Aircraft approach category question
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jepp uses speed for circling. For the U.S. these are the same speeds set forth in FAR Part 97.
The FAA does not use speed on its AeroNav Services chart.
They all can be viewed at:
Digital Terminal Procedures/Airport Diagrams
The FAA does not use speed on its AeroNav Services chart.
They all can be viewed at:
Digital Terminal Procedures/Airport Diagrams
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from the often discussed idea of 'harmonising' circling areas between TERPS and PANSOPS, I do feel it is time for a change, preferably by PANSOPS, to display circling minima based clearly on circling speeds rather than 'approach category'. IE For a 'Cat C approach a/c' (eg 737-700) why not have PANSOPS display minima for '180/205' instead of 'Cat C/Cat D'.
Approach category is i believe a wrongly chosen word,they(PANOPS)also use 'circling category'which i prefer and clearly is based on SPEED.
Circling category 1,2,3,4.rather than A,B,C,D.... based on SPEED would clear confusion.
Last edited by de facto; 14th Dec 2012 at 09:37.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aterp - You have not passed any comment on my query. I don't see it relevant what the FAA do or do not do on "AeroNav Services charts" whatever they are. What is relevant is what pilots will be looking at in the cockpit which are the charts provided by the 'charters'. What will happen to JEPP for example? Will it go to 'Category'? I personally think this is a retrograde step.
de f - yes thank you for correcting that - it is in fact more correctly a 'Circling approach category' in PANSOPS (and in the new FAA charts). I take it from your post that you would be in favour of my suggestion - just a display of speeds?
de f - yes thank you for correcting that - it is in fact more correctly a 'Circling approach category' in PANSOPS (and in the new FAA charts). I take it from your post that you would be in favour of my suggestion - just a display of speeds?
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
Jepp changed from Categories to speed for circle to land several years ago.
Aero Nav Services is a division of the FAA. I provided the link for anyone who may be interested in seeing how lousy FAA charts are.
Jepp changed from Categories to speed for circle to land several years ago.
Aero Nav Services is a division of the FAA. I provided the link for anyone who may be interested in seeing how lousy FAA charts are.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jepp changed from Categories to speed for circle to land several years ago.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
I'm sure we both have. Having said that I have no recollection about when Jepp changed from categories to speed. I am certain, though, they intend to remain with speed. The other makes far less sense.
The FAA charting service is, and always has been, wrapped around its own axle. But, their charts are free, so virtually all non-commercial pilots in the U.S. use them.
Following for the lurkers is Jepp's format, first at a PANS-OPS 4 airport, then at a TERPS airport in the U.S.
- I know - have used them for several years. Is the ANS format new or has it always been that way? The question will be from where will chart providers take their information in the future?What is your position on my query??
The FAA charting service is, and always has been, wrapped around its own axle. But, their charts are free, so virtually all non-commercial pilots in the U.S. use them.
Following for the lurkers is Jepp's format, first at a PANS-OPS 4 airport, then at a TERPS airport in the U.S.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having said that I have no recollection about when Jepp changed from categories to speed.
We started talking about Cat for circling mid thread. Perhaps we just need now to stop talking about 'approach categories' wrt circling (as the FAA seem to in your/Westhawk's quote) and just talk about speeds as per the charts, so all references to 'Cat' wrt circling in this thread now become 'speed'. Much simpler. As said here by many, it is circling speed that governs circling minima, not Vat.
I'll go and take my tablets.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
roulishollandais:
Can you explain what you mean?
This subject is about one small aspect of world-wide instrument approach procedures: the portrayal of circle-to-land minimums. That is determined by Jeppesen and Lido, not the member state.
The member state either publishes or withholds CTL for each IAP in its AIP. If authorized, the formating is Jeppesen's (or Lido's) not the state's. Jepp or LIDO has to determine whether the CTL is to be charted as PANS-OPS or TERPs, or in some cases "unkown."
Unification of approach is a dream.
The State decides, not the operator or the pilot or ATC, or wiki (!)
read the RAC of the country.
Respect the rule is easy
Rh
The State decides, not the operator or the pilot or ATC, or wiki (!)
read the RAC of the country.
Respect the rule is easy
Rh
This subject is about one small aspect of world-wide instrument approach procedures: the portrayal of circle-to-land minimums. That is determined by Jeppesen and Lido, not the member state.
The member state either publishes or withholds CTL for each IAP in its AIP. If authorized, the formating is Jeppesen's (or Lido's) not the state's. Jepp or LIDO has to determine whether the CTL is to be charted as PANS-OPS or TERPs, or in some cases "unkown."
Last edited by aterpster; 14th Dec 2012 at 22:00.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reminds me of one BS type rating check with the FAA in a B737 when he gave me a surging engine with minimum visibility circling minimums. He faulted me for not doing a single engine 15 degree flap circle and I said I couldn't because that would put me in Cat D circling minimums which we didn't have the visibility for. I passed but I think he was confused and didn't know if I was right or not. I wasn't sure technically if I was right but it made sense because of the speed we would have had to circle at.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bubbers44:
Yawn. Another typical FAA inspector.
Reminds me of one BS type rating check with the FAA in a B737 when he gave me a surging engine with minimum visibility circling minimums. He faulted me for not doing a single engine 15 degree flap circle and I said I couldn't because that would put me in Cat D circling minimums which we didn't have the visibility for. I passed but I think he was confused and didn't know if I was right or not. I wasn't sure technically if I was right but it made sense because of the speed we would have had to circle at.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reminds me of one BS type rating check with the FAA in a B737 when he gave me a surging engine with minimum visibility circling minimums. He faulted me for not doing a single engine 15 degree flap circle and I said I couldn't because that would put me in Cat D circling minimums which we didn't have the visibility for
I thought SE circling is to be done with Gear UP, flaps 10 ,speed 170 kts on the 737 and gear DOWN flaps 15,flaps 15 speed on both engines.
In both cases still under CAT C.
Last edited by de facto; 15th Dec 2012 at 18:40.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
de facto:
FAA inspector = TERPs procedure. CAT D circling, 141 KIAS, or above.
Your single engine flaps 15 speed was going to be higher than 180kts?
I thought SE circling is to be done with Gear UP, flaps 10 ,speed 170 kts on the 737 and gear DOWN flaps 15,flaps 15 speed on both engines.
In both cases still under CAT C.
I thought SE circling is to be done with Gear UP, flaps 10 ,speed 170 kts on the 737 and gear DOWN flaps 15,flaps 15 speed on both engines.
In both cases still under CAT C.
Last edited by aterpster; 15th Dec 2012 at 18:46.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK465:
Not exactly. There were a few of us who really went into subjects in depth because (like me) we did technical work for the pilots' union. If you weren't motivated to be up to speed on something like TERPs or ATC procedures, you would soon feel the arrows and slings of the FAA technical staffs (who typically knew their subject area very well).
Then, there were the atypical airline pilots who were involved in training, one friend in particular who ran an outside training center for aspiring airline pilots. He and his staff were very good.
Then, there were a few instructor pilots at our training centers who made the effort to understand stuff beyond what the company expected.
The rest of them; e.g., the typical airline pilot and typical airline instructor knew their airplane well, because the company made sure of that. But, did they know what was in the AIM, other than the occasional training bulletin of importance the company fed everyone? No way.
There was one copy of the AIM in each station's ramp office. Of all the pilots I asked where the company kept copies of the AIM, about 1 out of 20 knew.
And, so it went. The airline pilot who retires and becomes an inspector probably either had too many divorces or never aquired a hobby.
So, typical in one job generally equates to typical in the other job.
It's too bad that air carrier inspector training programs don't have presentations from FAA people who really do understand very technical subject areas. But, those with the expertise are tied up with meetings, both local and distant.
A bit harsh....and broadbrushish. 
Given that now most air carrier inspectors (particularly the POI's) are retired or otherwise ex-airline pilots as a result of the recency of flight experience requirements to qualify for the position....
...this is somewhat like criticizing yourself.
Given that now most air carrier inspectors (particularly the POI's) are retired or otherwise ex-airline pilots as a result of the recency of flight experience requirements to qualify for the position....
...this is somewhat like criticizing yourself.
Then, there were the atypical airline pilots who were involved in training, one friend in particular who ran an outside training center for aspiring airline pilots. He and his staff were very good.
Then, there were a few instructor pilots at our training centers who made the effort to understand stuff beyond what the company expected.
The rest of them; e.g., the typical airline pilot and typical airline instructor knew their airplane well, because the company made sure of that. But, did they know what was in the AIM, other than the occasional training bulletin of importance the company fed everyone? No way.
There was one copy of the AIM in each station's ramp office. Of all the pilots I asked where the company kept copies of the AIM, about 1 out of 20 knew.
And, so it went. The airline pilot who retires and becomes an inspector probably either had too many divorces or never aquired a hobby.
So, typical in one job generally equates to typical in the other job.
It's too bad that air carrier inspector training programs don't have presentations from FAA people who really do understand very technical subject areas. But, those with the expertise are tied up with meetings, both local and distant.