FAR Part 97: Aircraft Approach Categories - IAS vs Ground Speed

[Mark Hansen]

I'm an Instrument Airplane student, and am having a disagreement
with my instructor on one topic - that of Aircraft Approach Categories.

According to 14 CFR Part 97.3 (b), it provides the speed ranges for
the different aircraft categories (A-E). In all the documentation I've
read, this "speed" is the IAS of the airplane.

However, my CFI says that this is based on the Ground Speed. When
we are flying an approach with a tail wind and can see that, although
we are remaining below 90kts IAS, our Ground Speed (shown by the GPS unit)
is just over 90kts, he said I must use the category B minimums.

I understand his reasoning (in that the faster we're moving across
the ground, the faster we'll move out of the protection zone, etc.),
but from what I can find, the FAR doesn't mention ground speed at all.

If I use the minimums associated with the higher of the IAS or
Ground Speed, would I get dinged during a proficiency check?

The reason I ask is that I've been asked questions before where the
examiner was trying to make sure that I completely understood the
rule, and I'm worried that selecting minimums that are higher than
necessary will show that I don't really understand it.

Thanks,

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[T***@Backhome.org]

You are correct. There is no end to what some flight instructors will dream
up or invent. Everything the FAA does in the world of charting is predicated
on IAS.

Mark Hansen wrote:

> I'm an Instrument Airplane student, and am having a disagreement
> with my instructor on one topic - that of Aircraft Approach Categories.
>
> According to 14 CFR Part 97.3 (b), it provides the speed ranges for
> the different aircraft categories (A-E). In all the documentation I've
> read, this "speed" is the IAS of the airplane.
>
> However, my CFI says that this is based on the Ground Speed. When
> we are flying an approach with a tail wind and can see that, although
> we are remaining below 90kts IAS, our Ground Speed (shown by the GPS unit)
> is just over 90kts, he said I must use the category B minimums.
>
> I understand his reasoning (in that the faster we're moving across
> the ground, the faster we'll move out of the protection zone, etc.),
> but from what I can find, the FAR doesn't mention ground speed at all.
>
> If I use the minimums associated with the higher of the IAS or
> Ground Speed, would I get dinged during a proficiency check?
>
> The reason I ask is that I've been asked questions before where the
> examiner was trying to make sure that I completely understood the
> rule, and I'm worried that selecting minimums that are higher than
> necessary will show that I don't really understand it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
> Sacramento, CA

[Roy Smith]

In article <***@Backhome.org>, <***@Backhome.org> wrote:
>You are correct. There is no end to what some flight instructors will dream
>up or invent. Everything the FAA does in the world of charting is predicated
>on IAS.

The one exception would be the FAF-MAP timing chart for non-precision
approaches. That's groundspeed. Perhaps that's what got the
instructor confused.

[Mark Hansen]

On 7/15/2005 11:11, Roy Smith wrote:

> In article <***@Backhome.org>, <***@Backhome.org> wrote:
>>You are correct. There is no end to what some flight instructors will dream
>>up or invent. Everything the FAA does in the world of charting is predicated
>>on IAS.
>
> The one exception would be the FAF-MAP timing chart for non-precision
> approaches. That's groundspeed. Perhaps that's what got the
> instructor confused.

No. He made it clear that he was talking about the approach categories
as they apply to the minimums, and not about the timiming from FAF to
MAP.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[T***@Backhome.org]

Roy Smith wrote:

> In article <***@Backhome.org>, <***@Backhome.org> wrote:
> >You are correct. There is no end to what some flight instructors will dream
> >up or invent. Everything the FAA does in the world of charting is predicated
> >on IAS.
>
> The one exception would be the FAF-MAP timing chart for non-precision
> approaches. That's groundspeed. Perhaps that's what got the
> instructor confused.

The FAA doesn't provide timing tables in the source. The chart makers do those.
Those are still indicated airspeed. If you choose to convert those values to TAS,
then to G/S, that is your option and is a good operating practice. But, it is not
mandatory, at least not in the sense that courses and altitudes on an IAP chart
are mandatory.

[T***@Backhome.org]

***@Backhome.org wrote:


> The FAA doesn't provide timing tables in the source. The chart makers do those.
> Those are still indicated airspeed. If you choose to convert those values to TAS,
> then to G/S, that is your option and is a good operating practice. But, it is not
> mandatory, at least not in the sense that courses and altitudes on an IAP chart
> are mandatory.

I meant to say if you choose to use those values as G/S and do the necessary
conversions from IAS to TAS to G/S, that is your option and a good operating practice.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

<***@Backhome.org> wrote in message news:***@Backhome.org...
>
> I meant to say if you choose to use those values as G/S and do the
> necessary
> conversions from IAS to TAS to G/S, that is your option and a good
> operating practice.
>

Those values are expressed in ground speed already, converting them to
anything else would be a bad operating practice.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

<***@Backhome.org> wrote in message news:***@Backhome.org...
>
> The FAA doesn't provide timing tables in the source. The chart makers do
> those.
> Those are still indicated airspeed. If you choose to convert those values
> to TAS,
> then to G/S, that is your option and is a good operating practice. But,
> it is not
> mandatory, at least not in the sense that courses and altitudes on an IAP
> chart
> are mandatory.
>

The FAA is a chart maker, the speeds in the timing tables on FAA charts are
ground speed.

[T***@Backhome.org]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> <***@Backhome.org> wrote in message news:***@Backhome.org...
> >
> > The FAA doesn't provide timing tables in the source. The chart makers do
> > those.
> > Those are still indicated airspeed. If you choose to convert those values
> > to TAS,
> > then to G/S, that is your option and is a good operating practice. But,
> > it is not
> > mandatory, at least not in the sense that courses and altitudes on an IAP
> > chart
> > are mandatory.
> >
>
> The FAA is a chart maker, the speeds in the timing tables on FAA charts are
> ground speed.

And, your reference that the speeds on NACO charts are ground speeds?

[Roy Smith]

***@Backhome.org wrote:
> And, your reference that the speeds on NACO charts are ground speeds?

Oh, come on, this is getting silly. The table is labeled (for example, on
the HPN NDB 16) "FAF to MAP 4.8 NM". That's one point on the ground to
another point on the ground. The times in the table tell you how long it
will take to cover that distance at various speeds. What else could the
speeds possibly mean if not ground speed?

The chart has a date on it (04 AUG 2005). Do I need to cite a reference to
convince you that the date should be interpreted according to the Julian
calendar?

This is amendment 21. Do I need to cite a reference to convince you that
"21" should be interpreted in decimal? After all, we set our transponders
in octal, why shouldn't we also number our SIAP amendments in octal?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" <***@panix.com> wrote in message
news:roy-***@reader2.panix.com...
>
> Oh, come on, this is getting silly. The table is labeled (for example, on
> the HPN NDB 16) "FAF to MAP 4.8 NM". That's one point on the ground to
> another point on the ground.
>

Well, the NDB is on the ground, nut the MAP is in the air! : )

[Judah]

"Steven P. McNicoll" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:FcaCe.4517$***@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

>
> "Roy Smith" <***@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:roy-***@reader2.panix.com...
>>
>> Oh, come on, this is getting silly. The table is labeled (for
>> example, on the HPN NDB 16) "FAF to MAP 4.8 NM". That's one point on
>> the ground to another point on the ground.
>>
>
> Well, the NDB is on the ground, nut the MAP is in the air! : )
>

Actually, technically speaking, the MAP is a fixed point in space that
happens to be physically above the ground. Howver, it is a fixed point at a
fixed altitude and at a fixed position relative to objects on the ground.

The real question here is, does the NACO chart take into consideration the
relative motion of the earth along it's axis when calculating ground speed?
And if so, do the times change based on the season?

[Roy Smith]

In article <***@69.28.186.158>,
Judah <***@nospam.net> wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:FcaCe.4517$***@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
> >
> > "Roy Smith" <***@panix.com> wrote in message
> > news:roy-***@reader2.panix.com...
> >>
> >> Oh, come on, this is getting silly. The table is labeled (for
> >> example, on the HPN NDB 16) "FAF to MAP 4.8 NM". That's one point on
> >> the ground to another point on the ground.
> >>
> >
> > Well, the NDB is on the ground, nut the MAP is in the air! : )
> >
>
> Actually, technically speaking, the MAP is a fixed point in space that
> happens to be physically above the ground. Howver, it is a fixed point at a
> fixed altitude and at a fixed position relative to objects on the ground.
>
> The real question here is, does the NACO chart take into consideration the
> relative motion of the earth along it's axis when calculating ground speed?
> And if so, do the times change based on the season?

Don't forget continental drift.

[Jose]

> Actually, technically speaking, the MAP is a fixed point in space that
> happens to be physically above the ground.

Actually, technically speaking the MAP is a moving point in space that
happens to be (defined to be) moving at the same rate as the ground.

<flee> Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" <***@aol.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:DnlCe.1443$***@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> Actually, technically speaking, the MAP is a fixed point in space that
>> happens to be physically above the ground.
>>
>
> Actually, technically speaking the MAP is a moving point in space that
> happens to be (defined to be) moving at the same rate as the ground.
>

That would make it a fixed point in reference to the earth. Frame of
reference, dear boy, frame of reference.

[Jose]

> Frame of
> reference, dear boy, frame of reference.

Precisely. The poster didn't give one. :)

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Doug]

My CFII didn't really understand holds. He knew how to enter them and
fly them. But he didn't know how ATC called them out and had some other
misunderstandings about them. But, him not knowing the facts on this
subject made ME research holds and other related subjects, so I'll
NEVER forget them now!!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" <***@aol.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:5asCe.5$***@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Precisely. The poster didn't give one. :)
>

Yes he did.

[Jose]

> Yes he did.

No he didn't.

Say, is this the five minute argument, or did you want the full half hour?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" <***@aol.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:pnDCe.327$***@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
> No he didn't.
>

Of course he did.


>
> Say, is this the five minute argument, or did you want the full half hour?
>

This isn't an argument at all.

[Everett M. Greene]

"Steven P. McNicoll" <***@earthlink.net> writes:
> "Jose" <***@aol.nojunk.com> wrote
> >
> > No he didn't.
>
> Of course he did.
> >
> > Say, is this the five minute argument, or did you want the full half hour?
>
> This isn't an argument at all.

And with no context, the casual reader has no idea
what the quibbling is about...

[T***@Backhome.org]

Roy Smith wrote:

> ***@Backhome.org wrote:
> > And, your reference that the speeds on NACO charts are ground speeds?
>
> Oh, come on, this is getting silly. The table is labeled (for example, on
> the HPN NDB 16) "FAF to MAP 4.8 NM". That's one point on the ground to
> another point on the ground. The times in the table tell you how long it
> will take to cover that distance at various speeds. What else could the
> speeds possibly mean if not ground speed?

Most everything pertaining to instrument procedures is predicated on fixes,
facilities or waypoints either on the ground or geo-referenced to a precise
location on the ground. Yet, many (most) of these procedures are predicated on
indicated airspeed.

The origin of the timing table was not specifically referenced to ground
speed. In fact, the KISS concept in pre-GPS days favored simply applying IAS
on final, as in managing human factors and keeping the priority tasks at the
top of the list, so to speak. So, the discussion is not silly at all.

[Dave Butler]

***@Backhome.org wrote:

> Most everything pertaining to instrument procedures is predicated on fixes,
> facilities or waypoints either on the ground or geo-referenced to a precise
> location on the ground. Yet, many (most) of these procedures are predicated on
> indicated airspeed.
>
> The origin of the timing table was not specifically referenced to ground
> speed. In fact, the KISS concept in pre-GPS days favored simply applying IAS
> on final, as in managing human factors and keeping the priority tasks at the
> top of the list, so to speak. So, the discussion is not silly at all.

Well, I don't get it. Sure seems silly to me, too. Would you mind explaining the
arithmetic operations involved in calculating the airspeeds that you claim go
into the table? What are the data from which you begin, and what operations do
you perform on those data to derive airspeed?

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[JPH]

***@Backhome.org wrote:

> The origin of the timing table was not specifically referenced to ground
> speed. In fact, the KISS concept in pre-GPS days favored simply applying IAS
> on final, as in managing human factors and keeping the priority tasks at the
> top of the list, so to speak. So, the discussion is not silly at all.
>

That may have been a simple way some pilots were taught to use it, but
the time/distance table is based on true speed, not indicated speed. If
the FAF to MAP distance is 5NM, the time shown under 60 kts will be 5:00
minutes. This requires 60 kts TAS to cover that 5 NM distance in 5
minutes. If you have a IAS of 60 and a TAS of only 30 based on
headwinds, then it will take you 10 minutes to get to the MAP. Of
course, using IAS, you're unlikely to overshoot the MAP as long as you
have a headwind, so you're safe in that respect, but then you might
start a missed approach turn too early, and fly into an area not
protected by TERPS obstacle assessment.

JPH

[John Clonts]

"JPH" <***@cox.net> wrote in message news:NkZDe.26717$***@okepread07...
> ***@Backhome.org wrote:
>
>> The origin of the timing table was not specifically referenced to ground
>> speed. In fact, the KISS concept in pre-GPS days favored simply applying IAS
>> on final, as in managing human factors and keeping the priority tasks at the
>> top of the list, so to speak. So, the discussion is not silly at all.
>>
>
> That may have been a simple way some pilots were taught to use it, but the time/distance table is based on
> true speed, not indicated speed. If the FAF to MAP distance is 5NM, the time shown under 60 kts will be 5:00
> minutes. This requires 60 kts TAS to cover that 5 NM distance in 5 minutes. If you have a IAS of 60 and a TAS
> of only 30 based on headwinds, then it will take you 10 minutes to get to the MAP. Of course, using IAS,
> you're unlikely to overshoot the MAP as long as you have a headwind, so you're safe in that respect, but then
> you might start a missed approach turn too early, and fly into an area not protected by TERPS obstacle
> assessment.
>
> JPH

I don't think you really meant TAS in that paragraph...

[Roger]

Just look at the NOS charts. Categories are based on IAS. It tells
you that.

When flying to the MAP from the FAF you have the distance given and
can often use GPS, or DME for the distance to the MAP, but you still
have a time to calculate time (or take it off a chart) and that is
based on a distance which has to be based on ground speed.

They come right out and tell you. It doesn't get much more simple than
that.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Mark Hansen]

On 7/22/2005 11:29, Roger wrote:

> Just look at the NOS charts. Categories are based on IAS. It tells
> you that.

Where does it say that? I don't see anything on the IAP that says this.
I've looked in the FARs and AIM (see the initial posting of this thread)
and they simply say "speed" and don't specifically state indicated or
ground speed.


>
> When flying to the MAP from the FAF you have the distance given and
> can often use GPS, or DME for the distance to the MAP, but you still
> have a time to calculate time (or take it off a chart) and that is
> based on a distance which has to be based on ground speed.

Note that I'm not talking about the FAF to MAP times (although this
thread has morphed into that discussion by others). Those times must
be based on ground speed.

>
> They come right out and tell you. It doesn't get much more simple than
> that.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[Roger]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:36:15 -0700, Mark Hansen <***@NOSPAMunify.com>
wrote:

>On 7/22/2005 11:29, Roger wrote:
>
>> Just look at the NOS charts. Categories are based on IAS. It tells
>> you that.
>
>Where does it say that? I don't see anything on the IAP that says this.
>I've looked in the FARs and AIM (see the initial posting of this thread)
>and they simply say "speed" and don't specifically state indicated or
>ground speed.
>
>
As I said, get out a set of NOS approach charts. It's right there in B
& W.

Actually, it's on page A2. Approach category and the explanation in
reference to Vso

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>> When flying to the MAP from the FAF you have the distance given and
>> can often use GPS, or DME for the distance to the MAP, but you still
>> have a time to calculate time (or take it off a chart) and that is
>> based on a distance which has to be based on ground speed.
>
>Note that I'm not talking about the FAF to MAP times (although this
>thread has morphed into that discussion by others). Those times must
>be based on ground speed.
>
>>
>> They come right out and tell you. It doesn't get much more simple than
>> that.
>>
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

<***@Backhome.org> wrote in message news:***@Backhome.org...
>
> Most everything pertaining to instrument procedures is predicated on
> fixes,
> facilities or waypoints either on the ground or geo-referenced to a
> precise
> location on the ground. Yet, many (most) of these procedures are
> predicated on
> indicated airspeed.
>
> The origin of the timing table was not specifically referenced to ground
> speed. In fact, the KISS concept in pre-GPS days favored simply applying
> IAS
> on final, as in managing human factors and keeping the priority tasks at
> the
> top of the list, so to speak. So, the discussion is not silly at all.
>

It's your position that is silly. When others stated the speeds in the
timing tables were ground speeds you asked for a reference showing that the
speeds on NACO charts are ground speeds. It has since been demonstrated
that the speeds are ground speeds, yet you still insist they're IAS.
Where's your reference that the speeds on NACO charts are IAS?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

<***@Backhome.org> wrote in message news:***@Backhome.org...
>
> And, your reference that the speeds on NACO charts are ground speeds?
>

This is getting absurd even for you. The tables provide times between fixed
points at various speeds. They can't be anything other than ground speed,
ground speed is defined as the speed of an aircraft relative to the surface
of the earth.

Let's look at an example, the LOC-B at Eagle County Regional Airport.

http://map.aeroplanner.com/plates/FaaPlates_pdfs/06403LB.PDF

The distance from the FAF to the MDA is 9.5 miles. The table shows a time
of 3:10 for a speed of 180 knots. A vehicle traveling at a steady speed of
180 knots will cover a straight line distance of 9.5 nautical miles in 3:10,
so this speed certainly appears to be ground speed. But let's try another
one to be sure. The table shows a time of 9:30 for a speed of 60 knots. A
vehicle traveling at a steady speed of 60 knots will cover a straight line
distance of 9.5 nautical miles in 9:30. Again, this speed has the
properties of ground speed.

But you say they're IAS, so let's examine that. The MDA is 10,160 MSL, in a
standard atmosphere an aircraft at 180 KIAS will have a TAS of 209 knots and
will take 2:44 to travel 9.5 miles. Only with a pretty stiff headwind
component would it take 3:10 if the speeds are IAS as you insist. Are the
chart makers factoring in that wind?

Let's look at a speed of 60 KIAS. At that speed the TAS will be 70 knots,
at that speed the airplane will travel the distance in 8:57. Only with a 10
knot headwind will it require 9:30 to travel 9.5 miles. Are the chart
makers factoring in different winds for different indicated airspeeds?

I say the speeds on these charts are ground speeds simply because they can't
be anything else, I don't need a reference for that. Where's your reference
that the speeds on NACO charts are IAS?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

<***@Backhome.org> wrote in message news:***@Backhome.org...
>
> You are correct. There is no end to what some flight instructors will
> dream
> up or invent. Everything the FAA does in the world of charting is
> predicated
> on IAS.
>

Not quite everything. The approach timing table uses ground speed.

[T***@Backhome.org]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> <***@Backhome.org> wrote in message news:***@Backhome.org...
> >
> > You are correct. There is no end to what some flight instructors will
> > dream
> > up or invent. Everything the FAA does in the world of charting is
> > predicated
> > on IAS.
> >
>
> Not quite everything. The approach timing table uses ground speed.

More correctly, the Jeppesen timing table states ground speed. NACO does not.

[Gary Drescher]

<***@Backhome.org> wrote in message news:***@Backhome.org...
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
>> <***@Backhome.org> wrote in message
>> news:***@Backhome.org...
>> >
>> > You are correct. There is no end to what some flight instructors will
>> > dream
>> > up or invent. Everything the FAA does in the world of charting is
>> > predicated
>> > on IAS.
>>
>> Not quite everything. The approach timing table uses ground speed.
>
> More correctly, the Jeppesen timing table states ground speed. NACO does
> not.

Whether they state it or not, there's nothing but ground speed that they
*could* be using to calculate the time to traverse the stated distance.

--Gary

[T***@Backhome.org]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> <***@Backhome.org> wrote in message news:***@Backhome.org...
> >
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> >
> >> <***@Backhome.org> wrote in message
> >> news:***@Backhome.org...
> >> >
> >> > You are correct. There is no end to what some flight instructors will
> >> > dream
> >> > up or invent. Everything the FAA does in the world of charting is
> >> > predicated
> >> > on IAS.
> >>
> >> Not quite everything. The approach timing table uses ground speed.
> >
> > More correctly, the Jeppesen timing table states ground speed. NACO does
> > not.
>
> Whether they state it or not, there's nothing but ground speed that they
> *could* be using to calculate the time to traverse the stated distance.
>
> --Gary

For the best accuracy, it obviously has to be ground speed. But, there is no
requirement to make the necessary calculations to arrive at ground speed. A
lot of folks over many years have simply treated the timing table values as
indicated airspace, on the premise there are a lot more important things to do
in the final approach segment than attempt to make conversions.

In recent years, RNAV has all-but-eliminated any need to use the timing table
in any case.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

<***@Backhome.org> wrote in message news:***@Backhome.org...
>
> A lot of folks over many years have simply treated the timing table values
> as indicated airspace, on the premise there are a lot more important
> things
> to do in the final approach segment than attempt to make conversions.
>

What makes you think that?

[Judah]

***@Backhome.org wrote in news:***@Backhome.org:


> In recent years, RNAV has all-but-eliminated any need to use the
> timing table in any case.
>

Assuming, of course, that your plane has an IFR-approved GPS that is
currently working.

[Gary Drescher]

<***@Backhome.org> wrote in message news:***@Backhome.org...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> <***@Backhome.org> wrote in message
>> news:***@Backhome.org...
>> > "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>> >
>> >> <***@Backhome.org> wrote in message
>> >> news:***@Backhome.org...
>> >> > You are correct. There is no end to what some flight
>> >> > instructors will dream up or invent. Everything the FAA
>> >> > does in the world of charting is predicated on IAS.
>> >>
>> >> Not quite everything. The approach timing table uses ground speed.
>> >
>> > More correctly, the Jeppesen timing table states ground speed.
>> > NACO does not.
>>
>> Whether they state it or not, there's nothing but ground speed that they
>> *could* be using to calculate the time to traverse the stated distance.
>
> For the best accuracy, it obviously has to be ground speed. But, there is
> no
> requirement to make the necessary calculations to arrive at ground speed.
> A
> lot of folks over many years have simply treated the timing table values
> as
> indicated airspace,

Whatever shortcuts pilots may take, the fact remains that the NACO timing
tables do use GS, just as the Jepp tables do. If wind is negligible and CAS
is close to IAS, then of course IAS closely approximates GS, but it's still
GS that's given in the tables.

> on the premise there are a lot more important things to do
> in the final approach segment than attempt to make conversions.

But why would you wait until the final approach segment to make the
conversion? I consider it part of the approach-briefing to calculate GS from
IAS and reported wind, and to write down the appropriate time to the MAP.

> In recent years, RNAV has all-but-eliminated any need to use the timing
> table
> in any case.

Even if your RNAV is certified for IFR, I think it's still a good idea to
pre-compute your time to the MAP in case your RNAV fails during the
approach.

--Gary

[Harlo Peterson]

"Gary Drescher" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xPudnZSNd6sPvEDfRVn-***@comcast.com...
> Whatever shortcuts pilots may take, the fact remains that the NACO timing
> tables do use GS, just as the Jepp tables do. If wind is negligible and
> CAS is close to IAS, then of course IAS closely approximates GS,

Only for sea level airports. You will be off by about 20% landing at a
6000msl airport.

>
> but it's still GS that's given in the tables.

[Gary Drescher]

"Harlo Peterson" <***@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:NTcDe.418911$***@fe07.news.easynews.com...
> "Gary Drescher" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xPudnZSNd6sPvEDfRVn-***@comcast.com...
>> Whatever shortcuts pilots may take, the fact remains that the NACO timing
>> tables do use GS, just as the Jepp tables do. If wind is negligible and
>> CAS is close to IAS, then of course IAS closely approximates GS,
>
> Only for sea level airports. You will be off by about 20% landing at a
> 6000msl airport.

Yup, density altitude is a factor too; my flatlander assumptions were
showing. :) But even at 6000', the discrepancy is less than 10%, not 20%.
Still, you're right that the discrepancy is large enough to matter.

--Gary

[Stan Gosnell]

"Gary Drescher" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:yKGdnQhE_KQo_kDfRVn-***@comcast.com:

> Yup, density altitude is a factor too; my flatlander assumptions were
> showing. :) But even at 6000', the discrepancy is less than 10%, not
> 20%. Still, you're right that the discrepancy is large enough to
> matter.

Not to mention that your assumed GS for the approach will only be a WAG
anyway. The winds on the approach can be greatly different from the
winds at your cruise altitude, and from the reported surface winds.
TERPS gives you enough protection so that it really doesn't matter much
anyway. Using the ARP or the runway in the GPS for the MAP will be much
more precise than timing anyway.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

[Steven P. McNicoll]

<***@Backhome.org> wrote in message news:***@Backhome.org...
>
> More correctly, the Jeppesen timing table states ground speed. NACO does
> not.
>

The speeds on NACO timing tables are ground speed.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

<***@Backhome.org> wrote in message news:***@Backhome.org...
>
> More correctly, the Jeppesen timing table states ground speed. NACO does
> not.
>

Do the timing tables on the NACO plates have different values than the
Jeppesen plates?

[T***@Backhome.org]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> <***@Backhome.org> wrote in message news:***@Backhome.org...
> >
> > More correctly, the Jeppesen timing table states ground speed. NACO does
> > not.
> >
>
> Do the timing tables on the NACO plates have different values than the
> Jeppesen plates?

The values are there to be used as IAS or ground speed; it is pilot option.
Jeppesen is making an assumption that is not a regulatory charting value.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

<***@Backhome.org> wrote in message news:***@Backhome.org...
>
> The values are there to be used as IAS or ground speed; it is pilot
> option.
>

How can that be an option? There can be significant differences between
them.


>
> Jeppesen is making an assumption that is not a regulatory charting value.
>

If the values are the same on NACO and Jeppesen charts, and if Jeppesen uses
GS as you say, then it should be clear that NACO uses GS as well.

Whatever made you think they were IAS anyway?

[Dave S]

Mark,

It's pretty clear that your instructor is mistaken, as you have
cited chapter and verse of the pertinent regulatory article.

This also agrees with the FAA's Instrument Flying Handbook,
publication faa-h-8083, pages 8-23 and 8-24, in which the approach
category speeds are based on being 1.3 times the stall speed of the
aircraft in the landing configuration at gross weight. Stall speeds are
never predicated on ground speed. The error in doing so should be
readily apparent.

If your instructor is basing his instruction and recommendation on
"ground speed" then challenge him to show you chapter and verse where
ground speed is the acceptable determining factor. Your ground speed
comes into play on instrument approaces in timing the approach and in
determining your rate of descent for a given glidepath angle. Your
instructor, while well intentioned appears to be "reading too much into
the situation". Using a lower category than authorized can result in a
bust of minimums. Using a higher category than required can result in
not being able to take full advantage of lower minimums.

It would behoove you at this point to also read and know not only
the instrument PTS, but also the FAA Instrument Flying handbook as well
as whatever texts your instructor is using for your ground based
instruction.

Good Luck
Dave

Mark Hansen wrote:
> I'm an Instrument Airplane student, and am having a disagreement
> with my instructor on one topic - that of Aircraft Approach Categories.
>
> According to 14 CFR Part 97.3 (b), it provides the speed ranges for
> the different aircraft categories (A-E). In all the documentation I've
> read, this "speed" is the IAS of the airplane.
>
> However, my CFI says that this is based on the Ground Speed. When
> we are flying an approach with a tail wind and can see that, although
> we are remaining below 90kts IAS, our Ground Speed (shown by the GPS unit)
> is just over 90kts, he said I must use the category B minimums.
>
> I understand his reasoning (in that the faster we're moving across
> the ground, the faster we'll move out of the protection zone, etc.),
> but from what I can find, the FAR doesn't mention ground speed at all.
>
> If I use the minimums associated with the higher of the IAS or
> Ground Speed, would I get dinged during a proficiency check?
>
> The reason I ask is that I've been asked questions before where the
> examiner was trying to make sure that I completely understood the
> rule, and I'm worried that selecting minimums that are higher than
> necessary will show that I don't really understand it.
>
> Thanks,
>

[Mark Hansen]

On 7/15/2005 11:10, Dave S wrote:

> Mark,
>
> It's pretty clear that your instructor is mistaken, as you have
> cited chapter and verse of the pertinent regulatory article.
>
> This also agrees with the FAA's Instrument Flying Handbook,
> publication faa-h-8083, pages 8-23 and 8-24, in which the approach
> category speeds are based on being 1.3 times the stall speed of the
> aircraft in the landing configuration at gross weight. Stall speeds are
> never predicated on ground speed. The error in doing so should be
> readily apparent.
>
> If your instructor is basing his instruction and recommendation on
> "ground speed" then challenge him to show you chapter and verse where
> ground speed is the acceptable determining factor. Your ground speed
> comes into play on instrument approaces in timing the approach and in
> determining your rate of descent for a given glidepath angle. Your
> instructor, while well intentioned appears to be "reading too much into
> the situation". Using a lower category than authorized can result in a
> bust of minimums. Using a higher category than required can result in
> not being able to take full advantage of lower minimums.
>
> It would behoove you at this point to also read and know not only
> the instrument PTS, but also the FAA Instrument Flying handbook as well
> as whatever texts your instructor is using for your ground based
> instruction.

Thank you. I have gone through the Instrument Flying Handbook (as well
as the Instrument Procedures Handbook, and others...). Although I haven't
yet gone through the PTS, it is on my list of things to get to.


>
> Good Luck
> Dave

[Michael]

> According to 14 CFR Part 97.3 (b), it provides the speed ranges for
> the different aircraft categories (A-E). In all the documentation I've
> read, this "speed" is the IAS of the airplane.

And so it is (almost - I seem to recall it's really CAS, but that
wouldn't make much difference). That's the regulation.

> However, my CFI says that this is based on the Ground Speed.

It's hard to prove a negative, so I can't say there is NO regulatory
support for what he says, but I've certainly never seen it. Have you
asked him to show you where he read this? Further, without RNAV that
works at low altitudes or DME on the approach (which isn't rare but is
far from universal), ground speed is an estimate - and these rules are
a lot older than widespread use of RNAV that works at low altitudes.

In other words - I think your CFI is totally wrong on this one.

> The reason I ask is that I've been asked questions before where the
> examiner was trying to make sure that I completely understood the
> rule, and I'm worried that selecting minimums that are higher than
> necessary will show that I don't really understand it.

Well, yes, it will. Only I think you understand it fine; it's your
instructor who is steering you wrong.

There are situations where it makes sense to select higher minimums on
an approach (especially a circling approach) where the higher speed
makes remaining within the protected area for the lower mins
problematic. I certainly don't think it would be wrong to say "Yes, I
know that technically cat A mins apply, but I am going to use Cat B
mins because the wind conditions make remaining within the Cat A
protected area problematic." If the situation is a circling approach
with restrictions imposed and very high winds that would require an
excessive bank angle to remain within the protected area, he would
probably consider that a sign of good judgment. But you should be
clear that this is something you are choosing to do because it makes
sense, and that the regulations do permit lower mins.

Michael

[Mark Hansen]

On 7/15/2005 11:12, Michael wrote:

>> According to 14 CFR Part 97.3 (b), it provides the speed ranges for
>> the different aircraft categories (A-E). In all the documentation I've
>> read, this "speed" is the IAS of the airplane.
>
> And so it is (almost - I seem to recall it's really CAS, but that
> wouldn't make much difference). That's the regulation.
>
>> However, my CFI says that this is based on the Ground Speed.
>
> It's hard to prove a negative, so I can't say there is NO regulatory
> support for what he says, but I've certainly never seen it. Have you
> asked him to show you where he read this? Further, without RNAV that
> works at low altitudes or DME on the approach (which isn't rare but is
> far from universal), ground speed is an estimate - and these rules are
> a lot older than widespread use of RNAV that works at low altitudes.
>
> In other words - I think your CFI is totally wrong on this one.
>
>> The reason I ask is that I've been asked questions before where the
>> examiner was trying to make sure that I completely understood the
>> rule, and I'm worried that selecting minimums that are higher than
>> necessary will show that I don't really understand it.
>
> Well, yes, it will. Only I think you understand it fine; it's your
> instructor who is steering you wrong.
>
> There are situations where it makes sense to select higher minimums on
> an approach (especially a circling approach) where the higher speed
> makes remaining within the protected area for the lower mins
> problematic. I certainly don't think it would be wrong to say "Yes, I
> know that technically cat A mins apply, but I am going to use Cat B
> mins because the wind conditions make remaining within the Cat A
> protected area problematic." If the situation is a circling approach
> with restrictions imposed and very high winds that would require an
> excessive bank angle to remain within the protected area, he would
> probably consider that a sign of good judgment. But you should be
> clear that this is something you are choosing to do because it makes
> sense, and that the regulations do permit lower mins.

Thank you Michael. This is how I've been looking at it (but I didn't
express it very well).

When I've asked my CFI to show me the regs, he basically says that it
makes sense to use the higher mins, and I haven't pushed it. This isn't
the first time we've disagreed on the Regs. In another case, he claimed
that it was illegal to fly IFR without a flight plan and ATC clearance,
but that rule applies only to Controlled airspace.

I think I won't bother pushing it, as I'm clear on the concept, and
don't really need to head-but the CFI over it ;-)

>
> Michael
>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[Mike Rapoport]

"Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
news:***@corp.supernews.com...
> On 7/15/2005 11:12, Michael wrote:
>
>>> According to 14 CFR Part 97.3 (b), it provides the speed ranges for
>>> the different aircraft categories (A-E). In all the documentation I've
>>> read, this "speed" is the IAS of the airplane.
>>
>> And so it is (almost - I seem to recall it's really CAS, but that
>> wouldn't make much difference). That's the regulation.
>>
>>> However, my CFI says that this is based on the Ground Speed.
>>
>> It's hard to prove a negative, so I can't say there is NO regulatory
>> support for what he says, but I've certainly never seen it. Have you
>> asked him to show you where he read this? Further, without RNAV that
>> works at low altitudes or DME on the approach (which isn't rare but is
>> far from universal), ground speed is an estimate - and these rules are
>> a lot older than widespread use of RNAV that works at low altitudes.
>>
>> In other words - I think your CFI is totally wrong on this one.
>>
>>> The reason I ask is that I've been asked questions before where the
>>> examiner was trying to make sure that I completely understood the
>>> rule, and I'm worried that selecting minimums that are higher than
>>> necessary will show that I don't really understand it.
>>
>> Well, yes, it will. Only I think you understand it fine; it's your
>> instructor who is steering you wrong.
>>
>> There are situations where it makes sense to select higher minimums on
>> an approach (especially a circling approach) where the higher speed
>> makes remaining within the protected area for the lower mins
>> problematic. I certainly don't think it would be wrong to say "Yes, I
>> know that technically cat A mins apply, but I am going to use Cat B
>> mins because the wind conditions make remaining within the Cat A
>> protected area problematic." If the situation is a circling approach
>> with restrictions imposed and very high winds that would require an
>> excessive bank angle to remain within the protected area, he would
>> probably consider that a sign of good judgment. But you should be
>> clear that this is something you are choosing to do because it makes
>> sense, and that the regulations do permit lower mins.
>
> Thank you Michael. This is how I've been looking at it (but I didn't
> express it very well).
>
> When I've asked my CFI to show me the regs, he basically says that it
> makes sense to use the higher mins, and I haven't pushed it. This isn't
> the first time we've disagreed on the Regs. In another case, he claimed
> that it was illegal to fly IFR without a flight plan and ATC clearance,
> but that rule applies only to Controlled airspace.
>
> I think I won't bother pushing it, as I'm clear on the concept, and
> don't really need to head-but the CFI over it ;-)
>
>>
>> Michael
>>
>
>
> --
> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
> Sacramento, CA

I would fire him when it is convienent. There is no point in using a CFII
that not only harbors errors in his understanding but is also incapable of
learning and changing his position when it is pointed out to him. Of
course, that applies to all people and all fields.

Mike
MU-2

[Gary Drescher]

"Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
news:***@corp.supernews.com...
> When I've asked my CFI to show me the regs, he basically says that it
> makes sense to use the higher mins, and I haven't pushed it.

But using ground speed instead of airspeed could result in selecting lower
mins rather than higher.

--Gary

[Mark Hansen]

On 7/15/2005 12:57, Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>> When I've asked my CFI to show me the regs, he basically says that it
>> makes sense to use the higher mins, and I haven't pushed it.
>
> But using ground speed instead of airspeed could result in selecting lower
> mins rather than higher.

That's right. I don't know what he thinks about this case.

>
> --Gary
>
>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BfmdnfpAi-OYi0XfRVn-***@comcast.com...
>
> But using ground speed instead of airspeed could result in selecting lower
> mins rather than higher.
>

And it will in most cases, as most approaches are flown into the wind.

[Stan Gosnell]

Mark Hansen <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in
news:***@corp.supernews.com:

> In another case, he claimed
> that it was illegal to fly IFR without a flight plan and ATC clearance,
> but that rule applies only to Controlled airspace.

Well, it can be illegal. My ops manual forbids it, so it's illegal for
me. My ops manual obviously doesn't apply to you, though, nor any other
aircraft not covered by it. That's just a small nit, though. If I were
you, I would be seriously considering finding a new CFII, one who
actually knows something about flying IFR. All too often, it's the blind
leading the blind.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

[Gary Drescher]

"Stan Gosnell" <***@work.com> wrote in message
news:***@204.52.135.8...
> If I were
> you, I would be seriously considering finding a new CFII, one who
> actually knows something about flying IFR.

I don't dispute that it's worth considering; still, I think it's possible
that the CFII is a good one. His interpretation of some regs may be sketchy,
but not in a way that adversely affects safety. No pilot should ever take a
CFI's word for what the regs say anyway, so a responsible pilot (as Mark
gives every indication of being) won't be misled by a CFI's
misinterpretation of the regs.

--Gary

[Mark Hansen]

On 7/15/2005 15:15, Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Stan Gosnell" <***@work.com> wrote in message
> news:***@204.52.135.8...
>> If I were
>> you, I would be seriously considering finding a new CFII, one who
>> actually knows something about flying IFR.
>
> I don't dispute that it's worth considering; still, I think it's possible
> that the CFII is a good one. His interpretation of some regs may be sketchy,
> but not in a way that adversely affects safety. No pilot should ever take a
> CFI's word for what the regs say anyway, so a responsible pilot (as Mark
> gives every indication of being) won't be misled by a CFI's
> misinterpretation of the regs.

Thanks for that, Gary.

As a matter of fact, I think he is a good CFI. He knows how to use the
IFR system, he knows how to work with ATC, etc. He's been able to answer
all my questions and doesn't bullshit me, which I really like.

When we have disagreements (which are few), he doesn't get all puffed
up about it, which makes it possible for us to "discuss" it thoroughly.

All in all, I think the discussions that are generated by these
disagreements are better for me in the long run (perhaps for him
as well), so I don't mind them at all.

Besides, the CFI is only part of the resources I have available for
my training. When he suggests something that I think doesn't line-up
with what I've learned/read elsewhere, we talk about it.

I'm quite pleased with his performance. He has a genuine desire to
teach, and that make a real big difference, in my opinion.

>
> --Gary
>
>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[Andrew Sarangan]

For that matter, don't accept what the FAA says about the regs, unless it
comes from the regulatory support division. The folks at FSDO know even
less about the FARs than the uninformed CFIs.



"Gary Drescher" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:odGdnfnLpp_0qEXfRVn-***@comcast.com:

> "Stan Gosnell" <***@work.com> wrote in message
> news:***@204.52.135.8...
>> If I were
>> you, I would be seriously considering finding a new CFII, one who
>> actually knows something about flying IFR.
>
> I don't dispute that it's worth considering; still, I think it's
> possible that the CFII is a good one. His interpretation of some regs
> may be sketchy, but not in a way that adversely affects safety. No
> pilot should ever take a CFI's word for what the regs say anyway, so a
> responsible pilot (as Mark gives every indication of being) won't be
> misled by a CFI's misinterpretation of the regs.
>
> --Gary
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I'm an Instrument Airplane student, and am having a disagreement
> with my instructor on one topic - that of Aircraft Approach Categories.
>
> According to 14 CFR Part 97.3 (b), it provides the speed ranges for
> the different aircraft categories (A-E). In all the documentation I've
> read, this "speed" is the IAS of the airplane.
>
> However, my CFI says that this is based on the Ground Speed. When
> we are flying an approach with a tail wind and can see that, although
> we are remaining below 90kts IAS, our Ground Speed (shown by the GPS unit)
> is just over 90kts, he said I must use the category B minimums.
>
> I understand his reasoning (in that the faster we're moving across
> the ground, the faster we'll move out of the protection zone, etc.),
> but from what I can find, the FAR doesn't mention ground speed at all.
>
> If I use the minimums associated with the higher of the IAS or
> Ground Speed, would I get dinged during a proficiency check?
>
> The reason I ask is that I've been asked questions before where the
> examiner was trying to make sure that I completely understood the
> rule, and I'm worried that selecting minimums that are higher than
> necessary will show that I don't really understand it.
>

I think your instructor is confusing the approach category speeds with the
timing table speeds, which ARE ground speeds.

[Mark Hansen]

On 7/15/2005 11:17, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> I'm an Instrument Airplane student, and am having a disagreement
>> with my instructor on one topic - that of Aircraft Approach Categories.
>>
>> According to 14 CFR Part 97.3 (b), it provides the speed ranges for
>> the different aircraft categories (A-E). In all the documentation I've
>> read, this "speed" is the IAS of the airplane.
>>
>> However, my CFI says that this is based on the Ground Speed. When
>> we are flying an approach with a tail wind and can see that, although
>> we are remaining below 90kts IAS, our Ground Speed (shown by the GPS unit)
>> is just over 90kts, he said I must use the category B minimums.
>>
>> I understand his reasoning (in that the faster we're moving across
>> the ground, the faster we'll move out of the protection zone, etc.),
>> but from what I can find, the FAR doesn't mention ground speed at all.
>>
>> If I use the minimums associated with the higher of the IAS or
>> Ground Speed, would I get dinged during a proficiency check?
>>
>> The reason I ask is that I've been asked questions before where the
>> examiner was trying to make sure that I completely understood the
>> rule, and I'm worried that selecting minimums that are higher than
>> necessary will show that I don't really understand it.
>>
>
> I think your instructor is confusing the approach category speeds with the
> timing table speeds, which ARE ground speeds.
>

No, Actually, he's not (unfortunately).

>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>
> No, Actually, he's not (unfortunately).
>

Well, he had to get the idea they were ground speeds somewhere. The timing
table is pretty much the only possible source.

[Mark Hansen]

On 7/15/2005 11:52, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> No, Actually, he's not (unfortunately).
>>
>
> Well, he had to get the idea they were ground speeds somewhere. The timing
> table is pretty much the only possible source.
>
>

His reasoning is that the faster we're moving across the ground,
the faster we'll move outside of the protected area, for example,
on the circling maneuver, and that to use the higher minimums
'just made good common sense'.

However, he's interpreting the rule using this 'common sense'
and claiming that this is what the rule implies.

He made it clear to me that he was talking about the approach category
minimums and not just the time from FAF to MAP (which, of course,
is based on ground speed).



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[Mike Rapoport]

"Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
news:***@corp.supernews.com...
> On 7/15/2005 11:52, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> No, Actually, he's not (unfortunately).
>>>
>>
>> Well, he had to get the idea they were ground speeds somewhere. The
>> timing table is pretty much the only possible source.
>
> His reasoning is that the faster we're moving across the ground,
> the faster we'll move outside of the protected area, for example,
> on the circling maneuver, and that to use the higher minimums
> 'just made good common sense'.
>
> However, he's interpreting the rule using this 'common sense'
> and claiming that this is what the rule implies.
>
> He made it clear to me that he was talking about the approach category
> minimums and not just the time from FAF to MAP (which, of course,
> is based on ground speed).
>
>
>
> --
> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
> Sacramento, CA

This CFII is stupid. Once you start circling the winds change and will
become a headwind at some point.

Mike
MU-2

[Mark Hansen]

On 7/15/2005 12:12, Mike Rapoport wrote:

> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>> On 7/15/2005 11:52, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>> No, Actually, he's not (unfortunately).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, he had to get the idea they were ground speeds somewhere. The
>>> timing table is pretty much the only possible source.
>>
>> His reasoning is that the faster we're moving across the ground,
>> the faster we'll move outside of the protected area, for example,
>> on the circling maneuver, and that to use the higher minimums
>> 'just made good common sense'.
>>
>> However, he's interpreting the rule using this 'common sense'
>> and claiming that this is what the rule implies.
>>
>> He made it clear to me that he was talking about the approach category
>> minimums and not just the time from FAF to MAP (which, of course,
>> is based on ground speed).
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
>> Sacramento, CA
>
> This CFII is stupid. Once you start circling the winds change and will
> become a headwind at some point.

Ya know ... I mentioned this to him as well. However, I think he's
stuck on the Ground Speed reported by the GPS during the final
approach as being the speed used to determine the approach category...
That's just not what the FARs say.

>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Sacramento, CA

[Dave S]

Mark Hansen wrote:

>
> Ya know ... I mentioned this to him as well. However, I think he's
> stuck on the Ground Speed reported by the GPS during the final
> approach as being the speed used to determine the approach category...
> That's just not what the FARs say.
>
Reach over and turn the damn GPS off :) Thats what an examiner would do
to you if you tried to do that on a test... "ooops.. GPS failed!"

My recommendation is to get someone who has some good experience as a
CFII, not someone who is probably a 300 hr CFII who was taught by
another 300 hr CFII who was taught by another 300 hr CFII, none of whom
have any actual instrument time or instruction in actual instrument
conditions.

As others have said to you, this guy isn't on the ball, and is not open
to redirection.

Dave

[Mike Rapoport]

I had a primary instructor who insisted that the best speed to use in the
event of an engine failure was the published best glide speed. I said that
it must depend on the wind and pointed out that if there was a headwind
equal to Vbg that any speed over the Vbg was better. I also pointed out
that with a strong tailwind that the minimium sink speed would get more
distance. He continued to insist that Vbg was the speed to use. That was
our last flight.

We all harbor misconceptions but there is no excuse for being too stubborn
to learn.

Mike
MU-2

"Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
news:***@corp.supernews.com...
> On 7/15/2005 12:12, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
>> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>>> On 7/15/2005 11:52, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> No, Actually, he's not (unfortunately).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, he had to get the idea they were ground speeds somewhere. The
>>>> timing table is pretty much the only possible source.
>>>
>>> His reasoning is that the faster we're moving across the ground,
>>> the faster we'll move outside of the protected area, for example,
>>> on the circling maneuver, and that to use the higher minimums
>>> 'just made good common sense'.
>>>
>>> However, he's interpreting the rule using this 'common sense'
>>> and claiming that this is what the rule implies.
>>>
>>> He made it clear to me that he was talking about the approach category
>>> minimums and not just the time from FAF to MAP (which, of course,
>>> is based on ground speed).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
>>> Sacramento, CA
>>
>> This CFII is stupid. Once you start circling the winds change and will
>> become a headwind at some point.
>
> Ya know ... I mentioned this to him as well. However, I think he's
> stuck on the Ground Speed reported by the GPS during the final
> approach as being the speed used to determine the approach category...
> That's just not what the FARs say.
>
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>
>
> --
> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
> Sacramento, CA

[Dan Malcolm]

Mike,
Actually, niether Vbg nor minimum sink is correct in all circumstances. Vbg
will yield the greatest distance by definition, and minimum sink will yield
the greatest time. Which one is the most beneficial? Gotta look at the
circumstances. There is a good discussion at
http://www.auf.asn.au/emergencies/aircraft.html#vbg
Dan Malcolm

"Mike Rapoport" <***@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:aA%Be.4160$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>I had a primary instructor who insisted that the best speed to use in the
>event of an engine failure was the published best glide speed. I said that
>it must depend on the wind and pointed out that if there was a headwind
>equal to Vbg that any speed over the Vbg was better. I also pointed out
>that with a strong tailwind that the minimium sink speed would get more
>distance. He continued to insist that Vbg was the speed to use. That was
>our last flight.
>
> We all harbor misconceptions but there is no excuse for being too stubborn
> to learn.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>> On 7/15/2005 12:12, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>
>>> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> On 7/15/2005 11:52, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, Actually, he's not (unfortunately).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, he had to get the idea they were ground speeds somewhere. The
>>>>> timing table is pretty much the only possible source.
>>>>
>>>> His reasoning is that the faster we're moving across the ground,
>>>> the faster we'll move outside of the protected area, for example,
>>>> on the circling maneuver, and that to use the higher minimums
>>>> 'just made good common sense'.
>>>>
>>>> However, he's interpreting the rule using this 'common sense'
>>>> and claiming that this is what the rule implies.
>>>>
>>>> He made it clear to me that he was talking about the approach category
>>>> minimums and not just the time from FAF to MAP (which, of course,
>>>> is based on ground speed).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
>>>> Sacramento, CA
>>>
>>> This CFII is stupid. Once you start circling the winds change and will
>>> become a headwind at some point.
>>
>> Ya know ... I mentioned this to him as well. However, I think he's
>> stuck on the Ground Speed reported by the GPS during the final
>> approach as being the speed used to determine the approach category...
>> That's just not what the FARs say.
>>
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> MU-2
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
>> Sacramento, CA
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

That is what I said. read the post.

Mike
MU-2


"Dan Malcolm" <***@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:***@corp.supernews.com...
> Mike,
> Actually, niether Vbg nor minimum sink is correct in all circumstances.
> Vbg will yield the greatest distance by definition, and minimum sink will
> yield the greatest time. Which one is the most beneficial? Gotta look at
> the circumstances. There is a good discussion at
> http://www.auf.asn.au/emergencies/aircraft.html#vbg
> Dan Malcolm
>
> "Mike Rapoport" <***@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:aA%Be.4160$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>I had a primary instructor who insisted that the best speed to use in the
>>event of an engine failure was the published best glide speed. I said
>>that it must depend on the wind and pointed out that if there was a
>>headwind equal to Vbg that any speed over the Vbg was better. I also
>>pointed out that with a strong tailwind that the minimium sink speed would
>>get more distance. He continued to insist that Vbg was the speed to use.
>>That was our last flight.
>>
>> We all harbor misconceptions but there is no excuse for being too
>> stubborn to learn.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>>> On 7/15/2005 12:12, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>> On 7/15/2005 11:52, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, Actually, he's not (unfortunately).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, he had to get the idea they were ground speeds somewhere. The
>>>>>> timing table is pretty much the only possible source.
>>>>>
>>>>> His reasoning is that the faster we're moving across the ground,
>>>>> the faster we'll move outside of the protected area, for example,
>>>>> on the circling maneuver, and that to use the higher minimums
>>>>> 'just made good common sense'.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, he's interpreting the rule using this 'common sense'
>>>>> and claiming that this is what the rule implies.
>>>>>
>>>>> He made it clear to me that he was talking about the approach category
>>>>> minimums and not just the time from FAF to MAP (which, of course,
>>>>> is based on ground speed).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
>>>>> Sacramento, CA
>>>>
>>>> This CFII is stupid. Once you start circling the winds change and will
>>>> become a headwind at some point.
>>>
>>> Ya know ... I mentioned this to him as well. However, I think he's
>>> stuck on the Ground Speed reported by the GPS during the final
>>> approach as being the speed used to determine the approach category...
>>> That's just not what the FARs say.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>> MU-2
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
>>> Sacramento, CA
>>
>>
>
>

[PilotCFI]

I did read the post and if you think that's what you said, then so be
it.
Dan
"Mike Rapoport" <***@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:WP9Ee.6581$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> That is what I said. read the post.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Dan Malcolm" <***@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>> Mike,
>> Actually, niether Vbg nor minimum sink is correct in all
>> circumstances. Vbg will yield the greatest distance by definition,
>> and minimum sink will yield the greatest time. Which one is the most
>> beneficial? Gotta look at the circumstances. There is a good
>> discussion at http://www.auf.asn.au/emergencies/aircraft.html#vbg
>> Dan Malcolm
>>
>> "Mike Rapoport" <***@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:aA%Be.4160$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>I had a primary instructor who insisted that the best speed to use in
>>>the event of an engine failure was the published best glide speed. I
>>>said that it must depend on the wind and pointed out that if there
>>>was a headwind equal to Vbg that any speed over the Vbg was better.
>>>I also pointed out that with a strong tailwind that the minimium sink
>>>speed would get more distance. He continued to insist that Vbg was
>>>the speed to use. That was our last flight.
>>>
>>> We all harbor misconceptions but there is no excuse for being too
>>> stubborn to learn.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> MU-2
>>>
>>> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> On 7/15/2005 12:12, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>> On 7/15/2005 11:52, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, Actually, he's not (unfortunately).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, he had to get the idea they were ground speeds somewhere.
>>>>>>> The timing table is pretty much the only possible source.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His reasoning is that the faster we're moving across the ground,
>>>>>> the faster we'll move outside of the protected area, for example,
>>>>>> on the circling maneuver, and that to use the higher minimums
>>>>>> 'just made good common sense'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, he's interpreting the rule using this 'common sense'
>>>>>> and claiming that this is what the rule implies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He made it clear to me that he was talking about the approach
>>>>>> category minimums and not just the time from FAF to MAP (which,
>>>>>> of course, is based on ground speed).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
>>>>>> Sacramento, CA
>>>>>
>>>>> This CFII is stupid. Once you start circling the winds change and
>>>>> will become a headwind at some point.
>>>>
>>>> Ya know ... I mentioned this to him as well. However, I think he's
>>>> stuck on the Ground Speed reported by the GPS during the final
>>>> approach as being the speed used to determine the approach
>>>> category... That's just not what the FARs say.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>> MU-2
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
>>>> Sacramento, CA
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

OK.

I don't see what is ambigous about "it must depend on the wind"

Mike
MU-2
ATP


"PilotCFI" <***@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:***@216.168.3.44...
>I did read the post and if you think that's what you said, then so be
> it.
> Dan
> "Mike Rapoport" <***@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> news:WP9Ee.6581$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>> That is what I said. read the post.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>>
>> "Dan Malcolm" <***@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
>> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>>> Mike,
>>> Actually, niether Vbg nor minimum sink is correct in all
>>> circumstances. Vbg will yield the greatest distance by definition,
>>> and minimum sink will yield the greatest time. Which one is the most
>>> beneficial? Gotta look at the circumstances. There is a good
>>> discussion at http://www.auf.asn.au/emergencies/aircraft.html#vbg
>>> Dan Malcolm
>>>
>>> "Mike Rapoport" <***@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>> news:aA%Be.4160$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>I had a primary instructor who insisted that the best speed to use in
>>>>the event of an engine failure was the published best glide speed. I
>>>>said that it must depend on the wind and pointed out that if there
>>>>was a headwind equal to Vbg that any speed over the Vbg was better.
>>>>I also pointed out that with a strong tailwind that the minimium sink
>>>>speed would get more distance. He continued to insist that Vbg was
>>>>the speed to use. That was our last flight.
>>>>
>>>> We all harbor misconceptions but there is no excuse for being too
>>>> stubborn to learn.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>> MU-2
>>>>
>>>> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>> On 7/15/2005 12:12, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>>> On 7/15/2005 11:52, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, Actually, he's not (unfortunately).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, he had to get the idea they were ground speeds somewhere.
>>>>>>>> The timing table is pretty much the only possible source.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His reasoning is that the faster we're moving across the ground,
>>>>>>> the faster we'll move outside of the protected area, for example,
>>>>>>> on the circling maneuver, and that to use the higher minimums
>>>>>>> 'just made good common sense'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, he's interpreting the rule using this 'common sense'
>>>>>>> and claiming that this is what the rule implies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He made it clear to me that he was talking about the approach
>>>>>>> category minimums and not just the time from FAF to MAP (which,
>>>>>>> of course, is based on ground speed).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
>>>>>>> Sacramento, CA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This CFII is stupid. Once you start circling the winds change and
>>>>>> will become a headwind at some point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ya know ... I mentioned this to him as well. However, I think he's
>>>>> stuck on the Ground Speed reported by the GPS during the final
>>>>> approach as being the speed used to determine the approach
>>>>> category... That's just not what the FARs say.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>> MU-2
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
>>>>> Sacramento, CA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[PilotCFI]

Because wind may not be the only determining factor. Can I name them
all? No. But you should take into account
1. Wind (of course)
2. Where are trying to get to for landing
3. What is the condition of the aircraft and pilot.
4. In addition to wind, what is happening with the weather?
5. There are undoubtedly more.

So is the additional airtime a benefit? Each circumstance will dictate
the appropriate answer. Not just wind.

Dan
CFI/CFII

"Mike Rapoport" <***@ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:cpcEe.6612
$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> OK.
>
> I don't see what is ambigous about "it must depend on the wind"
>
> Mike
> MU-2
> ATP
>
>
> "PilotCFI" <***@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
> news:***@216.168.3.44...
>>I did read the post and if you think that's what you said, then so be
>> it.
>> Dan
>> "Mike Rapoport" <***@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
>> news:WP9Ee.6581$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>>
>>> That is what I said. read the post.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> MU-2
>>>
>>>
>>> "Dan Malcolm" <***@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
>>> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> Mike,
>>>> Actually, niether Vbg nor minimum sink is correct in all
>>>> circumstances. Vbg will yield the greatest distance by definition,
>>>> and minimum sink will yield the greatest time. Which one is the
most
>>>> beneficial? Gotta look at the circumstances. There is a good
>>>> discussion at http://www.auf.asn.au/emergencies/aircraft.html#vbg
>>>> Dan Malcolm
>>>>
>>>> "Mike Rapoport" <***@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:aA%Be.4160$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>I had a primary instructor who insisted that the best speed to use
in
>>>>>the event of an engine failure was the published best glide speed.
I
>>>>>said that it must depend on the wind and pointed out that if there
>>>>>was a headwind equal to Vbg that any speed over the Vbg was better.
>>>>>I also pointed out that with a strong tailwind that the minimium
sink
>>>>>speed would get more distance. He continued to insist that Vbg was
>>>>>the speed to use. That was our last flight.
>>>>>
>>>>> We all harbor misconceptions but there is no excuse for being too
>>>>> stubborn to learn.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>> MU-2
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>> On 7/15/2005 12:12, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2005 11:52, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Mark Hansen" <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, Actually, he's not (unfortunately).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, he had to get the idea they were ground speeds
somewhere.
>>>>>>>>> The timing table is pretty much the only possible source.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> His reasoning is that the faster we're moving across the
ground,
>>>>>>>> the faster we'll move outside of the protected area, for
example,
>>>>>>>> on the circling maneuver, and that to use the higher minimums
>>>>>>>> 'just made good common sense'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, he's interpreting the rule using this 'common sense'
>>>>>>>> and claiming that this is what the rule implies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He made it clear to me that he was talking about the approach
>>>>>>>> category minimums and not just the time from FAF to MAP (which,
>>>>>>>> of course, is based on ground speed).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
>>>>>>>> Sacramento, CA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This CFII is stupid. Once you start circling the winds change
and
>>>>>>> will become a headwind at some point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ya know ... I mentioned this to him as well. However, I think
he's
>>>>>> stuck on the Ground Speed reported by the GPS during the final
>>>>>> approach as being the speed used to determine the approach
>>>>>> category... That's just not what the FARs say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>> MU-2
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
>>>>>> Sacramento, CA
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

[Stan Gosnell]

Mark Hansen <***@NOSPAMunify.com> wrote in
news:***@corp.supernews.com:

> His reasoning is that the faster we're moving across the ground,
> the faster we'll move outside of the protected area, for example,
> on the circling maneuver, and that to use the higher minimums
> 'just made good common sense'.

He has no idea what he's talking about. TERPS takes tailwinds into
account, and it's not possible to exceed the protected airspace if you
use the correct airspeed, and don't have a hurricane blowing behind you.
And in that case, you need to reconsider flying that approach.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin