Precision & Non Precision Approaches
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Precision & Non Precision Approaches
Hey guys
With a Percision App, if you have passed the FAF and a wx update informs you wx is below minima for landing, you may continue the approach to the MAP and then carry out a Go-Around if nothing is seen? However if wx is below minima, where can you not continue beyond - is it the IAF?
With a NPA, an approach ban is also in place. Is this also from the IAF? I also remember that it is an automatic Go-Around if wx decreases below minima when passed the FAF. Am I correct?
Thanks, CK
With a Percision App, if you have passed the FAF and a wx update informs you wx is below minima for landing, you may continue the approach to the MAP and then carry out a Go-Around if nothing is seen? However if wx is below minima, where can you not continue beyond - is it the IAF?
With a NPA, an approach ban is also in place. Is this also from the IAF? I also remember that it is an automatic Go-Around if wx decreases below minima when passed the FAF. Am I correct?
Thanks, CK
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Precision Approach- As long as your visibility/RVR exceeds the appropriate minima for Cat 2 or 3 by the OMK or 1000' AAL, whichever is appropriate, then you may continue down to appropriate minima and disregard any other visibility reports, even lower than your minimum visibility for that approach.
For a NPA, an 'approach ban' excludes ANY approach? My understanding is any deterioration of visibility below your minima requires either not commencing the approach or a go-around. The minima are higher for a NPA, so the time between the OM/IAF and Decision Height is very short and not worth arguing over! It's academic.
Be reminded that cloud base is not included in the above and may be disregarded.
For a NPA, an 'approach ban' excludes ANY approach? My understanding is any deterioration of visibility below your minima requires either not commencing the approach or a go-around. The minima are higher for a NPA, so the time between the OM/IAF and Decision Height is very short and not worth arguing over! It's academic.
Be reminded that cloud base is not included in the above and may be disregarded.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Open to correction, but I think this;
FAF is for NPA's. Do Precision approaches need an FAF? I'm not sure that he OM or 1000'agl is only for CAT 2/3. Surely it also applies to Cat 1.
Thus, for a precision approach of whatever category the approach ban is at OM or equivalent or 1000' AAL if no other point exists. For an NPA it is at FAF.
Please, the 100% correct answer.
Expanding it; will someone please give the 100% correct answer to the use of IAF for all approaches at all times.
FAF is for NPA's. Do Precision approaches need an FAF? I'm not sure that he OM or 1000'agl is only for CAT 2/3. Surely it also applies to Cat 1.
Thus, for a precision approach of whatever category the approach ban is at OM or equivalent or 1000' AAL if no other point exists. For an NPA it is at FAF.
Please, the 100% correct answer.
Expanding it; will someone please give the 100% correct answer to the use of IAF for all approaches at all times.
It varies from state to state (for instance, Australia doesn't HAVE an approach ban point) but under JAR it is nominated by the operator in the FOM part A. Usually it is FAF or OM, or 1000' if neither is present.
In the US, it is a blanket "Glideslope intercept point", and in Canada, it's 1500', so you see there is no definative answer!!
In the US, it is a blanket "Glideslope intercept point", and in Canada, it's 1500', so you see there is no definative answer!!
