From: David Megginson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [...] try to pass the whole thing in one go, and I would be > grateful if my fellow fgfs developers will think of me at 12z tomorrow > and send any prayers/best wishes/positive karma/Jedi force (as > appropriate) my way.
Hrmph; I'm on GMT-7. If I'm awake at 12Z, I'll alternate between feeling sorry for myself and hoping you do well in the air ... 8-) > This morning, fortunately, the airport clouded over to an 800 > ft ceiling while we were in the air, so our final ILS approach was for > real -- 800 ft is not that exciting for ILS, but it was still fun not > being able to see the runway until the last minute and a bit, and not > having to wear the stupid foggles. Around here, IFR checkrides are usually cancelled for actual IMC conditions because it limits the flexibility of the examiners to throw challenges at the student that would be unsafe in IMC and/or illegal while on a clearance. However, if this is not the case, be sure to get absolutely stable and trimmed by 800ft in actual because the glideslope doubles in sensitivity by 400ft and doubles again by 200ft (as you of course know). In my experience, proximity to the ground enables a slight enhancement in undesired optical sensing of attitude through foggles that simplifies pitch control outside IMC on short final. Also, in addition to the wind shear for inversion layers, there is usually a subtle wind shear below 300 ft (or so) if you are landing into a headwind that causes you to trend high and which needs a very _slight_ correction to avoid undershoot! Under US rules, the slight high trend is not a failing error, but overcorrecting to be at 180 ft at the middle marker would be, of course. I don't think FGFS's wind can do AGL layers with a gradual transition ? Last week, I flew KOKB-VOR-A, KCRQ-ILS-24, KSEE-LOC-D, KMYF-ILS-28R and never broke out for the first, broke out at 250 ft for the second, was in the clear for the third (circle to land from pattern altitude!), and was in the clear from 1200ft for the final ILS to home airport. The fog and low cloud was offshore and trying to move onshore, and the ceilings at airports correspond to their distance from the coast. A convenient way of getting experience in actual yet still get home. FGFS doesn't do slanting cloud bases and tops as far as I know. This is probably the biggest factor in encouraging VFR pilots to proceed beyond the safe point of no return in marginal conditions. Would it be _easy_ to add an x-y gradient parameter to the model ? _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
