[index] [month] [prev] [next] [thead-prev] [thread-next]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:24:12 -0600, "David Corsi"
<dcorsi@mindspring.pleaseremovethis.com> wrote:

>It is certainly NOT a wrong choice to switch to a localizer approach but I
>personally recommend shoving that idea out the window along with other
>common things taught instrument students. At the airline I work for as a
>Captain (as well as most other airlines I know of) if we lose the glideslope
>we MUST miss per our company policy.

That's a pretty definitive statement. From an airline, that's to be
expected.

But for the Part 91 guy, I'm of the opinion that it would be best to
take all the available information into consideration when determining
weather to convert to a localizer approach or execute the missed.

You might wish to switch over to a localizer if:

-- you're low on fuel
-- you've practiced such a proceedure
-- you're at your home field
-- you've flown this approach a million times
-- the reported wx is well above minimums
-- your comfort level is high
-- you've some other reason (aircraft problems?) to believe it would
be safe or safer to make a reasonable attempt to complete the
approach.

On the other hand, if the precision portion of the approach thus far
had not been stablized, or if you're not 100% comfortable with the
approach (maybe you haven't flown this one before?) , or you're tired,
etc. it might very well be better to abandon the approach.

This is the beauty of Part 91 flying. The PIC gets to make these
kinds of determinations.

--Ron

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: When did UPS become..., Tarver Engineering
Next message: Re: Part 91 RVR, Timothy M. Metzinger
Next message in thread: Re: Mistakes, mis-shapes, mis-fits..., Dylan Smith
Previous message in thread: Re: Mistakes, mis-shapes, mis-fits..., Jim Baker