Descent Below VASI on Approach

ghogue said:
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.
Click to expand...

As somebody who DOES know how much of the internal FAA working are, I can tell you that you are incorrect that the RC would forward this to the AGC office. It might happen, but I wouldn't count on it. Even if they do, unless the AGC issues an interp IN WRITING, it is worthless if you have some incident and they decide to enforce.

On the second point, you can doubt it all you want, but it is a very subjective call. If you blow a tire and the touchdown point was before the VASI aim point, they can pin that on a higher than normal rate of descent leading to that tire failure (just an example). Falls under 91.13 as well.

Oh, and 91.129 looks to me like it applies in entirety to large and turbine powered, but 91.13 still applies if anything goes wrong. You might look for interps here

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/

Regardless, you need to be very careful. This is not too far different than the issue of people thinking that they are assured a 3 degree path from MDA to the runway on non-precision approaches to runways not served by an ILS...
 
seagull said:
Oh, and 91.129 looks to me like it applies in entirety to large and turbine powered...
Click to expand...
If it did, the language for large and turbine powered wouldn't be under (e)(1) and (e)(2). It would be right there under 91.129 or at the very least under (e) itself or (a) would be applying it to turbine or large........as other regulations do.

It's listed under (e)(1) and (e)(2) for a reason. (e)(3) says "an airplane" for a reason.

-mini
 
seagull said:
As somebody who DOES know how much of the internal FAA working are, I can tell you that you are incorrect that the RC would forward this to the AGC office. It might happen, but I wouldn't count on it. Even if they do, unless the AGC issues an interp IN WRITING, it is worthless if you have some incident and they decide to enforce.

On the second point, you can doubt it all you want, but it is a very subjective call. If you blow a tire and the touchdown point was before the VASI aim point, they can pin that on a higher than normal rate of descent leading to that tire failure (just an example). Falls under 91.13 as well.

Oh, and 91.129 looks to me like it applies in entirety to large and turbine powered, but 91.13 still applies if anything goes wrong. You might look for interps here

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/

Regardless, you need to be very careful. This is not too far different than the issue of people thinking that they are assured a 3 degree path from MDA to the runway on non-precision approaches to runways not served by an ILS...
Click to expand...
Again, thanks for the information, however, from the way you have responded, it seems to me that you are a bit irritated at my responses. I tried to make it clear that I wasn't sure how the system worked and was giving my opinion on it. I appreciate the information you have provided, but, not the tone. If I am wrong about that, I apologize. Perhaps, you're just very passionate about this.

I agree that the RC is subject to the AGC's interpretations. I guess my question in this case is what purpose is the RC if only the AGC can respond to questions such as these? I'm merely curious how it works. I would think that the CC would inform the RC's to cease responses like the one I posted if they had no authority to do so.

On your response to my second point, I want to be clear that I was not advocating ignoring the VASI and descending below it. I was referring to the RC's comment that a PAPI could not be substituted for a VASI and that a person would not be violated for not including a PAPI as a visual reference. I doubt that would ever be an issue anyway.

I didn't make the comment about about 91.129 in reference to large and turbine-powered airplanes. That was from a different poster.

Again, thanks for the response.
 
400A said:
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.
Click to expand...

I guarantee you'd do the same thing if you were going to the same 10,000' runway everynight and would have to taxi an extra mile as baj said. Guarantee it. You might not do it the first night, you might not do it the second, but eventually you will, probably just from mind numbing boredness if not something else.

Stone Cold said:
Unless you brag about it on an aviation web site!:dunno::insane:
Click to expand...

I try not to say "I" on this site for that reason, but really, I don't think there's much wrong with this sort of thing.

deadstick said:
Unless there is only 10 feet of a 20 ft tree left standing and the other 10 is on the ground next to the wing.
Click to expand...

You don't do this sort of thing unless you know the terrain. Then you'd be an idiot. This is the sort of thing you do when you are comfortable with the airport, or know what's going on around you.
 
Hold on there hoss. Don't for one second think you can know what I would or would not do. My performance is never dictated by needing to get something done quickly.
 
ppragman said:
I guarantee you'd do the same thing if you were going to the same 10,000' runway everynight and would have to taxi an extra mile as baj said. Guarantee it. You might not do it the first night, you might not do it the second, but eventually you will, probably just from mind numbing boredness if not something else.
Click to expand...
Our landing distance performance is based on Vref and crossing the threshold at 50'. If the numbers say I need 3200' on a 10,000' runway the only difference is I probably don't brake as agressively as I would on a 3,500' runway. If that means a 6,000' taxi, then that's fine...but landing long to make a taxiway is not excusable regardless of how many times you've landed at an airport.

You don't do this sort of thing unless you know the terrain. Then you'd be an idiot. This is the sort of thing you do when you are comfortable with the airport, or know what's going on around you.
Click to expand...
Complacency kills, chief.

-mini
 
400A said:
Hold on there hoss. Don't for one second think you can know what I would or would not do. My performance is never dictated by needing to get something done quickly.
Click to expand...

This is the internet, and everyone is always incredibly cautious and never does anything outside of the ordinary. BTW, this isn't about speed, this is about efficiency. If I can operate the aircraft more efficiently without jeopardizing safety, I'm going to. Am I going to do this into places I'm unfamiliar with? No. Am I going to do things that are unsafe? No. But I am going to try to maximize the efficiency on every flight. Period.

minitour said:
Our landing distance performance is based on Vref and crossing the threshold at 50'. If the numbers say I need 3200' on a 10,000' runway the only difference is I probably don't brake as agressively as I would on a 3,500' runway. If that means a 6,000' taxi, then that's fine...but landing long to make a taxiway is not excusable regardless of how many times you've landed at an airport.


Complacency kills, chief.

-mini
Click to expand...

You guys probably wouldn't like my short approach and long landing so I can touch down slightly before echo, and roll out to exit at charlie, still with more than 1000' remaining past charlie so I don't have to taxi for 5 minutes and can speed up my turn.

As for complacency, yeah, it does kill, but landing long, or landing short to save time isn't complacency, its being efficient. Don't fly outside the envelope, but don't waste time. Being complacent is not doing flows properly, or not checking the weather before you go, or forgetting notams cuz' ehh, what could have changed. Landing extra short to get a taxi way isn't complacency. Landing long because you're landing a 207/210/Cherokee 6/Caravan/310/ or even the 1900 on a 10,000' runway isn't necessarily complacent. Its complacent if you do it without thinking yes, but not necessarily complacent in general. It comes down to your judgment on the touchdown. Am I going to have adequate runway to stop if something goes wrong now? Most of the time, on an airplane that big, the answer is yes. Its when the answer is "no" and you do it anyway that you'll get in trouble.

What are the three biggest wastes in aviation, the fuel at home, the runway behind you, and the altitude above you. If I can touch down in the first inch of the runway safely, I'm going to because if its icy, or blowy, or something jumps onto the field in front of my, my velocity will be lower if I impact something/slide off the end/etc. If I can clear the runway quicker, I'm going to, god only knows who or what might try to land on me, the quicker I'm off the runway the better.

Do you do a runup before every takeoff when flying a piston engine airplane? If not you're complacent! And complacency kills!!!



Oh, and also, 91.129 is for Class D, so if its the middle of the night, and the tower is closed, you're in class e, and it no longer applies, so this whole argument only applies to the cases where its night, and the tower is still open. And on top of that, you have to have a long enough runway so that you couldn't easily argue that it was required for safety to get off early. And the VASI has to be working. So if I'm going into a 5000' runway or less, I'm going to touch down as quickly as possible and clear the runway in the interests of safety if I have an extended threshold.
 
minitour said:
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
Click to expand...

Disregard all after...
However, just to clarify, it does NOT have to be instrument conditions. If there is an instrument approach procedure with vertical guidance, you must follow the vertical guidance to DH/DA.
This bit one crew I know of while the FAA was riding in the jumpseat. Crew dropped below VASI and glideslope They tried to argue that they were "at an altitude necessary for a safe landing"; FAA pulled out the section mentioned about descending below GS prior to DA/DH.
 
ppragman said:
Do you do a runup before every takeoff when flying a piston engine airplane? If not you're complacent! And complacency kills!!!
Click to expand...
What does the checklist say? Does it say "BEFORE TAKEOFF" and then list "run-up" or does it say "First Flight Items" and list "run-up"?

There's a big difference.

Why limit it to pistons? Shouldn't I be checking flaps before every flight? Rudder bias? Thrust attenuators? Why are they first flight items and not "before takeoff" items? Rudder bias is important to me on every flight. Why do I only rotary test stall warning prior to each leg and not the whole thing? Don't I want to make sure my fire warnings are going to go off every leg? How do I know they didn't fail on the landing?

Complacency is saying "oh I'm so comfy wit dis airport I cud land n make first turnoffz! Oh hai thatz be approach lights! Oh teh noez!"

There are other ways to speed up your turn and none of them include landing long or short so you can make a more convenient turn. There are times I'd love to do that, but it isn't fair to the people in the back or my wife at home expecting me to come back......with a job.

Blackhawk said:
Disregard all after...
Click to expand...
Huh?

However, just to clarify, it does NOT have to be instrument conditions. If there is an instrument approach procedure with vertical guidance, you must follow the vertical guidance to DH/DA.
Click to expand...
Agree 100%. The reg doesn't specify conditions, just runway and vertical guidance. The reg does allow for lower pattern altitude if you have to for cloud clearances, but doesn't allow you to go below electronic GS to land on the numbers.

Poor choice of words on my part.

This bit one crew I know of while the FAA was riding in the jumpseat. Crew dropped below VASI and glideslope They tried to argue that they were "at an altitude necessary for a safe landing"; FAA pulled out the section mentioned about descending below GS prior to DA/DH.
Click to expand...
Ouch.

-mini
 
PPR

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are trying to say. My only stance is that I do what I feel is in the best interest of safety VS getting things done in a timely manner. The airplane I fly, I don't feel the reduction in safety (ie dipping low on the GS to touchdown before the 1000 foot markers, or landing long to make a taxi way, etc) is worth the trade off of a minute or two of taxi time.

Landing on contaminated runways is no different, in the airplane I fly. There are performance numbers for slick runways (be it ice, water, snow, dead penguins, etc), if the runway isn't comfortably long enough, I don't land. If I don't cross the threshold at 50 feet, power at idle and on speed, those performance numbers are out the window and I just became a test pilot. The people I fly around in back don't deserve that and my integrity doesn't allow it.

You may think that coming in low over the threshold shortens your landing distance, but unless you can eyeball and extend the arrival end of the runway "backwards" 1000 feet or so, cross that point at 50 feet and touchdown at or near the width stripes then you aren't shortnening your landing distance. Too shallow increases ground roll and too steep increases ground roll, relative to your computed numbers from the POH dependant on how the POH numbers were derived.

If you feel that in the aircraft you fly you can do these things safely, then by all means, I am the last person to tell someone else how to fly an airplane I don't fly, nor have ever flown. But don't put words in my mouth and accuse me of being only safe in theory on the internet, you don't get play with my integriy and reputation.
 
400A said:
Too shallow increases ground roll and too steep increases ground roll, relative to your computed numbers from the POH dependant on how the POH numbers were derived.
Click to expand...
I'm starting to think that no one teaches this to primary students.

But don't put words in my mouth and accuse me of being only safe in theory on the internet, you don't get play with my integriy and reputation.
Click to expand...
You're dangerous.

-mini
 
minitour said:
I'm starting to think that no one teaches this to primary students.


You're dangerous.

-mini
Click to expand...

It depends on how you do it, power on stall at the numbers with power quickly reduced to idle is better than a steeper power at idle approach in some airplanes. And yes, I've tested it in a couple of birds.

Touching down sooner is going to save you runway as opposed to touching down later if you keep the same "optimal" rate of descent, which varies for aircraft type and loading. I'm fairly good at eyeballing it in the Cherokee 6 now, and was sharp at it in the 207. It just takes practice.
 
ghogue said:
I agree that the RC is subject to the AGC's interpretations. I guess my question in this case is what purpose is the RC if only the AGC can respond to questions such as these? I'm merely curious how it works. I would think that the CC would inform the RC's to cease responses like the one I posted if they had no authority to do so.
Click to expand...

I just used that post to respond to several points being made, not in direct response to what you had written.

In any event, not trying to have any "tone" at all, just need to be emphatic that you cannot use any local (which includes the region) opinion of a regulatory interp. It is a very important point if you want to not get violated, so I am trying to make the point very strongly.

The RC can have any opinion they want. Their purpose is regulatory enforcement, not guidance.
 
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...

Flying a piston single or twin and you want to hit the threshold to make the first exit.
 
FO: Captain, You have descended below the VASI :mad:

CA: No worries mate, I want to make the first high speed :bandit:
FO: I read on JC that calcapt said this wasn't a good idea :soapbox:
CA: calcapt? I hear he is all mouth and no trousers :crazy:

FO: You might be right, let's do it your way :beer:

30 seconds later........

CA and FO: Damn, now that we have gotten our bat in a sticky wicket, we really should of listened to that calcapt bloke, he really knows his onions.....:laff:


_44362507_heathrow5.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top