aterpster:
1. NOTAM - Okay, understand now and agree (missed your #29 post). In this age of self dispatching armed only with your "flight pack" just printed off by yourself, how many pilots actually review NOTAMS and provide a NOTAM Brief to all the operating tech crew, especially when under time pressure?
2. +50' - Refer to ICAO Annex 6 Part 1, Chap 4 which deals with Aerodrome Operating Minima (AOM). Operators may determine their own AOM after considering the factors listed in Annex 6 or alternatively that can add 50' to the charted DA/MDA. This is dependent on the approach design criteria of PANS-OPS (new/old) and State Rules and Procedures which can be found in Jeppesen VOL 1.
The USA uses TERPS design criteria.
The definitions of DA and MDA (non-precision) is the main contributing factor for Company's requiring a +50' additive.
A DA is an altitude whereby a "decision" to continue or execute a missed approach must have been made - the aircraft is permitted to decent below that altitude either for the purpose of continuing the approach or in the process of executing a missed approach.
A MDA (Minimum Decent Altitude) is used for non-precision approaches and is an altitude that can only flown below if the approach is to be continued. The aircraft is not allowed to decent below this altitude when executing a missed approach.
Hence, for non-precision approaches, Company's mandate the +50' additive to ensure legal compliance in the event of a missed approach being executed.
Here are some direct copy and pastes from my Company's SOP:
Non-precision approaches are ILS Localiser only, VOR, NDB, RNAV(GPS), RNAV(GNSS) or GPS and may be conducted using VNAV to define the vertical approach path.
Approaching the FAF, set the MCP ALT to the MDA +50 feet
iceman50:
Well congratulations and I guess you have it up on me because I don't operate it.
.
I assumed "it" to be CAT D also )through ignorance) but in a previous post in this thread it was stated that THY has their A330 as CAT C. (Stone_cold has clarified this now - thanks). Hence I based my short reply on that post as that post was answering a question related to why the crew elected to do the initial approach when VIS was reported to be 1000M. Keep in mind that the initial approach resulted in a missed approach because the runway environment was not visual at the DA(H).
Being CAT D only increases the MINIMA for height and VIZ.
This debating and splitting of hairs is all great but the "elephant in the room" is still in the room gentlemen. The PIC intentionally or unknowningly (or combination of both) disregarded SOP and State Rules and Procedures for this flight.
The key word in all this is "POTENTIAL" - what was the potential for an accident. The responsibility of every pilot is to mitigate the potential for an accident. Sh@te, that is why we are there!
In this case, the potential was instigated back in Istanbul dispatch and only increased as the flight progressed because of the "decision making processes" of the flight crew.
RunSick:
Cynicism young man - Cynicism........
Handling Speeds are used to establish aircraft category and are set out in State AIP and Jeppesen for those who actually care enough to look.
The aircraft weight standard is Certified MLW and the resultant speeds are defined for approach segments:
1. Vat
2. IAF
3. FAF
4. Visual manoeuvring (Circling)
5. Max SPD for Missed Approach