IFR Page: 3 of 5

island_airphoto
February 02, 2025, 03:33:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819493

Quote:

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer

I’m not in job of defending the US system, but there needs to be some perspective. The US airspace operates about 40%-50% of all global aviation. Only half of daily flights are air carrier. For lot of reasons outside this discussion, air carriers are the default transport, trains and buses are a tiny fraction of long distance transport. Apply EASA aviation standards and the US network would grind to halt or create huge gaps in service. We’ve gone 16 years without a fatal US carrier major accident, which isn’t different than the rest of the world, especially when the US has a 50% share. Our economy would suffer greatly and passengers revolt at what would required.

All that said, the plan for DCA, particularly the helicopter ops, were hazardous in the extreme. The Route 4/33 operations is just plain dangerous, nothing less. The politics of DCA are going to drive a band-aid fix is my prediction. Visual separation won’t go away. FAA will get crucified over manning. DCA may lose some significant service, if we closed 33 permanently. If I read the NOTAM correctly, closing 4 and 33, the pain will become known, interestingly, I read elsewhere that the helicopter altitudes were raised to 200’ in 2023 due to noise complaints.

The area is extraordinarily sensitive to noise complaints. I muffed a landing at KVKX just a few miles away after the takeoff curfew and someone called the cops on me for going around and I got a bit annoyed with them and told them they weren't the air police.
And yes, trying to do EU IFR for everything all the time would create some epic traffic jams.
* IMHO they need the dedicated helicopter controller on at ALL times the helicopters are flying and they need to be held for crossing traffic. They also all need ADS-B, no private pilot that wasn't totally skint would be running around with the lack of situational awareness the helos seem to have in an area like that.

Subjects ADSB (All) ATC DCA FAA IFR Separation (ALL) Situational Awareness Visual Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

JRBarrett
February 02, 2025, 03:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819495

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

That's assuming perfect equipment accuracy. My understanding is that the tolerance of e.g. an IFR altimeter in the USA is 75'. If that's correct, one IF aircraft with a 'legal' altimeter indicating 325' could in fact be at 250' and another IFR aircraft with a 'legal' altimeter indicating 175' could in fact be at ... 250'. I'm hoping that the avionics in the aircraft involved in this terrible tragedy were more accurate than that, but I always exercise caution in taking numbers out of avionics and ATC systems as 'gospel truth' to the foot. The altitudes on RADAR displays don't increase and decrease in 1 foot increments; nor do the outputs of aircraft transponders. RADALT is different.

The maximum allowable altimeter error between sea level and 1000 feet is +/- 20 feet, and even a simple stand-alone barometric altimeter has to be able to meet that requirement. The RVSM-certified Air Data Computers on something like a CRJ are typically much more precise than that - more like +/- 5 feet at almost all altitudes. I would assume the air data system on a Blackhawk would be equally precise at low levels.

Subjects ATC Barometric Altimeter Blackhawk (H-60) CRJ IFR

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

2 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

galaxy flyer
February 02, 2025, 04:02:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819500

Quote:

Originally Posted by island_airphoto

Well, they got an earful of noise the other night, didn\x92t they? Maybe, the politicians that cry for ever more service at DCA AND robust \x93continuity of govt\x94 programs (utter tosh IMO), need to tell the constituents and residents that the noise is necessary. But, that\x92d take courage.

Subjects ADSB (All) ATC DCA IFR Situational Awareness

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

2 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

JRBarrett
February 02, 2025, 04:47:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819512

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

Thanks JRB. Regulatory reference? I'm not saying you're wrong. But I can't find anything other than the 75'. (The acceptable 'split' between 2 on board altimeters is a different tolerance, I believe.)

Appendix \x91E\x92 of FAR 43, which contains the minimum standards that all altimeters must meet. It includes a table of allowable error at altitudes between sea level and 50,000 feet. Most air data computers on jet aircraft are far more precise than the minimum standards in FAR 43. RVSM certified altimetry systems must meet additional accuracy requirements set forth in Appendix \x91G\x92 of FAR 91 - but that only applies at altitudes between FL290 and FL410.

The Blackhawk air data system would not be RVSM certified as it could not fly high enough to need it, but the CRJ definitely would be. The CRJ has independent dual digital air data computers, and I assume the Blackhawk does as well.

The \x9375 foot\x94 requirement does not come from a specific FAR, but from the Airman\x92s Information Manual (AIM), which states that if the current barometric pressure is set on the ground, that the altimeter should read within 75 feet of the known field elevation at the aircraft\x92s location or the \x93altimeter accuracy should be suspect\x94.

In the US, the altimeters of all civil aircraft that fly under IFR must be tested for required accuracy every 24 months. I assume military aircraft have to meet the same requirement.

FAR 43 Appendix \x91E\x92 is the basic standard for accuracy, but in the case of something like the CRJ, the AMM (Aircraft Maintenance Manual) Chapter 34 will have additional tests to perform which have much more stringent accuracy requirements set forth than FAR 43.

Last edited by JRBarrett; 2nd February 2025 at 04:59 .

Subjects Blackhawk (H-60) CRJ IFR

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

ATC Watcher
February 02, 2025, 09:27:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819621

Quote:

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer

. Apply EASA aviation standards and the US network would grind to halt or create huge gaps in service......... Our economy would suffer greatly and passengers revolt at what would required.
.

and from island air photo :

Quote:

And yes, trying to do EU IFR for everything all the time would create some epic traffic jams

Spot on, but there is no EU or EASA IFR there are IFR rules and agreed global aviation standards ,Period What is ( or should I say was ) done in DC , or in SFO or with LAHSO, etc are all deviations to allow more traffic outside of the rules. Expedition taking over our good old "safety first" mantra .

Now , is delegating visual separation to an Helicopter ,at night ,( with pilots wearing NGV ) on an aircraft cleared off the ILS doing a circle visual NPA at 500 ft with 4 eyes most probably locked on the PAPI something safe ? with a 150- Ft margin of error designed on the chart ? But it is how the system was built and local controllers trained on doing this , since years. Normalization of Deviance.

I wish good luck to the NTSB and the FAA is trying to reverse this .

Subjects FAA IFR Land and Hold Short NTSB Separation (ALL) Visual Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

9 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

island_airphoto
February 02, 2025, 13:57:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11819813

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

and from island air photo :

Spot on, but there is no EU or EASA IFR there are IFR rules and agreed global aviation standards ,Period What is ( or should I say was ) done in DC , or in SFO or with LAHSO, etc are all deviations to allow more traffic outside of the rules. Expedition taking over our good old "safety first" mantra .

Now , is delegating visual separation to an Helicopter ,at night ,( with pilots wearing NGV ) on an aircraft cleared off the ILS doing a circle visual NPA at 500 ft with 4 eyes most probably locked on the PAPI something safe ? with a 150- Ft margin of error designed on the chart ? But it is how the system was built and local controllers trained on doing this , since years. Normalization of Deviance.

I wish good luck to the NTSB and the FAA is trying to reverse this .

This is conflating two issues:
1.The bat-s### crazy way they run helicopters around DCA.
2. The usual practice of visual approaches and spacing in good weather. It has been that way for as long as I have been flying and I am having a hard time even visualizing all IFR spacing to the pavement on a clear day. Maybe asking an American about this is like asking a fish if water is wet?

The OTHER unrelated (?) issue of sorting out ground traffic. I was one on the same trip cleared to take off with an aircraft on short final and then cleared to land with an airplane just pulling out onto the active. To make that one better, I knew the person flying that plane and couldn't resist being snarky: "Ah XYZ tower, we'll be going around, Bob says not to wreck his airplane by landing on it".

Subjects ATC DCA FAA IFR Land and Hold Short NTSB Separation (ALL) Visual Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

3 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

vegassun
February 03, 2025, 01:06:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820211

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

"I wish you good fortune in the wars to come"

The \x93single point of failure\x94 thing has been around forever. Reminds me of when ATC decided it was OK to start using land and hold short procedures at major air carrier airports. My airline immediately put out ALL CAPS memo that we were not to accept LAHSO clearance under any circumstances. It wasn\x92t long after that I was operating into BOS landing 27, when controller says \x93______ 123 you are cleared to land 27, ________ XYZ will be landing 22L and holding short of your runway.\x94 I politely said we can\x92t accept that clearance. Controller got PO\x92ed a bit and wanted to debate it, but in the end he removed the LAHSO clearance from the other aircraft/cancelled our landing clearance/told us to continue then subsequently cleared us to land after the other aircraft landed. The gist of all that is that ATC was miffed because everybody else was going along with their questionable tactics until I came along. In my mind it was clear: technically we would not have been accepting a land and hold short clearance, but we would all be cemetery dead if the other guy screwed up. We would be \x93dead right.\x94

Over the course of the next few weeks/months I queried every check airman/chief pilot I came across and got differing opinions from nearly every one. The majority of them leaned towards the \x93 it\x92s ok you are not landing/holding short,\x94 idea. When I would point out the \x93dead right\x94 concept they would just look at me like I was speaking Mandarin Chinese.

It seems like most pilots (myself included) have a can do attitude and are willing to help ATC out whenever they can so long as it\x92s \x93legal.\x94

There was an old captain I flew with years ago that said \x93We get paid the big bucks to say no.\x94

Subjects ATC FAA IFR Land and Hold Short NTSB Separation (ALL) Visual Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

10 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Fortissimo
February 03, 2025, 10:18:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820382

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr dre

He insinuates that the 500hrs of flight time from one of the pilots may have had a part to play but neglects to mention the US military (and civilian carriers outside the U.S.) put 200hr pilots into the flight decks of high performance machines.

Quite so. Whilst my experience was with the RAF, at the 500 hr stage I was already flying the F4; I had probably spent a full 30 mins using its very rudimentary autopilot (really an attitude hold system), otherwise all my time was hand-flying. I was required to demonstrate and maintain the same hand-flown IFR and procedural compliance skills as someone with 10 years on type. I was also in the simulator twice per month for my first year, and monthly thereafter. Add to that a multiple for the IP in the other seat of the Black Hawk, and you may have a little more insight into the effective experience available in that cockpit.

Can we please get away from the idea that there is a direct equivalence between the hours flown by military pilots and those flown in commercial air transport types?

Subjects Blackhawk (H-60) IFR

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

10 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

island_airphoto
February 03, 2025, 16:46:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11820702

Quote:

Originally Posted by Util BUS

A few points, perhaps helping the Swiss cheese line up:

1) There seems to be a big push, especially in the US, to get traffic to go visual and do visual approaches, in order to squeeze in more traffic. I know of several European carriers that prohibit visual approaches at night. Is this really a sensible trend?

This is not really new, they have been up to some shenanigans like that for ages. Taking off IFR out of KVKX blocks all of Andrews or the ILS into 1 at DCA until you report in and get vectored somewhere. On the phone they would REALLY try and get you to accept a visual takeoff if it wasn't obviously 0/0, which if you fell for it could leave you stooging around right over the trees in crap weather trying to pick up your IFR

One night over at BWI the controller hinted he could tighten things up if everyone reported the airport in sight, so the incoming push played along and I guess they lost track of the real ceiling and vectored me right into IMC going past and then if I complained it would mess up the whole thing.
Underfunded Understafffed Overloaded and In a Hurry has been a thing for ages, maybe since the strike.

Subjects ATC DCA IFR

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

2 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

DIBO
February 03, 2025, 23:26:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821010

Quote:

Originally Posted by framer

I have never flown in the United States so am not sure, but if this was Australia the controller couldn\x92t give the helicopter a vector while it is below the minimum vectoring altitude anyway. I would be surprised if the controller in DC was able to legally issue a heading instruction to the Blackhawk while it is at or below 200ft at night. Can one of the American readers correct me if I am wrong?
Thanks

not an American readers, but was thinking the same couple of days ago, so I found this:

Quote:

Vector aircraft: At or above the MVA or the minimum IFR altitude except as authorized for radar approaches, radar departures, special VFR, VFR operations , or by paragraph 5-6-3 , Vectors Below Minimum Altitude.

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...section_6.html

Subjects ATC Blackhawk (H-60) IFR Radar VFR

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

DIBO
February 03, 2025, 23:29:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821012

VHF, UHF, .... the important fact is that pilots were on different frequencies...whatever spectrum band they were on, is less relevant.

But for those rebuking any mentioning of a VHF Heli frequency, please provide some proof as any reference I find on VFR sectionals, is a VHF Heli-frequency.
IFR charts only have the regular VHF+UHF TWR freq.

Subjects IFR VFR

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

FullWings
February 04, 2025, 10:43:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821285

Quote:

Originally Posted by 21600HRS

There is a problem in the system if you don\x92t react to CA. The visual avoidance should be aborted when the technically calculated separation is lost.

I think the issue is there are no visual separation standards, only IFR ones. Conflict Alerting (ATC) and TCAS (aircraft) have yet another set of parameters they use in different ways. The most common reason visual separation is requested by either party is to reduce separation below 1,000\x92/500\x92, 1.5, 2, 3, 5 miles or whatever is appropriate to the categories of airspace, aircraft and flights.

This means the automated tools (which don\x92t know the aircraft are using visual means to deconflict) will go off based on a predicted or actual loss of the separation criteria that they\x92ve been programmed with. If the helicopter in this instance had passed 1/4m behind and below the CRJ, a CA may still have been generated although the conflict had been resolved visually. The controller actually picks up on the apparent proximity and queries the heli that they are still visual, to which they reply in the affirmative - there is no minimum separation for visual avoidance, just sometimes it\x92s too dang close. Which is an Airprox.

Subjects ATC CRJ IFR Separation (ALL) TCAS (All) Visual Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

4 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Del Prado
February 04, 2025, 11:44:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821332

Quote:

Originally Posted by 21600HRS

There is a problem in the system if you don\x92t react to CA. The visual avoidance should be aborted when the technically calculated separation is lost.

CA will activate whenever certain separation minima are going to be lost (600\x92 and 2 miles for example).
Visual separation is a perfectly legal tool that allows separation to reduce below radar minima.
CA will (almost) always activate when applying visual separation. That doesn\x92t mean the aircraft are on a collision course or are definitely going to crash, it just means they will be in confliction and separated by less than the IFR radar minima.

Its activation in this scenario (and countless others in the days before) was totally normal. Anyone who thinks it should have been reacted to differently or that it was a last line of defence really doesn\x92t understand the role of Conflict Alert.

And it\x92s not the role of the radar centre to phone tower and warn them of a conflict alert between two aircraft they would expect to be visually separated - that\x92s a scenario that probably happens several times a day.

Subjects IFR Radar Separation (ALL) Visual Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

3 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

BrogulT
February 04, 2025, 22:34:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821762

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailvi767

I have flown into DCA at least a hundred times and took my own go-around once even though tower said the traffic had us in sight. If I can\x92t see a TCAS target on a collision course I am going around.

The CRJ CVR transcript does show the "Traffic! Traffic!" callout, but since this was a visual approach (non-precision in VMC even though it was at the end of an IFR flight) and visual separation was in use, why would both parties not be explicitly informed by the controller?

"5342, helo traffic on your right 1/4 mile at 300 feet, has you in sight". The CRJ FO might just have taken a closer look out the side window with that. Or, like you, they might have opted to go around.

Subjects ATC CRJ DCA IFR Separation (ALL) TCAS (All) Traffic in Sight Visual Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

triadic
February 05, 2025, 07:14:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821938

I suggest it is now the time for the FAA to review the PROCEDURES that allowed this collision to occur.
As a previous poster has said, they are using third world procedures at what is a very busy and high-density traffic area. I doubt if this collision would have occurred in many other countries as positive separation and/or significant restrictions are provided to ALL aircraft, be they IFR or VFR, and certainly not at night.
I suspect however that the DoD would not be too happy with not being able to operate VFR. Whatever the outcome, an independent risk analysis would need to tick all the boxes and the procedures changed to match.

Subjects FAA IFR Separation (ALL) VFR

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

ATC Watcher
February 05, 2025, 08:11:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11821971

Quote:

Originally Posted by triadic

I suggest it is now the time for the FAA to review the PROCEDURES that allowed this collision to occur.
As a previous poster has said, they are using third world procedures at what is a very busy and high-density traffic area. I doubt if this collision would have occurred in many other countries as positive separation and/or significant restrictions are provided to ALL aircraft, be they IFR or VFR, and certainly not at night.
I suspect however that the DoD would not be too happy with not being able to operate VFR. h.

They do not have to cancel the helicopters routes altogether, just not design one that crosses below the short final to a runway or cancel delegation of separation between VFR and IFR in class B airspace. Relatively simple.

Subjects FAA IFR Separation (ALL) VFR

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

2 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

procede
February 05, 2025, 09:41:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822038

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Proper aviation safety is based on having multiple layers, in this case it was reduced to one (the helicopter pilot maintaining visual separation), which clearly failed. At least there should be active vectoring by ATC AND (visual acknowledgment of BOTH cockpits OR at least 500 ft vertical OR 1.5nm of horizontal separation). And even this is pushing it.

Additionally, any helicopters flying in such congested airspace should have a display showing other traffic so they know where to look outside.

Subjects ATC IFR Separation (ALL) VFR Visual Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

1 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

RetiredF4
February 05, 2025, 10:12:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822066

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATC Watcher

Maybe we should check under which conditions this helicopter route with its restrictions was designed and implemented and how it is used today.

Imho the altitude sectored restrictions were never suitable and safe to deconflict helicopter traffic from traffic to finals 01 and 33, but were meant to deconflict takeoffs from 15 and 19. Could it be that someday some clever soul thought to solve increasing traffic demands by using 33 and 01 for landing despite traffic in the helicopter routes under visual separation rules, ignoring thereby that now all layers of safety had been removed bare the eyes of an helicopter crew?

Subjects ATC IFR Separation (ALL) VFR Visual Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

4 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

meleagertoo
February 05, 2025, 10:32:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822080

Quote:

Originally Posted by procede

I disagree. Visual separation had little if anything to do with this. The single layer was the utterly bizarre airspace design which mandates a helo route to cross a final approach track at effectively the same height which is simply insane. Once again, at Heathrow, one of the world's busiest airports, crossing helo traffic is held at clearly defined holding points if necessary by the Tower controller on the same frequency as all other Tower traffic and, (another critical difference) having positively identified the horizontally conflicting traffic by using proper definitive r/t as opposed to the lethally sloppy 'do you see the CRJ' when there are many aircraft to see it is cleared to cross behind, which is visual separation horizontally. But with 1000ft vertical too.
You cannot actively vector a helo at 200ft over the black hole of a river in the middle of an urban environment or anywhere else. You'd kill helos every month doing that. If the helo were at 100ft or so there would be no need for vectors (you never get them in London, just holding, ie orbits if necessary).
Visual acknowlewgement from the aeroplane is totally unnecessary as he is on finals to land which give total priority over all other traffic. It is up to the give-way traffic to identify and acknowlege.
500ft vertical I agree with, in which case 1,5 miles is totally unnecessary and ridiculously excessive.

This discussion is being considerably bogged down by a really surprising (to me) absence of understanding of helos and helo ops by people who clearly only fly f/w IFR and seem to have no concept of how the rest of the aviation world works. Strangely, there are other ways of aviating safely without staring exclusively at an instrument panel, following a magenta line and doing only what someone miles away in an office tells you. You simply cannot try to apply IFR airline type procedures and mindset to low level VFR traffic. It's like a train driver trying to dictate railway rules to a motorcyclist and being unaware that motorcycles just don't operate like trains... imaginingthat helos can or would come to a free air hover for separation is another example of unrealistic imagnation over reality.

Please, if you don't know anything about helicopter ops, please don't try to apply procedural IFR or Hollywood mindsets/misapprehensions to them as if there is no other waay of flying.

Last edited by meleagertoo; 5th February 2025 at 10:54 .

Subjects ATC CRJ Hover IFR Separation (ALL) VFR Visual Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

10 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Easy Street
February 05, 2025, 10:45:00 GMT
permalink Post: 11822093

Quote:

Originally Posted by triadic

I suspect however that the DoD would not be too happy with not being able to operate VFR.

Confusion between 'VFR" and "visual separation" seems to be quite widespread. However the terms are not interchangeable. I don't think anyone thinks it's remotely likely that VFR would be prohibited (or in other words, that Class A airspace would be established - even the comparatively restrictive UK CAA reclassified Heathrow's zone away from Class A to bring an end to the fudge of using Special VFR clearances for helo ops). Imposing separation criteria other than "visual" does not imply that flights must suddenly switch to IFR. It would remain quite possible to apply procedural, geographical or surveillance based separation to VFR aircraft in Class B. Whether and how such procedures should account for lesser standards of altimetry, height keeping, etc in non-IFR certified ops would be a point of interest (Special VFR deals with that by requiring IFR certification).

Perhaps you mean that DoD would not be too happy with not being able to take visual separation, at night, using NVG? I think they might have to suck that up - especially the second and third aspects.

Subjects IFR Night Vision Goggles (NVG) Separation (ALL) VFR Visual Separation

Links are to this post in the relevant subject page so that this post can be seen in context.

3 recorded likes for this post.

Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads.

Posts about: "IFR" [Posts: 98 Page: 3 of 5]¶