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
|
|||
|
|||
"skyliner" wrote
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." Well, one man's rule change is another man's clarification. In my opinion, this is a clarification, and using Cat A mins while flying Cat B speeds never made sense in the first place, though I know it's done. For one thing, there is a lot of latitude in what defines a straight-in approach. You could have a heading change of 15 (or is it 20?) degrees and still have straight-in minima published. Also, there could be a turn at the FAF - not terribly rare for off-field VOR approaches. There could be a turn associated with the missed approach procedure. In all these cases, the protected area may need to be increased due to the increased turn radius. In general, I would say that where there is a difference between Cat A and Cat B minimums on a straight in approach (not often) there is a reason, and that reason is just as applicable to a Cat A airplane flying Cat B speeds as it is to a true Cat B airplane. 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. IMO they always had to. The big question in my mind is why this even comes up. If there is a difference between Cat A and Cat B mins, the pilot ought to be able to fly ANY certified single engine airplane at less than 90 kts. I've seen an instrument student fly the ILS in a Bonanza at 75 kts and do a good job of it. I've never flown an Archer but I can't imagine it's all that different from a Cherokee 180, and I found that it was quite comfortable at 80 kts on an NDB, even for an instrument student flying the plane for the first time. If the skill level to comfortably fly the approach at less than 90 kts in an Archer isn't there, then I would suggest that the pilot has no business going to minimums anyway. I suspect the clarification is a reaction to what I've been seeing a lot of lately - people flying approaches in spam cans much too fast. Sure, it's important to be able to fly a fast approach - sometimes you get asked to keep your speed up. But I've been asked to slow down for the approach as well - not because I was gaining on the airplane ahead of me (it was an MU-2) but to assure proper separation on the approach. And sometimes you need to slow down in order to land on a short runway with a tailwind when the weather is below circling minimums. Michael |
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 |