FAA Cautions Pilots Against Unauthorized Procedures

ppragman said:
Well it's like this, I've probably shot the special approaches into DUT 100 times and the LDA Z into JNU at least twice as many times. There are no special equipment requirements for either just knowledge of the local terrain. For instance for the one into Dutch you have to be able to identify Amaknak island.

Now if Joe-Blow cirrus guy flies down to Dutch and decides to fly the GP-12 or whatever, if he's a part time PenAir or Little Ace guy then so what? He's been properly trained, just not for his Cirrus. I know this is totally contrived, but for something more realistic, say now that you're at Brand Y imagine they didn't have the LDA-Z? You've probably flown it 500 times. The legal answer is "I'd never fly the 'good' approach" but if it was in the database, and you previously were trained on it, why not? The training for the special approaches is mostly garbage anyway - why not make it public and let anyone use them?
Click to expand...
Dude, I’m with you on that. I guess what I’m trying to say, is the FAA has to at least make a token effort to keep the annual Cirrus migration from CFITing on the missed out of JNU.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Problem is by the time they discover they are going to screw it up they can be headed towards a mountain. Best to be properly trained and equipped, regardless of being able to “pull it off.”

Outcome bias is an enemy to safety.
Click to expand...


For the special approaches scattered around Alaska, the training is mostly garbage.

Properly equipped is one thing, but when the FAA mandated training is flying the thing on a PCADT and clicking through a PowerPoint I think institutionally we've made a mountain out of a molehill.
 
ppragman said:
For the special approaches scattered around Alaska, the training is mostly garbage.

Properly equipped is one thing, but when the FAA mandated training is flying the thing on a PCADT and clicking through a PowerPoint I think institutionally we've made a mountain out of a molehill.
Click to expand...
I gotta say, the tilty box-o-death does a surprisingly good job of illustrating what it’s like to follow the lead in lights into 8.
 
ppragman said:
Well it's like this, I've probably shot the special approaches into DUT 100 times and the LDA Z into JNU at least twice as many times. There are no special equipment requirements for either just knowledge of the local terrain. For instance for the one into Dutch you have to be able to identify Amaknak island.

Now if Joe-Blow cirrus guy flies down to Dutch and decides to fly the GP-12 or whatever, if he's a part time PenAir or Little Ace guy then so what? He's been properly trained, just not for his Cirrus. I know this is totally contrived, but for something more realistic, say now that you're at Brand Y imagine they didn't have the LDA-Z? You've probably flown it 500 times. The legal answer is "I'd never fly the 'good' approach" but if it was in the database, and you previously were trained on it, why not? The training for the special approaches is mostly garbage anyway - why not make it public and let anyone use them?
Click to expand...
Also...how many of those JNU approaches were on an IFR clearance and how many were in “VMC for practice/situation awareness only”?
 
Roger Roger said:
Dude, I’m with you on that. I guess what I’m trying to say, is the FAA has to at least have a token effort to keep the annual Cirrus migration from CFITing on the missed out of JNU.
Click to expand...

Jesus I forgot about that - that was objectively terrifying.

Still, I suspect a better thing would be to simply not publish the ones that require special training in "the big book of plates?" You can't really fix stupid I guess, when I was on Kauai I listened to a private jet try to fly the RNP approach to 35. They asked for the "Zulu" and kept getting confused then said, "uhh well I guess will take the one that's not RNP, we don't have that." It wouldn't have really mattered because they're basically an overlay of each other but the fact that the guys didn't know they didn't have RNP isn't something that the FAA is going to fix with a memo.
 
ppragman said:
Jesus I forgot about that - that was objectively terrifying.

Still, I suspect a better thing would be to simply not publish the ones that require special training in "the big book of plates?" You can't really fix stupid I guess, when I was on Kauai I listened to a private jet try to fly the RNP approach to 35. They asked for the "Zulu" and kept getting confused then said, "uhh well I guess will take the one that's not RNP, we don't have that." It wouldn't have really mattered because they're basically an overlay of each other but the fact that the guys didn't know they didn't have RNP isn't something that the FAA is going to fix with a memo.
Click to expand...
@Capt. Chaos loves the annual Cirrus migration.
 
Roger Roger said:
I gotta say, the tilty box-o-death does a surprisingly good job of illustrating what it’s like to follow the lead in lights into 8.
Click to expand...

I agree with that for JNU the last one I went. Depending on the simulator the visuals may or may not be available- I did my last King Air stuff at simuflite and the sim showed Dutch Harbor as a nice airport on a sea of green fields when I broke out - yet somehow that counted.
 
ppragman said:
I agree with that for JNU the last one I went. Depending on the simulator the visuals may or may not be available- I did my last King Air stuff at simuflite and the sim showed Dutch Harbor as a nice airport on a sea of green fields when I broke out - yet somehow that counted.
Click to expand...
FSI was not without it’s problems but the sim was dead nuts for JNU, SIT, and PSG (though apparently PSG didn’t count for the landing due to not having a full airport survey).
 
Roger Roger said:
FSI was not without it’s problems but the sim was dead nuts for JNU, SIT, and PSG (though apparently PSG didn’t count for the landing due to not having a full airport survey).
Click to expand...

My only problem with FSI was the wildly variable quality in sim instructors. Ground instructors were all rock solid and amazing. In the King Air 100% of both sim and ground instructors were awesome, on the 1900 and Caravan there was more variability than I'd have cared for.

Still the best training I've gotten in aviation- far better quality than I have given for sure. Sim training spoils you.
 
ppragman said:
My only problem with FSI was the wildly variable quality in sim instructors. Ground instructors were all rock solid and amazing. In the King Air 100% of both sim and ground instructors were awesome, on the 1900 and Caravan there was more variability than I'd have cared for.

Still the best training I've gotten in aviation- far better quality than I have given for sure. Sim training spoils you.
Click to expand...
Our ground instructor was...barely adequate. My sim instructor was awesome, didn’t have PC12 time but an excellent teacher with a great attitude and had done a tour as a Jayhawk pilot in SIT so we bonded over that.
 
Roger Roger said:
@Capt. Chaos loves the annual Cirrus migration.
Click to expand...
This notice from the FAA is directly related to your former shop pushing to get the Capstone approaches approved with Garmin equipment and have the specials in the public database.

At least center here knows not to offer them up, but there have already been a few unauthorized user's. Questioned a guy last summer for shooting the RNAV A here.. fully admited his GPS database was out of date and he had NO plates or charts and was shocked he couldn't get vectors to final.

I am sure that notice will set guys like him straight.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Capt. Chaos said:
This notice from the FAA is directly related to your former shop pushing to get the Capstone approaches approved with Garmin equipment and have the specials in the public database.

At least center here knows not to offer them up, but there have already been a few unauthorized user's. Questioned a guy last summer for shooting the RNAV A here.. fully admited his GPS database was out of date and he had NO plates or charts and was shocked he couldn't get vectors to final.

I am sure that notice will set guys like him straight.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
You are misinformed. The Garmin notice came out BEFORE the old shop inquired. The dual GTN combo meets all published requirements for the approaches, but the federales wanted to consult with the folks that originally built them before they approved operation as published vs operation as understood with Capstone equipment.
 
Roger Roger said:
You are misinformed. The Garmin notice came out BEFORE the old shop inquired. The dual GTN combo meets all published requirements for the approaches, but the federales wanted to consult with the folks that originally built them before they approved operation as published vs operation as understood with Capstone equipment.
Click to expand...
Just going with the info I got from the one legged man.

Now if its ok for Garmin to have the specials in the public database, I plan on pushing that for the Chelton too. Be nice to not get bent over for $1000's for the "special database".

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
Capt. Chaos said:
Just going with the info I got from the one legged man.

Now if its ok for Garmin to have the specials in the public database, I plan on pushing that for the Chelton too. Be nice to not get bent over for $1000's for the "special database".

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Makes sense.

Though for me, repeat: “not my circus....”
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
True. BUT devil’s advocate here...

In some cases it can be pretty confusing. For instance, at my shop we are authorized domestic RNPs, but only one intl airport is listed in the Ops Specs for authorization required RNPs outside the US. Add to that the fact that we don’t teach the ops specs, and don’t expect our pilots to be well-versed in them, you can run into issues, especially as new approaches are created and aren’t listed in our airport guides and NOTAMs as “Not Authorized.”

In Cuba the RNAV approaches are called RNP, even though they aren’t what we would call RNP in the States. They are standard GPS approaches without RNP containment requirements, and authorization is NOT required.

Long story short, it can get confusing, and some of the responsibility lies with the company if a crew mistakenly flies one of those foreign AR RNP approaches.
Click to expand...
Furious typing of a flight operations information bulletin ensues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top