would non normal configuation landing bump up my aircraft approach category?

[CAT III C]

ok this may be a stupid question for most, but anyways

my aircraft say is CAT C (icao) for the aircraft approach category (121-140)..but now i have to land at a speed greater than cat c , for mayb different flap setting during single engine landing or for another non normal configuration landing... would i use minimums for cat d now?

[flyburg]

I can only tell you how my company interprets that.

The Aircraft is certified in a category!! failures and the associated higher speeds have no effect. the only exception being if you circle. I you decide to circle at a speed higher than the max circling speed for the category (180 I believe for cat c) then you would have to use category D minimums.

That is the interpretation at my company! Interesting question though, at a previous company we would go to the next higher minimum in case of failures putting you in the next speed bracket. When questioning this at my current company I was told this was a wrong interpretation, so I am curious about some input as well.

[bfisk]

Well, the approach categories are based on a design Vref at max gross weight; and other associated speeds for various stages of approach. The calculation of minima depends on a number of factors, that all are taken into account. Many of these factors are directly based on an aircraft's ability to maintain a certain speed: take an example:

An aircraft certified in category B needs to fly an ILS approach, and has a flap failure. The Original Vref was, say, 100kts, and the actual Vref is now 135kts. The cat B minima is based on a speed on final approach of max 130kias. This, when put into context with a fixed glideslope and a given value of omnidirectional wind, gives a maximum theoretical descent rate to maintain the glideslope. The DA is then designed to allow a desicion at that point, arrestation of that descent rate, and subsequent missed approach climb with a given terrain clearance.

So, ask yourself, if you want to operate to that DA, with a descent rate that's higher that the designed maximum? Which minimum is the safer one, if at all in doubt?

(Yes, in the given situation you would have intertia and speed that would probably allow you to recover from the descent faster than designed; however, do you routinely lower the minima because of other positive factors, such as a headwind, or less that maximum landing mass, just because it would work in theory?)

[flyburg]

BFISK,
I understand your argument, however, on the 73-800, the flaps 15 Vref would put you in the cat d, however, I've never seen anybody use the higher minima's!

The FCTM has recently been updated. Earlier versions stated that the 73-900 fell into cat d, new versions say it is cat c eventhough, when looking at the Vref at max landing weight puts it in cat d.

Still curious for more input. However, with a note of pragmatism, you can theorize everything to death, in the end we are all commercial pilots!! Just follow the ops manual or FCOM.

Greetings

[Intruder]

If a malfunction like a flap problem or another control problem dictates approach at significantly higher than normal Vref, then you should use the minimums and restrictions for the higher approach category.

Minimums are based on obstruction clearance that is in part dictated by turn radius. Since a higher speed increases your turn radius, then you would be smart to adhere to the tighter restrictions.

Similarly, you should inform ATC of your higher approach speed so they can clear airspace as required for holding turns, etc.

[aterpster]

Intruder:
Minimums are based on obstruction clearance that is in part dictated by turn radius. Since a higher speed increases your turn radius, then you would be smart to adhere to the tighter restrictions.

I presume we are speaking of the final approach segment for straight-in landing. If the missed approach has a turn soon after the MAP then, indeed, your premise is correct. (See ILS 14 at KMFR where the ILS DA varies by approach category because of this.):

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/1006/00251ILD14.PDF

But, if the missed approach is either straight-ahead or turns after clean-up then a jet is a jet.

[PEI_3721]

My (old?) copy of PANS OPS refers to Vat at the max certificated landing mass (Vat=1.3 Vs), but Vref is generally used.
The category is based on the landing configuration specified by the manufacturer, but local authorities can change this if a lower landing mass is always used.
Each category is associated with a different range of speeds for the initial and final approach phases; these reflect aircraft manoeuvrability, and sometimes for landing, the size of aircraft. The categories are used for calculating obstacle clearances in procedures and can be used for GA height loss; some procedures specify a maximum speed.

PANS OPS is slightly ambiguous – “1.3.4 The landing configuration that is to be taken into consideration shall be defined by the operator or by the aeroplane manufacturer.”
This can (should be) interpreted as requiring a reassessment of category for alternative / abnormal landing configurations.

The important aspect is to appreciate that procedures and ‘decision’ altitudes are speed dependent.

- Just follow the ops manual FCOM – yes if they discuss the issue.
The bottom line is that ‘you’ hold the responsibility for safety and have to judge the situation accordingly.