Geargrip

A standard rate turn is generally expected of most aircraft by ATC around the airport. Of course, operating limits, safety and the pilot's judgement trumps all. But, the bank angle varies because a standard rate turn is 3 degrees per second, so the faster you go, the steeper the bank angle must be to achieve 3 degrees per second. A quick way to determine the required bank angle is to divide your true airspeed by 10 and then add 7. So, if you are going 200kts, 27 degrees will get you pretty close to a standard rate turn. At cruise at 440kt TAS, a standard rate turn would be a passenger-eye-popping-puke-bag-using-white-knuckling 52ish degrees. A little much for Mrs. Farnsworth and her shitzu, Tilly, in first class. At my former airline, we went to 1/2 standard rate turns at 250kts+ for passenger comfort and on the aircraft there was a 1/2 standard rate button on the MCP as opposed to the bank angles present on the NG. In the absence of a company telling me what to do, I dial it at 15 on departure and then back to 30 once below 250kts on the way down just in case I end up in HDG mode. But that's just me.

I guess. A little powerpoint-ish. But, the material covered is fairly plain, probably does not need a lot of fancy stuff like the section on the Autopilot/FD will. Very comprehensive though. Looking forward to the next one. I'm sure the "distribution" will get better and better. High quality production with an average lesson-plan and delivery: B-

Nope, not there yet, but thanks for guessing. The MLS is a precision approach and even though the last one was decommissioned here in 2008, may be coming back in Europe. This is a full blown instrument approach that can be flown down an electronic glide slope without talking to someone on the ground.

By the way... We all know that all precision approaches have vertical guidance. But, are all approaches with electronic ground-based vertical guidance precision approaches - if not what types have vertical guidance but are not precision? Hint: They are not non-precision either.

Found this: http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/safety_library_items/AirbusSafetyLib_-FLT_OPS-SUPP_TECH-SEQ01.pdf baro for Cat I only in a <gasp> Airbus no RA unless a Cat II period. Not a civil aviation authority, but its the closest thing I've found to an authority yet. I think IMs have gone the way of the Dodo in many places. I know Middle Markers were all being decommissioned several years ago here in the states - or at least not fixed once they broke. In the states, airway markers were also referred to as Fan Markers, I believe, and they went out in the 50's and 60's. Just another way to know where you were along an airway in the pre-DME days.

Oh I'm sure we could find that specifically in a TERPS manual somewhere. You're only a half-mile or so away from the threshold at the DH - a real crummy place for a mountain. I would guess that if there were a significant (and potentially hazardous) elevation change from the threshold to a point 1/2 mile away the DH would be a little higher than 200'. But, I can't find an authoritative source regarding that either. In fact, when reviewing my former airline's FOM, it just defines the Categories of approaches by the HAT minnima and the only mention of using a radar altimeter is when shooting a Cat II approach and the inner marker is inop, then an RA can be used in lieu of the marker. But, an RA is not required for either a Cat I or Cat II approach. If no RA then the decision altitude is king. By the way, love your tutorial, trisager. Very well done :)

Thats right, Bert. DH is DA-TDZE on every plate I've looked at today. KSEA ILS 34R. DA=572, TDZE=372, DH=200

The next installment is up on the AoA site. Gonna go check it out now!

Two types of approaches; precision and non-precision. Precision Approach Vertical guidance is provided via the glideslope and the decision to land is made at the decision height (DH). You're riding down the glideslope get to that decision height and look out the window. If you can see the "runway environment" you can decide to land. Now, that's a lot to do at an exact altitude - so generally you're sneaking peeks outside at DH+100 all the way down to the actual DH and you may actually descend a little below the DH as you go missed. A decision height applies to precision approaches. BUT the DH is also the missed approach point (MAP). You may use either a decision altitude (barometic altitude above sea-level) or a decision height (height above the touchdown zone). I know of nothing in the FARs that dictates which one you have to use other than when thinking about how the aircraft is equipped. No radar altimeter? Then you have to use the barometric altitude. You say you do have the ability to know your exact height above the ground? Then feel free to use either one. Your company policies would dictate the correct method. Non-precision Approach On a non-precision approach you make your decision at a geographical place over the ground which is the...you guessed it MAP. There is no DH because there is no vertical guidance on a non-precision approach. The altitude you will probably be at as you approach the MAP would be the mimimum descent altitude (which you've probably been at for quite some time as you feel your way to the MAP waiting for the proper DME or a certain time to elapse. As you work you way down the approach course there may be several step down fixes where you get down to the next minimum altitude until you're at the MAP and the MDA (if you choose). Remember, it's a minimum. There is nothing that says you can't arrive at the MAP 200 feet above the MDA. That's up to you. However, if you don't see the airport environment you have to go missed no matter what your altitude is at the MAP. In this case, the MDA would be set as a barometic altitude since that altitude is calculated as a height above the airport elevation (which may be significantly different than the height above the ground at the MAP. That's (only) one reason why the minimums are quite a bit higher. You can almost hear the dramatic organ music playing as you plod along at your final approach speed with the flaps and gear hanging out (usually accumulating ice) leaning forward as if that will enable you to see the airport before the timer in your lap gets to 2:45. Or was that 2:54?... So, Chrjs, when speaking about using a Decision Altitude or an Minimum Descent Altitude they could be considered similar in that they are both barometric altitudes. Sorry for the long winded explanation. It's been a while since I've taught and I guess I had some pent-up rambling to take care of. Before someone rips my explanation apart, keep in mind that I purposely left some things out, like if you just see some runway approach lights on an ILS how much further you can proceed yadda-yadda-yadda. Or how on a precision approach visibility is really the determining factor not a ceiling and so on. But, hopefully this will help someone. Tim

KORD in the penalty box AA B738 Tim Kramer

Sure nazg, let's see if this works: http://render5.snapfish.com/render2/is=Yup6aQQ%7C%3Dup6RKKt%3Axxr%3D0-qpDPfRt7Pf7mrPfrj7t%3DzrRfDUX%3AeQaQxg%3Dr%3F87KR6xqpxla0nxGPGxQoaxv8uOc5xQoPQ0oQenGQoaqpfVtB%3F*KUp7BHSHqqy7XH6qgX0QPGe%7CRup6lQQ%7C/of=52,96,96 A couple of things I have learned: My center monitor is different than the 2 I recently bought - therefore the colors are a bit different and may never totally match Even though they are all 24", the newer ones are slightly shorter, they are 1080 and the middle one is 1200...so they don't match up perfectly as can be seen in the photo I'll be getting a third to match the other two fairly soon. Love it though! The ability to have the visual cues in your peripheral vision definately makes it much easier to suspend disbelief. Especially when engaging in something with a lot of action, like iRacing. But, it definately has made flying a lot more fun. My neighbor came by and blew him away. I did not show him the other home cockpits out there that would make this look pretty hokey. I'm sure frame rates took a hit, but I limit it to 30 anyway and run everything at max.

Good tip - doing it right now. Thanks, Kevin! Tim

Allright, so my Father was right - I AM an idiot. I was editing the wrong FSX.CFG file. It seems that when I searched for it, I picked the one that was already in a notepad format, as opposed to the real one. It has been a while since I've been active with FSX, and I'm glad to be back, but geez.

Greetings All,I've searched and not found a similar issue, if it has been brought up before - I apologize. I am attempting to fly the 737NGX via the VC through eyefinity with 3 monitors. FSX is configured with the proper resolution and the config file has the wideview set to TRUE. The problem is that it places me WAYYYY too close to the windscreen. Even if I zoom all the way out to .3, I still can't see anything inside except the glareshield. Then, as I move my point of view back, the seat gets in the way (and then the bulkhead). Does anyone out there have any suggestions? Anyone running eyefinity that can share their setup that i can emulate? The view is fine when runnning on one screen - and I know eyefinity is running properly as it works great with my iRacing. Running the pictures through a MSI R6950 card, by the way just in case that's relevent ;-) Thanks all for whatever wisdom you can share.