![]() ![]() Even that number is illusory since most modern aircraft lack ADF capability when someone upgrades their panels, it is often the first thing to go. In comparison, there are only 250 NDB approaches left (many on the chopping block). The number decreases almost every cycle due to a combination of VOR decommissioning through the Minimum Operational Network initiative, the separate program decommissioning “redundant” VOR and NDB approaches, and unrepaired failures. As of March 2022, there remained almost 1500 VOR approaches but they are becoming less and less common. When the NAS was filled with VORs, NDBs, SDFs, and other types of ground-based navaids, the restrictiveness of Glaser might not have been a big deal. I doubt the writer of Pratt intended to be ironic. ![]() It’s no surprise Flight Standards didn’t run with the ball they were tossed. ![]() The closest it came was passing the ball to Flight Standards, saying that branch “is in the best position to issue policy and guidance as to what constitutes the different kinds of approaches allowed.” But Pratt did not disown the controlling interpretation that there must be three different kinds of navigation systems used, restricting what Flight Standards might do. Most importantly, it did not address the problem Glaser created. It said that the list of specific systems mentioned in Glaser, NDB, LDA, VOR, GPS, SDF, and LOC, “was not intended to exclude navigation systems that might be approved in the future.” What those might be, we still don’t know. The Pratt letter did nothing to help the situation. In 2012, the Chief Counsel issued the Pratt letter in an attempt to clarify Glaser. Since they do not use different kinds of navigation systems, they cannot be used as two of the three approaches to satisfy the cross-country requirement.įlight Standards apparently had its own questions about this and requested a clarification. An “instrument landing system localizer” is a single “kind of navigation system.” So, flying the full DME arc to track the localizer back course on the final approach course with step-down altitudes to the 600-foot AGL MDA on the LOC BC RWY 17 at College Station, Texas, is arguably the same as receiving vectors to intercept the final approach course and glideslope for the precision ILS RWY 35 at Sugar Land to its 200 and ¾ decision height because they are both localizer-based. Many saw it as requiring three different instrument approaches, each of them using a completely different navigation system. Intended or not, Glaser led to a very restrictive reading of the cross-country requirement. Instrument landing system localizer (LOC).Very high frequency omni-range station (VOR).The applicant, the Glaser letter went on to say, must choose three different approaches from a short list: Instead, said the Chief Counsel, the approaches “must use three different kinds of navigation systems” (emphasis in the interpretation). The author of the Glaser letter added that the three approaches may not simply be “three different kinds of approaches” (the regulatory language) which use some type of navigation systems. Glaser’s question, the interpretation went much further. The Chief Counsel saw ASR and PAR as radar tracking systems used by controllers to give instructions to pilots, not as “navigation systems” used by aircraft crew.Īlthough this completely answered Mr. Glaser asked whether an Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) or Precision Approach Radar (PAR) could be used. However, in March 2008, the FAA Chief Counsel responded to an inquiry from Danny Glaser. The length of the flight varies for the three ratings (250 NM for airplane and powered lift 100 NM for helicopters), but each requires an instrument approach at each airport and “Three different kinds of approaches with the use of navigation systems.” The requirements for the instrument rating for airplane, helicopter, and powered-lift in 14 CFR § 61.65 include a cross-country training flight. We will discuss some thoughts about what we think is likely, but we need to await final word from the FAA. As of this writing, there is an important question outstanding. But the rescission doesn’t end the story or the questions. On February 28, 2022, the FAA Chief Counsel rescinded two earlier interpretations regarding the required content of that flight. Aeronautical experience requirements for the coveted instrument rating include a dual cross country flight. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |