UK IMC Rating Minima
PPRuNe Knight in Shining Armour
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Everywhere in the UK, but not home!
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK IMC Rating Minima
I was asked a question yesterday that I didn’t really know the answer to…but should have!
In the UK IMC rating the pilot should add 200ft on to the OCA/H for his minima for a non-precision approach. Does the extra 200ft apply to OCA/H for a circling approach to land on a different r/w, as by definition you should be VMC?
In the UK IMC rating the pilot should add 200ft on to the OCA/H for his minima for a non-precision approach. Does the extra 200ft apply to OCA/H for a circling approach to land on a different r/w, as by definition you should be VMC?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think that your MDA/H would be the criteria for the non precision approach, not forgetting the 'not less than 600 ft' criteria
The cloud base may well be lower than these MDAs in which case the visual manouvering height will not be applicable.but a missed approach will
I do not believe anything has to be added to the VM height if the conditions become VMC
The cloud base may well be lower than these MDAs in which case the visual manouvering height will not be applicable.but a missed approach will
I do not believe anything has to be added to the VM height if the conditions become VMC
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem is in the wording.
It is "recomended" that 200ft is added to the published approach minima.
However, the absolute minima for a non-precision approach is 600ft (MDH).
Circling is part of a non-precision approach.
Personally, for IMC rating flying, I would addd 200ft to the circling minima. If one was to use the IMC straight-in minima, one could fall foul of a higher circling minima.
Regards,
DFC
It is "recomended" that 200ft is added to the published approach minima.
However, the absolute minima for a non-precision approach is 600ft (MDH).
Circling is part of a non-precision approach.
Personally, for IMC rating flying, I would addd 200ft to the circling minima. If one was to use the IMC straight-in minima, one could fall foul of a higher circling minima.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minima
Circling to land is not part of the non precision approach. Circling to land may follow any kind of approach and is undertaken visually.
A factor of +200ft need not be applied.
A factor of +200ft need not be applied.
In the UK IMC rating the pilot should add 200ft on to the OCA/H for his minima for a non-precision approach. Does the extra 200ft apply to OCA/H for a circling approach to land on a different r/w, as by definition you should be VMC?
PPRuNe Knight in Shining Armour
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Everywhere in the UK, but not home!
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bookworm, that's what I thought, and advised. But judging by the response (thanks all) there is still a bit of uncertainty.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne UK
Age: 67
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that once you have broken cloud using the procedure and become VMC, that the circling minima is appropriate, not the addition of an extra 200 ft for the IMC rating
Consider my base airfield EGNT The AIP gives for a Cat A non-precsion approach NDB/DME 25 an OCH of 371 ft labelled for the procedure. However it also gives a VMC OCH for the total area of 534 ft. If the AIP states that the minima is for a VMC circling procedure for the total area, then no IMC Xs should apply because by definition that minima applies to VMC!
Let us say that an IMC pilot decends to his mdh of 600ft, having broken cloud at 700ft. It would be illogical to expect him to climb back to 734ft, and lose visual contact with the runway and have to execute a MAP.
We teach slow safe cruise/tight bad weather circuit specifically to deal with the bad weather/poor vis. If that can only be done at or near the normal circuit height it kind of defeats the object of the exercise.
http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/p...s/32NT0810.PDF
Consider my base airfield EGNT The AIP gives for a Cat A non-precsion approach NDB/DME 25 an OCH of 371 ft labelled for the procedure. However it also gives a VMC OCH for the total area of 534 ft. If the AIP states that the minima is for a VMC circling procedure for the total area, then no IMC Xs should apply because by definition that minima applies to VMC!
Let us say that an IMC pilot decends to his mdh of 600ft, having broken cloud at 700ft. It would be illogical to expect him to climb back to 734ft, and lose visual contact with the runway and have to execute a MAP.
We teach slow safe cruise/tight bad weather circuit specifically to deal with the bad weather/poor vis. If that can only be done at or near the normal circuit height it kind of defeats the object of the exercise.
http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/p...s/32NT0810.PDF
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minima
If I could add another thought Snigs.
It maybe that your IMC MDH, say 750' QFE is higher than the VMC OCH, say 550'.
A cloud break is not required, only that you have visual reference with the runway i.e. the associated lighting. You may be still well within cloud on the approach when the lighting is identified, very common nowadays with high intensity white approach lights. When turned up high they can penetrate through a lot of cloud. With such reference you may continue the approach below your minima to the visual circling minima or land ahead of course. Don't forget the 1800m viz requirement that you must have for landing before you commence the proc.
It maybe that your IMC MDH, say 750' QFE is higher than the VMC OCH, say 550'.
A cloud break is not required, only that you have visual reference with the runway i.e. the associated lighting. You may be still well within cloud on the approach when the lighting is identified, very common nowadays with high intensity white approach lights. When turned up high they can penetrate through a lot of cloud. With such reference you may continue the approach below your minima to the visual circling minima or land ahead of course. Don't forget the 1800m viz requirement that you must have for landing before you commence the proc.
Well Snigs, a lot of the uncertainty comes from the terminology.
VMC means "visual meteorological conditions".
VM(C) means "visual manoeuvring (circling)".
A circling manoeuvre at the end of an instrument approach need not be carried out in VMC. For example, in 3000 m visibility in a class D CTR, the conditions would most definitely still be IMC, and a flight would remain operating under IFR. But a circling approach within the VM(C) area is still permitted.
The VFR minima, which define VMC, are irrelevant to a circling approach. Of course you *can* cancel IFR and proceed VFR if you are in VMC and can maintain it, and, provided you can satisfy the judge that the VFR circling manoeuvre was part of "taking off or landing in accordance with normal aviation practice", you may not even have to satisfy Rule 5 in choosing the level at which you do so. But generally speaking, ATC is expecting the manoeuvring to be carried out under IFR, and must provide appropriate separation.
I have to take issue with martinidoc's example:
Consider carrying out the procedure as an instrument-rated pilot. The MDH for the straight-in approach is 371 ft. The MDH for the circling manoeuvre is 534 ft. In descening on the IAP intending to circle to land on 07, you would not descend below the 534 ft MDH for circling, despite the lower straight in MDH. There's no question of climbing back up to 534 ft. If you need to descend below 534 ft, you should either be making a straight-in approach, or you should be going around.
The same principle should apply to an IMC-rated pilot. Because the increments are recommendations, I can't use the word must, but if you feel you need a 200 ft buffer for the straight in part of an instrument approach where you can focus entirely on the instruments, it would be very brave to abandon that buffer for the circling manoeuvre where your attention is split between the external environment and the instruments. Most commercial operators would regard this as the most dangerous stage of flight.
For what it's worth, the minimum obstacle clearance afforded by:
a non-precision approach with FAF is 246 ft
a non-precision approach without FAF is 295 ft
a visual manoeuvring (circling) area is 295 ft
You have a similar buffer between you and the obstacles in each case. If you're unsure of your ability to hold altitude, add something in each case.
VMC means "visual meteorological conditions".
VM(C) means "visual manoeuvring (circling)".
A circling manoeuvre at the end of an instrument approach need not be carried out in VMC. For example, in 3000 m visibility in a class D CTR, the conditions would most definitely still be IMC, and a flight would remain operating under IFR. But a circling approach within the VM(C) area is still permitted.
The VFR minima, which define VMC, are irrelevant to a circling approach. Of course you *can* cancel IFR and proceed VFR if you are in VMC and can maintain it, and, provided you can satisfy the judge that the VFR circling manoeuvre was part of "taking off or landing in accordance with normal aviation practice", you may not even have to satisfy Rule 5 in choosing the level at which you do so. But generally speaking, ATC is expecting the manoeuvring to be carried out under IFR, and must provide appropriate separation.
I have to take issue with martinidoc's example:
Consider my base airfield EGNT The AIP gives for a Cat A non-precsion approach NDB/DME 25 an OCH of 371 ft labelled for the procedure. However it also gives a VMC OCH for the total area of 534 ft.
The same principle should apply to an IMC-rated pilot. Because the increments are recommendations, I can't use the word must, but if you feel you need a 200 ft buffer for the straight in part of an instrument approach where you can focus entirely on the instruments, it would be very brave to abandon that buffer for the circling manoeuvre where your attention is split between the external environment and the instruments. Most commercial operators would regard this as the most dangerous stage of flight.
For what it's worth, the minimum obstacle clearance afforded by:
a non-precision approach with FAF is 246 ft
a non-precision approach without FAF is 295 ft
a visual manoeuvring (circling) area is 295 ft
You have a similar buffer between you and the obstacles in each case. If you're unsure of your ability to hold altitude, add something in each case.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm has it.
I can understand why there is a problem with the circling minima. It is because the explanation given in some text books get it wrong.
From a practical point of view, let's use Newcastle NDBDME 25 and assume that there is no approach available at the other end.
We will apply the recomended 200ft addition to the IR minima.
In this example, the IR minima are;
OCH 371 for straight in
OCH 534 for a circle to runway 07
That makes the IMC minima
OCH 600 for straight in; and
OCH 734 for a circle to runway 07
If we intend to circle, we will level at our OCH of 734ft. If we are not visual at the MAP, we will execute a missed approach.
The biggest reasons for not descending to the straight in minima and climbing back to the circling minima are;
a) We could be below the height of obstacles to the side of the runway; and
b) With the nose in the climb attitude, our view is reduced forward. i.e. Having spotted the runway ahead in a low wing aircraft, the last thing we want to do is a climbing right turn.
I would also recomend that pilot considdering a circling manoeuvre considder adding something to the visibility minima. Trying to circle at an unfamiliar field in 1nm visibility is hard work especially for the inexperienced.
Also be sure that one knows how to start the published missed approach procedure from anywhere in the circling procedure.
Finally, if using 600ft OCH, one will reach that height 2nm from the runway on a 3deg approach path. With 1800m visibility, one will not see the runway from that height until 1nm from touchdown. Can you safely land straight in using your aircraft starting descent from 600ft 1nm to the threshold in poor visibility. Try it VFR and see how hard it is! Note I am not saying that you should use 3600m but perhaps 1800m would be challenging initially.
Regards,
DFC
I can understand why there is a problem with the circling minima. It is because the explanation given in some text books get it wrong.
From a practical point of view, let's use Newcastle NDBDME 25 and assume that there is no approach available at the other end.
We will apply the recomended 200ft addition to the IR minima.
In this example, the IR minima are;
OCH 371 for straight in
OCH 534 for a circle to runway 07
That makes the IMC minima
OCH 600 for straight in; and
OCH 734 for a circle to runway 07
If we intend to circle, we will level at our OCH of 734ft. If we are not visual at the MAP, we will execute a missed approach.
The biggest reasons for not descending to the straight in minima and climbing back to the circling minima are;
a) We could be below the height of obstacles to the side of the runway; and
b) With the nose in the climb attitude, our view is reduced forward. i.e. Having spotted the runway ahead in a low wing aircraft, the last thing we want to do is a climbing right turn.
I would also recomend that pilot considdering a circling manoeuvre considder adding something to the visibility minima. Trying to circle at an unfamiliar field in 1nm visibility is hard work especially for the inexperienced.
Also be sure that one knows how to start the published missed approach procedure from anywhere in the circling procedure.
Finally, if using 600ft OCH, one will reach that height 2nm from the runway on a 3deg approach path. With 1800m visibility, one will not see the runway from that height until 1nm from touchdown. Can you safely land straight in using your aircraft starting descent from 600ft 1nm to the threshold in poor visibility. Try it VFR and see how hard it is! Note I am not saying that you should use 3600m but perhaps 1800m would be challenging initially.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martinidoc and Bookworm - I suspect you're agreeing with each other, just putting it in different ways.
Ok - let's take this example and instead of baffling each other with words let's look at it as a logical sequence of events.
IMC holder flies non-precision approach down to IMC minima (600ft QFE or OC(H) +200ft, whichever is the higher). At this point he looks up, sees lights and runway environment and continues visually for the circling approach.
(Let's forget IFR/VFR here, you're just confusing everyone with semantics).
Now, VM(C) is minimum ht. for the manoeuver. All this is is the level below which you must not descend until established on the final approach for the runway required to give safe obstacle clearance in the manoevering area. You are flying visually at this point, with reference to the altimeter only as a guide to make sure you don't descend below VM(C), the workload is high, but not impossible providing you look out of the window.
So - you fly according to VM(C) (not VM(C) +200ft, as long as VM(C) is less than the non precision MDH) providing you fulfill the criteria which is to remain in sight of the runway environment.
Obviously if VM(C) is greater than Approach minima then that becomes MDH, planning here is the name of the game.
At any point that you lose that visual reference to the runway you must execute the published missed approach procedure - no ifs, no buts.
Consider carrying out the procedure as an instrument-rated pilot. The MDH for the straight-in approach is 371 ft. The MDH for the circling manoeuvre is 534 ft. In descening on the IAP intending to circle to land on 07, you would not descend below the 534 ft MDH for circling, despite the lower straight in MDH. There's no question of climbing back up to 534 ft. If you need to descend below 534 ft, you should either be making a straight-in approach, or you should be going around.
The same principle should apply to an IMC-rated pilot. Because the increments are recommendations, I can't use the word must, but if you feel you need a 200 ft buffer for the straight in part of an instrument approach where you can focus entirely on the instruments, it would be very brave to abandon that buffer for the circling manoeuvre where your attention is split between the external environment and the instruments. Most commercial operators would regard this as the most dangerous stage of flight.
The same principle should apply to an IMC-rated pilot. Because the increments are recommendations, I can't use the word must, but if you feel you need a 200 ft buffer for the straight in part of an instrument approach where you can focus entirely on the instruments, it would be very brave to abandon that buffer for the circling manoeuvre where your attention is split between the external environment and the instruments. Most commercial operators would regard this as the most dangerous stage of flight.
IMC holder flies non-precision approach down to IMC minima (600ft QFE or OC(H) +200ft, whichever is the higher). At this point he looks up, sees lights and runway environment and continues visually for the circling approach.
(Let's forget IFR/VFR here, you're just confusing everyone with semantics).
Now, VM(C) is minimum ht. for the manoeuver. All this is is the level below which you must not descend until established on the final approach for the runway required to give safe obstacle clearance in the manoevering area. You are flying visually at this point, with reference to the altimeter only as a guide to make sure you don't descend below VM(C), the workload is high, but not impossible providing you look out of the window.
So - you fly according to VM(C) (not VM(C) +200ft, as long as VM(C) is less than the non precision MDH) providing you fulfill the criteria which is to remain in sight of the runway environment.
Obviously if VM(C) is greater than Approach minima then that becomes MDH, planning here is the name of the game.
At any point that you lose that visual reference to the runway you must execute the published missed approach procedure - no ifs, no buts.
Last edited by Chilli Monster; 17th Mar 2004 at 16:24.
No, sorry Chilli, I'm not agreeing with that.
You seem to be agreeing with the AIP that IMC-rated pilots should add 200 ft to the obstacle clearance that they get from the standard approach minima. Presumably, this is because they aren't very good and holding their altitude while doing other stuff associated with the approach. OK.
But now we come to the manoeuvre that is probably the toughest thing we do in instrument flying, a feature that many pilots have found out the hard way, sometimes literally. It's sufficiently tough that many airlines ban it, or impose minima way above the statutory minima. It's an instrument/visual transition, with some fairly abrupt turns, at low level, in potentially windy conditions (where was that downwind turn thread?), with a crappy horizon, and instead of having a nice set of lights to aim at, we turn away from the lights. I'm almost tempted to say that if you haven't frightened yourself in a circling approach, you need to go and do some in nastier weather.
But for this suddenly the altitude holding gets easier, and the IMC-rated pilot needs only the same buffer as the instrument-rated one? I beg to differ.
You seem to be agreeing with the AIP that IMC-rated pilots should add 200 ft to the obstacle clearance that they get from the standard approach minima. Presumably, this is because they aren't very good and holding their altitude while doing other stuff associated with the approach. OK.
But now we come to the manoeuvre that is probably the toughest thing we do in instrument flying, a feature that many pilots have found out the hard way, sometimes literally. It's sufficiently tough that many airlines ban it, or impose minima way above the statutory minima. It's an instrument/visual transition, with some fairly abrupt turns, at low level, in potentially windy conditions (where was that downwind turn thread?), with a crappy horizon, and instead of having a nice set of lights to aim at, we turn away from the lights. I'm almost tempted to say that if you haven't frightened yourself in a circling approach, you need to go and do some in nastier weather.
But for this suddenly the altitude holding gets easier, and the IMC-rated pilot needs only the same buffer as the instrument-rated one? I beg to differ.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VM(C)
Snigs asked a simple question for fact. Personal limitations should always be taken into account but that is not his question.
In regard to VM(C) ICAO states that the minimum height above a runway or obstacle must be; for CAT 'A' aircraft no lower than 394'. The in-flight viz must be no less than 1nm. For each procedure the Height and Viz varies and is specific and published and must be complied with. Check the approach plate.
The manouvring area is defined by ICAO but the flown pattern is not determined although flight must remain within the published area. Therefore the circle to land may be achieved by flying through and joining for a downwind pattern or breaking right or left to a downwind, base leg or circling final approach. Perhaps a tear drop. A climb from MDH to VM(C) in order to do this is not prescribed. The pilot must at all times remain visual with the runway or its environment (lighting).
In regard to VM(C) ICAO states that the minimum height above a runway or obstacle must be; for CAT 'A' aircraft no lower than 394'. The in-flight viz must be no less than 1nm. For each procedure the Height and Viz varies and is specific and published and must be complied with. Check the approach plate.
The manouvring area is defined by ICAO but the flown pattern is not determined although flight must remain within the published area. Therefore the circle to land may be achieved by flying through and joining for a downwind pattern or breaking right or left to a downwind, base leg or circling final approach. Perhaps a tear drop. A climb from MDH to VM(C) in order to do this is not prescribed. The pilot must at all times remain visual with the runway or its environment (lighting).
I'm not sure, homeguard, that Snigs's was a question of fact. The 200 ft increment for IMC-rated pilots is a recommendation. Whether a 200 ft increment should be added to MDH for circling by a similarly rated pilot seems to me a matter of judgement, not of fact.
You appear to be reading a different version of PANS-OPS from me.
In regard to VM(C) ICAO states that the minimum height above a runway or obstacle must be; for CAT 'A' aircraft no lower than 394'. The in-flight viz must be no less than 1nm.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm following this thread with interest, having never done a circling approach.
Bookwork, your last post but one seemed, at first, to make a lot of sense. But then I got thinking.
Why? Because the IMC-rated pilot is less qualified?
Question (which I genuinely don't know the answer to, because I haven't done it yet): do IR students get to practice circling approaches? (If they do, I'd guess it's not always in the crappy conditions with no horizon and the barely-visible runway lighting that you're talking about, because how would the instructor ensure these conditions were available?)
If they don't, is there not an argument which says that the newly-qualified IMC-rated pilot is no worse-qualified to perform a circling approach than the newly-qualified IR holder? And that the minima should be the same for each? (Although obviously the IMC-rated pilot should acquire visual reference before descending below his (higher) MDA/DA.)
(This argument does not, of course, hold true for straight-in approaches, which both student pilots will have practiced during their training, but the IR student will have practiced right down to the lower minima.)
I'm just thinking aloud really, rather than agreeing or disagreeing with anyone... so what do you think?
FFF
-------------
Bookwork, your last post but one seemed, at first, to make a lot of sense. But then I got thinking.
The IMC-rated pilot needs only the same buffer as the instrument-rated one? I beg to differ.
Question (which I genuinely don't know the answer to, because I haven't done it yet): do IR students get to practice circling approaches? (If they do, I'd guess it's not always in the crappy conditions with no horizon and the barely-visible runway lighting that you're talking about, because how would the instructor ensure these conditions were available?)
If they don't, is there not an argument which says that the newly-qualified IMC-rated pilot is no worse-qualified to perform a circling approach than the newly-qualified IR holder? And that the minima should be the same for each? (Although obviously the IMC-rated pilot should acquire visual reference before descending below his (higher) MDA/DA.)
(This argument does not, of course, hold true for straight-in approaches, which both student pilots will have practiced during their training, but the IR student will have practiced right down to the lower minima.)
I'm just thinking aloud really, rather than agreeing or disagreeing with anyone... so what do you think?
FFF
-------------
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF,
The criteria are not set by how much practice was done during the training. They are set on the basis of the standards to which in general the pilots should be able to operate on a regular basis.
IMC pilots are not as qualified as IR pilots. 15 hours of training can not equate to 50 hours.
Both IR and IMC pilots are reminded to increase their minima if they are not current and the AIP tells us what being current means. Since few IMC pilots will make regular weekly IFR approaches in IMC to minima, to disregard the recomended 200ft increment seems questionable.
---
Chilli,
Are you saying that you do not add the recomended 200ft to the published OCH?
If that is true then you can use the absolute minima of 600ft provided that the IR OCH isn't more than that.
If however, you follow the CAA's advice and add 200ft to the published IR minima for the particular approach then why do you not follow your own criteria for another particular approach?
This would be similar to a pilot adding 200ft to say an NDB approach but not bothering for a VOR approach.
Perhaps your response highlights wht I believe to be one of the dangers of the current IMC minima. Too many pilots simply use 600ft non precision and 500ft precision without really taking into account all the requirments.
As for a circling manoeuvre being visual flying. It is true to say that navigation is by visual means but I can assure you that control of the aircraft is more than 50% by instruments until turning onto final approach.
Regards,
DFC
The criteria are not set by how much practice was done during the training. They are set on the basis of the standards to which in general the pilots should be able to operate on a regular basis.
IMC pilots are not as qualified as IR pilots. 15 hours of training can not equate to 50 hours.
Both IR and IMC pilots are reminded to increase their minima if they are not current and the AIP tells us what being current means. Since few IMC pilots will make regular weekly IFR approaches in IMC to minima, to disregard the recomended 200ft increment seems questionable.
---
Chilli,
Are you saying that you do not add the recomended 200ft to the published OCH?
If that is true then you can use the absolute minima of 600ft provided that the IR OCH isn't more than that.
If however, you follow the CAA's advice and add 200ft to the published IR minima for the particular approach then why do you not follow your own criteria for another particular approach?
This would be similar to a pilot adding 200ft to say an NDB approach but not bothering for a VOR approach.
Perhaps your response highlights wht I believe to be one of the dangers of the current IMC minima. Too many pilots simply use 600ft non precision and 500ft precision without really taking into account all the requirments.
As for a circling manoeuvre being visual flying. It is true to say that navigation is by visual means but I can assure you that control of the aircraft is more than 50% by instruments until turning onto final approach.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
minima
Bookworm
The CAA words actually say "should" add 200' to the MDH/DH as published with 600'/500' as absolute minima for IMC rated pilots.
In all CAA definitions of the word "should" it is said to mean 'must'. Where have you read it is only a recommendation?
The CAA words actually say "should" add 200' to the MDH/DH as published with 600'/500' as absolute minima for IMC rated pilots.
In all CAA definitions of the word "should" it is said to mean 'must'. Where have you read it is only a recommendation?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DFC
No - I'm not saying that at all and I'm well aware of what to add to the approach minima published - to the extent of editing my post to reflect that. Hope that clarifies matters - if not then you obviously have problems with the language which I can't be bothered to redress here.
Are you saying that you do not add the recomended 200ft to the published OCH?
If that is true then you can use the absolute minima of 600ft provided that the IR OCH isn't more than that.
If however, you follow the CAA's advice and add 200ft to the published IR minima for the particular approach then why do you not follow your own criteria for another particular approach?
This would be similar to a pilot adding 200ft to say an NDB approach but not bothering for a VOR approach.
If that is true then you can use the absolute minima of 600ft provided that the IR OCH isn't more than that.
If however, you follow the CAA's advice and add 200ft to the published IR minima for the particular approach then why do you not follow your own criteria for another particular approach?
This would be similar to a pilot adding 200ft to say an NDB approach but not bothering for a VOR approach.