AIP Nepal


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....925c2aa0fb.png

Cool chart! Has tons of more details than Jeppesen. Surely the vertical path is very very important here. That’s why I can not agree with diving after FAF is always safe.

Actually they have RNP AR procedures there. Very easy and smooth to fly. All you need to do is having a cup of coffee, and let the airplane do all the job. However, it is too costly to get certified. So we have no choice but follow this last century tech guidance.

My type is G550 and G650. But both of them will be invalid next month. And our cooperate sim center is either shut down, or holding an out of date certification without anyone can go there to inspect. That means I will be semi-laid-off soon. What a tough time for all the aviators.

Ffs
 

Surely if you are visual and can remain so then why would there be a problem, just land the thing. I always thought the point of landing was to touch down somewhere where its safe, who gives a Monkeys if you followed the 7 degress Vor offset until the end, you can see what's there so use it. And yes I have landed in nepal alot of times and it's only difficult if you make it so.

To be fair, i see where your coming from but i think there is an important difference. Im from AUS so it might vary globally

however lets say yo get to the bottom of an instrument approach and its completely clear, clear, no vis problems or clouds and your in day vmc, it satisifes the operations below LSALT requirements ( 4. Day VMC of the CAR's in AUS), and as a result you can do what you want.

However, if you have been cleared for a certain IAP at a controlled AD, they expect and you are required to follow the IAP and its asscoiated rules with aligning to the centreline ( unless request and recleared VAP), which is AUS is ( within circling area, visual ref to runway and continuously insight Ground and water). Additionally, if by night or in less than VMC, ( you can be visual with the runway yet in less than VMC by means of less than 5km vis or not in sight of ground/water below 2000ft AGL), you have to follow the IFR IAP alignment with runway following a NPA offset approach Requirements.

The rules are written for a reason, and i totally get that lets say your half way down the approach, break into clear skies and perfect vis at some uncontrolled AD and you can now conduct a VAP, thats cool as long as you can satisfy the VAP requirements, ( 5km vis, clear of cloud, insight of Ground and water etc). However , if you are cleared for a certain IAP or at a uncontrolled AD however are conducting an IAP and sight the runway in less than VMC, you must follow the approariate NPA alignment with centreline procedures.

In Australia they are.

So basically: If you're on an instrument approach, you should fly that. The procedure itself allows for neat track alignment.

Not a rule overly complex to remember. :ok:

Some discussion also available on the JFK VOR 22 thread, sure someone grabs a link quick.

avtur007

You will not say this if someone is checking your QAR for every single flight! And they DO care where did you touch down. They will warn you in 72 hours if you don’t land within 2000ft. Plus, they will monitor your speed, altitude, track, timing of configuration, taxi speed, G-load when touch down, etc. etc. Even the pith up rate during takeoff, should be within 2.5-3.5 degree/s. If you don’t operate within their standard, you will get in trouble. Our chief pilot was fired just because he triggered PULL UP but continued to land at Queenstown (NZQN), even though it was perfect VMC outside. Moreover, we don’t have a lot of flights during pandemic. So, everyone is keeping eyes on you when you fly out. And our boss is trying all his best to find a excuse to fire some one to save money. Nobody want get **** during this tough time.

Other than that, I do agree going visual is the easiest way. But I insist it is not always the safest way. If I have any doubt, I will find the regulation, and obey the regulation. Fly like a lawyer, not a cowboy. I think this is the best way to protect myself and my career during these days. That’s why I am asking here.

mmm345

Thank you so much mm345! It sounds very reasonable. However, I searched the whole ICAO 8168 and FAR, still can not find any specific clause concerning this. Still working on that

Sounds like a very poor “just culture” running around instilling fear instead of safety habits. I find it hard to believe, but not impossible, that a US operator would be using a FOQA program as termination tool. Yes, continued intentional violations must be dealt with but there needs to be due process.

Our aircrafts are N-registered, but not a US operator. I always think they fear because they know less. They want us to be a robot rather than a human.