Jump to content

ILS vs LPV


Recommended Posts

So, do we say some preemptive prayers for this pilot?  :)

  • New panel 
  • misses an altitude assignment 
  • misses a turn 
  • distracted by the audio panel making noises... will get that fixed on Monday...

It’s all OK, because it’s VFR...

Would you continue on, to the ground in IMC, when you are missing targets a couple of times in VFR, with a plane that audibly isn’t ready?

That’s is just three things I see in the video that could be done better...

 

@Marauder need somebody to fly right seat with you to witness the GPS guidance vs. ILS guidance below DA?

I am sure they don’t just turn off... but their accuracy may not be perfect either...  if there was a technical reason for them to go black, the DA would be raised to allow for a better transition between instruments and visual flight...

 

You know you are low on fuel, when... you lower the nose to descend to the runway, and this action unports the fuel pick-up... the fuel runs forward and away from the pick-up...  our fuel tanks are designed to have fuel for the climb.  There won’t be enough for a full missed approach...

Nice video, that was a multi-level learning experience... :)

PP thoughts only, not a CFII...

Best regards,

-a-

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

:o  I noticed in one of his replies, he claimed he was about to say "got the runway in sight" at DA, which seems doubtful.  But then later you hear him announce "got the airport in sight" right when the threshold appears on the camera, so one wonders what he meant.

No fan of Jerry's piloting but the video doesn't necessarily show what he sees. GoPros are not high quality cameras and their reliability in depicting things in low light situations is not that high.

Maybe he had the approach lights at 200. Maybe he had the other runway markers at 100. Maybe he had 1/2 mile flight viz all the way down. Maybe technically legal. Maybe not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

It’s ok because it’s an ILS. If it had been an LPV approach that would have been dangerous! :P

Aviation is interesting. I noticed years ago that multiple aviation magazines would carry similar stories at the same time. But it goes further. Here we are discussing this and Jerry posts a video about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

Aviation is interesting. I noticed years ago that multiple aviation magazines would carry similar stories at the same time. But it goes further. Here we are discussing this and Jerry posts a video about it.

I guess you snooze you lose. The video was removed before I could view it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, flyboy0681 said:

I guess you snooze you lose. The video was removed before I could view it.

If you haven't been a watcher, you don't know this often happens. Jerry does something particularly bad. He thinks it's great (and has fans who agree) but he gets so much negative feedback about improper procedures, poor airmanship,  possibly busting regs, and the proverbial "smoking hole," he removes it soon after.  Usually they are the IFR ones. There's one where he exits the clouds on on the ILS in an unusual attitude - nose low , steep bank, airspeed in the yellow arc, VSI pegged at -3,000 FPM , all relaxed with his throttle hand resting on his knee.

The amazing thing is that 90% of them involve flying the exact same approach. He regularly flies between Auburn and Oakland, CA. It gets even more cringeworthy when he goes somewhere less familiar. There was one a while back where he leaves an airport in Southern California to head back home. If I'm recalling correctly (it was one of the first IFR ones I saw and I was amazed) , it was Fullerton. He's given the Anaheim One SID, Lake Hughes transition. Takes off, is give a left turn and a heading "to join Victor 8," at which point he tosses the SID chart (this is pre-Garmin Pilot for him) into the back seat saying, "Well I'm done with the SID."   ATC keeps wondering why he's not following the SID, finally realizes what they are dealing with (when he suggests he can go direct and cut through all that annoying SoCal airspace) and ends up vectoring him through the entire procedure.

Edited by midlifeflyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Bob - S50 said:

In my local area: OLM (Olympia), PWT (Bremerton), PAE (Everett), and BLI (Bellingham).  BFI (Boeing) and TIW (Tacoma) do not have the same minimums.

I took a look at a couple of these airports and the LPV and ILS minimums appear to be identical.  LNAV minimums are higher, but LNAVs are different than LPVs.  

Edited by DC_Mooniac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

If you haven't been a watcher, you don't know this often happens. Jerry does something particularly bad. He thinks it's great (and has fans who agree) but he gets so much negative feedback about improper procedures, poor airmanship,  possibly busting regs, and the proverbial "smoking hole," he removes it soon after.  Usually they are the IFR ones. There's one where he exits the clouds on on the ILS in an unusual attitude - nose low , steep bank, airspeed in the yellow arc, VSI pegged at -3,000 FPM , all relaxed with his throttle hand resting on his knee.

I generally enjoy the various YouTube flying videos, but I’m not sure I’ve made it through an entire video from Jerry. The constant fumbling just drives me crazy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

If you haven't been a watcher, you don't know this often happens. Jerry does something particularly bad. He thinks it's great (and has fans who agree) but he gets so much negative feedback about improper procedures, poor airmanship,  possibly busting regs, and the proverbial "smoking hole," he removes it soon after.  Usually they are the IFR ones. There's one where he exits the clouds on on the ILS in an unusual attitude - nose low , steep bank, airspeed in the yellow arc, VSI pegged at -3,000 FPM , all relaxed with his throttle hand resting on his knee.

The amazing thing is that 90% of them involve flying the exact same approach. He regularly flies between Auburn and Oakland, CA. It gets even more cringeworthy when he goes somewhere less familiar. There was one a while back where he leaves an airport in Southern California to head back home. If I'm recalling correctly (it was one of the first IFR ones I saw and I was amazed) , it was Fullerton. He's given the Anaheim One SID, Lake Hughes transition. Takes off, is give a left turn and a heading "to join Victor 8," at which point he tosses the SID chart (this is pre-Garmin Pilot for him) into the back seat saying, "Well I'm done with the SID."   ATC keeps wondering why he's not following the SID, finally realizes what they are dealing with (when he suggests he can go direct and cut through all that annoying SoCal airspace) and ends up vectoring him through the entire procedure.

I started watching his stuff about a year ago and you are spot on about the way he handles his videos. I remember the crap storm he brought onto himself by some of the low altitude flights being posted. Clearly busting the altitude requirements. Those videos got pulled pretty quickly.

I also noticed that he has started calling out by name some of his critics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jackn said:

I generally enjoy the various YouTube flying videos, but I’m not sure I’ve made it through an entire video from Jerry. The constant fumbling just drives me crazy. 

You mean you didn't enjoy the video where he was on an IFR flight plan with a clearly dysfunctional AI?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

No fan of Jerry's piloting but the video doesn't necessarily show what he sees. GoPros are not high quality cameras and their reliability in depicting things in low light situations is not that high.

Maybe he had the approach lights at 200. Maybe he had the other runway markers at 100. Maybe he had 1/2 mile flight viz all the way down. Maybe technically legal. Maybe not.

He claimed he had the "runway environment" in sight at 200'.  Of course, to meet visibility requirements, he'd need to be able to see the runway, not just its lights, within 2400', which seems doubtful.

I did point out that if, in fact, he had the actual runway in sight at 200', it was just a normal visual approach after DA, not a below DA approach.  That would take a lot of the "wow!" and "cool!" factor out of the video, and he'd have to acknowledge that the cameras just make the approach look more exciting than it actually was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jaylw314 said:

He claimed he had the "runway environment" in sight at 200'.  Of course, to meet visibility requirements, he'd need to be able to see the runway, not just its lights, within 2400', which seems doubtful.

I did point out that if, in fact, he had the actual runway in sight at 200', it was just a normal visual approach after DA, not a below DA approach.  That would take a lot of the "wow!" and "cool!" factor out of the video, and he'd have to acknowledge that the cameras just make the approach look more exciting than it actually was. 

Sorry I missed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jaylw314 said:

and he'd have to acknowledge that the cameras just make the approach look more exciting than it actually was.

He actually did say that. A number of folks said he busted minimums and his answer to each was ""that is correct, flight visibility was much better than reported , the RVR reporting equipment is not perfect and my vision was much better than the GoPro displayed as I did have minimum visibility to continue to land."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

He actually did say that. A number of folks said he busted minimums and his answer to each was ""that is correct, flight visibility was much better than reported , the RVR reporting equipment is not perfect and my vision was much better than the GoPro displayed as I did have minimum visibility to continue to land."

The part that gives me doubt is he actually says "Got the airport in sight" right as the threshold appears in the video.  Why would he say that or anything at that moment if he had had the airport in sight from DA, which he claims he did?  In an earlier reply, he also claimed that minimum visibility didn't apply for part 91.  Neither disproves his claim that he had visibility...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jaylw314 said:

The part that gives me doubt is he actually says "Got the airport in sight" right as the threshold appears in the video.  Why would he say that or anything at that moment if he had had the airport in sight from DA, which he claims he did?  In an earlier reply, he also claimed that minimum visibility didn't apply for part 91.  Neither disproves his claim that he had visibility...

Lots of things give me doubt :D

I forget and didn't read all the comments. Did he say minimum flight visibility doesn't apply to Part 91 (incorrect) or did he say reported RVR doesn't apply to Part 91 (correct).

(Although it's doubtful even an erroneous 1000 RVR would be off enough if the flight visibility is more than twice that.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

Lots of things give me doubt :D

I forget and didn't read all the comments. Did he say minimum flight visibility doesn't apply to Part 91 (incorrect) or did he say reported RVR doesn't apply to Part 91 (correct).

(Although it's doubtful even an erroneous 1000 RVR would be off enough if the flight visibility is more than twice that.)

I do recall him saying in the video as Part 91 it was okay to have a "look see". What was troubling for me was how cavalier he was on the approach. Especially when he blew through the localizer and was given a vector back to it. And then admitted to the controller he was fixated. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

Lots of things give me doubt :D

I forget and didn't read all the comments. Did he say minimum flight visibility doesn't apply to Part 91 (incorrect) or did he say reported RVR doesn't apply to Part 91 (correct).

(Although it's doubtful even an erroneous 1000 RVR would be off enough if the flight visibility is more than twice that.)

I think I recall him saying RVR doesn't apply to part 91, in response to someone asking if he had flight visibility at DA, so the context implied he did not need to comply with RVR.  Of course, the reported RVR is irrelevant at DA, it's the flight visibility that matters and is still required

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add one more piece of data.  I flew the ILS 17 at Tacoma (TIW) today, but when I was checking the NOTAMs I saw there are NOTAMs for the approaches that are in effect for almost the next two years.  One of those raises the DA for the ILS to 668 and another raises the minimums for the LPV to 655.  So in this case, the LPV minimums are actually LOWER than the ILS minimums by 13 feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/13/2018 at 2:16 PM, jaylw314 said:

I think I recall him saying RVR doesn't apply to part 91, in response to someone asking if he had flight visibility at DA, so the context implied he did not need to comply with RVR.  Of course, the reported RVR is irrelevant at DA, it's the flight visibility that matters and is still required

Could be either way. He might have heard that takeoff minimums don't apply to Part 91 and figured 0/0 landings were ok too. After all, this is the same guy who insisted in some early videos that 91.126 (the pattern direction rule) was only a recommendation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.