Honest question here!!

[Toad4]

Actually, there's quite a bit of difference between 1 SM and 1/2 SM of visibility. At 200' on a 3 degree glidepath, you're more than 1/2 SM from the threashold... i.e. at your decision height you can see approach lights but you can NOT yet see the runway if your vis is no-kidding at 1/2 mile.

Having the approach lights in sight you can continue (-121, to 100'; not sure if -91 has a limit or not), but you're still flying the glideslope down. Thus the wisdom in the post advising you to always fly the GS down to 100'.

Actually, I think that if you would look at a precision approach setup (ILS), you'll find that the OM is generally (not always) 5 nm out and is where you intercept the GS, the MM is generally (not always) .5 nm from the threshhold and the IM is generally .25 nm from the threshhold. You may leave the DH and descend to 100' above the TDZE, not 100' below the DH (small difference, no real world effect). I am cetainly not trying to start a pissing match here. These are all generalizations for simplicity's sake. My only point was this. There is no procedural difference and certainly no exponentially greater degree of difficulty in flying an ILS to 100', 200', or 500'. An incompetent pilot is equally dangerous at all altitudes. The majority of crashes in IMC are due to loss of control (often well above the ground). This indicates poor procedures and technique. The best guard for this (once again, only my opinion) is to use the procedures and techniques as often as possible. To impress on less experienced pilots that 200 & 1/2 is much more difficult is quite frankly BS. The only difference is if you look up and don't have a runway, you have to go missed. No thinking, no inching down, just go missed. Whether it is 1800 RVR or 5000 RVR, the ground is equally hard. These views do not necessarilly reflect those of the parent company or it's advertiser's.

Blue skies...

 

[skysurfer]

FreightPup-

Yes, I still am in the Seattle area. CFIing.....

Where are you from?

 

[upndsky]

The more time you do it the better and when you get to see what it looks like VFR you improve your situational awareness when you are IMC.

I agree. The first 10 or so approaches my students shoot is WITHOUT the hood. I want them to be able to visualize what an approach looks like. I want them to become comfortable with the procedure and the planning process involved without the distractions of trying to keep the blue half of the AI on top. When I got my instrument rating I was under the hood from day 1 and I always felt like I was behind the airplane. This really curbed the learning process. It's when I started flying approaches "visually" that it all came together. In the course of my instructing, I've picked up several "problem" students from other CFIs. After a couple of "visual" instrument approaches they showed a tremendous improvement. By seeing what was happening, they were able to work through the process easier. When it came time to put the hood on, the mystery of an approach was gone.

 

[Xfr8dog]

Toad4 does your Lear have a flight director on the side you're flying? i can only say from personal experience in the right seat of a Falcon 20 WITHOUT said luxuries that the last 200 feet or so are VERY touchy and difficult (certainly not impossible) and before you ask... yes i flew a profile and was properly trimmed but ... im still HAND flying a jet....