|
Like I said... ;)
|
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 9845383)
As for the tower calling the go-around, we'll see, as one news report put it, emphasis mine:
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada said in its initial report that the Air Canada pilot did not begin his “go-around” until the air traffic controller told the pilot to pull up. The TSB's initial report said the opposite, making it clear that the ACA was already climbing and had overflown all 4 aircraft on the ground by the time the controller instructed the GA. If that report has been contradicted by any subsequent update from the TSB, I haven't seen it and there has certainly been no reference to it on here. See also my previous comments about that graphic that crudely attempts to synchronise the ADS-B plot and the LiveATC recording. FlightAware should know better than to try to do that, though to be fair their analyst does caveat his analysis with "if everything lines up with my data and the timestamp from the audio" (it clearly doesn't).
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 9845383)
Whether AC 759 initiated the go around before or after the ATC call, 100 feet AGL is way too low to figure out they were over the taxiway.
|
Yes, but that quote is just plain wrong. The TSB's initial report said the opposite, making it clear that the ACA was already climbing and had overflown all 4 aircraft on the ground by the time the controller instructed the GA. If that report has been contradicted by any subsequent update from the TSB, I haven't seen it and there has certainly been no reference to it on here. It's possible that the go around was already initiated by the time ATC chimed in, but the TSB report doesn't state that. |
Originally Posted by ironbutt57
(Post 9845616)
there are two, BOTH in the FMS database
|
Two FMS Visuals to 28R?
Children of the magenta line comes to mind with these 2 words in the same sentence. |
Nav providers including Jeppesen will code visual approaches -- in addition to RVFPs -- into the database, when possible. So it would not be surprising to see both FMS Bridge and Quiet Bridge visual procedures in some databases.
(There are visual approaches which cannot be coded into the database due to lack of individual landmarks or waypoints). |
SIMO FMS QUIET BRIDGE VISUAL RY 28R AND ILS OR RNAV RY 28L IN USE. LNDG RWYS 28L, 28R. DEPG RWYS 1L, 1R. Per a question on previous post, RWY 28L is at 284 and RWY 28R is at 281(per the RNP plates) |
Only one FMS bridge visual in my database. You'd have to build the quiet bridge visual yourself.
|
(and it is an instrument approach) It is not. You will not find RVFP under 8260.3 TERPS. First, RVFP developed under this guidance are for use only by pilots of aircraft equipped with Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)‑approved RNAV systems. |
That doesn't make it an instrument approach.
If FMS Bridge is an instrument approach, tell us: What are the approach minimums? Where's the initial approach fix? Final approach fix? Missed approach point? Why must pilots confirm visual sighting of the airport environment / preceding traffic? Why must the the aircraft remain clear of clouds? Per 8260.55, why is the procedure only authorized in VMC? Per 8260.55, why may ATC offer RVFPs only when visual approaches are in use? And again, why is it not in 8260.3, the standard for all instrument approach procedures? aterpster gave some good insight earlier on why RVFPs are the way they are and how FAA AFS feels about them. |
Wrong Mr. peekay4
CVFP (Charted Visual Flight Procedure) are considered instrument approaches per FAA rules. This is the relevant FAA document which states: Despite the fact that both types of Visual Approaches are conducted in VMC, they are considered IFR procedures. As such, the pilot must comply with all applicable IFR rules when conducting them. ....... CVFPs differ from normal Visual Approaches in that they require a pilot to have a charted landmark, rather than the airport, in sight (AIM 5-4-22/23). https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avia.../InFO11003.pdf |
Yes are conducted under IFR, but they are not instrument approach procedures, they are visual approach procedures.
Hence, the name. :) From AIM: "e. A visual approach is not an IAP and therefore has no missed approach segment." (although they can have standard missed approach instructions) Anyway between 8260.55 and 8260.3 it's pretty clear already. |
AIM isn't a definitive document. I'll stick with FAA 82XX orders for differentiating between and Instrument approach, a RVFP and otherwise.
|
|
I don't know what the point is. You can't compare RVFPs from different countries.
In fact one of the primary objections against RVFPs is exactly that they are completely non-standardized between countries, which can create a lot of confusion. Hence IFALPA, etc., recommend pilots do not fly RVFPs and I know some within CAAs would like to seem them go away. (On the flip side, orgs like NBAA want to see them expanded.) Anyway, time for me to move on from this silly topic. |
Originally Posted by peekay4
(Post 9846307)
I don't know what the point is.
|
The approach in question is NOT a standard approach, it's a SPECIAL.
GF |
Originally Posted by ironbutt57
(Post 9845616)
there are two, BOTH in the FMS database
|
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by porterhouse
(Post 9846247)
Wrong Mr. peekay4
CVFP (Charted Visual Flight Procedure) are considered instrument approaches per FAA rules. This is the relevant FAA document which states: Despite the fact that both types of Visual Approaches are conducted in VMC, they are considered IFR procedures. As such, the pilot must comply with all applicable IFR rules when conducting them. ....... CVFPs differ from normal Visual Approaches in that they require a pilot to have a charted landmark, rather than the airport, in sight (AIM 5-4-22/23). |
My god I hope that ends this madness.
(although it was AC that provided all of the entertainment) Peekay, do you work for AC? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:43. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.