PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Private Flying (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying-63/)
-   -   Questions for an Old, Bold Pilot... (https://www.pprune.org/private-flying/499653-questions-old-bold-pilot.html)

sevenstrokeroll 5th Nov 2012 20:03

just to make sure you understand, use the POH section on SHORT FIELD LANDINGS (not over an obstacle or over an obstacle as you choose).

ALSO: if you haven't read "stick and rudder" by langweische, you are missing out on great advice on landings...in particular the method he calls the stall down landing, in which you start to reduce your speed prior tot he runway...be sure to read it and understand it before you try it.

Steve6443 6th Nov 2012 07:21

Sevenstrokeroll wrote

point one: if you are flying at 6000' you are flying at an IFR altitude...shouldn't you be VFR at 6500' feet? (assuming youare above 3000 agl)
That is how I learnt it in Germany, however in UK they use - I believe - the quadrant rule. Means magnetic track 0 - 89 - odd thousands. MT 90 - 179 odd thousands plus 500, MT 180 - 269 Even thousands and 270 - 359 even thousands plus 500 - at least that's what it says in my 2012 Jeppesen EG5 Chart....

Pace 6th Nov 2012 08:20

The quadrantal rule is an IFR procedure flown on standard pressure and not a VFR procedure! There is nothing to stop you flying QNH OCAS VFR at 6000 feet

Pace

Steve6443 6th Nov 2012 10:19


The quadrantal rule is an IFR procedure flown on standard pressure and not a VFR procedure! There is nothing to stop you flying QNH OCAS VFR at 6000 feet
Not wishing to step on your toes, but why does the reverse side of the Geppesen VFR Chart 2012 (EG5) say:

United Kingdom

VFR Cruising Levels

Flight Levels below 19500

Magnetic Track Cruising Level in Feet
000 - 089 odd thousands
090 - 179 odd thousands plus 500
180 - 269 even thousands
270 - 359 even thousands plus 500

Am I missing something? In spring I wanted to do a tour of UK, so this is something I would like to clarify.....

mad_jock 6th Nov 2012 10:26

Steve its change I belive with the EASA stuff thats come in. So the quad rule is no more its the same as everywhere else


Jepp is pretty crap for use in the UK your alot better using the CAA charts. Either scale will do depending how much detail you want.

Pace 6th Nov 2012 10:54

Steve

If that is the case its a nonsense! As a VFR pilot you are not expected to fly IFR tolerances so how they expect you to fly tolerances makes no sense?
It was always the case that the quadrantle rule was for IFR flight in the UK OCAS But that was not the case for VFR.
But I am happy to be corrected

Pace

dont overfil 6th Nov 2012 11:23


Steve its change I belive with the EASA stuff thats come in. So the quad rule is no more its the same as everywhere else

Is this actually with us now? I am confused with all the different and constantly changing dates.

D.O.

dublinpilot 6th Nov 2012 12:03

Steve,

The Quadrangle rule in the UK was compulsory for IFR and recommended but not compulsory for VFR (and as far as I can see almost universally ignored for VFR).

The UK is transitioning to ICAO standard semi circular rule for this. I'm not sure if this happened in September or happening in December, but either way it will be in play before your trip in spring, so you must operate according to the semi-circular rule that you are familair with and which operates in the rest of Europe.

dp

madlandrover 6th Nov 2012 13:00

The UK CAA are delaying the transition to Part-SERA until 4 December 2014 - see here. Perhaps something has been learnt from the Part-FCL debacle?

flybymike 6th Nov 2012 17:13


Quadrangle

Quadrantle
It's Quadrantal Goddammit......!

Makes a change from Biannual/biennial/Stansted/Stanstead.etc.

Oh alright then. God damn it.;)

dublinpilot 6th Nov 2012 17:49

Ah well....it's not natural languange, but one forced on my by 700 years of oppression by an evil British empire ;) So why not abuse it :p

Gertrude the Wombat 6th Nov 2012 20:06


(and as far as I can see almost universally ignored for VFR)
It's clearly useless to someone who wants to fly in the natural place, ie as high as possible but below the cloud base.

flybymike 6th Nov 2012 22:32


(and as far as I can see almost universally ignored for VFR)
It's clearly useless to someone who wants to fly in the natural place, ie as high as possible but below the cloud base.
Also a bit of a challenge for someone who wishes to do aerobatics above 3000 feet.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:49.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.