3rd Country IR to Part-FCL C-bM IR(A)

[BEagle]

Last week, we discussed at the EASA FCL-IF how an IRE should conduct the 'assessment of knowledge' as part of the C-bM IR(A) Skill Test for conversion of 3rd Country IRs.

In the UK, IREs refer to Appendix 2b of Standards Document 1, so it behoves any applicant to take a good look at the document http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SARG_Standards%20Doc%201%20v8%2022%20July%202014.pdf before the Skill Test.

However, I note that one suggested question is: What actions would you take on an asymmetric approach if the runway becomes obstructed after you have passed ACH/A?

Given that the CAA's own documents state: On an asymmetric approach, once below ACH, a pilot is effectively committed to land., is this a reasonable question to ask a pilot under test?

Clearly it's a 'how long is a piece of string' question - where is the runway obstructed, how long was it since passing ACH, etc etc. Personally I'd be sorely tempted to say "Well, I'd be more concerned about avoiding the CAA asteroid which is no doubt just about to hit me as well...."

I'd be interested to hear what others have to say, but I think it's a stupid question. Fair enough to ask for the definition of ACH, but that's all, in my opinion.

[SpannerInTheWerks]

That question suggests the 'trapping' approach to flight testing of old, rather than the more modern approach of forming the basis of sound 'learning'.

Whilst this question is valid, there are far more practical questions which would test the knowledge of the applicant.

Questions such as the one posed would be better served as an 'interesting' discussion point, rather than a basis of test - and could be used to build on the definition of Asymmetric Committal Height, as suggested by BEagle.

[BEagle]

Agreed, SpannerInTheWerks. Maybe something to talk about over a beer afterwards, but unreasonable during the Skill Test.

I also gather (anecdotally) that one CAA IRE used to give test candidates a simulated non-extinguished engine fire, then inform them on the subsequent asymmetric approach that they were still in IMC at DA/H.... Which would have been a triple emergency:
1. Engine fire and shutdown.
2. Continuing fire.
3. Weather out of limits.
:rolleyes:

[Level Attitude]

What actions would you take on an asymmetric approach if the runway becomes obstructed after you have passed ACH/A?As long as the Examiner is expecting a 'Response' not an 'Answer' this could be a very good question for ascertaining understanding on the part of a candidate.


My suggested response would be:
"That is an interesting question. As I would not descend below the ACH unless I was on a stable approach, the runway was in sight, the runway was available (and looked like it would remain so) and I had received a Landing Clearance (if appropriate) then that situation should never arise. It is only at, or below, the ACH, once I have made the decision to proceed that I would fully configure the aircraft for Landing and, from that point on I am committed to Land no matter what."

[SpannerInTheWerks]

from that point on I am committed to Land no matter what.

Including flying into the obstruction?!

Sorry I don't understand as the obstruction, in the scenario, only blocks the runway after you have descended below ACH - from that point on you state you are committed to land no matter what?

SITW :):confused:

[Level Attitude]

Sorry I don't understand as the obstruction, in the scenario, only blocks the runway after you have descended below ACH - from that point on you state you are committed to land no matter what?ACH = Asymmetrical Committal Height. Although it may depend on aircraft type, in general a twin MEP running on only one engine will continue to descend, even on full power once fully configured for landing. If there is actually time to reconfigure the aircraft for a climb then I would suggest the ACH was not correctly selected in the first place (and should have been lower).

Including flying into the obstruction?!Lots of options but, as with a Glide Approach in a single engine, going around is not one of them.
Land alongside runway (instead of on it), land on runway and hit obstacle at a slow speed whilst on the ground (rather than at a faster speed and still airborne), etc

[SpannerInTheWerks]

Hi Level Attitude

Hmmm ....

The one thing this Thread does prove is the validity of the original question and, in my opinion, the 'interesting discussion' approach!!! :)