Descent Below VASI on Approach

deadstick said:
133 kts to pull the chute? How does that work after a wing falls off at 180 kts?

At an 800' AGL TPA, or at about 500' for that dreaded base-final turn, how far below the ground will the airplane be before the chute is fully deployed?


FYI:
"The minimum demonstrated altitude loss for a CAPS deployment from a one-turn spin is 920 feet."
:deadhorse: :D I love playing the antagonist.
Click to expand...
No man. Pull early, pull often. I suggest to my students, if i had any, to just pull it on the taxiway.
 
calcapt said:
Just asking the question: Why would you want to descend below the VASI? Do you need a rule to say that? :confused:
Click to expand...

This is from the perspective of operating small aircraft on small airfields, but I find it useful to descend below the VASI on very short final. The aiming point provided by the VASI can be relatively far down the runway, with a resulting touchdown point even farther down. Shifting the aiming point closer to the threshold results in a lot less "runway behind you."
 
calcapt said:
Just asking the question: Why would you want to descend below the VASI?
Click to expand...

To make a closer taxi way.
I used to land at night at this particular field with great vis, no obstacles yada yada yada. I would come down on the Vasi all red. No problems, no near collisions. Touched down just past the white line and was off on the nearest taxi way. The next one was about 2000 feet down which would mean an extra mile of taxi. F that.
 
BajtheJino said:
To make a closer taxi way.
I used to land at night at this particular field with great vis, no obstacles yada yada yada. I would come down on the Vasi all red. No problems, no near collisions. Touched down just past the white line and was off on the nearest taxi way. The next one was about 2000 feet down which would mean an extra mile of taxi. F that.
Click to expand...

All to save what, 60 seconds of Hobbs time?
 
BajtheJino said:
I could give a crap about hobbs time. Its all about block. And saving what little drops of fuel I could (can).
Besides, its not dangerous, tough on the brakes or anything else.
Click to expand...


Kinda hard to prove that you're descending below glideslope without a Fed on board.
 
ppragman said:
Kinda hard to prove that you're descending below glideslope without a Fed on board.
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter. Integrity and professionalism is more about what you do when nobody is watching not what can or cannot be proven.

note
This isn't saying baj is dangerous or unprofessional.
 
Zero1Niner said:
Curious if this is one of those 'opinion varies by FSDO' interpretations. Seems like every POI on the planet, let alone each FSDO has a different interpretation of the regs.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure of the office politics involved, however the address is from the Northwest Mountain Regional Counsel. It looks to me like the RC's office handed the task to the Flight Standards Regional Office, and I don't think this is a FSDO. I believe the Flight Standards and the Regional Counsel are both part of the Regional Administrator's office. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Flight Standards answered the question and the RC accepted their response and sent it out. I doubt the RC's answer every question themselves, and rely on different staff persons to handle specific subject areas. From where I sit, this represents the RC's position and not just a FSDO answer.

You'll have to judge the letter as you read it, but for me, unless the Chief Counsel overturns it, it seems official enough for me, however I'm open to other ideas.
 
ghogue said:
I'm not sure of the office politics involved, however the address is from the Northwest Mountain Regional Counsel. It looks to me like the RC's office handed the task to the Flight Standards Regional Office, and I don't think this is a FSDO. I believe the Flight Standards and the Regional Counsel are both part of the Regional Administrator's office. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Flight Standards answered the question and the RC accepted their response and sent it out. I doubt the RC's answer every question themselves, and rely on different staff persons to handle specific subject areas. From where I sit, this represents the RC's position and not just a FSDO answer.

You'll have to judge the letter as you read it, but for me, unless the Chief Counsel overturns it, it seems official enough for me, however I'm open to other ideas.
Click to expand...

If the Chief Counsel disagrees, and you followed that interp, you WILL be violated. PERIOD. The region does NOT have legal authority for regulatory interps. PERIOD. So, carry that "RC position" with you all you want. Watch the ALJ and NTSB rule in favor of the chief counsel, though. Sure you want to bet your ticket on that still?
 
seagull said:
If the Chief Counsel disagrees, and you followed that interp, you WILL be violated. PERIOD. The region does NOT have legal authority for regulatory interps. PERIOD. So, carry that "RC position" with you all you want. Watch the ALJ and NTSB rule in favor of the chief counsel, though. Sure you want to bet your ticket on that still?
Click to expand...

Thanks for your comments. As I said, I don't know all the internal workings of the Chief Counsel office, and I never implied or meant to imply that the RC was the last word. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I would think that the RC would forward anything like this to the Chef Counsel, at which time the CC could disagree with the position, but, perhaps not, I'm only speculating at this point.

In regards to this particular subject, I doubt anyone would ever be violated for not including a PAPI as a visual reference. I also think that relying on information from the RC's office, who works for the CC, would have some mitigating influence on any violation.

I'm not implying that you or anyone has to accept the letter, I just passed it on because another poster asked for it. Beyond that, I have no interest.
 
seagull said:
If the Chief Counsel disagrees, and you followed that interp, you WILL be violated. PERIOD. The region does NOT have legal authority for regulatory interps. PERIOD. So, carry that "RC position" with you all you want. Watch the ALJ and NTSB rule in favor of the chief counsel, though. Sure you want to bet your ticket on that still?
Click to expand...

This is how I understood things as well. Whenever I see something that is not from the Chief Counsel, its hard to take it to the bank. CC or bust!
 
91.129 (e) only applies to large or turbine powered airplanes:
"[(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:"
Yada, yada, yada.
While I don't know of it being done yet in the US there were/are? some Canadian cities where your company will get a letter in the mail... along with a fine... if you descend below a certain glidepath.
Now personally, I don't think descending below glidepath at night is a really good habit to develop.
 
Realms09 said:
....I find it useful to descend below the VASI on very short final. The aiming point provided by the VASI can be relatively far down the runway, with a resulting touchdown point even farther down. Shifting the aiming point closer to the threshold results in a lot less "runway behind you."
Click to expand...


I completely agree with you. The FAA seems to allow for this when they say: "......at or above the glide path until a lower altitude is necessary for a safe landing."


BajtheJino said:
.......I would come down on the Vasi all red. No problems, no near collisions. Touched down just past the white line and was off on the nearest taxi way.......
Click to expand...

I completely understand your focus on expediting your landing. What I don't understand is how you know when low is too low? A red over red VASI looks the same if you are airborne or driving by the end of the runway in your car. I better understand a PAPI with 3 red and a white as it tells you something meaningful but the only thing an all red PAPI or a red over red VASI tells you is that you are too low. Just how low is anybody's guess. I am talking more about flying at night obviously since you could use other visual clues without VASI during the day.

I think it is important for new pilots to realize that routinely flying below the VASI is not the preferred method for most operations.
 
minitour said:
There's nothing wrong with asking for clarification and a solid reference, which is what the OP did.

-mini
Click to expand...


No issue with the question as I found the answer and reference enlightening as well. I was simply asking philosophically why you would need someone to tell you that you couldn't do something that on the surface seems basically unsafe. I would never discourage anyone from asking a question on any topic. Sorry if my response seemed anything other than light chatter. :o
 
calcapt said:
No issue with the question as I found the answer and reference enlightening as well. I was simply asking philosophically why you would need someone to tell you that you couldn't do something that on the surface seems basically unsafe. I would never discourage anyone from asking a question on any topic. Sorry if my response seemed anything other than light chatter. :o
Click to expand...

It seems as if most of part 91 is common sense. This should tell us something.
 
Well, if you dive below the VASI on a regular basis and end up running into something, you *might* make the local news broadcast if there's enough fire and smoke.

If you dive below VASI on a regular basis under part-121 and run into something, there's going to be a "Go Team", congressional hearings, lawsuits, breaking news, yadda yadda yadda.

Part 121 rules and Part 91 rules are different for a variety of reasons. Just like rules about driving a Pinto are a lot different than the rules for driving tractor-trailers, school buses and well, even the Schwann's frozen food truck.
 
Zero1Niner said:
Seem to recall a discussion with someone telling me that it was in the FAR's or AIM that it is not permitted to descend below VASI at night on an approach.

I cant find any reference to this in either the FAR or AIM. Anyone have any idea what the deal is with this? Is this a fact or fiction?
Click to expand...

To answer the OP. At night I wouldn't descend below the VASI. Daytime, it depends on the particular runway I'm using and if there's any operational need for me to do so. If it's severe clear, I have a short runway, and I'm sure there are no obstructions in the approach path, I may consider shifting my aimpoint a little short when I have the runway made in order to not touchdown too far down the runway. This wouldn't be a regular thing, but would be another available item in my bag of tricks if and when necessary.
 
Blackhawk said:
91.129 (e) only applies to large or turbine powered airplanes:
"[(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:"
Yada, yada, yada.
Click to expand...
Close.

That's for entering the traffic pattern and for an instrument approach procedure with vertical guidance.

The applicable section is...

91.129(e)(3)

You just got to sections 1 and 2.

(e)(3) states...
(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.

No mention of large or turbine power.

-mini
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top