Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site bcsaic.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!ted
From: ted@bcsaic.UUCP (ted jardine)
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Re: IFR procedure questions
Message-ID: <456@bcsaic.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Feb-86 01:42:12 EST
Article-I.D.: bcsaic.456
Posted: Mon Feb 17 01:42:12 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Feb-86 04:43:36 EST
References: <339@bunny.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle
Lines: 58

In a recent article Erik Mintz wrote:
> A friend of mine just completed a (successful) IFR check ride.
> However, the inspector strongly corrected him on a few procedures,
> and I wonder if anyone has any comments on the corrections.
> 
> 1) The inspector crossed out all hours that my friend had logged
>    as PIC while receiving instrument instruction. As per the recent
>    discussion here, I thought any time the instruction took place
>    in VFR conditions, both the instructor and my friend could log PIC
>    time.

Strictly speaking the inspector was incorrect, but there is a legitimate
difference of opinion in this area.  If the airplane is being flown solely
by reference to instruments in VFR weather conditions and not in accordance
with an ATC clearance, then a Private or Commercial pilot may log such time
as PIC.  However, if an ATC clearance is involved then PIC is not permitted
since the pilot is not rated for instrument operations.  The argument used
by (apparently) this inspector would be that without an instrument rating
the pilot is not rated for the operation being conducted.  Since log books
seldom distinguish between ATC cleared procedures and non-ATC cleared, the
inspector had some basis for his action.  Legitimately, he should have asked
which periods of flight instruction were conducted per an ATC clearance or
in IMC and deleted only the PIC hours for those.

> 2) The inspector pointed out that you should not report "procedure turn
>    inbound"  until you are established on the final approach course.
>    This sounds correct. Can anyone cite a reference? Or any controllers
>    care to comment on where you expect a pilot to be when he/she tells
>    you "procedure turn inbound"?

The only reference I know of is the Air Traffic Control Manual.  Substantial
portions of this manual are published in the AIM.  When I report procedure
turn inbound, I make sure that I have completed the turn from the inbound
portion of the procedure turn to the final approach course, and that I am
tracking according to the latter course.  In the interval from the procedure
turn inbound report to the Final Approach Fix, the controller will usually
issue instructions such as "report the final approach fix to the tower on ..."

> 3) The inspector vehemently asserted that when asked to "re-cycle
>    transponder", you should move each digit of the code off one digit,
>    and then return it to the correct value, WITHOUT setting the
>    transponder to stand-by. I was taught to use stand-by during
>    ANY code change, so as not to accidently select an emergency code,
>    or a code already in use. The inspector apparently said that the
>    controllers want to see the changes to aid in identification.
>    Anyone know?

This convinces me that the inspector was a bit overzealous.  I suspect
perhaps a recent graduate of the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City.  If a
controller has time to watch the transponder code change digit by digit
it is either the wee hours of the morning or he or she is about to get
their tail chewed by their supervisor for slacking off.  I'm truly
amazed at this comment

TJ {With Amazing Grace} The Piper
(aka Ted Jardine)  CFI-ASME/I
Boeing Artificial Intelligence Center
...uw-beaver!uw-june!bcsaic!ted