FCC vs FAA Story

Mon Jun 6 00:41:22 UTC 2022

On 6/5/22 17:14, sronan at ronan-online.com wrote:
> They had 5 years, and did NOTHING. No amount of time would have changed that.
>
> Shane
>
It is not that simple. And they have done a lot of work. Much more than NOTHING.

These are primarily used in low visibility situations. How many crashed passenger filled planes would have been acceptable?

Low visibility, low altitude flying is known as IFR. (IFR - Instrument Flight Rules). There are a hundred or more low altitude flight 'plates' published. They had to be checked, verified, determined to be safe. This is NOT something that they just decide. Until they knew it was safe, they had to tag it as unsafe. Below is an example of just two at the Van Nuys that MIGHT have been effected.

They actually have to fly each change to each plate, under different conditions to re-certify them. And you want them to do that. If they determine that it was safer if 50 foot higher in one segment, then they had to re-test again and then release a new 'plate'.

And they had to certify the equipment, done by the manufacturer and the FAA. They can't just place the equipment on a test bench and see if it still works.

We don't know, so go ahead and fly your 500 passengers in low visibility and see if you crash is NOT how to do it.

Two Kinds of Instrument Approach Charts

-- 
Doug Royer - ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (http://DougRoyer.US) Douglas.Royer at gmail.com 714-989-6135
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220605/9bd493d6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4496 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220605/9bd493d6/attachment.bin>