PDA

View Full Version : Jeppesen Minimums vs JAA Minimums


D O Guerrero
19th Feb 2010, 13:33
In the Jeppesen charts, they often include a page of what I assume are the JAA minimums (or minima as I think is correct!) for a given airfield. These are often different to those published on the approach plates themselves.
I've asked several people at work what the significance is and which overrides the other but have never received a satisfactory answer.
Can anyone shed any light on this? Please go easy on me - I'm thick...

merlinxx
19th Feb 2010, 13:44
A suggestion, ctc the customer service folks in the UK for ctc #s, then talk to the charting folks in FRA. Most stuff is done in FRA & DEN. Differentials are sometimes not highlighted, or explained.:ugh:

FlightDetent
19th Feb 2010, 13:59
JAA Minima page is inserted by Jepp for aerodromes where the main apch charts feature minima calculated by different methodology.

JAA Minima page should be used by all operators whose (CAA Approved) minima methodology conforms to Old Appendix to OPS 1.430.

By EU-OPS, each operator must provide the applicable minima to its pilots. If customer demand indicates that main minima table should display different values than 'JAR-OPS', Jeppesen would normally include the page.

To have an approved minima methodology is a legal requirement as well as to provide the minima to pilots.

Commonly, the minima types used for Jepp plates around here are:
'PANS-OPS'
'JAR-OPS'
'Standard'

One of the latter two applies for you, check OM-A/C. Out of personal interest, did you guys transition to New Appendix to OPS 1.430 or not yet?

D O Guerrero
20th Feb 2010, 08:45
Embarrassingly I have no idea... We're talking about the IAA here though.

D O Guerrero
23rd Feb 2010, 22:28
Further enquiries today are beginning to make me think that no-one actually has a straightforward answer to this one.

mgTF
24th Feb 2010, 04:01
soon should be released also the easa minima, which are another times different, specially for the non precision approach where the concept of mda fades replaced by da where a constant descent is performed.

FlightDetent
24th Feb 2010, 07:38
Yes, they are labelled "standard" on Jepps. Until your operator has migrated to new standard (mandatory next year), you must apply the previous methodology originally laid down in now defunct JAR-OPS1. That's what 'JAA Minima' page is for in the route manuals.

TiPwEiGhT
5th Mar 2012, 10:41
Hi folks,

Just to bring this topic back to life. We had a discussion the other day at work and were questioning the JAA Copter Minimums pages in the Jeppesen Manuals.

According to ICAO 8168, helicopters are not subject to circling to land minimas:

"7.1.2 Applicability to helicopters

Circling procedures are not applicable to helicopters. The helicopter pilot has to conduct a visual manoeuvre in adequate meteorological conditions to see and avoid obstacles in the vicinity of the final approach and take-off area (FATO) in the case of Category H procedures, or a suitable landing area in the case of Category A or point-in-space procedures. However, the pilot must be alert to any operational notes regarding ATS requirements while manoeuvring to land."


So should we be ignoring the JAA minimas in the Jepp, or using them? Can anybody point me towards a document aside from 8168?

Many thanks.

Island Bird
6th Mar 2012, 13:27
Hello Folks,

In fact, it's fairly simple. The same way you have to differentiate between "certification" and "operation" when using and aircraft, there is a difference in the "design" and "operation" of an approach.

An approach will be designed by the state authority based on certain criteria standard, mainly PANS OPS or TERPS in the US.

Now as an European operator, your operating regulation (EU-OPS) states that you must determine minimums that shall not be lower then certain value given in appendix 1 (new) to EU-OPS 1.430

If you decide to use Jeppesen, instead of having your mate in the seat next to you pulling out the approach plate and the EU-OPS during the arrival briefing and start comparing the value, the folks at Jeppesen though it would be a good idea to have a little label that would give the crew the information that the minimums printed on the chart are good.
JAR-OPS -> appendix 1 old
Standard -> appendix 1 new

Cheers,

FlightDetent
6th Mar 2012, 15:53
IB, thanks for your imput, much appreciated.

To expand on the operational level for EU-OPS:
a) today, "appendix Old" method of minima calculation is forbidden.
b) today "appendix New" method or a more conservative one is mandatory.
c) it is a legal reqiurement to have the method of calculation written down in OM-A and approved by NAA. Normally this is done by copying the EU-OPS rules. Some operators may decide (or be forced to) set higher values.
d) it is a legal requirement to publish these minima in OM-C for pilots to read. Normally, this is done by buying a product from a third party provider (i.e. Jeppesen Route Manual be it a standard set or a tailored version).

Caution needs to be taken whether the bought product complies with present-day applicable regulations.

Further considerations:
- if the minima displayed on an outdated (not yet reprocessed) 3rd party chart with JAR-OPS label are at least as conservative as the one calculated with the new mandatory EU-OPS method, is it ok to use the page? (I think yes)
- do I need to adhere to minima printed on a sheet of paper by a third party provider for a different modus operandi (fixed wing) while at the same time for my ops (heli) they are irrelevant? (I think no)

Final points:
The (minimum) obstacle clearances are provided in AIP, based on ICAO Doc 8168 or more conservative, local rules.
The operational minima are commonly prescribed by national regulation (Annex 6, EU-OPS).
Whatever 3rd party material you buy to satisfy both, it is your responsibility it is applicable and fits all regulatory requirements.

Your thoughts?

FD.

Dan Winterland
7th Mar 2012, 02:23
It should be made clear in your Ops manual as which to use. My company makes it even clearer by having user specific Jepps, only for use by our company.