FO Question

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

I thought there was a specific FAR somewhere in 121 that required pilots to back up an approach with ILS guidance if available for a runway.

 

[BobDDuck]

I thought there was a specific FAR somewhere in 121 that required pilots to back up an approach with ILS guidance if available for a runway.

I don't think it's an FAR. Probably in most company's FOMs though.

 

[tiredcfi]

The industry is small, and the internet is not anonymous.

This.

 

[Pichettet1]

 

[pete2800]

That's the best gif I've ever seen. Haha...

 

[Akbush]

This.

This what? One time at band camp?

 

[Autothrust Blue]

@Cherokee_Cruiser

I don't think it's an FAR. Probably in most company's FOMs though.

Yeah, that. It is not, to my knowledge, an FAR (I perused 121T and U before answering - I only have time for a brief study at the moment). The regulations sort of punt (not unjustifiably, mind) on that one - approaches are to be conducted in accordance with Operations Specifications.

 

[z987k]

It's in your SOP, or whatever your company calls it. Not a far, not opspec.

 

[gotWXdagain]

It's ok. When he learns a few seconds too late all about his own personal limitations while in the rollout on runway 13 at STP after an approach from the northwest having been assigned runway 14, we'll all have the last laugh. Maybe we'll stop laughing while they fish him out of the river?

 

[DPApilot]

Akbush, are you a captain?

Doubt it.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

It's in your SOP, or whatever your company calls it. Not a far, not opspec.

There is this:

(e) Minimum altitudes when operating to an airport in Class D airspace.
(1) Unless required by the applicable distance-from-cloud criteria, each pilot operating a large or turbine-powered airplane must enter the traffic pattern at an altitude of at least 1,500 feet above the elevation of the airport and maintain at least 1,500 feet until further descent is required for a safe landing.
(2) Each pilot operating a large or turbine-powered airplane approaching to land on a runway served by an instrument approach procedure with vertical guidance, if the airplane is so equipped, must:
(i) Operate that airplane at an altitude at or above the glide path between the published final approach fix and the decision altitude (DA), or decision height (DH), as applicable; or
(ii) If compliance with the applicable distance-from-cloud criteria requires glide path interception closer in, operate that airplane at or above the glide path, between the point of interception of glide path and the DA or the DH.
(3) Each pilot operating an airplane approaching to land on a runway served by a visual approach slope indicator must maintain an altitude at or above the glide path until a lower altitude is necessary for a safe landing.
(4) Paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this section do not prohibit normal bracketing maneuvers above or below the glide path that are conducted for the purpose of remaining on the glide path.

 

[Deleted member 27505]

This what? One time at band camp?

Is @Akbush really @Seggy pulling our leg??

I'm going to go make a nice cocktail, maybe take a pee, come back and see how you handle this.

Did you finish that drink yet?

 

[Akbush]

I handled it by not giving a crap

 

[abolton1]

This is what I picture when I read @Akbush 's posts.

 

[texas_pilot]

Q400 with gear down, flaps 35, and full beta...15000fpm+...according to someone I know

Whoa!!!

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Whoa!!!

Followed closely by a smoking crater.

Pretty sure you're not "supposed" to be able to select such low or negative blade angles in flight for a very, very good set of reasons.

Then again, a bunch of (originally) commuter turboprop airplanes weren't really conforming when originally certificated either, because you could - there was only a primary stop on the Brasilia, for instance.

 

[texas_pilot]

Followed closely by a smoking crater.

Pretty sure you're not "supposed" to be able to select such low or negative blade angles in flight for a very, very good set of reasons.

Then again, a bunch of (originally) commuter turboprop airplanes weren't really conforming when originally certificated either, because you could - there was only a primary stop on the Brasilia, for instance.

That 9pm keyboard thing again,...

 

[Autothrust Blue]

That 9pm keyboard thing again,...

Eh?

I'm pointing out why it is that way; you probably already know that...

 

[SurferLucas]

Followed closely by a smoking crater.

Pretty sure you're not "supposed" to be able to select such low or negative blade angles in flight for a very, very good set of reasons.

Then again, a bunch of (originally) commuter turboprop airplanes weren't really conforming when originally certificated either, because you could - there was only a primary stop on the Brasilia, for instance.

Obviously not done in the airplane, More of a 'in the sim' type thing...I'm changing your name in my phone to 'Buzz Killington'

 

[ASpilot2be]

Followed closely by a smoking crater.

Pretty sure you're not "supposed" to be able to select such low or negative blade angles in flight for a very, very good set of reasons.

Then again, a bunch of (originally) commuter turboprop airplanes weren't really conforming when originally certificated either, because you could - there was only a primary stop on the Brasilia, for instance.

In the CASA if you landed in a strong crosswind while empty it was hard to get into beta. You almost had to slam it in with no crosswind correction to get the squat switches to work. If you couldnt get the PLs behind the gate you could pull the left SRL CB in an emergency.