Technique

You can do a lot with an instrument rating and appropriately equipped aircraft-slice through clouds, take-off zero-zero and fly VOR, ILS, GPS and even (if you care) NDB approaches. None of these operations require special qualifications beyond the instrument rating. For example, many of us got instrument ratings before GPS, yet were authorized to fly GPS approaches. But, there are things an instrument-rated pilot cant do, even with certified equipment. Wanna fly a CAT II approach? Sorry. How about an ILS CAT I SA or RNAV (RNP)? Nope, cant do those either. What gives?

Of the many tens of thousands of FAA employees, most are conscientious hardworking folks who want to do a good job. Nonetheless, the FAA has a reputation for overly aggressive, yet seemingly arbitrary enforcement action by certain individuals in positions of authority over pilots. A quick read through 14 CFR Part 91 offers a near-infinite number of ways a pilot can run afoul of the FAA with little to protect us. About our only defenses are a legal assistance plan like the AOPA offers and the wholly pilot- and safety-focused Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). (If you dont know about ASRS, download, read and study AC-0046E. Now. My meager words here can wait.)

I was reviewing the December 2014 issue of IFR. On page 5, in the Readback section, you mentioned the importance of Chapter 17 in the Pilots Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge. Which edition of the handbook were you referring to? My edition does not have a Chapter 17. Which topic were you emphasizing? Id like to get the correct edition of the handbook so I can review the material you were mentioning?

Few strips of pavement have made it to the big screen. Theres Route 66, the Pacific Coast Highway and at least one runway: Van Nuys Runway 16R. Brian Terwilliger did some pioneering hi-def film work on his terrific film of the same name. You should definitely see his latest, Living in the Age of Airplanes. That way you can tell me if its any good. If you decide to fly the ILS into that same runway, however, put down your popcorn and take a close look at the notes crowding the plate like extras crammed round the tables of free food.

All those colorful runway markings, lights, and signs dont mean a thing to members of the animal kingdom other than humans. When our furry, scaled, and feathered friends make their way onto an active runway, the results can be…unpredictable.

Everyones sensitive about something-weight gain or receding hairlines, for instance, or the things you shouldnt talk about at family dinners, like religion and politics. Air traffic controls soft spot? Runways. You dont mess with the runways. They may have all kinds of shapes and surfaces-concrete, dirt, grass, even water-but theyre all sacred ground when aircraft are using them. The skys plenty big, but airport runways are quite finite. Bad things can happen quickly in those confined spaces, and runway incursion numbers have been steadily increasing. To stave off the unthinkable, air traffic controllers wield a constantly evolving arsenal of procedures, technology, and phraseology in their efforts to keep pilots safe and informed.

The following is quoted from the NTSB report of a wake turbulence accident. It was this accident that led to the existing wake turbulence guidelines now being used by the FAA and ATC.

Let me say at the outset that general aviation pilots do not have to worry about wake turbulence because wake turbulence will only be dangerous on takeoff, departure, climb-out, enroute, descent, approach and landing.See, no problem.Oh, uh…wait-that pretty much covers the entire flight, doesnt it? Maybe we should worry about wake turbulence.

Like flying itself, air traffic control is complex at first glance, but below the surface its driven by basic principles. One ATC cornerstone is the need for timely, accurate information. As an air traffic controller, when I ask a question or issue an instruction to a pilot, the ol trust but verify adage kicks in-but only to a point. I can see a lot from the tower or on my radar scope, but I cant look over each pilots shoulder. Are they being straightforward with me and following normal procedures? I want to believe they are. Its their safety and mission on the line, after all.

Three simple conditions must be met to land from an instrument approach: being in a position to land, having the runway environment in sight, and possessing the required flight visibility. The first requirement is straight-forward and the second is thoroughly articulated in the regs. The third requirement, though, is a little thorny.Unlike commercial operations, which are restricted from conducting approaches with reported weather below minimums, GA pilots can take a peek no matter what the AWOS is blabbering. If you land with reported weather below minimums, an FAA inspector might ask you about the visibility. The answer is simple-you had the required flight visibility. The regulations only require you to have the flight visibility printed on the approach plate. The ol Pilot/Controller glossary defines flight visibility as:

I once undertook a ferry flight that was, well, dumb. Similarly, a type-specific magazine I get recently ran a true-confessions story by a pilot who, in the clarity of hindsight, probably should have missed, not landed.Most of us accomplished pilots (as the masthead says) can do far more in an airplane than we should. What does that mean? Well, I mean we probably could, for example, safely fly an airplane that isnt quite airworthy or perhaps we could complete an approach to a landing using abnormal maneuvers and live to tell (or brag) about it later.

While I was working on my instrument rating, I sought advice from a number of sources. One group of pilot friends said that with an instrument rating-or even now, to get in the habit-I should file/follow Victor airways. Another group says Why? No need to follow land-based navaids; just file direct.