no final approach fix
Curtis Suter
but you may get flight following while performing it VFR. A nonprecision
approach doesn't need to have a FAF and no timing will be given. What is a
FAF needed for?
You are absolutely correct.
--
Curtis "Tailwind" Suter, MSgt, USAF (Active)
CPL-ASEL-IA
AGI
sut...@as.net
http://www.as.net/~suterc
<el...@poboxes.com> wrote in message news:8cbm5s$jv9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> My instructor claims that all approaches have a FAF. When asked about an
> on-airport NDB approach (e.g. Lancaster, CA) where there is no
> 'indicated' FAF, he replied that the FAF is wherever you intercept the
> final approach course. This seems to violate the TERPS rule that a FAF
> has to be identified to within 2 miles (but this is also a problem for
> an ILS).
> My question: Does every approach have an FAF? Where is the FAF for
> Lancaster? If possible, it would be good if you could cite your source.
> While we're at it, he also claims that one could never get vectors for
> an on-airport NDB approach. Anyone have experience to the contrary?
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Curtis Suter
Maybe the instructor is confused about the Final Approach Fix (FAF) and the
Intermediate Approach Segment.
An approach is made up of several segments:
Feeder routes
Initial Approach Segment
Intermediate Approach Segment
Final Approach Segment
Missed Approach Segment
The Feeder routes take you from the Enroute fix to the Initial Approach
Segment which will contain your IAF. The Intermediate Approach Segment
begins at a point where you're aligned with the final approach course. The
Final Approach Segment contains the FAF. When a FAF is not depicted this
point normally begins where the procedure turn intersects the final approach
course inbound. The Final Approach Segment ends at the MAP.
Hope this clears it up.
Curtis
PS While speaking of the KWJF NDB procedure I have a question. The hold is
depicted NE of the field, ie protected airspace. However, the procedure
turn is West of the field. If in the hold and cleared for the approach,
would you turn NE of the NDB and then intercept the course outbound or SE
and then intercept the course. IMHO I'd turn in the direction of the hold
then intercept the course outbound and then fly the charted procedure turn.
Normally you could also just extend the outbound leg of the hold for two
minutes or stay within 10nm and then turn left and intercept inbound, but I
think that you'd lose you're protected airspace at the procedure turn side.
Probably doesn't matter much as the mountains won't come up and get you at
10nm but it's a good conversation piece.
Curtis Suter <sut...@as.net> wrote in message
news:8cbo79$il6$1...@madmax.keyway.net...
Terpster
el...@poboxes.com wrote:
>
> My instructor claims that all approaches have a FAF. When asked about an
> on-airport NDB approach (e.g. Lancaster, CA) where there is no
> 'indicated' FAF, he replied that the FAF is wherever you intercept the
> final approach course. This seems to violate the TERPS rule that a FAF
> has to be identified to within 2 miles (but this is also a problem for
> an ILS).
TERPS Rule from 8260.3 paragraph 287c
For a fix to be satisfactroy for use as a FAF,
the fix error should not exceed plus or minus 1 mile
It may be as large as plus or minus 2 miles when:
(1) The MAP is marked by overheadIng an air
navigation facility (except 75 MHz markers); OR
(2) A buffer of equal length to the excessive fix
error is provided between the published MAP and the
point where the missed approach surface begins
This is not a problem with the ILS because the ILS does not have a FAF.
Only a GSIP so the rules are different.
> My question: Does every approach have an FAF? Where is the FAF for
> Lancaster? If possible, it would be good if you could cite your source.
A FAF is not required for every type of approach. For this approach the
specialist applied 8260.3 chapter 6 at a minimum. For additional
information on where a FAF is not required I would suggest you download
the order.
J C
>
> el...@poboxes.com wrote:
> >
> > My instructor claims that all approaches have a FAF. When asked about an
> > on-airport NDB approach (e.g. Lancaster, CA) where there is no
> > 'indicated' FAF, he replied that the FAF is wherever you intercept the
> > final approach course. This seems to violate the TERPS rule that a FAF
> > has to be identified to within 2 miles (but this is also a problem for
> > an ILS).
> > Lancaster? If possible, it would be good if you could cite your source.
> > an on-airport NDB approach. Anyone have experience to the contrary?
>
> Municipal Airport in Enid, OK had a non-precision approach that didn't
> have an FAF. After you flew the procedure turn and were established
> inbound (and configured), you were cleared to descend to the MDA.
> (Of course, there is always the possibility that I'm smoking crack
> on that one. ;-) )
>
> For an ILS, the FAF is glideslope intercept.
>
> S. Gahring
Have to agree with Shawn ... not all approaches have a "formal" FAF. For
precision approaches, glideslope intercept is the FAF.
For non-precision approaches of the kind where one flies to the navaid, then
outbound (and there might be a descent to an intermediate altitude here), then a
course reversal, then intercept the final approach course, then descend to the
MDA, then fly back to the navaid on the airport ... there certainly is no FAF.
And, like Shawn, I'm not a TERPS expert, but IIRC there's provision in TERPS for
this kind of non-precision approach.
A FAF isn't as important here because the approaches are not timed.
There used to be a VOR approach to Johnson County Executive airport (OJC), south
of Kansas City, that was like this -- maybe there still is. And indeed, one
could be vectored to the final approach course, because we were! And in the
snow, too.
JC Boylls
el...@poboxes.com
on-airport NDB approach (e.g. Lancaster, CA) where there is no
'indicated' FAF, he replied that the FAF is wherever you intercept the
final approach course. This seems to violate the TERPS rule that a FAF
has to be identified to within 2 miles (but this is also a problem for
an ILS).
My question: Does every approach have an FAF? Where is the FAF for
Lancaster? If possible, it would be good if you could cite your source.
While we're at it, he also claims that one could never get vectors for
an on-airport NDB approach. Anyone have experience to the contrary?
Shawn D. Gahring
While I'm not a TERPS expert, it seems to me that the Woodring
Garner Miller
> My instructor claims that all approaches have a FAF.
Your instructor is incorrect. Many approaches, the on-airport NDB in
your example, have only a Final Approach *Point*. Reference the
Pilot/Controller Glossary in the AIM:
==
FINAL APPROACH POINT- The point, applicable only to a nonprecision
approach with no depicted FAF (such as an on airport VOR), where the
aircraft is established inbound on the final approach course from the
procedure turn and where the final approach descent may be commenced.
The FAP serves as the FAF and identifies the beginning of the final
approach segment.
==
As it says, the FAP *serves* as a FAF, it's not a FAF. Minor point, but
I'd point him to this part of the AIM. Also reference the Glossary's
definition of Segments of An Instrument Approach (emphasis is mine):
==
c. Final Approach- The segment between the final approach fix OR POINT
and the runway, airport, or missed approach point.
==
> While we're at it, he also claims that one could never get vectors
> for an on-airport NDB approach. Anyone have experience to the contrary?
Never tried it, but I see his logic there -- since you'd be simply
intercepting the final approach course, you'd have no idea how far you
were from the NDB, and thus wouldn't know if you were withing the
"Remain Within XX NM" distance to know it's safe to drop down. So
unless it's an NDB with DME (pretty rare), I think he's right.
--
Garner R. Miller, CFII/MEI
Pilot, US Airways Express, Portland, ME
Please DO NOT cc: your newsgroup message to my e-mail.
Unknown
>My instructor claims that all approaches have a FAF. When asked about an
>on-airport NDB approach (e.g. Lancaster, CA) where there is no
>'indicated' FAF, he replied that the FAF is wherever you intercept the
>final approach course. This seems to violate the TERPS rule that a FAF
>has to be identified to within 2 miles (but this is also a problem for
>an ILS).
>My question: Does every approach have an FAF? Where is the FAF for
>Lancaster? If possible, it would be good if you could cite your source.
>While we're at it, he also claims that one could never get vectors for
>an on-airport NDB approach. Anyone have experience to the contrary?
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Actuially, I believe the point at which you intercept inbound is
technically called a Final Approach Point where there is no FAF.
I think you can find it in the AIM glossary.
Roy Smith
>> While we're at it, he also claims that one could never get vectors
>> for an on-airport NDB approach. Anyone have experience to the contrary?
>
> intercepting the final approach course, you'd have no idea how far you
> were from the NDB, and thus wouldn't know if you were withing the
> "Remain Within XX NM" distance to know it's safe to drop down.
I would have assumed that you'd be vectored onto the FAP inbound, and the radar
controller could give you a radar fix when you were within the XX NM range.
Seems plausable. Whether TERPS allows it or not, I have no idea.
--
Roy Smith <r...@popmail.med.nyu.edu>
CP-ASEL-IA, CFI-ASE-IA
Unknown
What does TERPS have to do with vectoring???
Anyway it seems to me I've been vectored more than once on an approach
with no FAF.
As far as "remaining within xx miles" is concerned, why would that be
any different from any other approach?
But it is a good question for one of the controllers here. Where is
the "gate", if there is any, for vectoring onto an approach with no
FAF?????
andrew m. boardman
>While we're at it, he also claims that one could never get vectors for
>an on-airport NDB approach. Anyone have experience to the contrary?
Yes, though it requires an approach with final approach fix. On an
approach *without* a FAF, they can't just vector you to the inbound course
and say, "ok, you're within 10 miles, go to it", or at least, the
approach controller at PWM I once asked about this said they couldn't.
Steven P. McNicoll
> an on-airport NDB approach. Anyone have experience to the contrary?
>
He's wrong, aircraft are vectored for such approaches routinely.
Garner Miller
> Anyway it seems to me I've been vectored more than once on an approach
> with no FAF.
>
> As far as "remaining within xx miles" is concerned, why would that be
> any different from any other approach?
But how would you know how far out you were? (Unless the controller
says "You're 12 miles from the NDB, maintain 2,000 until established on
the final approach course, cleared NDB XX approach." But I've never
heard of them doing such a thing with an on-field navaid.)
Normally with a navaid on the field, you fly to the navaid, go out for
some time, then turn around and come back in. By knowing your
approximate groundspeed, you'll know how far you are from the navaid
when you turn around, so you'll know if you're within the safe distance.
But if you're vectored to final, you have no way to know how far out you
are. When do you descend to MDA? If the approach has DME it would
simplify things, but I don't know a whole lot of NDBs that have it.
Roy Smith
> Normally with a navaid on the field, you fly to the navaid, go out for
> some time, then turn around and come back in. By knowing your
> approximate groundspeed, you'll know how far you are from the navaid
> when you turn around, so you'll know if you're within the safe distance.
>
> But if you're vectored to final, you have no way to know how far out you
> are.
Something doesn't jive there. You're allowed to DR your way through a PT within
XX NM, but a radar controller can't give you a radar fix after vectoring you
inbound?
I don't doubt that it's true, but it seems kind of silly.
Unknown
When you are vectored onto any course, ATC knows exactly how far out
you are. How does a FAF make any difference?. ATC can always give
your position relative to some other fix, such as the NDB. Remaining
some distance for a procedure turn is based on some IAF, and has
nothing to do with vectors.
Let's say you are on an NDB approach with an FAF. Why would
vectoring present a different problem?
I think the problem would be in ATC's knowing where to put you because
they have no gate from the FAF, but I think that's going to be a
problem of being too close, as opposed to being too far.
Where the hell is McNicoll when you need him???
er Miller) wrote:
>
>> Anyway it seems to me I've been vectored more than once on an approach
>> with no FAF.
>>
>> As far as "remaining within xx miles" is concerned, why would that be
>> any different from any other approach?
>
>But how would you know how far out you were? (Unless the controller
>says "You're 12 miles from the NDB, maintain 2,000 until established on
>the final approach course, cleared NDB XX approach." But I've never
>heard of them doing such a thing with an on-field navaid.)
>
>Normally with a navaid on the field, you fly to the navaid, go out for
>some time, then turn around and come back in. By knowing your
>approximate groundspeed, you'll know how far you are from the navaid
>when you turn around, so you'll know if you're within the safe distance.
>
>But if you're vectored to final, you have no way to know how far out you
Chuck Forsberg
andrew m. boardman <a...@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <8cbm5s$jv9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <el...@poboxes.com> wrote:
>>an on-airport NDB approach. Anyone have experience to the contrary?
>
>approach *without* a FAF, they can't just vector you to the inbound course
>and say, "ok, you're within 10 miles, go to it", or at least, the
>approach controller at PWM I once asked about this said they couldn't.
Bremerton Washington has an NDB approach with the NDB on field.
I was looking forward to practicing the entire approach on my
IFR XC. But it was not to be - I got vectors instead.
I have a hunch that if I ever need to shoot the NDB approach into
Eagle River Wisconsin I'll be too low to show up on a radar scope
in Green Bay.
--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX PP-ASEL/HP Skylane N2469R c...@omen.COM
Omen Technology Inc The High Reliability Software www.omen.com
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, RZ, SZ, Pro-YAM, ZCOMM, GSZ, and DSZ
TeleGodzilla BBS: 503-617-1698 FTP: ftp.cs.pdx.edu pub/zmodem
POB 4681 Portland OR 97208 503-614-0430 FAX:503-629-0665
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Unknown
<ronca...@writeme.com> wrote:
>
><el...@poboxes.com> wrote in message news:8cbm5s$jv9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>
>> While we're at it, he also claims that one could never get vectors for
>> an on-airport NDB approach. Anyone have experience to the contrary?
>>
>
>He's wrong, aircraft are vectored for such approaches routinely.
>
>
>
Hey, he finally showed up.
Now tell us how you determine where to vector an aircrft onto a course
without a FAF???
Newps
>
> But how would you know how far out you were? (Unless the controller
> says "You're 12 miles from the NDB, maintain 2,000 until established on
> the final approach course, cleared NDB XX approach." But I've never
> heard of them doing such a thing with an on-field navaid.)
With the exception of some of the GPS approaches you should always be
given a mileage from a relavant fix when you are vectored.
Steven P. McNicoll
"andrew m. boardman" <a...@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:8ccvgb$ngk$1...@traf.lcs.mit.edu...
>
> Yes, though it requires an approach with final approach fix.
>
Anybody out there ever flown IFR to the EAA convention? Where's the FAF on
the VOR RWY 27 at OSH?
>
> On an approach *without* a FAF, they can't just vector you to the inbound
> course and say, "ok, you're within 10 miles, go to it", or at least, the
> approach controller at PWM I once asked about this said they couldn't.
>
The approach gate is an imaginary point used within ATC as a basis for
vectoring aircraft to the final approach course. The approach gate is
located on the FAC one mile from the outer marker/FAF on the side away from
the airport, but never closer than 5 miles from the landing threshold. For
approaches without a FAF, such as an on-field VOR or NDB, the approach gate
is five miles from the landing threshold. FAA Order 7110.65 requires the
controller to assign headings that will permit FAC interception on a track
that does not exceed 20 degrees if the distance from the interception point
to the approach gate is less than 2 miles. If the distance is 2 miles or
greater, the maximum interception angle is thirty degrees (45 degrees for
helicopters).
An approach clearance would be something like this, "Waco 45A, 12 miles
southeast of Oshkosh VOR, turn left heading 300, maintain 2,800 until
established on the final approach course, cleared VOR RWY 27 approach".
Steven P. McNicoll
<machogrande> wrote in message
news:38e9ffbf...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net...
>
> But it is a good question for one of the controllers here. Where is
> the "gate", if there is any, for vectoring onto an approach with no
> FAF?????
>
Five miles from the landing threshold.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Garner Miller" <gar...@netstreet.net> wrote in message
news:1e8jexu.1qb68iw1pvv1tgN%gar...@netstreet.net...
>
> Never tried it, but I see his logic there -- since you'd be simply
> intercepting the final approach course, you'd have no idea how far you
> were from the NDB, and thus wouldn't know if you were withing the
> unless it's an NDB with DME (pretty rare), I think he's right.
>
The controller must issue position information relative to the navaid which
provides final approach guidance, or relative to the airport.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> But how would you know how far out you were? (Unless the controller
> says "You're 12 miles from the NDB, maintain 2,000 until established on
> the final approach course, cleared NDB XX approach." But I've never
> heard of them doing such a thing with an on-field navaid.)
>
From FAA Order 7110.65M, "Air Traffic Control";
Chapter 5. RADAR;
Section 9. Radar Arrivals;
paragraph 5-9-4:
5-9-4. ARRIVAL INSTRUCTIONS
Issue all of the following to an aircraft before it reaches the approach
gate:
a. Position relative to a fix on the final approach course. If none is
portrayed on the radar display or if none is prescribed in the procedure,
issue position information relative to the navigation aid which provides
final approach guidance or relative to the airport.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Chuck Forsberg" <c...@agora.rdrop.com> wrote in message
news:38ea247e$1...@news5.newsfeeds.com...
>
> I have a hunch that if I ever need to shoot the NDB approach into
> Eagle River Wisconsin I'll be too low to show up on a radar scope
> in Green Bay.
>
You wouldn't show up on a radar scope in Green Bay at any altitude. But if
you have an operating transponder, you will show up on a radar scope in
Farmington, MN.
Steven P. McNicoll
<machogrande> wrote in message
news:38ea2403...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net...
>
> Now tell us how you determine where to vector an aircrft onto a course
> without a FAF???
>
I imagine a point about nine miles from the field along the FAC, and vector
the aircraft to hit that point with an intercept angle of thirty degrees or
less.
andrew m. boardman
Thanks for the correction. Presumably I misinterpreted what approach was
telling me. Given that, plus good radar coverage and the availability of
vectors for other approaches to the same runway, any ideas why vectors
for an NDB approach would be unavailable?
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Thanks for the correction. Presumably I misinterpreted what approach was
> telling me. Given that, plus good radar coverage and the availability of
> vectors for other approaches to the same runway, any ideas why vectors
> for an NDB approach would be unavailable?
>
Perhaps the FAC was not depicted on the radar map.
C R
>Get a new instructor.
Isn't that a little extreme over a little misunderstanding? Is this
instructor now completely incompetent because he was not %100 correct about
this small point? Just a thought.
CR
Colin Rasmussen
wrote on 4/3/00 09:38 pm:
> Get a new instructor. I fly this approach all the time, it's not authorized
> but you may get flight following while performing it VFR. A nonprecision
> approach doesn't need to have a FAF and no timing will be given. What is a
> FAF needed for?
It gives you a known distance and heading to the runway. Without it you're
never perfectly sure how far you are away. Using a PT you've got a rough
idea, but it's still pretty much a guess.
Colin
Colin Rasmussen
el...@poboxes.com wrote on 4/3/00 09:05 pm:
> My instructor claims that all approaches have a FAF. When asked about an
> on-airport NDB approach (e.g. Lancaster, CA) where there is no
> 'indicated' FAF, he replied that the FAF is wherever you intercept the
> final approach course. This seems to violate the TERPS rule that a FAF
> has to be identified to within 2 miles (but this is also a problem for
> an ILS).
Not true. Canada is full of NDB approaches where the facility is at the
field. There is no FAF in these types of approaches.
> My question: Does every approach have an FAF? Where is the FAF for
> Lancaster? If possible, it would be good if you could cite your source.
> While we're at it, he also claims that one could never get vectors for
> an on-airport NDB approach. Anyone have experience to the contrary?
Why couldn't you??? All vectoring does is set you up in a pattern that ATC
wants to keep everyone following a certain incoming set of paths.
Colin
Colin Rasmussen
4/4/00 11:16 pm:
>
>> Get a new instructor.
>
> Isn't that a little extreme over a little misunderstanding? Is this
> instructor now completely incompetent because he was not %100 correct about
> this small point? Just a thought.
>
> CR
>
>
What other small points is he confused about though.
Colin
Bob Noel
<co...@schizo.usask.ca> wrote:
> What other small points is he confused about though.
but are any of those small points important?
--
Bob
(I think people can figure out how to email me...)
(replace ihatessppaamm with my name (rnoel) and hw1 with mediaone)
machogrande
wrote:
>
>Have to agree with Shawn ... not all approaches have a "formal" FAF. For
>precision approaches, glideslope intercept is the FAF.
>
>For non-precision approaches of the kind where one flies to the navaid, then
>outbound (and there might be a descent to an intermediate altitude here), then a
>course reversal, then intercept the final approach course, then descend to the
>MDA, then fly back to the navaid on the airport ... there certainly is no FAF.
>And, like Shawn, I'm not a TERPS expert, but IIRC there's provision in TERPS for
>this kind of non-precision approach.
>
>A FAF isn't as important here because the approaches are not timed.
I think you have it backwards.
It isn't timed because there is no FAF to time from.
>
>There used to be a VOR approach to Johnson County Executive airport (OJC), south
>of Kansas City, that was like this -- maybe there still is. And indeed, one
>could be vectored to the final approach course, because we were! And in the
>snow, too.
>
>JC Boylls
Steven P. McNicoll
"J C" <jcb#NOSPAM#in...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:38E987FE...@pacbell.net...
>
> For non-precision approaches of the kind where one flies to the navaid,
then
> outbound (and there might be a descent to an intermediate altitude here),
then a
> course reversal, then intercept the final approach course, then descend to
the
> MDA, then fly back to the navaid on the airport ... there certainly is no
FAF.
> And, like Shawn, I'm not a TERPS expert, but IIRC there's provision in
TERPS for
> this kind of non-precision approach.
>
> A FAF isn't as important here because the approaches are not timed.
>
I suppose that's true, but the only reason they are not timed is because
there's no point at which to begin timing.
Roy Smith, CFI
> What other small points is he confused about though.
I'm going to chime in here on the side that says you don't fire an
instructor for flunking a trivia test. And not knowing that not all
approaches have FAFs is indeed trivia.
What is really important is that he teaches you how to fly the approach.
If you show him a plate of a non-FAF approach and he can fly it just
fine, and teach you how to fly it just fine, he's done what he needs to
do.
The real test is what happens when you come back to him at the next
lesson, say, "Hey, I thought about what you said the last time, did some
research, and I think you're wrong". If he insists he's right because
he's the instructor and you're the student, and won't listen to
counter-arguments, no matter how well-founded, then fire him!
--
Roy Smith, CFI-ASE-IA
Curtis Suter
appropriately, which I did in another message only minutes after the first.
I guess I was in one of those moods that I rarely get in and apologize for
that.
Sometimes looking at this computer box takes all the personality out of
life.
Thanks for keeping me honest.
--
Curtis "Tailwind" Suter, MSgt, USAF (Active)
CPL-ASEL-IA
AGI
sut...@as.net
http://www.as.net/~suterc
C R <cf...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:u5KPX2rn$GA.351@cpmsnbbsa04...
Unknown
<roy....@med.nyu.edu> wrote:
>Colin Rasmussen <co...@schizo.usask.ca> wrote:
>> What other small points is he confused about though.
>
>I'm going to chime in here on the side that says you don't fire an
>instructor for flunking a trivia test.
Agree
>And not knowing that not all
>approaches have FAFs is indeed trivia.
Disagree
Mick Ruthven
>southeast of Oshkosh VOR, turn left heading 300, maintain 2,800 until
>established on the final approach course, cleared VOR RWY 27 approach".
We'd know we're 12 miles out at that point and time. But without DME or GPS we
wouldn't know where/when we're at the right point to start down to the MDA. Do
you also routinely give a radar fix for five miles out? As other have said, with
the full procedure we'd use the time outbound to establish an OK point to start
down, but with vectors all we'd have is the "12 miles out" point.
Mick Ruthven
Unknown
I don't understand why you guys are saying that you feel more
comfortable using a stopwatch in a procedure turn to determine your
position than have ATC give you a radar fix of "12 miles out"??
ATC told you to maintain an altitude until established. If you don't
feel comfortable starting down until you are inside the procedure turn
ring, then dead reckkon for the two miles before you start down.
If you can time it out, you can time it in.
>
Steven P. McNicoll
"Mick Ruthven" <mrut...@impact-consult.com> wrote in message
news:8cfhv3$j6d$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> We'd know we're 12 miles out at that point and time. But without DME
> or GPS we wouldn't know where/when we're at the right point to start
> down to the MDA. Do you also routinely give a radar fix for five miles
out?
>
No. What is significant about the point five miles out?
>
> As other have said, with the full procedure we'd use the time outbound to
> establish an OK point to start down, but with vectors all we'd have is the
> "12 miles out" point.
>
You mean to say you can time outbound from the VOR to establish an OK point
to start down, but you can't time inbound from the "12 miles out" point for
the same purpose? Why not?
David Corsi
was learning to fly i made mistakes, when i became a CFI/II/MEI i made
mistakes, and now as a first officer at an airline guess what... i still do.
but i am human and a good pilot. ease off.
Colin Rasmussen <co...@schizo.usask.ca> wrote in message
news:B5104279.4EE8%co...@schizo.usask.ca...
> in article u5KPX2rn$GA.351@cpmsnbbsa04, C R at cf...@email.msn.com wrote on
> 4/4/00 11:16 pm:
>
> >
> >> Get a new instructor.
> >
> > Isn't that a little extreme over a little misunderstanding? Is this
> > instructor now completely incompetent because he was not %100 correct
about
> > this small point? Just a thought.
> >
> > CR
> >
> >
> What other small points is he confused about though.
>
> Colin
>
noS...@hotmail.com
Roy Smith, CFI
> can you please tell me what airline and the nature of the mistakes
Troll.
--
Roy Smith, CFI-ASE-IA