Houston
Well-Known Member
,... you believe that every ILS has a MM located at the MAP do you?
Pressing "Start" on the timer when shooting an ILS
- Thread starter kiloalpha
- Start date
,... you believe that every ILS has a MM located at the MAP do you?
Houston
Well-Known Member
Are you under the impression that I wrote there was or wasn't a specific citation in the IFH?
Houston
Well-Known Member
I'm just asking you to define the "twitch" you mentioned that gives a positive identification of a localizer antenna as you pass over it for the purpose of starting a missed approach a couple miles past the MAP.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
I think it was you that gave the impression that it's in the IFH.
Which I took to mean that, since we're talking about timing on an ILS approach, that since you believe waiting for station passage is a bad idea in your mind, that your alternative, timing, is in there.
Which I took to mean that, since we're talking about timing on an ILS approach, that since you believe waiting for station passage is a bad idea in your mind, that your alternative, timing, is in there.
SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
Of course, I always do this. Just like I always correct for wind drift in a holding pattern. ALWAYS.
Houston
Well-Known Member
Negative on your first sentence. If I did, it was a failure on my part to be clear in my writing.
On your second sentence, all I've done is to ask questions. I have not advanced an opinion or belief one way or the other on anything. However, I'd be happy to do so if anyone was interested.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Sure, let's hear it.
Houston
Well-Known Member
I think the odds of reaching a point where timing an ILS made a difference is very small indeed. I know that the odds of ever needing the timing decrease to an infinitesimal number when talking about aircraft with more than minimal equipment. I know that in the overwhelming majority of cases a climb that is initiated at the point where the signal is lost followed by a turn at the "best guess" location is not going to result in a problem. However, I also know that with my luck, I'll be the guy it happens to, no matter how small the odds are.
So, then I have to look at the other side of the question. Why would I not start a timer? It does add to the workload, and if not planned far enough in advance, could be a distraction at the wrong time.
In the end, I have to go back to the advice of one of my instructors long, long ago when discussing entry to hold in a Part 91 operation. He said that making the recommended entry was definitely the best thing to do. However, when it became overwhelming in a stressful moment to figure out the right thing to do, just turn right to the outbound heading, fly for a minute, turn right and go direct to the fix. It may not look pretty, but it isn't going to exit protected airspace. Using that logic on starting a timer, I'd say if there is no harm in doing it, then go ahead and add that extra degree of security. But, if it becomes a distraction, then go with the overwhelming odds and don't add that distraction. Of course, in saying that, I'm talking about aircraft that have limited avionics, but those are the kind in which most training occurs. So, it strikes me as a valid teaching point.
Sound reasonable to you?
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
I don't think what you're saying is unreasonable, but I do think it's overkill.
For what you're describing, I get it. In fact I lived it at one point in my life. I did my instrument training in a beat up 172 where we had to do partial panel, full procedure NDB approach's (in VMC, of course) because more often than not, the ADI decided it was time to stop functioning and, well, there was no radar where I trained, so we did everything full procedure. So timing approaches? Yeah, I appreciate it. And when I worked at the freight company with no GPS, of course we were timing things.
But for modern glass cockpit ops? I think it's overkill. Add in some performance where you can out climb almost any obstacle if you lose guidance within the marker? Overkill without a doubt.
So you could argue that it should be carried over to other ops, but that's where I disagree. I think it sets you up for the mindset that you should continue an approach when going missed is the better option (and I'll also add, I WAS taught to time the ILS so that you could revert back to the LOC approach if necessary, and I think it's a bad procedure). So I don't view it as an extra degree of security, at least for the operations that I'm doing, it's an extra degree of liability, because it makes you think, "Oh, well if we lose the GS, we'll just continue the approach using this timer here" when our FOM says to just go around.
Or maybe said another way; opportunity (timing an approach where it's not necessary) is the mother of all screw ups (as it makes you think that you are doing the right thing by pressing things further than you should).
Now would most my co-workers do that? No, but then again, I haven't seen somebody time an approach in ages.
For what you're describing, I get it. In fact I lived it at one point in my life. I did my instrument training in a beat up 172 where we had to do partial panel, full procedure NDB approach's (in VMC, of course) because more often than not, the ADI decided it was time to stop functioning and, well, there was no radar where I trained, so we did everything full procedure. So timing approaches? Yeah, I appreciate it. And when I worked at the freight company with no GPS, of course we were timing things.
But for modern glass cockpit ops? I think it's overkill. Add in some performance where you can out climb almost any obstacle if you lose guidance within the marker? Overkill without a doubt.
So you could argue that it should be carried over to other ops, but that's where I disagree. I think it sets you up for the mindset that you should continue an approach when going missed is the better option (and I'll also add, I WAS taught to time the ILS so that you could revert back to the LOC approach if necessary, and I think it's a bad procedure). So I don't view it as an extra degree of security, at least for the operations that I'm doing, it's an extra degree of liability, because it makes you think, "Oh, well if we lose the GS, we'll just continue the approach using this timer here" when our FOM says to just go around.
Or maybe said another way; opportunity (timing an approach where it's not necessary) is the mother of all screw ups (as it makes you think that you are doing the right thing by pressing things further than you should).
Now would most my co-workers do that? No, but then again, I haven't seen somebody time an approach in ages.
Houston
Well-Known Member
I'm fundamentally in agreement with what you wrote. However, you did include several straw man arguments of things I didn't say or even imply and disagreed with them. For example, I did not say or imply it would be better to continue an approach than to go missed if there was a problem of one sort or another. However, when executing a missed approach, I'd rather have a reasonable idea of where the MAP is. My question to someone's comment was how are you going to know where the MAP is located.
Remember, the original question was in a setting of a training environment and a reasonable assumption is the aircraft that student is flying are no better than the ones you encountered at that point in your training.