Old 27th Mar 2019, 22:08
  #15 (permalink)  
Small cog
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Earth
Posts: 64
Sabenaboy

In the case of the OP’s scenario he would have made an approach to land so would aircraft have been configured to land. Missed approach requires an early turn during the climb to 2,000ft. While reconfiguring the aircraft and flying the missed approach, you ask to make a visual approach and stop before your below your cleared altitude? During all this you claim to be ‘visual’. Doesn’t sound too well organised to me.

Really? You have briefed for this eventuality? What’s the plan Ace? What’s is your Legal responsiblity when flying visually
Flying visually in the OP’s aircraft ... what speed ... what required visibility? No doubt the Op’s OP’s Manual part C will (should) have something to say on OLBA and what not to do.

Is is it Legal? Perhaps the question should be whether it’s reckless? You say that airmanship wasn’t the question. I’ve known a few people who crashed and died along with their innocent passengers doing some dum flying because it was ’Legal’. No. Airmanship should require a higher standard than ‘just because it’s Legal’. So when the OP enters into discussions about what the situation he should point out that he a sets higher standard and won’t entertain such a stupid idea - Legal or not.



Small cog is offline