Maximilian_Jenius
Super User
As a CFI student, I'm wondering what the major differences, if any taking effect next month with be. As CFI will be changing from PTS, to ACS? Haven't been able to nail down a solid answer. Thanks in advance.
PTS to ACS
- Thread starter Maximilian_Jenius
- Start date
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
You will probably see a number of articles on it. I focused on the changes to the instrument ACSes and haven’t looked at the others yet.
Shiftace
s***posting with decency. trolling with integrity.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
New old maneuver.
killbilly
Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
I remember having the equivalent of a major-church schism at the flight school over teaching a student to fly at MCA. One school of thought said that it was a good thing to teach the student not to be afraid of the stall horn, and to learn the edges of what the airplane would and wouldn't do. I like this approach, and I frequently taught it to my students.
Another contingent of CFIs believe that this is a horrible thing to do, because it de-sensitizes the student to the stall horn and they'll be 'too comfortable' playing around at AOAs that they shouldn't be playing with in the course of normal operations. While I understand the sentiment, I disagree with it as an unacceptable risk.
But these were the fun, spirited discussions we had on bad weather days.
Another contingent of CFIs believe that this is a horrible thing to do, because it de-sensitizes the student to the stall horn and they'll be 'too comfortable' playing around at AOAs that they shouldn't be playing with in the course of normal operations. While I understand the sentiment, I disagree with it as an unacceptable risk.
But these were the fun, spirited discussions we had on bad weather days.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
I don’t think it’s horrible and include it in training. But I also think there’s a lot to be said for not treating ignoring warnings as normal.
There a huge difference between ignoring a warning, and being aware the warning is sounding and knowingly and deliberately operating within its limitations.
We did that in fighters all the time in air to air, managing G’s while dogfighting by modulating the pitch in turns between the steady and chopped AOA tones that told us how close to critical AOA exceedence we were at any given time. You never wanted to enter an accelerated stall, as your turn rate and overall maneuverability would instantly cease as the nose stopped tracking until you reduced G below critical AOA. But your maximum turn rate ability, and thus minimum turn radius, was gained by operating as close to max AOA without exceeding it, as you operated between the two warning tones.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Oh I agree which is why I said
But there have apparently been a significant number of gear-up landings with the gear warning blasting away, so I also said
Fly_Unity
Well-Known Member
One of the major changes, if you are pursuing your CFII, is that all LPV approaches with a DA can now be used as a precision approach. Previously, the DA had to be lower than 300 feet HAT.
killbilly
Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
That’s a long-overdue change. Glad they did it.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Goes a step further than that - all approaches with a DA are treated as precision for ACS purposes. So, while there aren't too many which are applicable, it now includes LNAV/VNAV. The change applies to most all instrument ratings, including ATP.
For those who happen to subscribe (I don't know if it will be a no-paywall offering), the July IFR Magazine will have an article on the instrument ACS changes.
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
I’m not sure I agree with that. The hard parts on a precision approach are the last couple hundred feet as the Loc/gs get really sensitive, and the transition to visual with only a couple hundred feet to go. Especially when you’re flying at 90 knots like in an IFR training plane, there’s a lot of difference in demonstrating to a 200’ DA vs 500’. I think the previous 300’ cutoff was an appropriate compromise that opened up the use of a lot of LPV airports for training/checking but this goes too far.
poser765
Well-Known Member
Ok before I take a position on this, someone do the math. What is the lateral deviation for a localizer approaching 200 feet with full scale deflection and how does that compare to the RNP for an LNAV/VMAV OR LPV?
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
An LPV should be the same as a LOC right? That’s the “L” in LPV. LNAV should be .3 NM or 1800’, and digging deep in rusty memories isn’t a LOC 700’ at the threshold?
Fly_Unity
Well-Known Member
Although I agree with you in concept, as an examiner, it was really hard (at least in my state) to find an ILS or LPV that had a DA less than 300 HAT. We would have to travel two hours just to get to an airport that had an ILS, whereas my hometown airport had an LPV of 323 feet.
Also, as a rule of thumb, it was very rare for someone to unsat a checkride in the last couple of hundred feet. Usually, Instrument unsats were due to procedural problems or knowledge gaps, not stick and rudder skills in the last couple of hundred feet. If they did poorly in the last couple of hundred feet, they were usually unsat long before that point.
A bigger hangup for most applicants is that once they get to DA and get the runway in sight, they actually need to continue following the GS to the runway below the DA while in visual conditions!
poser765
Well-Known Member
I don’t know man, you were able to dig deeper into the old lore than I am. That sounds reasonable. The point being, shouldn’t an LPV damn damn near just as sensitive as on ILS close to DA but more consistently? Maybe? I really don’t know… I don’t think I’ve ever done an LPV. I have done a few RNAV/RNP approaches with some pretty tight tolerances and I can’t see them being easier or harder to fly at the end than an ILS
Is it a bust to go below GS/GP below DA?