RingLaserGyroSandwich
New member
I'll put the prompt first, THEN my discussion so as to not bias the reader:
"If during an ILS approach in IFR conditions, the approach lights or any portion of the runway environment are not visible upon arrival at the DH, the pilot is..."
In this situation, what is the pilot required to do, or alternately what is the pilot permitted to do? Go missed? Is permitted to continue to descend? None of the above? Something else? The question was technically multiple choice but I don't have all of the choices necessary and don't think it will be necessary to write them out to discuss what is intended by the prompt.
Once you have your answer, please read my introduction followed by my analysis:
I got an instruments course question wrong and disagree with my instructor that the question is valid. As a disclaimer, this is more so a wording of the question issue than a lack of knowledge issue. I discussed this with an ATP I know and we both agreed 100% on what the regulations were (and I trust his knowledge there), but just disagreed on what the answer to the question and/or the level of validity was. I'm totally okay with being wrong so long as I understand why I was wrong. I have a feeling pilots are going to feel differently about the question than non-pilots so I'll ask about this somewhere else as well. For perspective, I'm doing well in the course and this one question (which was already graded so you don't need to worry about providing unauthorized assistance) won't actually affect my grade in any meaningful way.... it's really just the principle. I think, at BEST, the question should be reworded to remove ambiguity or improve clarity. Anyway, here's my analysis of the question.
The question specifically excludes approach lights from other portions of the runway environment. I know, per 14CFR91.175 that you can continue descending from decision height if you see the approach lighting (with a caveat that is not relevant to DH). I also know, you can continue descending from decision height if you see the other portions of the runway environment identified in the regulation (e.g., threshold). If you can't see any of the items in the list, you must go missed.
The wording is a bit tricky though so I need to parse it. "If the approach lights or any portion of the runway environment are not visible..." Does this mean you can't see any of that stuff? Does this mean you can't see some of that stuff? When I was working on answering the question originally, I took that to mean "If A or B are not visible" in which cases you don't NECESSARILY need to go missed. In other words, if you write as your answer, "...the pilot is REQUIRED to go missed" then that seems wrong to me. The pilot might be able to see some of the environment, or might not, so the pilot MIGHT need to go missed.
Another pilot I spoke to pointed out that you should interpret "approach lights or any portion of the runway environment" as one item, rather than two items... but then why not say "approach lights AND any OTHER portion of the runway environment" in the question? To make the wording additionally confusing, it's not clear by "any portion of the runway environment" whether they mean the pilot can't see any of it, or the pilot can't see at least one piece of it. Do they mean can't see "anyone one portion" or "can't see the entirety of"?
At the time, I put one of the other answers besides "go missed" because it didn't meet the relevant requirement for going missed (can't see any of the items in the list). In hindsight, unless one of the available answer choices is "... potentially required to go missed depending on what he actually sees," there probably isn't a better answer than to go missed. The only disagreement that leaves behind between my pilot friend and me is whether the question is unclear and needs to be worded better. He thinks it's fine. I think the question is flawed unless you use a liberal interpretation of "choose the best answer even if it isn't actually 100% correct." The thing I fall back on is, what knowledge was the question trying to measure? I knew damn well you have to go missed if you can't see any of the items listed out in 14CFR91.175.
For those who made it this far without posting "I am not amused" and skipping out of the thread, thank you, and please share with me your thoughts on the question. Is the answer obviously 'required to go missed' and doesn't require any changes? Is 'going missed' the best answer but the wording is confusing? Do you consider 'go missed' to simply be a wrong answer to the question?
"If during an ILS approach in IFR conditions, the approach lights or any portion of the runway environment are not visible upon arrival at the DH, the pilot is..."
In this situation, what is the pilot required to do, or alternately what is the pilot permitted to do? Go missed? Is permitted to continue to descend? None of the above? Something else? The question was technically multiple choice but I don't have all of the choices necessary and don't think it will be necessary to write them out to discuss what is intended by the prompt.
Once you have your answer, please read my introduction followed by my analysis:
I got an instruments course question wrong and disagree with my instructor that the question is valid. As a disclaimer, this is more so a wording of the question issue than a lack of knowledge issue. I discussed this with an ATP I know and we both agreed 100% on what the regulations were (and I trust his knowledge there), but just disagreed on what the answer to the question and/or the level of validity was. I'm totally okay with being wrong so long as I understand why I was wrong. I have a feeling pilots are going to feel differently about the question than non-pilots so I'll ask about this somewhere else as well. For perspective, I'm doing well in the course and this one question (which was already graded so you don't need to worry about providing unauthorized assistance) won't actually affect my grade in any meaningful way.... it's really just the principle. I think, at BEST, the question should be reworded to remove ambiguity or improve clarity. Anyway, here's my analysis of the question.
The question specifically excludes approach lights from other portions of the runway environment. I know, per 14CFR91.175 that you can continue descending from decision height if you see the approach lighting (with a caveat that is not relevant to DH). I also know, you can continue descending from decision height if you see the other portions of the runway environment identified in the regulation (e.g., threshold). If you can't see any of the items in the list, you must go missed.
The wording is a bit tricky though so I need to parse it. "If the approach lights or any portion of the runway environment are not visible..." Does this mean you can't see any of that stuff? Does this mean you can't see some of that stuff? When I was working on answering the question originally, I took that to mean "If A or B are not visible" in which cases you don't NECESSARILY need to go missed. In other words, if you write as your answer, "...the pilot is REQUIRED to go missed" then that seems wrong to me. The pilot might be able to see some of the environment, or might not, so the pilot MIGHT need to go missed.
Another pilot I spoke to pointed out that you should interpret "approach lights or any portion of the runway environment" as one item, rather than two items... but then why not say "approach lights AND any OTHER portion of the runway environment" in the question? To make the wording additionally confusing, it's not clear by "any portion of the runway environment" whether they mean the pilot can't see any of it, or the pilot can't see at least one piece of it. Do they mean can't see "anyone one portion" or "can't see the entirety of"?
At the time, I put one of the other answers besides "go missed" because it didn't meet the relevant requirement for going missed (can't see any of the items in the list). In hindsight, unless one of the available answer choices is "... potentially required to go missed depending on what he actually sees," there probably isn't a better answer than to go missed. The only disagreement that leaves behind between my pilot friend and me is whether the question is unclear and needs to be worded better. He thinks it's fine. I think the question is flawed unless you use a liberal interpretation of "choose the best answer even if it isn't actually 100% correct." The thing I fall back on is, what knowledge was the question trying to measure? I knew damn well you have to go missed if you can't see any of the items listed out in 14CFR91.175.
For those who made it this far without posting "I am not amused" and skipping out of the thread, thank you, and please share with me your thoughts on the question. Is the answer obviously 'required to go missed' and doesn't require any changes? Is 'going missed' the best answer but the wording is confusing? Do you consider 'go missed' to simply be a wrong answer to the question?
