Forget the flight path analysis for one minute and back up.
So a thread on another website quoted a FAA Joint Order that pertains to Visual Guidance Lighting Systems. I am asking if anyone else reads this the same way I do and therefore questions the legality of an A-300 size aircraft being filed/dispatched to a runway under IFR flight plan when the PAPI system was REQUIRED to be operational for either instrument approach to the operating runway BUT the PAPI system settings were NOT COMPLIANT with that size aircraft? However you interpret this, please respond.
----------------------
This gets really into the weeds and does not involve normal TERPS regs - I am NOT questioning the legality or obstacle clearance of either FAA instrument approach to runway 18. I am questioning why/how the approaches aren't restricted at night to aircraft that comply with the existing and mandatory PAPIs.
LOC and RNAV 18 have TCH of 48feet - Look at the last sentence of the second paragraph along with the required TCH for 'Height group 4' (A-300 specifically listed)
[IMG]
[/IMG]
Full FAA JO here:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...%206850.2B.pdf