Checkride Trickery..

I'm waiting for someone so I can go hit the golf course before it rains.

I'm bored. Repeatedly hitting "refresh" helps, a little. :(
 
jtrain609 said:
To tell somebody, in the soup, to simply turn to a heading without any lateral guidance is a great way to find yourself smack dab in the side of a mountain.
Click to expand...

You're way over-analyzing this, IMO. TERPS approved procedures are full of dead-reckoning segments in which arcing would be a bizarre thing to do. While it's a good idea to use DME info to see if your intercept is working, attempting to maintain a particular DME distance until the course is intercepted is an arbitrary thing to do; you don't know that the terrain is clear along this course any more than you do on a direct intercept.
 
tgrayson said:
You're way over-analyzing this, IMO. TERPS approved procedures are full of dead-reckoning segments in which arcing would be a bizarre thing to do. While it's a good idea to use DME info to see if your intercept is working, attempting to maintain a particular DME distance until the course is intercepted is an arbitrary thing to do; you don't know that the terrain is clear along this course any more than you do on a direct intercept.
Click to expand...

I'm not over analyzing anything. TERPS? You're talking about an approach procedure now, we have no idea where this happened, and you're correct there are maneuvers that call for dead reckoning maneuvers (I already referenced them). This could have happened in the en route environment, or the terminal environment, or anywhere for that matter.

And you can know that the terrain is clear along the course pretty well. What about grid MORA's (which I guess would provide for terrain clearance even if you did that asinine turn direct for the radial maneuver, but I will still contend you lose situational awareness while you do it.), you could have a sectional with you (which we were required to do when I was flying Chieftain's around Socal) and check it that way, or any number of ways.

Point being, as soon as you go full deflection on your CDI while casting off into space without terrain clearance from the TERPS (so, assuming you're not on an approach procedure) sounds like a horrible idea to me.

In my mind, this is one of those instrument flying fundamentals. You don't simply go blasting out into space without course guidance, and I could care less about what the examiner says about whether it's a good idea or not. I think it's a horrible one, and I know a handful of examiners that would bust an applicant on the spot for going somewhere without course guidance.

GPS navigation sure has screwed up the way we think about instrument flying.
 
jtrain609 said:
Nope, but doing what you just described is a great way to run into something.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that arcing gives you terrain clearance?!

Sorry, but that's a totally misguided argument to support the notion that arcing to get to another radial is somehow better/safer than turning direct to another radial.

If you're making an argument about SA, then how about you mention if you're below MSA? Or how about ESA? Or maybe even the min vectoring altitude of whatever agency you're with?

Besides...this guy was on a private checkride...he was interested in if the guy knew if the radial was on his left or on his right. He wasn't asked to perform a HSI-only fix-to-fix, cut the arc, arc, or anything remotely like that.

Just left turn or right turn. Simple question.
 
jtrain609 said:
I'd certainly do an arc to it. It's the most straightforward way to do what the examiner wants while maintaining your situational awareness.

I dunno about you, but I have this thing about always having positive identification of where I'm at. Call me crazy, but as soon as the CDI goes full deflection, I have no idea where I'm at (unless you have a GPS with a moving map, which still isn't good enough in the FAA's eyes for knowing your exact position). So you arc over to it, and track it inbound.

To tell somebody, in the soup, to simply turn to a heading without any lateral guidance is a great way to find yourself smack dab in the side of a mountain. In a Cessna 172 flying /A you have no idea what the winds are, what kind of correction you need to put in, and most importantly what's between you and this mythical point in space out there that you're recommending dead reckoning to.

That's just me, though, and how I would perform the maneuver. I honestly believe to teach anything else is to invite the student to think that this is a safe course of action, and perform this maneuver you're describing in the soup with terrain around them. That's a recipe for disaster, in my opinion.
Click to expand...


So what are you going to tell ATC the next time they give you radar vectors to the final approach course? I suspect, by using your logic you will decline the vector and fly the full approach.

What about an MSA or Grid MORA? Are we permitted to accomplish such unsafe action even above these altitudes?

Also, I can make a turn to intercept the radial...crossfix my position along the way...without having to do a DME arc.

What if the arc takes you outside of protected airspace? How do you know the course along the arc won't take you closer to terrain than a heading to intercept?

You are giving bad advice and setting the applicant up for failure by trying to establish himself on an arc between closely spaced radials.

To state that the only safe way to accomplish this maneuver is via a DME ARC is a bunch of crap.

I don't know how many times I depart JFK towards an easerly fix and the controller simply states intercept the "123 radial to xyz fix".
 
jtrain609 said:
You don't simply go blasting out into space without course guidance
Click to expand...

Yes, you do, and this has nothing to do with GPS; in fact, the opposite. It's probably the advent of GPS that makes people so nervous without course guidance at all times.
 
Hacker15e said:
So you're saying that arcing gives you terrain clearance?!

Sorry, but that's a totally misguided argument to support the notion that arcing to get to another radial is somehow better/safer than turning direct to another radial.

If you're making an argument about SA, then how about you mention if you're below MSA? Or how about ESA? Or maybe even the min vectoring altitude of whatever agency you're with?

Besides...this guy was on a private checkride...he was interested in if the guy knew if the radial was on his left or on his right. He wasn't asked to perform a HSI-only fix-to-fix, cut the arc, arc, or anything remotely like that.

Just left turn or right turn. Simple question.
Click to expand...

Wait this was a private ride? I thought this was an instrument ride...
 
B767Driver said:
So what are you going to tell ATC the next time they give you radar vectors to the final approach course? I suspect, by using your logic you will decline the vector and fly the full approach.

What about an MSA or Grid MORA? Are we permitted to accomplish such unsafe action even above these altitudes?

Also, I can make a turn to intercept the radial...crossfix my position along the way...without having to do a DME arc.

What if the arc takes you outside of protected airspace? How do you know the course along the arc won't take you closer to terrain than a heading to intercept?

You are giving bad advice and setting the applicant up for failure by trying to establish himself on an arc between closely spaced radials.

To state that the only safe way to accomplish this maneuver is via a DME ARC is a bunch of crap.

I don't know how many times I depart JFK towards an easerly fix and the controller simply states intercept the "123 radial to xyz fix".
Click to expand...

Different rules when you're in a radar environment and recieving vectors. I'm talking about a non radar, /A environment, and it looks to me like I'm mistaken in that this is on a private ride as opposed to an instrument ride.

I'll still contend, for situational awareness, if you don't have course guidance you're asking for trouble, quickly. Again, in an instrument environment, /A.
 
jtrain609 said:
In my mind, this is one of those instrument flying fundamentals. You don't simply go blasting out into space without course guidance, and I could care less about what the examiner says about whether it's a good idea or not. I think it's a horrible one, and I know a handful of examiners that would bust an applicant on the spot for going somewhere without course guidance.
Click to expand...

Hang on a second..

How often do are you told to intercept the X radial off the ABC VORTAC with full deflection? All the time. I used to do this in ONT weekly off the Mission VOR (I think Mission) with 50+ people on board and mountains encompassing the field.

My point is simply, it's often ATC assigned or not, we fly on a specific heading to intercept a course with full deflection.

jtrain609 said:
GPS navigation sure has screwed up the way we think about instrument flying.
Click to expand...

I am not sure how GPS has anything to do with this instance. However, GPS is a great thing. I wouldn't be surprised if, by the time my 2 year old is flying, I'll be talking about VOR's like my grandpa talks about ADF.

Technology is evolving. Better get on the wagon. ;)
 
Whoops, I re-read the post. It was an instrument ride. You're right. Disregard my words on that subject.

Either way, doesn't change the facts of the discussion.

Terrain clearance is a function of an MSA, not of being on or off a radial or arc.
 
jtrain609 said:
Point being, as soon as you go full deflection on your CDI while casting off into space without terrain clearance from the TERPS (so, assuming you're not on an approach procedure) sounds like a horrible idea to me.
Click to expand...

If you are so concerned with positive location why not just spin the OBS so you no longer have full deflection? A centered needle and DME will show you exactly where you are. Follow along on your handy dandy sectional, keeping an eye on terrain depicted, and we're happy as clams!
 
SteveC said:
If you are so concerned with positive location why not just spin the OBS so you no longer have full deflection? A centered needle and DME will show you exactly where you are. Follow along on your handy dandy sectional, keeping an eye on terrain depicted, and we're happy as clams!
Click to expand...
That is so dangerous!
 
Hacker15e said:
Whoops, I re-read the post. It was an instrument ride. You're right. Disregard my words on that subject.

Either way, doesn't change the facts of the discussion.

Terrain clearance is a function of an MSA, not of being on or off a radial or arc.
Click to expand...
Still a private pilot (additional rating) checkflight though.
 
By the way, there are quite a few complex special single engine departures that have you begin a turn to a specific heading with full CDI needle deflection and no course guidance. If you decided to wait until the needle started coming in you'd fly into a mountain.
 
SteveC said:
If you are so concerned with positive location why not just spin the OBS so you no longer have full deflection? A centered needle and DME will show you exactly where you are. Follow along on your handy dandy sectional, keeping an eye on terrain depicted, and we're happy as clams!
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what you do when you do a DME arc, no?

There's a lot more I could say here, but to say I'm shocked and amazed at people's responses when it comes to non-radar, slant alpha flying is an understatement. I don't think some of ya'll have flown in a non radar environment without GPS in the last decade, to be quite frank.
 
What does not having flown in a non-radar /a environment have to do with someone's ability to use an IFR chart, DME, and VOR receiver to avoid hitting your mountain while flying on a 90 degree intercept to a radial?

Not to mention...who cares. Fly a DME arc when the examiner tells you to turn 90 degrees to a radial. See what happens, maybe he'll like your explanation, maybe he wont care.
 
jtrain609 said:
Has everybody missed that the guy asked the student to do a DME arc with incredibly non standard phrasing?

That's all the student had to do.
Click to expand...

While I agree that the phraseology was non-standard, the feds are a little weird when it comes to this stuff. I had an inspector tell me that an advanced rating applicant needs to be able to understand and properly respond to a non-standard command from ATC during an investigation of some of the students I signed off.

I was always under the impression that the PTS rules all, but the real answer is "kinda".
 
Doug Taylor said:
While I agree that the phraseology was non-standard, the feds are a little weird when it comes to this stuff. I had an inspector tell me that an advanced rating applicant needs to be able to understand and properly respond to a non-standard command from ATC during an investigation of some of the students I signed off.

I was always under the impression that the PTS rules all, but the real answer is "kinda".
Click to expand...

Oh I agree with you, and I'm giving how I interpret what the guy said. With the examiners that I've sent applicants to, and with the check airman I've worked with, doing what most people have described here will get you a pink slip. In some part's of the country, off airway flying with zero course guidance will get you killed.

But I approach EVERYTHING from a non radar perspective, not a, "Well if I'm on vectors, I don't need to be thinking..." perspective.

What can I say, I've also seen people wash out of training programs for stuff like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top