Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Flying Instructors & Examiners
Reload this Page >

Non-Precision Approach Deviation Limits?

Wikiposts
Search
Flying Instructors & Examiners A place for instructors to communicate with one another because some of them get a bit tired of the attitude that instructing is the lowest form of aviation, as seems to prevail on some of the other forums!

Non-Precision Approach Deviation Limits?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 4th Mar 2024, 06:10
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here n there.
Posts: 905
Received 9 Likes on 3 Posts
Non-Precision Approach Deviation Limits?

Trying, in vain, to find out what the deviation limits are for non-precision approaches; anecdotally learned (years ago) that the NDB limit (safety lane?) was +/- 5 degrees, are VOR approaches etc the same?
Hueymeister is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2024, 06:29
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wherever I lay my hat
Posts: 3,998
Received 34 Likes on 14 Posts
Consider the limit as more of a guideline. In challenging conditions the examiner will give you extra leeway. The important thing is to recognise that you're left/high/fast etc and correct. Aim for perfection and miss.
rudestuff is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2024, 15:18
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag
Age: 57
Posts: 6,258
Received 332 Likes on 185 Posts
Originally Posted by Hueymeister
Trying, in vain, to find out what the deviation limits are for non-precision approaches; anecdotally learned (years ago) that the NDB limit (safety lane?) was +/- 5 degrees, are VOR approaches etc the same?
Not sure how you define "tried in vain" - a quick look on the UK CAA website has this guide for examiners: https://www.caa.co.uk/publication/download/12805

Or, do you mean the actual procedure design tolerances? A bit of light reading here: https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/...shelf/5801.pdf
212man is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2024, 15:24
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Blue sky
Posts: 276
Received 7 Likes on 6 Posts
Not an examiner, but as an instructor the applied rule has always been ”max deviation is half scale deflection”. This equates to 5° for a VOR. This is also a stable approach criteria on final.

Last edited by BraceBrace; 4th Mar 2024 at 15:47.
BraceBrace is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2024, 18:26
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here n there.
Posts: 905
Received 9 Likes on 3 Posts
Thanks…in vain, been looking for a while…
Hueymeister is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2024, 19:49
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ADF has errors of up to +/- 5 degrees thus 5 degrees off indicated could actually be 10 degrees off. Safety lane as you call it (surveyed approach area) is +/- 10 degrees. Thus greater than +/- 5 could put you outside of the safe area. Trouble is, could also put you more or less on centre line! Don’t you just love an NDB approach.

By the way, I once had to fly an asymmetric NDB approach to minimums for real. Deep joy!
mavisbacon is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2024, 11:09
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Bressuire
Posts: 825
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 9 Posts
Consider the limit as more of a guideline. In challenging conditions the examiner will give you extra leeway. The important thing is to recognise that you're left/high/fast etc and correct. Aim for perfection and miss.​​​​
The question didn't ask for the limits to be applied by an examiner during a skill test. There isn't a limit set by regulation for an ADF/NDB approach. The indication will of course vary +/- with drift/heading which may change erratically throughout the approach. The ADF can be grossly affected by night effect, coastal effect and electrical storms. In the past with a lot of powerful NDBs then interference from other NDBs could also be a problem. Less so today in the UK as the beacons are turned down in power to tight limits. This can make accuracy very poor as the indicator is motor driven. The most important standards therefore are the height/altitude minimums. To bust those is a no no.
Fl1ingfrog is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2024, 21:22
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I'm not sure whether the attached image will be of help or interest for anyone. I've overlaid a construction of the protection areas for the NDB approach to Runway 27 at Gloucester EGBJ.

At the GST NDB on the airfield, a semi-width of 1.25 NM (it would be 1.0 NM for a VOR) extends out each side of the approach centreline; the inner half of each semi-width (shown in orange) defines the start of the primary protection area, the outer half of each semi-width (Shown in yellow) defines the start of the secondary protection area.

Each secondary area outer edge then diverges from the centreline at an angle of 10.3° (it would be 7.8° for a VOR) . At the same time the primary areas diverge so that the width of the primary and secondary areas, when measured perpendicular to the centerline, remain equal.

Within the primary area, bounded by the orange lines, a minimum obstacle clearance (MOC) is maintained at 300 m (984 ft) until the IF at 8 DME where the MOC reduces to 150 m (492 ft) until the FAF where the MOC reduces to 76 m (246 ft). In the secondary area, the MOC starts at the same value as the adjacent primary area and reduces linearly to zero at the outer boundary of the secondary area.

Cheers
TeeS





Last edited by TeeS; 15th Mar 2024 at 07:54. Reason: Correcting stupidity!
TeeS is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2024, 09:40
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Here 'n' there!
Posts: 591
Received 10 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by mavisbacon
ADF has errors of up to +/- 5 degrees thus 5 degrees off indicated could actually be 10 degrees off. ....... Don’t you just love an NDB approach. .......................
Way back, during an OPC flying an NDB approach.........

ATC:- "C/S, have you got a problem up there?!!!!" as, clearly, I was not quite where ATC expected me to be - all I could see was a screen and a drunken needle!

I looked over at the examiner who smiled and then keyed the mic - "No, we're fine ...... but your NDB definitely has a problem!!!"

Of course, in normal line flying we used the NDB backed up by GPS (no GPS approach available) ................................ officially!!!!!!!!
Hot 'n' High is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2024, 13:06
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by TeeS
I'm not sure whether the attached image will be of help or interest for anyone. I've overlaid a construction of the protection areas for the NDB approach to Runway 27 at Gloucester EGBJ.

At the GST NDB on the airfield, a semi-width of 1.25 NM (it would be 1.0 NM for a VOR) extends out each side of the approach centreline; the inner half of each semi-width (shown in orange) defines the start of the primary protection area, the outer half of each semi-width (Shown in yellow) defines the start of the secondary protection area.

Each secondary area outer edge then diverges from the centreline at an angle of 10.3° (it would be 7.8° for a VOR) . At the same time the primary areas diverge so that the width of the primary and secondary areas, when measured perpendicular to the centerline, remain equal.

Within the primary area, bounded by the orange lines, a minimum obstacle clearance (MOC) is maintained at 300 m (984 ft) until the IF at 8 DME where the MOC reduces to 150 m (492 ft) until the FAF where the MOC reduces to 76 m (246 ft). In the secondary area, the MOC starts at the same value as the adjacent primary area and reduces linearly to zero at the outer boundary of the secondary area.

Cheers
TeeS


The answer you’re looking for is contained within PANS OPS. (CAP 5862 I think, can’t remember!)
mavisbacon is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2024, 23:17
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by mavisbacon
The answer you’re looking for is contained within PANS OPS. (CAP 5862 I think, can’t remember!)
Hi Mavisbacon

If you are responding to me, I'm not sure I asked any question for which an answer is required.

With respect to your previous statement of " Safety lane as you call it (surveyed approach area) is +/- 10 degrees", I have to ask, if the 'safety lane' is +/- 10° then what is the 'safety lane' width when you cross the beacon?

PANS-OPS is ICAO Doc 8168, and Volume II is the relevant part covering 'Construction on Visual and Instrument Flight Procedures'.

Cheers
TeeS


TeeS is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2024, 21:14
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: South West
Posts: 296
Received 21 Likes on 17 Posts
Originally Posted by Hueymeister
Trying, in vain, to find out what the deviation limits are for non-precision approaches; anecdotally learned (years ago) that the NDB limit (safety lane?) was +/- 5 degrees, are VOR approaches etc the same?
I am a bit surprised no one has referred to the following regulation so far.

It's appendix 7 to Part FCL (IR skills test). Tracking of radio aids is 5 degrees. There are similar references in each of the type of skill tests/proficiency checks. The IMC rating test (STDs Doc 25(A) says 10 degrees for ADF with is oddly generous.



gipsymagpie is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.