My WAG would be that 90% have the necessary equipment (usually meaning at least a 430W) but only 20% have the necessary paperwork in place.
Which is not really surprising, given that there are not that many GNSS approaches currently, and that the lack of AML STC means the paperwork (AFMS update) is a major change. Hopefully the latter gets better when we get the BASA, downgrading the major to minor change. A friend very recently did the paperwork for his Mooney (530W+430W). No physical change to the airplane, only the AFMS update, several thousand k.
Then you still smash up the landing gear. ~5kt VS, pretty likely
you shouldn’t, given that the design vertical speed for the gear is 10ft/s, which is ~6kt. But yeah, some bounce will probably be unavoidable
I am not propagating to fly the approach on the AP all the way down to include the flare. I just notice that at DA you can disengage the AP (legally you should) or leave it on a little longer with your finger on the disengage button to continue (while monitoring) the stable approach down a little further. Once close to the threshold I would disengage and it would be rather easy to let the aircraft sink in on the rather long runway, even with the runway not really in sight. In the Cirrus, I still have the synthetic vision. I quickly look at it for an extra confirmation that I am indeed landing at a runway and to make the crosswind component more visual :-) but don’t use it of course for any kind of visual landing by looking at the runway on the PDF.
Is the image intensifier option on the SR22 any good for this?
I believe it combines a visible light intensification function (probably a Gen 3 NVG tube; the Gen 1 and 2 are crap) with a thermal imager.
Is it in the pilot’s primary field of view?
at DA you can disengage the AP (legally you should)
Is that really true? You are supposed to disengage at the height given in the AP AFMS. The MDH at some places could be 1500ft.
I’m not sure where it is in part NCO, but the EU OPS commercial limit for autopilot use is 158ft agl if you don’t have CAT II/III approval.
So what would happen if In at the OM and the field is below minimums lets say RVR is 900’ instead of 1000’ and at the IM I have 1100’ and so I see the runway and land?
At my home field it often happened that either end of the runway may have fog <300’ visib but the other end MVF or even clear.
You know sometimes I think these do gooders are smothering us with too much love. The over protective parent syndrome.
Take a visual. The min RVR for a visual is 800m I believe.
The approach ban is anything but nanny state, and in the UK at least has been around since long before the concept existed.
C210. You are not allowed to start the approach and have a look.
Take a visual. The min RVR for a visual is 800m I believe.
as I remember you are only allowed to use 800m if you are visually aligned on final before, have the runway in sight and visibility reduction is caused by pure ground phenomena – ground fog, shallow fog, fog patches, ground haze or fume etc.
For a visual you have to have the runway is sight from the beginning…
I can fly down the ILS on the AP down to 200 feet according to the pilot operating manual. That is on a precision approach.
