3rd Country IR to Part-FCL C-bM IR(A)
Thread Starter
3rd Country IR to Part-FCL C-bM IR(A)
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_St...uly%202014.pdf before the Skill Test.
However, I note that one suggested question is:
Given that the CAA's own documents state:
, 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.
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_St...uly%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?
On an asymmetric approach, once below ACH, a pilot is effectively committed to land.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Answer or Response
What actions would you take on an asymmetric approach if the runway becomes obstructed after you have passed ACH/A?
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."
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Philippines
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from that point on I am committed to Land no matter what.
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
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Including flying into the obstruction?!
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
