Commonly missed interview questions....

Re: 91.117 (d)

"There are several FAA interps on this"

Do you have a reference? When we talked about this six months ago, I did some research and couldn't find anything. I don't mean to be lazy, but if you have a link to a reference, I'd appreciate it. You'd be helping to change policy in the UPS training center...that's gotta be worth something....hehe.
 
[ QUOTE ]
6. Hypothetically your right aileron becomes disconnected completely so it's "flapping in the breeze." In straight and level flight, which way is that aileron going to go- down, flush, or up?


[/ QUOTE ]
I believe someone answered that it would go up and you said this was right, could someone explain this?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Flight vis, runway environment, continuous position to land.

2. As fast as you can. There is no speed limit in class B aside from the 250 below 10,000.

3. 200 if within 4 miles of the primary airport and within 2500 of the surface. Otherwise, 250 if below 10,000 feet.

4. Intersection of the glideslope with the minimum GS intercept altitude.

5. AltoCumulus Standing Lenticular more than 10 miles Northwest.

6. Up.

7. The point from which a normal descent to land can be made. (HAT at MDA)/(desired descent angle)/100 gives you the distance from the end of the runway that the VDP is located at.

8. Provides controlled airspace for instrument approaches, but doesn't require VFR pilots to contact ATC. The airspace reverts to G when there's no weather observer available.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding-ding-ding! Excellent! Especially with question 8! I think I've had ONE applicant answer that one correctly. Most just say they don't know.

Let's take question 1 even further...

You reach the DH on an ILS with the runway enviornment in sight. Tower is reporting visibility of 1/4sm and the ILS requires 1/2sm. The FAA wants to violate you for breaking 91.175 in not having the required visibililty. Defend yourself: Prove that you had 1/2sm of visibility at DH!

Question 7: What if it's a timed approach?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, proving might be a little difficult unless you had a video camera or something. But you can use the approach lights, usually 2,400 feet long. The runway edge lights are 200 feet apart, each centerline dash and space are 200 feet, and you have the fixed distance markers also. Any and all of those can be used to judge 1/2 mile vis.

If it's a timed approach, presumably you know your ground speed. So, knowing the distance of the VDP, you can figure out how long it will take to cover that distance, and hence the time to the VDP.
 
Re: 91.117 (d)

Wouldn't be the first time I've changed something over at your place..... ;-)

I don't have it in front of me right now. I know that I did check on it before publishing the article I did, but that's been 6 months or more ago, now.

I'll see if I can find it. Did you look at the FAA interps page? I really don't see how someone could misinterpret 91.117d, though, the language couldn't be simpler.
 
Chris,
I had that Reno approach during my interview. I believe it was the other Jason that was doing it.
I was asked why such a high mins?
How low can you decend if I have the runway environment but not the runway?
And can you land if you have the runway in sight with visabilty below mins?

Any takers on these questions?
 
[ QUOTE ]
How low can you decend if I have the runway environment but not the runway?

[/ QUOTE ]
100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation [91.175 3(i)]
[ QUOTE ]
And can you land if you have the runway in sight with visabilty below mins?

[/ QUOTE ]
If its an emergency?
smile.gif
 
Re: 91.117 (d)

"I really don't see how someone could misinterpret 91.117d, though, the language couldn't be simpler."

Guys claimed to have been violated for exceeding 200 below a class B. How can that be if this is so simple? I just ran a google search and looked at DOC's site without any answers. Do you have a link to your FAA interps site?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How low can you decend if I have the runway environment but not the runway?

[/ QUOTE ]
100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation [91.175 3(i)]
[ QUOTE ]
And can you land if you have the runway in sight with visabilty below mins?

[/ QUOTE ]
If its an emergency?
smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't have to be an emergency. Flight visibility is always controlling. You're the only one that can determine flight visibility. If you have the flight visibility to land you can land - regardless of what the reported ground visibility is.

Jason
 
Re: 91.117 (d)

I'll look for the link later. The only way the violotion could occur is if they were exceeding the MMS for the particular configuration. Happens a lot.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Chris,
I had that Reno approach during my interview. I believe it was the other Jason that was doing it.
I was asked why such a high mins? see below

[quote[How low can you decend if I have the runway environment but not the runway?

[/ QUOTE ]
100' over TDZE


Any takers on these questions?

[/ QUOTE ]



If you are really briefed for the approach you know that what the IAP is calling for is that you land in VFR conditions (1100-4). I believe that this is done because the TERPs provide a mimimum obstruction clearance on the final approach and the two buildings protruding into that final approach at 4800 ft MSL do not meet the minimums for a precision approach to go down to its usual 200 DA(H). Additiionally the fact that this to a parallel runway allows for all planes on the approach to call runway in sight and for ATC to ask for a side-step maneuver to the parallel. This may allow a better flow.

In doing some research, it appears that the TERPS do not allow for a maltese cross on the final approach into RNO because the obstruction clearance doesn't meet the criteria needed to officially call this and final approach. So in lieu of that it is represented as an intermediary approach the whole way with landing conditions into VFR. This is my interpretation and I would love some more feedback. And one more consideration is that the highest obstacle on the final approach into RNO may not allow for a glide slope that is less than 3.77 degrees (the max allowed for precision) and therefore the landing has to be done in VFR conditions.

It is a good reminder to know that the maltese cross on a precision approach that has an altitude indicated can also be used to cross reference the accuracy of your altimeter setting. So if you are on the glide slope and you DME measures the FAF or you pass the LOM, ostensibly you should have the same altitude on your altimeter as indicated on the plate for the maltese cross.

[ QUOTE ]
And can you land if you have the runway in sight with visabilty below mins?

[/ QUOTE ]
NO. "No pilot may land when the the flight visibility is less than the prescribed visibility in the IAP." YES, "Only the pilot can determine if the flight visibility meets the landing requirements . . . "
[ QUOTE ]
1. What three (yes only three) things are needed to leave a DH or MDA?

[/ QUOTE ] Here's a different take on that question: One green light for my nose gear, one green light for my right main and one green light for my left main.
grin.gif



Hey Chris, what was that question that Chris was talking about the other day? What determines off an airway (something like that)? Either 5 degrees off course or full scale deflection? Do you remember?
 
Ophir I also thought it had to do with obstructions. I honestly didn't know. He told me it had to do with the missed approach climb requirement with one engine inop because of RNO sitting in a valley with mountains all around. Its been a few months since the interview my memory may be a little fuzzy.I believe he also said that they had there own approach and that the crew had to be certified or trained for that specific apporach and the brasillia under a certain weight to fly the apporach.

Can you clear this up Chris?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
6. Hypothetically your right aileron becomes disconnected completely so it's "flapping in the breeze." In straight and level flight, which way is that aileron going to go- down, flush, or up?


[/ QUOTE ]
I believe someone answered that it would go up and you said this was right, could someone explain this?

[/ QUOTE ]

When the air is bent around the top of the wing, it pulls on the air above it accelerating that air down, otherwise there would be voids in the air left above the wing, air is pulled from above to prevent voids. This pulling causes the pressure to become lower above the wing. The aileron will go up because the pressure above the wing is lower than it is below the wing.
 
Re: 91.117 (d)

Haven't found my interps yet, I think they're on my laptop. Still, I did find some other info. Appears that the issue is that ATC may report it, if they see it. Doesn't mean there's a violation, but could get an inquiry from a bored FSDO type. I think it's unlikely, the Air Carrier guys are usually wiser than that, and I've yet to hear of one,personally. Don't see how this would differ from exceeding the 250kt rule, either.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Ophir I also thought it had to do with obstructions. I honestly didn't know. He told me it had to do with the missed approach climb requirement with one engine inop because of RNO sitting in a valley with mountains all around. Its been a few months since the interview my memory may be a little fuzzy.I believe he also said that they had there own approach and that the crew had to be certified or trained for that specific apporach and the brasillia under a certain weight to fly the apporach.

Can you clear this up Chris?

[/ QUOTE ]

We, as do many air carriers, have a special ILS that takes us to a 200' DH and 1/2sm vis requirement. There is no special air crew training, but there are special missed approach and single engine missed procedures that are rather complex:

Climb at V2 via IRNO LOC BC (H-170 if IRNO LOC OTS),
at D1.9 IRNO (crossing FMG R-210 if IRNO DME OTS),
accel in level flight to V2 + 10. At D3.0 IRNO (crossing FMG
R-205 if IRNO DME OTS) commence climbing left 28 deg bank
turn to H-325. On H-325 and above 5400' msl, accelerte,
retract flaps, set MCT, continue climb.
Abeam NO LMM (D2.5 IRNO if NO LMM OTS) commence
climbing right turn to H-007. Reaching 8000' msl commence
climbing right turn direct to FMG (NO LMM if FMG OTS) and
hold on the inbound radial direct entry, right turns, 1 minute legs...

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Chris, what was that question that Chris was talking about the other day? What determines off an airway (something like that)? Either 5 degrees off course or full scale deflection? Do you remember?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what we were talking about was the question of when are you considered "established" on course. One would say within 5 degrees, another says coming out of full needle deflection. Didn't we determine it was the same thing?
 
So here's a question then: what gives the 121 guys the ability to waive beyond the DA? Or is that something that is truly determined by the a/c performance being the over-riding factor?

And another question: If the answer is that you have a special missed, how is that a legit interview question?

Yeah, the full scale deflection question, it was the same thing.

Here's a good one for ya: What makes a VOR-A(B or C) or a GPS-A (B or C) designated with the letter after them?
 
[ QUOTE ]

Here's a good one for ya: What makes a VOR-A(B or C) or a GPS-A (B or C) designated with the letter after them?

[/ QUOTE ]

the final approach heading is more then 30 degrees from runway
 
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a good one for ya: What makes a VOR-A(B or C) or a GPS-A (B or C) designated with the letter after them?

[/ QUOTE ]

It means there are that many circling only approaches at that particular airport (so if up to C, it has 3).

Look at MSO, it has 4 of them, one VOR/DME or GPS-A, VOR/DME or GPS-B, VOR-C, and GPS-D.
 
Re: 91.117 (d)

[ QUOTE ]
Haven't found my interps yet, I think they're on my laptop. Still, I did find some other info. Appears that the issue is that ATC may report it, if they see it. Doesn't mean there's a violation, but could get an inquiry from a bored FSDO type. I think it's unlikely, the Air Carrier guys are usually wiser than that, and I've yet to hear of one,personally. Don't see how this would differ from exceeding the 250kt rule, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

We accelerate to 340 right after takeoff and climb at that IAW our tech order climb schedule of 340 til .75M, thence .75M. Occasionally will find the rare ATC that's unaware of the exempt status. Most times, seems like ATC doesn't pay much attention to what we're doing.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Here's a good one for ya: What makes a VOR-A(B or C) or a GPS-A (B or C) designated with the letter after them?

[/ QUOTE ]

the final approach heading is more then 30 degrees from runway

[/ QUOTE ]

That's one of the reasons. But look around there are plenty of approachs that are straight into the runway with a A, B or C classification.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a good one for ya: What makes a VOR-A(B or C) or a GPS-A (B or C) designated with the letter after them?

[/ QUOTE ]

It means there are that many circling only approaches at that particular airport (so if up to C, it has 3).

Look at MSO, it has 4 of them, one VOR/DME or GPS-A, VOR/DME or GPS-B, VOR-C, and GPS-D.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't heard it put quite like that but I would refute that. All of the designations do also mean that there are only Circle to Land minimums.

And the only other reason that they would make it designated as such is if the Final Approach segment as a greater than 400'/NM descent. TERPS only allow for 3.77 degree descents for straight in approaches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top