Stressmerchant:
Yes clearly this is the intent, but it has a greater application for commuter category aircraft and for Part 25 of course.
The two specific issues of relevance for a small SE ACFT is that it essentially precludes an approach more 'normal' for this class of aircraft, i.e. a low power semi glide type of approach where an approach angle steeper than 3 degrees is typical. also these aircraft in the vast majority of operations are not on a GS commanded approach.
So, how is such an aircraft provided with an indicator to show 'correct' 3 degree approach when NOT operating on a GS? surely this is just as important as determining ANY approach angle that may be specified in the AFM, but there is no requirement stated for an instrument to provide such an indication, ONLY required if approach gradient is in excess of this value, say 5.3%??
Small aircraft with low Vref values are significantly more affected by environmental effects such as wind and this can dramatically affect the actual approach angle flown through the air, as opposed to a gradient referenced from the 50ft screen relative to earth. the pilot is required to make significant approach profile judgment and corrective inputs in any case, and a GS is not always availabel, or even used when it is available.
If the intent is to provide for obstacle clearance, a steeper approach will provide an additional margin, without the drama associated with heavy landings.
The requirement is that the landing procedure after passing the screen to touch down, must not require any 'particularly skillful or abrupt maneuvers' and also should include a 'smooth flare' and using 'normal pilot' application of controls and delays, and that at least 6 landing be demonstrated to this standard, using the same wheels brakes and tires. this should show the spirit to NOT include any such heavy arrivals as a matter of course.
If the applicant wishes to use a gradient in steeper than three degrees, this is an additional chart or table that is to be included in the AFM, as well as the three degree one(s). fair call BUT why the requirement for an 'instrument' for a visual approach, but not necessarily for an instrument procedure (other than ILS) some, possibly many (in the USA) small aircraft have an ILS, very few single engine pistons have MWLS, and are often flying Visual or IFR procedures into airports that do not have either ground based systems, so WHY the requirement for an instrument for a 4 degree approach but NOT for a 3 degree approach. this appears contradictory.
Safetypee:
PAPI or any other ground based visual system is not in compliance with the requirement:
information necessary to display
the gradient must be available to the
pilot by an appropriate instrument.
back to my original question, is ther a simple way to comply with this requirement, and nominate a steeper approach, of course while still complying with the balance of the compliance requirements in order to provide more applicable landing distance charts for a small SE aircraft ( 10 seats or less)?
If the Beaver was certified today, how could it comply with this requirement? It is a mainstay in the bush pilot operations and not one where every approach is a three degree gradient. This is what made it so successful. The current requirements are compromising the manufacturers ability to compete with old (even antique) aircraft in a realistic manner. requiring a nominated 'procedure' for a steeper approach and publishing it in the AFM is a relatively simple task and not one that need include ant abnormal and/or abrupt maneuvering, but has the potential to reduce landing distances sufficiently to enable an operator to plan loads into airstrips that would otherwise be acceptable to older aircraft, but not acceptable for newly certified ones. this is counterproductive, and does not encourage replacement of an aging fleet with newer designed, safer aircraft.
HD