If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Changes to Aircraft Approach Categories?!
I've been away from this newsgroup for quite some time, so forgive me if this has already been covered. The other day, one of my colleagues pointed out something I hadn't noticed in the latest set of approach plates, which came out at the end of December. Its on page A2, under "Aircraft Approach Categories." Previously, the paragraph included a sentence "...If it is necessary to MANEUVER at a speed in excess of the upper limit of the speed range for an aircraft's category, the minimums for the category for that speed shall be used." Thus, if landing straight-in, one would use the approach speed based on VREF or 1.3 VSO to determine which category to use, and only move up to a higher category if -circling- for landing. Now, the sentence reads, "...If it is necessary to OPERATE at a speed in excess of the upper limit of the speed range for an aircraft's category, the minimums for the category for that speed shall be used." And there is also a new example, "...a Category A airplane which is operating at 130 knots on a straight-in approach shall use the approach Category C minimums." This is going to change things...now all my students who like to fly approaches over 90 kts in their Archers will be moving up to Category B...whether it's circling or straight-in. Did anyone else miss this? I feel kinda sheepish for not realizing it for a whole month. -Eric CFII, MEI |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Now, the sentence reads, "...If it is necessary to OPERATE [was Maneuver] at a speed in excess of the upper limit of the speed range for an aircraft's category, the minimums for the category for that speed shall be used." I don't see a difference... I've always assumed that one is still maneuvering when one does a straight-in approach. The word "operate" is clearer in being all-encompassing, but I always took "maneuver" to also be all-encompassing. Even on a straight in, if you are going fast enough, you use the next category. This makes more sense when considering the room needed for a missed at varous speeds. Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:43:37 GMT, "skyliner"
wrote: I've been away from this newsgroup for quite some time, so forgive me if this has already been covered. The other day, one of my colleagues pointed out something I hadn't noticed in the latest set of approach plates, which came out at the end of December. Its on page A2, under "Aircraft Approach Categories." I don't see that on my Jepps. Or in the AIM. Are these "approach plates" US? (There are ICAO speed restrictions for different categories that might apply). Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, guess I left that out. Yes, these are in the latest FAA US Terminal Procedures Publications, aka "NOS Approach Plates." EC "Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:43:37 GMT, "skyliner" wrote: I've been away from this newsgroup for quite some time, so forgive me if this has already been covered. The other day, one of my colleagues pointed out something I hadn't noticed in the latest set of approach plates, which came out at the end of December. Its on page A2, under "Aircraft Approach Categories." I don't see that on my Jepps. Or in the AIM. Are these "approach plates" US? (There are ICAO speed restrictions for different categories that might apply). Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 04:39:26 GMT, "skyliner"
wrote: Sorry, guess I left that out. Yes, these are in the latest FAA US Terminal Procedures Publications, aka "NOS Approach Plates." I think I would wait until seeing information in TERPS or in the AIM before applying the higher category minimums to straight-in procedures. It seems to me that, as I was taught many years ago, that the issue is with circling procedures, in that the protected circling radius varies depending on a/c speed. However, that would not seem to apply to straight-in procedures. In addition, it is my understanding that the missed approach procedure is constructed in accord with the highest category of a/c authorized to use that approach. So again, flying at a speed attributable to a higher category a/c should not seem to alter minimums for straight-in procedures. One area to be careful of, especially with the (expected) proliferation of GPS/RNAV approaches to smaller airports, is that a number of these may be designed for just Category A and/or B. If that is the case, you would not want to execute the approach at a Category C speed. Probably not something that us FLIB drivers think about, too often. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:It seems to me that, as I was taught many years ago, that the issue is with circling procedures, in that the protected circling radius varies depending on a/c speed. However, that would not seem to apply to straight-in procedures. In addition, it is my understanding that the missed approach procedure is constructed in accord with the highest category of a/c authorized to use that approach. So again, flying at a speed attributable to a higher category a/c should not seem to alter minimums for straight-in procedures. There are some approaches where the straight-in minimums step-up for each higher approach category because of a turning missed approach obstacle issue that affects the higher turning radii more than the lower. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Dont fly so fast, and it wont be a problem 1.3 VSO is a lot different
from 2.0 VSO yea yea.. I've heard em say "Keep Your Speed Up" too Dave skyliner wrote: I've been away from this newsgroup for quite some time, so forgive me if this has already been covered. The other day, one of my colleagues pointed out something I hadn't noticed in the latest set of approach plates, which came out at the end of December. Its on page A2, under "Aircraft Approach Categories." Previously, the paragraph included a sentence "...If it is necessary to MANEUVER at a speed in excess of the upper limit of the speed range for an aircraft's category, the minimums for the category for that speed shall be used." Thus, if landing straight-in, one would use the approach speed based on VREF or 1.3 VSO to determine which category to use, and only move up to a higher category if -circling- for landing. Now, the sentence reads, "...If it is necessary to OPERATE at a speed in excess of the upper limit of the speed range for an aircraft's category, the minimums for the category for that speed shall be used." And there is also a new example, "...a Category A airplane which is operating at 130 knots on a straight-in approach shall use the approach Category C minimums." This is going to change things...now all my students who like to fly approaches over 90 kts in their Archers will be moving up to Category B...whether it's circling or straight-in. Did anyone else miss this? I feel kinda sheepish for not realizing it for a whole month. -Eric CFII, MEI |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Rosenfeld wrote: On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 05:31:48 -0800, wrote: There are some approaches where the straight-in minimums step-up for each higher approach category because of a turning missed approach obstacle issue that affects the higher turning radii more than the lower. Are you certain that is the reason for the higher minima? Could you give an example of an approach where you believe that to be the case? Medford, Oregon, ILS Runway 14. Note the turning missed approach and a higher DA/H for each higher approach category. I am questioning it because I have also seen straight-in minimum visibility step-up for higher approach category a/c where the missed approach is NOT a turning one. So clearly, at those approaches, turn radius is not an issue. An example of this would be the LOC29 approach at KPWM. Visibility minimums are based on Approach Category and the geometric relationship of the height of the MDA or DA/H. It is not directly related to any turning missed approach issue. Also, well -- I don't know if you use Jepp charts or NOS charts. But on my Jepp charts, the minima for straight in approaches is subdivided by aircraft category. The minima for circle-to-land approaches is subdivided by speed in knots. To me this suggests that the maneuvering speed is important only in the circle-to-land approach, and not in the straight-in approach. The information in the AIM, and in the FAA Instrument Flying Handbook, and an FAA inspector with whom I used to fly from time to time, all have indicated to me that the increased category minima for increased a/c maneuvering speeds only apply to circling approaches, at least for TERPS'd approaches. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 40 | October 3rd 08 03:13 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | September 2nd 04 05:15 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 2nd 03 03:07 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | July 4th 03 04:50 PM |