Peter wrote:
I’ve had that several times at Class G airports…
I totally agree with you that at these airports looking outside must have priority over looking at the instruments, at least in VMC conditions. But in protected airspace I also prefer to fly every instrument approach down to the minimum on instruments alone. Of course peeking outside every now and then to assess the actual conditions can not harm. And knowing early that no go-around will be necessary gives some peace of mind. Not so much because of fear of the go-around maneuver (which is not difficult to fly) but because of the passengers and all the hassle connected to a diversion. In our company the SOPs permit to be stabilised at 500ft in visual conditions, whereas in IMC stabilisation must be achieved at 1000ft (flaps in landing position, on profile, Vref+10/-0). The latter means that the last 3 miles have to be flown with lots of power against lots of drag which is something I really hate badly. When I have established visual contact before that 1000ft gate I can continue at idle power and 160kt for another 1 1/2 miles, set final flaps at 500ft and come out over the theshold at Vref without ever touching the power. Much more elegant, quiet and (as I see it, but unfortunately only me) stable.
I agree if you are in regular practice.
I do relatively few ILSs from the left seat (as opposed to observing from the right) and every one counts for currency.
How do those two statements fit together?
As mentioned above… worth a mention that using the FD mode of the autopilot is a useful backup for a failed autopilot servo. It is slightly easier to fly the plane using the FD and by hand than using the raw data and by hand. Unfortunately I don’t think the FD mode is available on the KFC225 if the power-up test detects a failed servo.
I think this “instrument disagreement” is a tricky situation, because how do you know which to trust?
It seems like a lot of accidents take place on the third approach.
I have gone missed a few times, most memorably 3 times in a row when flying back from Pamplona and finding Shoreham under a low cloud / fog layer. The stuff was moving around and I had about 4hrs’ fuel and Biggin and others were clear, so I didn’t mind trying the 3 times. It was slightly frustrating because if I flew a few miles along the coast I could pretty well see the airport under the layer diagonally, and a cowboy willing to fly along the coast at say 300ft (as quite a few have done) would have got in. Eventually I diverted to Biggin which was very very marginal VFR and with some pilots clearly flying the circuit using GPS but for some reason they were not keen for me to fly the ILS (I can’t remember the detail – maybe there was a long queue for it).
The weired FD indication was so off the mark that I didn’t question what to believe but then it is practically impossible to just disregard it and continue. It creates a moment of distress enough to get you off centre line so close to the MAP and make the final outcome a question of luck.
I still can’t figure out why the FD gave such a strange indication.
You may be looking at an expensive repair of the KI256, but it could be “upstream” i.e. in the autopilot computer. Yours is a KAP150 or similar?
yes, it’s a KFC150
As I was flying into EDTM again today I had a phone call first with the tower guy to get a weather briefing. I mentioned my experience of a few weeks ago and was given an explanation as to the reported weather conditions and the reality I faced: The cloud measurement instrument was giving wrong values.
Apparently, one other guy after me complained also so they went checking and found the mistake. Today, the issue was on my end, as I got no GS indication.
