if you haven't seen any of the other things on the list.
I wrote:
1. You must be continually in a position to land using a normal rate of
descent and normal maneuvering.
2. Flight visibility must not be less than that specified for the SIAP.
3. You may not descend below 100 feet above TZDE using the approach
light system as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red
side row bars are distinctly visible and identifiable.
Which part do you not understand, moron?
> And 'your' an illiterate moron.
>
> >Now your learning.
>
> Write complete sentences. What about his learning?
You mean his lack of learning. What about it?
> >> I don't need an ALS to descend to 100' HAT.
> >
> >You do if your using the ALS system as a reference, which started this
> >thread, which 10L at KPDX does not.
>
> 10L has a MALSR, which gets you to 100' HAT. Why don't you read the
> regs and stop making a fool out of yourself?
10L doesn't have the red terminating bars or the red side row bars
needed to descend to 100' above TDZE, NOT 100" AGL as Johnny mistakenly
posted. Framilarize yourself with 91.175 and comprehend the reg before
you come out here with your pants unzipped, moron.
> >Stick to the thread Johnny, and stop your crawfishing.
>
> My God, Norm actually used the possesive 'your' the correct way. Must be random chance.
You're never know.
>
> >Johnny, you stupid shit.
>
> Pot. Kettle.
I know the difference between TDZE, HAT and AGL
> >The regs specifically state TDZE.
>
> The regs specifically state "100 feet above touchdown zone elevation",
I know, I've already pointed that out too you and Johnny. Do you have a
reading comprehension problem, or are you as stupid as Johnny boy to?
> not "100 more feet", too.
If you arrive at 200' HAT, depending onconditions, you may descend 100
more feet. It's third grade math, but I guess you would have actually
gone two third grade too know that.
> If you don't allow anyone else to say things that mean the same thing, then you don't get to either.
Johnny use of AGL when TDZE is specifically in the regs and known two
current and competent instrument rated pilots is the issue.
> >Are you that stupid?
>
> Don't you mean "are your that stupid?"
No. I was going to ask you if you were that stupid, but I see that you
are.
> The fact that you CAN make a fool of yourself in public doesn't mean you have to do it so often, Norm.
It's obvious that the fools are you and Johnny, Marky boy. What is
hilarious to me is that you and Johnny boy jumped in too a thread that
you obviously know nothing about, and made a fool of yourselves, by your
own choice. Now that's funny.
> Why don't you go down to the daycare center and have a nice game of Chutes and Ladders and leave the adults
> alone to discuss the serious stuff?
Bbcause I understand that you and Johnny don't play well with others and
destroyed the games for the other kids. They sent you too morons to the
time out corner, so when you get out, maybe we'll have that game of
yours. Until then zip up your pants like your mommy taught you two, and
reflect upon how stupid and ignorant you too dopes acted.
Norm Melick
Robert M. Gary
>
> In article <3BEC0AF7.99223ED3@nospam_osi.com>,
> Robert M. Gary <robert.gary@nospam_osi.com> wrote:
> >BARR DOUG wrote:
> >>
> >> Was this on an ILS? I believe (correct me if I am wrong), if you can see
> >> the lights at the DH, then you can go down another 100'.
> >
>
> Wrong. You can descend to 100 AGL.
No, you cannot go down to 100 AGL, only 100 above TDZE which
would not be 100 AGL until AFTER you crossed over the touch down zone.
You can go down to 100 above TDZE while over the approach lights
(at which point you will likely NOT be 100 AGL).
> There is a whole list of things that
> allow this if you can see them.
A long list of 1 item. :)
Ron Natalie
> Clearly, we were initially speaking of descending to 100' above TDZE
> using the ALS. Johnny tried to muddy the waters using the ILS 10R at
> KPDX. That is when I pointed out to him that the ALS system at KPDX
> doesn't have the red terminating bars or the red side row bars.
> Therefore, you can't use the 10R ALS at KPDX to descend to 100' above
> TDZE. As I said before, not all approach lights have the the red
> terminating bars or the red side row bars, so knowing the ALS is
> critical.
>
There is NO such requirement. You can use any approach lighting
system to descend to 100 above the TDZE. The requirement for
the terminating/side bar is to use the approach light system
to descend past that point, as approach lights. In the case
where there are no such bars, you'll have to miss at 100 unless
you have one of the other nine elements of the runway environment
(plus have the required visibilities and being in a position to
land...).
Robert M. Gary
>
> In article <3BF16939.C0FC4BCC@nospam_osi.com>,
> Robert M. Gary <robert.gary@nospam_osi.com> jumps into the discussion
> late:
> >No, you cannot go down to 100 AGL, only 100 above TDZE which
>
> is on the ground, and since the only way of knowing the limit for most
> people is to add 100 to the TDZE and read it off the altimeter -- which
> results in the exactly correct number no matter what you call it. It's
> close enough in this context, whereas "100 more feet" is not found in any
> FAR I know of and results in the wrong answer for any approach where
> the MDA or DH is not at 200' HAT.
>
I call "above ground" to be in reference to the ground below me,
not the ground up ahead at the touch down zone area.
> >> There is a whole list of things that
> >> allow this if you can see them.
> >
> >A long list of 1 item. :)
>
> Really? You mean you cannot descend to 100' HAT if you see the
> threshold, the threshold lighting, the threshold marking, REILs, TDZE
> markings, or any of the other things on this "long list of 1 item" that
> you seem to think exists? Maybe you need to read past the one section
> that mentions the ALS as just one item that allows descent below DH or
> MDA.
No, we were talking about what you need to see in order to leave
the DH and go down to 100 above TDZE. There is only one requirement
for that. If you see all the other stuff you do not need to worry
about the TDZE.
Norm Melick
> There is NO such requirement. You can use any approach lighting
> system to descend to 100 above the TDZE. The requirement for
> the terminating/side bar is to use the approach light system
> to descend past that point, as approach lights. In the case
> where there are no such bars, you'll have to miss at 100 unless
> you have one of the other nine elements of the runway environment
> (plus have the required visibilities and being in a position to
> land...).
There IS a requirement, and I'll give you the courtesy of one more
response.
I initially said:
1. You must be continually in a position to land using a normal rate of
descent and normal maneuvering.
2. Flight visibility must not be less than that specified for the SIAP.
3. You may not descend below 100 feet above TZDE using the approach
light system as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red
side row bars are distinctly visible and identifiable.
The sequence would be to acquire the approach lights, then at DH,
descend no lower than 100 more feet, and if the red terminating bars or
the red side row bars do not come into view, go missed. Not all approach
lights have the red terminating bars or the red side row bars, so
knowing the ALS is critical.
Since the MALSR for 10L at KPDX doesn't have the red terminating bars or
the red side row bars, you can't use the red bars to descend below 100'
TDZE.
Now which friggin part don't you understand?
Norm Melick
Ron Natalie
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:
>
> John Stanley wrote:
> >
> > In article <3BEC0AF7.99223ED3@nospam_osi.com>,
> > Robert M. Gary <robert.gary@nospam_osi.com> wrote:
> > >BARR DOUG wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Was this on an ILS? I believe (correct me if I am wrong), if you can see
> > >> the lights at the DH, then you can go down another 100'.
> > >
> > >Correct,
> >
> > Wrong. You can descend to 100 AGL.
>
> No, you cannot go down to 100 AGL, only 100 above TDZE which
> would not be 100 AGL until AFTER you crossed over the touch down zone.
> You can go down to 100 above TDZE while over the approach lights
> (at which point you will likely NOT be 100 AGL).
>
Ever flown into Morgantown, WV (MGW). I certainly wouldn't want
to be at 100 AGL over the approach lights. They are on huge poles,
there is a giant hole off the end of the runway.
Ron Natalie
> 3. You may not descend below 100 feet above TZDE using the approach
> light system as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red
> side row bars are distinctly visible and identifiable.
>
> the red side row bars, you can't use the red bars to descend below 100'
> TDZE.
That's right, but you hare revising what you said. Here are your exact words
from the message I was responding to ( 3BF04B2A...@worldnet.att.net>):
Problem is Johnny, in your example using RWY 10L at KPDX, you don't have
the ALS to allow you to descend to 100' above TDZE. That's the truth.
You didn't say DESCEND BELOW, you said DESCEND TO.
Norm Melick
Whoops. Yes, it should have said below. Sorry.
Norm
Robert M. Gary
>
> In article <3BF1725E.40D1BDEA@nospam_osi.com>,
> Robert M. Gary <robert.gary@nospam_osi.com> wrote:
> >John Stanley wrote:
> >> In article <3BF16939.C0FC4BCC@nospam_osi.com>,
> >>
> >> >> allow this if you can see them.
>
>
> >> Really? You mean you cannot descend to 100' HAT if you see the
> >> threshold, the threshold lighting, the threshold marking, REILs, TDZE
> >No,
>
> Yes. Read the regulations and see what they PERMIT. The statement at
> issue is what they permit, not what they prohibit. Read each sub
> paragraph and ask yourself "if I see the thing listed in this sub
> paragraph, may I descend to 100' HAT?"
If you see the other things there is no 100 TDZE limit.
Robert M. Gary
>
> In article <3BF1A002.9ADA92EA@nospam_osi.com>,
> but "does this allow a descent TO 100' HAT?" ALL TEN items allow such a
> descent. The claim was that there is a "list of 1 item" that allowed a
> descent to 100' HAT. That's wrong. There's 10 items. All of them allow
> it. All but one allow further descent without additional constraints,
> but they ALL allow it to 100' HAT.
>
> If you come up with the answer "no" for that question for any of the
> ten, you have a problem comprehending the regs and you should talk to
> someone about it.
Only the situation in which you only see the approach lights produces
a 100 TDZE limit. The others do not. I still don't know what
it is you are missing.
Mark Kramer
Norm Melick <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Clearly, we were initially speaking of descending to 100' above TDZE
>using the ALS. Johnny tried to muddy the waters using the ILS 10R at
>KPDX. That is when I pointed out to him that the ALS system at KPDX
>doesn't have the red terminating bars or the red side row bars.
>Therefore, you can't use the 10R ALS at KPDX to descend to 100' above
>TDZE.
Norm, you moron, there is no word in the FAR that says the approach
lighting system must have red terminating or side bars for you to be
able to descend to 100' HAT.
The limit is on descending BELOW 100' HAT. Do you need someone to
teach you the difference between TO and BELOW, or can you figure it out
on your own?
Or are you going to post more insults claiming that you actually said
"below" when the quote shows you clearly saying "to"?
Mark Kramer
Norm Melick <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Ron Natalie wrote:
>
>> There is NO such requirement. You can use any approach lighting
>> system to descend to 100 above the TDZE.
>
>response.
Courtesy from Norm, How novel. Now provide any reference to such a
requirement. Oh, wait, you don't understand the difference between TO
and BELOW, so the FARs confuse you.
Does anyone know of a source of FARs translated into kindergarten level
English so Normy can learn how the rule?
>I initially said:
>
>The sequence would be to acquire the approach lights, then at DH,
>descend no lower than 100 more feet,
Wrong. At DH, you can descend to 100' HAT. Not "100 more feet". "100
more feet" appears nowhere in the regs.
Mark Kramer
Norm Melick <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Mark Kramer wrote:
>> 10L has a MALSR, which gets you to 100' HAT. Why don't you read the
>> regs and stop making a fool out of yourself?
>
>10L doesn't have the red terminating bars or the red side row bars
>needed to descend to 100' above TDZE, NOT 100" AGL as Johnny mistakenly
>posted. Framilarize yourself with 91.175 and comprehend the reg before
>you come out here with your pants unzipped, moron.
Quote any section of the FAR which says that you must have an ALS with red
side bars or terminating bars in order to descend to 100 feet HAT. Seeing
the MALSR gets you to 100' HAT. The fact that it has no red side bars
has nothing to do with that.
Moron.
>I know the difference between TDZE, HAT and AGL
That's nice. Have you figured out TO and BELOW yet?
>I know, I've already pointed that out too you and Johnny. Do you have a
>reading comprehension problem, or are you as stupid as Johnny boy to?
>
>> not "100 more feet", too.
>
>If you arrive at 200' HAT,
Which may not be the DH or MDA.
>depending onconditions, you may descend 100 more feet.
It's possible you cannot have descended to 200' HAT, but if you assume
someone is going to descend to 200' no matter what the DH or MDA is,
then I guess telling them they can go donw "100 more feet" isn't a big
deal.
>It's third grade math, but I guess you would have actually
>gone two third grade too know that.
And 91.175 is seventh grade English, but you still keep saying that you
need red bars on an ALS to be able to descend to 100' HAT.
>Johnny use of AGL when TDZE is specifically in the regs and known two
>current and competent instrument rated pilots is the issue.
No, your repeated use of "100 more feet" when "100 feet above touchdown
zone elevation" is specifically in the regs is the issue, and your
repeated claims that a MALSR is insufficient to allow a descent to that
100 feet HAT.
>destroyed the games for the other kids. They sent you too morons to the
Problems with "two" and "too" aren't unusual in illiterate people,
especially those who have problems with "your" and "you're", and "to"
and "below".
>reflect upon how stupid and ignorant you too dopes acted.
Not once but twice in the same paragraph.
Norm Melick
>
> In article <3BF1778A...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Norm Melick <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Ron Natalie wrote:
> >
> >> There is NO such requirement. You can use any approach lighting
> >> system to descend to 100 above the TDZE.
> >
> >There IS a requirement, and I'll give you the courtesy of one more
> >response.
>
> Courtesy from Norm, How novel. Now provide any reference to such a
> requirement. Oh, wait, you don't understand the difference between TO
> and BELOW, so the FARs confuse you.
Take you're meds, shit for brains. Then go get a pilot certificate.
> Does anyone know of a source of FARs translated into kindergarten level
> English so Normy can learn how the rule?
Oooh, Oooh Gee Marky, that hurt! What a shit head.
> >I initially said:
> >
> >The sequence would be to acquire the approach lights, then at DH,
> >descend no lower than 100 more feet,
>
> Wrong. At DH, you can descend to 100' HAT. Not "100 more feet".
If you had the reading skills of a 6th grader, you'd know that In my
example, we descended to 200' HAT. 100' feet lower would be 100" HAT,
which makes that example correct. Stop drooling over your computer,
invest in an Evelynn Woods reading dynamics course, then come back when
you can talk without spitting on yourself.
> "100 more feet" appears nowhere in the regs.
Where do I say that it does, shit head?
Come on back Marky, I'm loving smacking you around this NG.
Norm Melick
Norm Melick
Marky, you little dickhead, zip up your pants. Your embarrasing
yourself.
When you get a pilots' certificate, come back.
Norm Melick
Norm Melick
Marky, after reading all you're dribble, I've come to the conclusion
that your a 7 year old that needs a burping and a spanking. When you
grow up, you can come back and tell us all about your experiences flying
instruments using MS98.
Until then, you're comments do nothing more than show me what kind of
pathetic little dickhead you are.
Norm Melic
St Stephen
Let me ask you this, why did you go below?...Were you trying to sneak below
a low ceiling intentionally or were you momentarily fixated on one
instrument and descended too low?...I'll offer my best advise pending that
answer...
For now, fill out a NASA form and kick yourself in the ass...The tapes don't
show when you broke out, but since you're confessing, fill out the form,
live and learn from it...
--
Blue skies,
Stephen Ames
CFII, MEI, EIEIO
http://www.stephenames.com/flying/flying.html
"Paul Anderson" <paul...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B80F6EA5.13544%paul...@hotmail.com...
> I'm not positive, but I'm pretty certain I descended below minimums (maybe
> fifty or a hundred feet) to make a landing in heavy fog the other day.
Tower
> didn't have anything to say about it, but should I be worried about
> receiving a letter or phone call from the FAA? Wouldn't my altitude and
> position be on a radar tape somewhere?
>
> What are the consequences (other than the obvious -- crashing and dying)
of
> descending below minimums?
>
> Should I be working on my "get out of jail, free" NASA form?
>
>
William W. Plummer
prosecuting the offender. The ASRS form must be filed within 10 days of the
incident and at least a year from any prior filing. So, in this case, I
recommend against filing an ASRS. --Bill
"St Stephen" <ste...@stephenames.com> wrote in message
news:QQaL7.2957$eT3.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
St Stephen
Not familiar with this limitation and I couldn't find this in the
limitations section of the reporting system website, can you refer me to the
source of this?...
I need to hear his answer to why he went below before we can determine if
their is sin or not...
> I recommend against filing an ASRS. --Bill
I believe this is exactly what they want to hear about, whether it was with
malice or not...This is a pilot perrogative although I can appreciate your
recommendation...Happy Thanksgiving!
Blue skies,
Stephen Ames
CFII, MEI, EIEIO
http://www.stephenames.com/flying/flying.html
"William W. Plummer" <wplu...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:17bL7.22249$e55.4...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
William W. Plummer
the one-per-year limit. Please contact NASA for the true poop. It may be
on the form, but I don't have one handy.
However, if you "got away with something", why blow the opportunity to do it
again? The next time it might be serious.
Yes, NASA is interested in all safety-related incidents, but the FAA/NTSB
want to prosecute anything. --Bill
"St Stephen" <ste...@stephenames.com> wrote in message
news:ikbL7.3033$eT3.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Stan Prevost
"John Stanley" <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote in message
news:9tjut3$bg3$1...@news.orst.edu...
>
> 2. FAA policies regarding the ASRS are covered by Advisory Circular
> 00-46C,
Rev. D is current, otherwise that is a good reference.
> FAR 91.25, and paragraph 2-38 in the "Facility Operations and
> Administration" Handbook (7210.3M).
Current version is R with Change 3. There is no paragraph 2-38 in FAA Order
7210.3R, and I can find nothing in the Order relating to ASRS or waiver of
penalties that is applicable to pilots. Paragraph 2-2-10 references ASRS in
respect to facility personnel.
The waiver of penalties is subject
> to the following limitations: (A) the alleged violation must be
> inadvertent and not deliberate, (B) it must not reveal an event subject
> to Section 609 of the Federal Aviation Act, (C) the reporter must not
> have been found guilty of a violation of the FAR's or the Federal
> Aviation Act during the preceeding five years, and (D) the ASRS report
> must be submitted within 10 days of the event.
Stan Prevost
W.A.
wrote:
>I think it points out the weakness of training in foggles.
Nope. Points out the weakness in your training.