So in that case which I'm going to assume is it was an IFR flight conducted in VFR conditions. Now for legal purposes if your not in IMC and given a report of traffic its your responsibility to see and avoid. I can't foresee that being to different in other countries because it avoids lawsuits.
Yes, you do
assume. Far too much.
You cite legal purposes, but this takes place in a foreign country, and you really have no idea what the legalities are there. Therefore, you are in error. You guess. You
assume.
Assumption does not say good things about you. You understand this?
Law suits? Have you ever been out of the country?
You're assuming the legal liability in a country which you know not, in a legal system you know not, an an operation of which you don't know the type, operating rules, or if it's even instructional, in which you can't determine the visibility, have a grainy, inadequate video, in a different language...and
assuming you know something, anything, about what's going on.
As you're merely talking out your backside with no information, and doing nothing but
assuming, let's transfer this scenario to the US. Again, you'd have no idea the purpose of operation of the flight. Under IFR, the pilot or crew isn't required to be able to see out...many flights are conducted IMC, of course. Even if the crew were training and therefore responsible for see and avoid, the crew has augmented themselves with at least one, possibly more, observers.
The thing is...it's not in this country, and the truth is, lacking any information, you've not a clue whence you speak. That leaves your favorite thing:
assumption. Again, this doesn't say good things about you, jumping to conclusions and offering nothing more than guesses. How typical of you.
Did you look up the VOR 15 at KARR? Apparantly not because you would have seen what the #2 Nav was tuned to. But instead you assumed that it was tuned to nothing obviously.
I assumed nothing, and can only go by what you've given us. You've stated you were off by a dot, a full dot, and full deflection, You were unable, when asked, to explain what you meant by being "30 degrees" off.
Yes, I am looking at the VOR 15 for KARR. I cannot see what you tuned your second nav to, because I can't see into the past, and I won't
assume what you did. I know what I'd have my second nav tuned to, but we don't know if you have DME, or how you identified the crossing radials. Without
assuming...which I refuse to do...one simply dosn't know what you did or didn't do, beyond what you provide...which is that you bungled the approach so badly that you were grossly off course.
Further, you haven't stated how you determined your nav equipment was in good working order, other than actually flying the approach. Again, poor airmanship.
Furthermore it is common that you get off from a centered needle.
It is, if you can't fly an approach. You
assume everyone else flies as poorly as you. There's no law against trying harder, you know. You can fly the approach with a needle centered. In fact...that's the idea. Are you a flight instructor?
Thats why I was practicing and given the windy conditions of the day along with turbulence the fact that it was only a dot off at most isn't really that bad.
Interesting. Embracing mediocracy isn't a professional attribute, either.
Then again, a dot off for us is a bust. As in failed. For you it's "really not bad."
Do you know there are approaches out there in which you can't go full scale without hitting a mountain?
Keep your needles centered, grow up a little, get some more experience so you have some idea what you're talking about, preflight your equipment a little better, learn to know where you are so you don't bust your navigation so badly, accept responsibility for your errors, and for heavens sake, keep the needle centered, next time. Hopefully you know this, but you can certainly do better. Much, much better.
