Who was taught this (crosswind technique)

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by seagull

. As a result, I have been amazed at some of the things that have been said by actual FAA inspectors (let alone DPEs). IOW, those that are supposed to have leadership roles in aviation are spreading things that are just plain wrong too often. Not only does it put bad info out there, but it exposes the poor pilots that listen to them to certificate action or worse! Now, THAT really irritates the heck out of me, and that might be what makes me sound short!

.

I know what you are saying. When I used to give type rides...an FAA inspector would have to observe orals and flight checks. It was more than one occassion I had to privately discuss a few 'technical' issues with the fed who was misinformed on a few things.

I remember having to teach an inspector where the final approach segment began on an ILS approach! His argument was that if you intercepted the glideslope at 8000' and the weather went down...you could continue.

[Doug Taylor]

The final approach is at GSIA on GS, right? I can't remember!

[EatSleepFly]

Originally Posted by B767Driver

His argument was that if you intercepted the glideslope at 8000' and the weather went down...you could continue.

If only!

That would be handy...

[Doug Taylor]

Originally Posted by EatSleepFly

If only!

That would be handy...

That's like 24 miles out! is my math correct?

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

The final approach is at GSIA on GS, right? I can't remember!

Yes...or at the beginning of the 'feather'. However, if a ball note states that you can intercept the glideslope at a lower altitude...it is the interception of the glideslope at that resultant lower altitude.

[Doug Taylor]

Originally Posted by B767Driver

Yes...or at the beginning of the 'feather'. However, if a ball note states that you can intercept the glideslope at a lower altitude...it is the interception of the glideslope at that resultant lower altitude.

I still remember the days when I remembered that stuff!

[seagull]

B76,

Well, thanks for that. The civi thing is particularly frustrating to me for the reasons you state. I guess it feels like we have to defend our background enough as it is, without dingbats making it worse for us (I am thinking there is an analogy here for a few members of this forum!). Too often it is an attitude issue. Again, this is just within that proverbial "10%", but the fact that such a high % of that group seem to be civi is, at the very least, confusing to me. In terms of overall numbers, it is still very small, happily, as both groups tend to perform very well on average.

I really can't say much about the customer service part of it, as we (fortunately) don't interact with customers that often. Getting the plane to the destination constitutes the "mission", and military background seems to jibe with that, not too surprisingly.

Anyway, enough of that, or perhaps this should split into two threads, one being about the issue above, and the other about how to improve the quality and standardization within civilian flight training.

[Dugie8]

I did it again, bad dugie....