MINS knob (Radio and Baro)

[rocketfs 2]

Again...

 

"Typical," and "typically" are not regulatory in nature.

 

Take a look here:

http://155.178.201.1...8/05100IL1R.PDF

 

It lists 512/18 200

 

The 512 is the MDA, whereas the 200 is the DH. Is there any reg preventing me from using 200 on the radio?

 

I'm probably going to get burned heavily now but anyway :)

 

Isn't 512 the DA (Decision Altitude) = 200 DH (decision Height) + 312' TDZ elevation?

Isn't MDA (Minimum Descent Altitude) for a NPA (Non Precision Appraoch): the GP Inop (or LOC) Approach or Circling Approach in this case?

 

The people who desing these procedures don't give a rats' &@($* about what you are using to determine your altitude, as long as you'r not violating your minima.

 

It depends on the ACFT, operator and kind of approach what you use.

 

When looking into the Flight Manual of a certain operator, you need to have Radio Altimeter (two) for a CatII ILS landing and beyond but non (zero) for an ILS CATI approach.

 

Best Regards,

Bert Van Bulck

[Olmo 0]

 

 

Isn't 512 the DA (Decision Altitude) = 200 DH (decision Height) + 312' TDZ elevation?

Correct.

 

Isn't MDA (Minimum Descent Altitude) for a NPA (Non Precision Appraoch): the GP Inop (or LOC) Approach or Circling Approach in this case?

Right. But don't be buffled seeing DA/H published on NPAs. Among the three types of applicable descent techinques (CDFA, Constant Angle Descent and Stepdown Descent) the Continuous Descent Final Approach is the one that treats NPA's minima as DA/H without getting RVR penalties.


Regards,

Olmo DI CARLO

[sniper228 2]

 

 

Most correct post so far!

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Excuse my typo earlier with the MDA versus DA.

 

Please also excuse my lack of specificity in my question earlier:

When I asked "is there a reg preventing me from using A instead of B," I wasn't asking if it would be smart, or how things are determined. I'm simply asking if there is a reg stating "you must use A in situation A, and B in situation B."

 

I'm flying over Kansas shooting an ILS (CAT-I, no II/III listed for the field) and it lists 993' and 250'. Can I be faulted by a regulation for using the radio altimeter to determine I'm at 993' (250' above ground level), instead of using the altimeter?

 

 

 

I'm not disagreeing with the people who are saying it would be correct to measure it one way. Your explanations of why it makes more sense to use baro over radio unless radio is stated make a ton of sense. I'm simply playing devil's advocate. ICAO8618 is only guidance/recommendations and is not regulatory in nature. It would be dumb to disregard it because if someone designed an approach to use baro, you should use baro, but it's not required to do so. All I'm saying is there's no legal requirement - that's all.

[sniper228 2]

Ok here is the closet thing that come to a regulation since you want to seem to have proof of this....but take this with a grain of salt because the regulation is VAGUE it does not have a lot of specifics because of all the variables at different airports...

 

Here is directly from FAR part 91.175

 

 

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United States military aircraft.

( B) Authorized DA/DH or MDA. For the purpose of this section, when the approach procedure being used provides for and requires the use of a DA/DH or MDA, the authorized DA/DH or MDA is the highest of the following:

 

(1) The DA/DH or MDA prescribed by the approach procedure.

 

(2) The DA/DH or MDA prescribed for the pilot in command.

 

(3) The DA/DH or MDA appropriate for the aircraft equipment available and used during the approach.

 

 

Notice how it says AUTHORIZED DA/DH and not just one? Thats because it depends on the type of approach and even further the equipment on board the aircraft.

 

Example:

A standard CAT1 ILS into an airport on a NOS(FAA) chart the minimums will always be displayed in "DA" there is no RA minimums listed as many think, the commonly mistaken RA mins are actually HAT (height above touchdown). If you look at the legend information at the top of every US Terminal approach booklet it tells you exactly what stuff means!

 

Here look at page 3 of the PDF

http://aeronav.faa.g.../frntmatter.pdf/

 

Notice it goes from left to right as DA/Visibility requirement(or RVR)/HAT or HATh (height above touchdown/threshold)/ then again like this (200-1/2) which it says on the side ALL WEATHER IN PARENTHESES NOT APPLICABLE TO CIVILIAN PILOTS!!!!

 

So there is no way a RA or DH can be used as minimums!!! Its really black and white to me!

 

The difference between NOS and Jepp plates are that the Jepps make it even easier to read and put it in BOLD!!

 

What the feds do is when they make an ILS approach chart (CAT1) they will only put CAT1 mins in there as a DA no such thing as a DH...there is a HAT that is listed for situational awareness thats it!!

 

Open a CAT2 approach plate and it will say something like this RA 117/12 it makes it very clear that you will use a radio altimeter! Simple as that...

[bjratchf 80]

Well, at my company we always set the Baro mins, but we don't do CATII stuff. Why? Because it's in our OpsSpecs. :)

[idoleo2001 3]

You can't use RA if in aeronautical chart won't shows specificly "RA Authorized".

 

The problem is that RA is height above surface below the aircraft; in approach terrain's altitude surface is variable, and eventually can shows RA 200 ft before/after the correct DA.

 

Revise Crew Training Manual, Chapter 6 Approach, i remember that this is in explanation about MDA(H) / DA(H).

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Wyatt, why are you taking this so personally? I never questioned you directly, or called your opinion stupid, or anything like that. Heck, I didn't even disagree. I agreed with you on the grounds that's what should be done. I'm simply trying to open up a little educated debate to break a couple pre-conceived notions.

 

It's just like me asking where the regulatory requirement is that I carry current charts on a flight as a private pilot. I'm not saying it's smart to do so. I'm simply attempting to question blind acceptance of what other people assert.

 

John, thanks for that reference. I don't read it the same way you do, but I definitely agree that's the closest thing I've seen to any reg on the matter.

 

 

 

As for the rest of the comments, do those other references actually support your argument? Like I said, I'm not making the argument that it's smart, or that I'd try to snub a DE on the matter. I'm simply saying there are no reg preventing it. If your airline's procedures are approved by the FAA, then you've gotta stick to 'em. End of story.

 

What if I take my Cessna out tomorrow and need to shoot an approach and happen to have a radar altimeter in it? I'm required to fly by an RCTM? Where's my FCOM as an instrument rated pilot? Those are all supplemental documents approved by the FAA for that operation. As such, they are regulatory in nature for those operating under them (that specific carrier). Sure, I have a POH, but tell me where in there it specifies one way or the other.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Just checked. There's no reference that says CATI requires A and CATII requires B. To what are you actually referring?

 

Then explain to me why would setting an altitude on a chart defined as HAT (height above touchdown) would be considered acceptable as defining DA.

In the land of law, unless there's a specific prohibition, it is not prohibited. If using the HAT happened to keep you at the same altitude as the DA, you're still maintaining the same altitude.

 

This has nothing to do with company procedures I am specifically talking about part 91 operations I cited company manuals before in a futile effort to help you understand that documents that aren't necessarily FAR's are regulatory.

No need to defeat yourself. This is where I'll agree with you (again), that company manuals are FAA approved, and can therefore be held to regulatory standard. If the company approved manual says CAT I requires the use of BARO, then that's what you have to stick to. That's not always the case, though.

 

Your argument at it's simplest form is that your going to fly an instrument procedure incorrectly willfully and now we've shown you why. It doesn't matter what your flying or who your flying for what your saying is incorrect and would be in violation of FAR's.

It really isn't. My argument is that there's no regulation that says I have to use one over the other. Common practice and simple intelligence would say otherwise. If it's in violation of the FARs, cite the exact source. FAR 91.175 says use the "appropriate" one. It never specifies what is appropriate for an approach.

 

As a parallel, my reference earlier to the charts issue is that if you ask even CFIs and DEs, they'll tell you it's an FAA requirement to carry current charts at all times, no matter what operation. This is not true:

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/faq/index.cfm?print=go#q2f

 

The FARs specify that it is a requirement, but not at all times. That isn't me trying to say it's smart. It's me trying to say that the FARs don't require charts in all cases. Bringing it back to the topic at hand, and to repeat what I've stated here for the 5th or 6th time: I'm not saying it's smart or that I'd do it. I'm saying the regs don't require it to be BARO for CAT I across the board.

[sniper228 2]

Very interesting discussion!!

 

While they are multiple points and topics that seem to be getting thrown onto here I will say this...

 

In my career so far in aviation there seems to be 2 ways of thinking about the regulations, it goes like this:

 

What do the regulations say? (Ex. If it's not in there I can't do it)

What do the regulations don't say? (Ex. If it doesn't exist in the regs, then i'm going to do it!)

 

So take this with a grain of salt, the regulations were made vague on purpose!!! Hence this very little but yet very important reg the FAA just stuck in there:

 

Sec. 91.13 — Careless or reckless operation.

 

(a)

Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation.

No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

 

(B) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

 

 

This allows the FAA to basically take it case by case, If you fly around all the time without charts and don't cause harm, or violate airspace, then yes no one is ever going to get you over not having current charts on board. Now if you take off violate airspace, cause TA/RAs to multiple aircraft now you got the Feds attention. Get the point?

 

You can discuss and argue many many many points of everyday flying from general aviation, to airliners, to corporate and there are many different rules and regulations out there that we all follow, or they are operation specific.

 

What seems to be going on in this thread is more of lawyer talk and what would happen after the fact, like an accident, near mid-air, any event that would fit under the 91.13 regulation.

[MD911 3]

Guys just keep in mind the differences between DA(DH) and MDA. DA is the altitude AT which you decide whether to continue the approach or whether to initate the G/A during the precision approach. MDA is the minimum altitude TO which you are allowed to descend during non-precision approach. Therefore executing precision approach, you will PASS the DA (or DH) whereas flying non-precision approach you have to STOP descending prior reaching the MDA.

[MD911 3]

Well you mentioned it here. If I miss understood you, I appologize.

[Spin737 102]

FCTM:

Landing Minima

Most regulatory agencies require visibility for landing minima. Ceilings are not

required. There are limits on how far an airplane can descend without visual

contact with the runway environment when making an approach. Descent limits

are based on a decision altitude or height DA(H) for approaches using a glide

slope or certain approaches using a VNAV path; or a MDA(H) for approaches that

do not use vertical guidance, or where a DA(H) is not authorized for use. Most

agencies do not require specific visual references below alert height (AH).

Approach charts use the abbreviation DA(H) or MDA(H). DA(H) applies to

Category I, II, and certain fail passive Category III operations. A decision altitude

“DA” or minimum descent altitude “MDA” is referenced to MSL and the

parenthetical height “(H)” is referenced to Touchdown Zone Elevation (TDZE) or

threshold elevation. Example: A DA(H) of 1,440’ (200’) is a DA of 1,440’ with a

corresponding height above the touchdown zone of 200’.

When RVR is reported for the landing runway, it typically is used in lieu of the

reported meteorological visibility.

Radio Altimeter

Radio Altimeter A Radio Altimeter (RA) is normally used to determine DH when a DA(H) is

specified for Category II or Category III approaches, or to determine alert height

(AH) for Category III approaches. Procedures at airports with irregular terrain

may use a marker beacon instead of a DH to determine the missed approach point.

The radio altimeter may also be used to crosscheck the primary altimeter over

known terrain in the terminal area. However, unless specifically authorized, the

radio altimeter is not used for determining MDA(H) on instrument approaches. It

should also not be used for approaches where use of the radio altimeter is not

authorized (RA NOT AUTHORIZED). However, if the radio altimeter is used as

a safety backup, it should be discussed in the approach briefing.

[MD911 3]

Sorry, I just couldn't let it go. At DA you decide whether or not you will continue the approach. I know, this is a matter of a second or two, but I want to be precise. Just remember, you're flying the "standard way" (no HUD involved here). When you hear a "minimums", you would move your eyes from the instruments and look outside if you can see the runway. During this time, you will already be bellow the DA (for more than 1 ft as you stated), thus your execution of go-around will be done BELLOW DA.

 

Now continue where you were: