Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Can You Do A PT In Lieu Of A Hold For A Rnav Appro  
User currently offlineSpudsmac From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 301 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3948 times:

If I am doing a RNAV approach and there is a 4NM hold in lieu of a PT, can I still do a PT instead of a parallel hold entry as a course reversal? It was the RNAV (GPS) 34 into Daytona. I was coming from the north east of KESLR and was cleared for the approach. I went brain dead for a few seconds and accidentally did a PT instead of a parallel entry. I was in the protected area the whole time though. (It was actually on my checkride and I passed, but the check pilot was looking outside the whole time. I just want an answer b/c it keeps bugging me.

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0813/00110R34.PDF

[Edited 2008-12-22 15:41:41]

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAAH732UAL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3933 times:

You "can" I guess since usually your either going to be doing just the entrance procedure and that's it or vectors Direct to an IAF or IF(if ATC meets the requirement) and cleared "straight in."

Officially I guess the reason hold-in-lieu's are built in instead of PTs b/c holds can be coded/coupled better I guess and you won't have to hand modify anything along the approach (OBS etc etc), which as you know I a BIG no no with anything RNAV! I still have no idea why TERPS picked HOLDs over PTs except for what I said above. Maybe I'm over studying it and they actually just flipped a coin  Smile

Here is the thing though, the hold entries are "recommenced" not required. There is a FAA gray area somewhere that you can do something different as long as it keeps you inside the primary protected area and you brief your co-pilot/safety pilot if applicable.

Hope I helped!


User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2765 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3923 times:

Here is what the AIM says (5-4-9 for those that want to look it up):

"When a holding pattern replaces a procedure turn, the holding pattern must be followed, except when RADAR VECTORING is provided or when NoPT is shown on the approach course."



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineSpudsmac From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3922 times:

I had to do one full RNAV approach with circle to land. I did the full approach from KESLR IAF.

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 2):
the holding pattern must be followed

I did except instead of the turn for the parallel entry, I did a PT and I never went outbound. I used the entry as a course reversal and went straight in from there.


Ah, whatever. I believe I am opening up a can of worms. hehe


User currently offlineGRZ-AIR From Austria, joined Apr 2001, 574 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3918 times:

I do not "guess" so I can only give you a thought.

Next time ask your instructor/examiner during the flight if you are unsure. Messing up, knowing it and hold-ing it to yourself because an examiner is looking out the window is bad airmanship (of both pilots). Mistakes happen and are no problem as long as you survive them and are able to ask the question in a forum later...

I am not familiar with the chart style but: Don't trust on grey areas published "somewhere". Instead fly whatever is mandated and you will be safe. If it is a holding, fly a holding. Otherwise an overlapping baseturn would be published as well.

Have fun,
J.

Edit

[Edited 2008-12-22 16:41:38]


When I joined A.net it was still free, haha ;).
User currently offlineAAH732UAL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3902 times:

Quoting GRZ-AIR (Reply 4):
I do not "guess" so I can only give you a thought.

The reason I say "guess" is because I have not found anything addressing why hold-in-lieu's are used instead of 45/180 PTs, and I have looked at a ton of places including TERPS. Plus I'm just covering my butt just like the FAA does.

Quoting GRZ-AIR (Reply 4):

Next time ask your instructor/examiner

Not always...... a lot of CFIs just know the basics, your best bet it to ask the FAA.

Quoting GRZ-AIR (Reply 4):
Don't trust on grey areas published "somewhere"

Here is the thing...... this is published in a certified FAA IFR procedures handbook. Plus the FAA lives on gray areas. Lastly, its says "as long as you stay in the primary protected area," that being the case your good to go. Lastly lastly one CFI said once that if your in a radar environment and unless the controller is watching your track with a fine tooth comb, they won't know what you do.

In the end your OK since the tear drop entrance is considered a procedure turn anyway.

[Edited 2008-12-22 17:29:09]

User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2765 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3892 times:

Sorry, didn't quite get what you were asking the first time.

While not good form, I don't think there is anything to bust you on in this case, as a procedure turn entry to the holding pattern at 100 kts (I'm guessing you were in a C172 or similar) would keep you well inside the protected area of a holding pattern created for a 200 kts maximum airspeed. However, if you flew a textbook procedure turn at the maximum holding speed of 200 kts you would travel outside the holding pattern by a few tenths of a mile. Then the check airman might have more of an issue.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineN353SK From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3859 times:

On the chart, KESLR does not say "No PT." You didn't fail the checkride, and ATC didn't yell at you. I would use these facts as evidence that what you did was acceptable.

User currently offlineDiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1558 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3858 times:

Wow, I've never noticed that 4nm holding pattern before. I've flown this approach 3 times, and 2 of them were vectors to final. The other, was the same situation you had. And, I must say, I did the same thing, other than I was coming from the west, and teardropped a 1 minute procedure turn. Didn't hear a thing from my CFII about it, nor did I hear anything from ATC. I'll have to keep an eye on the approach, for the next time I fly it.

-DiamondFlyer


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3848 times:



Quoting Spudsmac (Thread starter):
If I am doing a RNAV approach and there is a 4NM hold in lieu of a PT, can I still do a PT instead of a parallel hold entry as a course reversal?

No. You have to fly the hold (or do a parallel or teardrop entry) as your course reversal. This is because:

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 2):
"When a holding pattern replaces a procedure turn, the holding pattern must be followed, except when RADAR VECTORING is provided or when NoPT is shown on the approach course."

This was your checkride, so you got lucky. Had you failed, you wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. But since you didn't, you get to learn from the mistake without suffering the consequences. And those are the best kinds of mistakes.  Smile

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 8):
I was coming from the west, and teardropped a 1 minute procedure turn.

Which is fine, because that's an entry to the hold. But going outbound on the 162 course from KESLR and then doing a regular procedure turn isn't appropriate. Either fly the holding pattern as shown, or fly the appropriate entry to it (or forget about it entirely if you have NoPT on your route).

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineSpudsmac From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3835 times:



Quoting N353SK (Reply 7):
On the chart, KESLR does not say "No PT." You didn't fail the checkride, and ATC didn't yell at you. I would use these facts as evidence that what you did was acceptable.

Yeah the NoPT was for the other IAF, I never failed the checkride and am rated now. I just wanted to know for my own peace of mind.

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
But since you didn't, you get to learn from the mistake without suffering the consequences

Got it, I won't do that again and now I know it more thoroughly than ever.

Thanks for all the responses. I learned a lot from all the different viewpoints, even though the only one that counts in the end is the FAR/AIM.


User currently offlineJgarrido From Guam, joined Mar 2007, 340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3833 times:



Quoting N353SK (Reply 7):
You didn't fail the checkride, and ATC didn't yell at you.

Controllers don't care how you fly the plane until it starts effecting separation and by extension their job security. I watched many many planes do some strange holding/PT's, like turning the wrong way, so that they are outbound on the reciprocal of final only to turn inbound on the parallel course. I don't call them out, I just keep an extra eye on them.  Smile


User currently offlineAAH732UAL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3764 times:



Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 8):
2 of them were vectors to final.

Vectors to intercept the final approach course is not allowed on RNAV approaches I think from what I have learned/taught since not all airplanes can configure for INTC course, plus messing around with the procedure like that is what I would call "hand modification." Yet some people say vectors so idk...... the FAA needs to come out and say yay or nay on the subject and not just about the direct to IF rules IMO.


User currently offlineCptspeaking From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 639 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3753 times:



Quoting AAH732UAL (Reply 12):
Vectors to intercept the final approach course is not allowed on RNAV approaches

On every RNAV approach i've ever done with vectors, I've gotten vectors for the first few minutes, then they'll say "cleared direct **** (some IF on the approach), cleared for the approach."

Now, on every RNAV approach i've flown, the only reason they can't vector me to the final approach course is that the controller didn't have it depicted on his scope. Thus, they clear me direct to a waypoint on the approach, which is not necessarily an IAF. I'm 100% positive that if the final approach course were depicted on the controller's scope, they could give me vectors to final just like an ILS. Every GPS I've used (Garmins, KLN94, 90Bs, Apollo...the list goes on...) has at least two ways to activate a RNAV procedure: Activating via an IAF or Vectors to Final.

I've learned that when I'm getting vectors for a GPS approach, I can't just activate vectors to final and leave it...I'm always prepared to activate the approach again with an IAF and then go direct-to one of the IFs when they give me those instructions.

Maybe a controller here can further clarify?



...and don't call me Shirley!!
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3742 times:



Quoting AAH732UAL (Reply 12):
Vectors to intercept the final approach course is not allowed on RNAV approaches I think from what I have learned/taught since not all airplanes can configure for INTC course, plus messing around with the procedure like that is what I would call "hand modification." Yet some people say vectors so idk...... the FAA needs to come out and say yay or nay on the subject and not just about the direct to IF rules IMO.

Vectors to RNAV approaches happens all the time at DAB.

Quoting Cptspeaking (Reply 13):
On every RNAV approach i've ever done with vectors, I've gotten vectors for the first few minutes, then they'll say "cleared direct **** (some IF on the approach), cleared for the approach."

At DAB, it's (IIRC - haven't flown IFR there in a bit), treated exactly like a standard VOR approach (or other non-precision approach) - "fly heading xxx, maintain yyyy until established on the final approach course, cleared the RNAV 34 approach." On the GPS, we program it as "vectors to final", which is the FAF plus everything inside, with the extended final just drawn out beyond it. If the equipment can do it, and is certified to do it, I don't see anything wrong with it.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6398 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3735 times:



Quoting AAH732UAL (Reply 5):
Here is the thing...... this is published in a certified FAA IFR procedures handbook. Plus the FAA lives on gray areas. Lastly, its says "as long as you stay in the primary protected area," that being the case your good to go. Lastly lastly one CFI said once that if your in a radar environment and unless the controller is watching your track with a fine tooth comb, they won't know what you do.

Yeah, but the protected area for a hold is much smaller than it is for a procedure turn...  twocents 



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6398 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3733 times:



Quoting N353SK (Reply 7):
On the chart, KESLR does not say "No PT." You didn't fail the checkride, and ATC didn't yell at you. I would use these facts as evidence that what you did was acceptable.

I wouldn't make a regular practice of busting (i.e. not following to the letter) charted TERPS procedures...in more mountainous regions of the USA, that might be a good way to find the cumulus granitus  no 



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineAAH732UAL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3717 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):

Vectors to RNAV approaches happens all the time at DAB.

Again IIRC the official thing is DCT to a fix on the approach not the actual final approach course. If you think about it, there is actually nothing physical to show your on the final approach course like an LOC or Radial, just GPS which can have errors. Plus again, not all airplanes have the intercept course function. Lastly, again doing that to intercept course is "hand modification" in my book which the biggest no no on RNAV procedures in the terminal and approach phases.

I think the only "legal" thing ATC can do on RNAV approaches is vectors direct an IF as long as they comply with the following:
1)5NM notice to the pilot
2)Radar Contact up and including the IF waypoint
3)Turn is within 90*

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 15):
Yeah, but the protected area for a hold is much smaller than it is for a procedure turn...

Exactly, but the same OCS/ROC is built in plus the hold is primary protected to 4NM laterally.

You cannot do vectors to intercept course on a (RNP) approach and I think that is the same concept of (GPS) approaches. They physically have to clred you direct to a point or set you up so that when they say "cleared approach" you can just mossy direct to an IAF or IF.

Maybe I have been doing it wrong for the past year + but this is why the FAA flat out needs to come out and say whats correct.

[Edited 2008-12-23 13:25:14]

User currently offlineCptspeaking From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 639 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3713 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 14):
At DAB, it's (IIRC - haven't flown IFR there in a bit), treated exactly like a standard VOR approach (or other non-precision approach) - "fly heading xxx, maintain yyyy until established on the final approach course, cleared the RNAV 34 approach." On the GPS, we program it as "vectors to final", which is the FAF plus everything inside, with the extended final just drawn out beyond it. If the equipment can do it, and is certified to do it, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Absolutely...at the airports I've done GPS approaches at regularly, it's an issue of the controllers not having it depicted on the scope. They probably do have it depicted @ DAB, which is why they can do it. Without it depicted, they just use "fly direct ****" as a means to give you a final vector to the final approach course instead of the whole "heading, altitude until established, cleared for the approach."

The GPS unit looks and performs the same, but in order to go direct to whatever IF ATC gives us, you have to load the full procedure, then highlight the IF and go direct-to. Otherwise, it won't sequence to the rest of the approach and activate 2 mi. from the FAF.

Also, really the only time you have to do the "correct" hold entry is on a checkride. After that, the controllers don't really care how you get established so long as you stay in the protected area. I always choose a teardrop over a parallel whenever it's reasonable to do so, as the teardrop gets you established on the inbound course much further from the holding fix. It gives you more time to get an accurate wind correction angle, which is going to help you out a lot on the outbound leg.

Jonathan



...and don't call me Shirley!!
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3685 times:



Quoting N353SK (Reply 7):
On the chart, KESLR does not say "No PT." You didn't fail the checkride, and ATC didn't yell at you. I would use these facts as evidence that what you did was acceptable.

Another tip of the hat for this one...I think you did just fine, otherwise you'da not gotten your chit. Pink slips don't make good Christmas wrapping paper I don't think.

Quoting Cptspeaking (Reply 13):
Every GPS I've used (Garmins, KLN94, 90Bs, Apollo...the list goes on...) has at least two ways to activate a RNAV procedure: Activating via an IAF or Vectors to Final.

Most FMS's, once the selection of an RNAV approach has been made, will bring up a page with all of the possible transitions, or you can simply select none of them and continue, and it'll add it to the tail end of your routing.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 20, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3640 times:



Quoting AAH732UAL (Reply 17):
if you think about it, there is actually nothing physical to show your on the final approach course like an LOC or Radial, just GPS which can have errors.

If you think about it, if you have errors getting onto the final approach course because of GPS, you're likely going to have errors all the way down the approach because of GPS. That's what RAIM is for.

If the stumbling block to getting vectors to an RNAV approach is the accuracy of the RNAV equipment, you probably shouldn't be shooting that approach in the first place, since it may well end in tears when the runway you think you're lined up for is actually a tree.

Quoting AAH732UAL (Reply 17):
Plus again, not all airplanes have the intercept course function.

If they don't have the function, then the pilots shouldn't do it. The GPS units I've flown with, however, do have that function.

Quoting AAH732UAL (Reply 17):
Lastly, again doing that to intercept course is "hand modification" in my book which the biggest no no on RNAV procedures in the terminal and approach phases.

It's not hand modification. When I select an approach, the list of transitions comes up, one of which is "Vectors To Final". If I select that, it does what I described earlier - displays the FAF plus everything after, along with an extended final approach course. You fly the assigned heading, wait for the CDI to center, then follow it in. Once you pass the FAF, the GPS cycles to the next point on the approach just as it normally would. You never have to manually mess with the waypoints at all.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAAH732UAL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3631 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 20):

Yes I understand what your saying, I to fly a GPS unit with all those functions plus WAAS and that Japanese SBA thing. What I'm saying is I was taught that it was illegal to do VTF which is my original statement saying the FAA needs to come out and clarify this once and for all.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 22, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3611 times:



Quoting AAH732UAL (Reply 21):
What I'm saying is I was taught that it was illegal to do VTF which is my original statement saying the FAA needs to come out and clarify this once and for all.

They have. AIM 1-1-19-n is full of references to vectors-to-final:

Paragraph 1:

Once inside the TAA, all sectors and stepdowns are based on the bearing and distance to the IAF for that area, which the aircraft should be proceeding direct to at that time, unless on vectors.

Paragraph 5:

Therefore, requesting or accepting vectors which will cause the aircraft to intercept the final approach course within 2 NM of the FAWP is not recommended.

Paragraph 6:

When receiving vectors to final, most receiver operating manuals suggest placing the receiver in the nonsequencing mode on the FAWP and manually setting the course. This provides an extended final approach course in cases where the aircraft is vectored onto the final approach course outside of any existing segment which is aligned with the runway. Assigned altitudes must be maintained until established on a published segment of the approach. Required altitudes at waypoints outside the FAWP or stepdown fixes must be considered. Calculating the distance to the FAWP may be required in order to descend at the proper location.

Note that this paragraph basically encourages manual tweaking of waypoints in order to set up that final approach course outside the FAF (i.e. load the approach, set direct to the FAF, put the GPS in OBS mode and set the inbound course on your OBS).

Then there's 1-1-19-p, which has Paragraph 10, stating that pilots should become familiar with "programming and flying an approach with radar vectors to the intermediate segment."

So there are several references to it. And since nowhere in that section does it say that vectors-to-final are not allowed on a GPS approach, it's pretty clear that they are allowed, especially since the AIM recommends that pilots become familiar with them.

Quoting N353SK (Reply 7):
You didn't fail the checkride, and ATC didn't yell at you. I would use these facts as evidence that what you did was acceptable.



Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 19):
I think you did just fine, otherwise you'da not gotten your chit.

Just because you pass a checkride doesn't mean that you didn't mess something up. If all checkrides had to be 100% perfect, very few people would ever pass. I know I've screwed up a few things on checkrides and still passed. And, of course, check pilots are human too, and they can miss things. And ATC doesn't care what you do, so long as you don't screw with their separation. They're not the FAR/AIM police. In this case, the OP did make a mistake - used a PT when he should have done a hold entry. In Florida, with no terrain anywhere near to worry about, and in a slow airplane, you can get away with such things. But in the mountains in a faster airplane, it could be deadly. Now is the time to correct it, not then.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineJgarrido From Guam, joined Mar 2007, 340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3599 times:



Quoting AAH732UAL (Reply 21):
What I'm saying is I was taught that it was illegal to do VTF

I highly doubt that is true. That while controllers are not extensively taught the regulations of the FARs. It would be important to know that vectors to a RNAV/GPS final are illegal in their very nature.

In the 7110.65 ( http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff...r_traffic/publications/atpubs/Atc/ ) Chap. 5 Sec. 9 probably has 90% of the rules for controllers when it comes to instrument approaches. In that section is the statement:

Quote:
"EXCEPTION. Conditions 1 and 2 above do not apply to RNAV aircraft being vectored for a GPS or RNAV approach."

Conditions 1 and 2 deal how far from the FAF an a/c can be vectored to intercept final. If it's not legal to vector to a GPS/RNAV final approach course, it's seems strange that statement would be in there at all.


User currently offlineCptspeaking From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 639 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3592 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 22):



Quoting Jgarrido (Reply 23):
If it's not legal to vector to a GPS/RNAV final approach course, it's seems strange that statement would be in there at all.

Not to mention that if it were illegal, why would you even have the option of choosing VTF in the GPS Procedures menu?

Quoting AAH732UAL (Reply 21):
I was taught that it was illegal to do VTF which is my original statement saying the FAA needs to come out and clarify this once and for all.

Sorry buddy, us instructors aren't right 100% of the time, and there are lots of times where students misunderstand things too, even if what we actually say is correct. Hope we've clarified this for you a bit....



...and don't call me Shirley!!
25 AAH732UAL : I guess that is what I was have been told/taught for over the last year +. I personally will not take VTF if I have a choice. When the FAA says it's
26 Mir : The FAA doesn't say it's not recommended. The FAA says that accepting vectors that will have you join the final approach course within 2 miles of the
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Can You Do A PT In Lieu Of A Hold For A Rnav Appro
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Can You Add A Section In Your Logbook? posted Tue Sep 2 2003 00:33:32 by Olympic A-340
Can You Do 270 posted Mon Mar 19 2001 20:16:12 by Iainhol
Can You Fly Over "Old Faithful" In Yel. Nat. Park? posted Wed Apr 30 2008 16:12:10 by Vio
Can You Identify This Device In This A319! posted Sun Feb 4 2007 14:46:51 by Aak777
How And When Do You Log Second In Command? posted Fri Dec 29 2006 08:15:37 by FLY2HMO
Can You Make A A330 Out Of A A340? posted Fri May 5 2006 17:51:39 by KrisYYZ
Problem In The Cockpit - What Would You Do? posted Fri Jan 6 2006 22:02:10 by Julesmusician
3 People In Cockpits Of Jetliners - What They Do? posted Fri Oct 1 2004 18:12:49 by Mozart
"You Can't Make A Bad Landing In A 747"? posted Sun Mar 23 2003 13:54:36 by Cedarjet
Can You Put Glass Cocpits And LCD Systems In 732? posted Thu Nov 15 2001 11:20:47 by Hoons90

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format