ILS Approach to Cat I minima
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Eyjafjallajokull
Age: 36
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS Approach to Cat I minima
Some years ago in Asia, an Asian TRE impressed on me that one cannot fly down to ILS Cat I minimums on raw data without being autocoupled to an operative FD. He opined that one should use a higher minimums of 250ft HAT( or 300ft as I cannot recall exactly )/ 1200m visibility.
This has been on the back of my mind until we had an inoperative FD recently. When I mentioned this to my current JAR type rating instructor, he dismissed it as absolute rubbish, ie one can operate to Cat I minimums on raw data.
Who is right? I cannot find a definitive answer anywhere in the regulations.
This has been on the back of my mind until we had an inoperative FD recently. When I mentioned this to my current JAR type rating instructor, he dismissed it as absolute rubbish, ie one can operate to Cat I minimums on raw data.
Who is right? I cannot find a definitive answer anywhere in the regulations.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite possibly a company regulation, equally possible the Asian TRE had not flown for any other company, also, as stated above, could be a regulating authority for that state regulation.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rennaps:
I can only speak for TWA although it may have been (or is) an FAA requirement. Without FD and or autoflight it was LOC MDA for DA and, if I recall correct RVR of not less than4000.
Only CAT II and III need to be FD coupled
CAT I can be flown on raw data to DH
CAT I can be flown on raw data to DH
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Years ago, before I found myself in the not so ritzy B732 (very old version) cockpit, I used to fly PA-31 on night freight runs. There was no FD in the avionics. I do not remember there being any restriction on our CAT 1 destinations. This was before the all encompassing JAA, EASA and any other complicating overseers. Have things changed or do I join the ranks of flabbergasted at the question? I understand the question, but wonder at the motivation for it. I remember one 'old fart', excellent captain and pilot, who one night, on B732 with golden bird when Wx was close to minimum, turned the FD off because he found it easier to concentrate on the basics lower down and could anticipate quicker and smoother than the golden bird. I watched in astonishment as he proved his case and never forgot the lesson.
Last edited by RAT 5; 24th May 2013 at 15:27.
I can only speak for TWA although it may have been (or is) an FAA requirement. Without FD and or autoflight it was LOC MDA for DA and, if I recall correct RVR of not less than4000
There used to be a funky CAT I ILS to 21L at KDTW that required a coupled approach. As I recall, something about the tail of planes parked at the old international terminal being inches into the protected airspace.
This is not an Aircraft or Airline specific requirement that he is talking about. A number of aviation authorities dictate minimum visability requirements with regard to instrument approaches and equipment available.
As stated above, CASA (Australian) says that without an 'autopilot' coupled to flightdirector, the approach the minimum visibility for the approach is 1200m even if the published minima is 800m. I suspect that whatever authority this 'trainer' was operating under has a similar requirement.
As stated above, CASA (Australian) says that without an 'autopilot' coupled to flightdirector, the approach the minimum visibility for the approach is 1200m even if the published minima is 800m. I suspect that whatever authority this 'trainer' was operating under has a similar requirement.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: EU
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to JAR/EU Ops you are not allowed to make app. CAT I below RVR750m without FD (or HUD) to the airfields without RWY Tochdown Zone Lights or RWY Centerline Lights. For full-facility equipped runways you don't need to have FD, so you are allowed to make it.
And as tommoutrie wrote here, you need FD and 800m for single pilot operations.
But the number 1200m is really strange for me
It's popular that TREs like to fly according to their company's OM.
Cheers!
And as tommoutrie wrote here, you need FD and 800m for single pilot operations.
But the number 1200m is really strange for me
It's popular that TREs like to fly according to their company's OM.
Cheers!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloody FDs are a guide only. At times provide misinformation below 1000 in gusty conditions.
During base training some 35 years ago, we had to accomplish raw data approaches to minimums including simulated OEI too.
During base training some 35 years ago, we had to accomplish raw data approaches to minimums including simulated OEI too.
Don't confuse this with 'pilot choice' to not want to hand fly to the published minima. Someone in the Aviation Authorities has made these regulations up, why... who the hell would know. Here is the cut and paste from the Australian AIP.
a. minimum visibility 1.5KM is required when precision approachCAT I lighting system(alsoknownasHIAL) is not available;and
b. minimum visibility 1.2KM is required unless:
(1) the aircraft is manually flown at least to the CAT
I DA using a flight direct or approved HUDLS;
or the aircraft is flown to the CAT
I DA with an auto pilot coupled (LOCandGP);and
(2) the aircraft is equipped with a serviceable failure warning
system for the primary attitude and heading reference
systems; and
(3) high intensity runway edge lighting is available
So basically you can't go below 1.2km without high intensity lighting, and flying an autocoupled approach with flight directors and a warning system.
a. minimum visibility 1.5KM is required when precision approachCAT I lighting system(alsoknownasHIAL) is not available;and
b. minimum visibility 1.2KM is required unless:
(1) the aircraft is manually flown at least to the CAT
I DA using a flight direct or approved HUDLS;
or the aircraft is flown to the CAT
I DA with an auto pilot coupled (LOCandGP);and
(2) the aircraft is equipped with a serviceable failure warning
system for the primary attitude and heading reference
systems; and
(3) high intensity runway edge lighting is available
So basically you can't go below 1.2km without high intensity lighting, and flying an autocoupled approach with flight directors and a warning system.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check Airman:
Correct for Part 91. But, for Part 121 it may not be the case. It certainly wasn't for my company.
Certainly not true in the USA. The day after getting your IR as a PPL, you're free to go shoot approaches down to minima in a 172...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct for Part 91. But, for Part 121 it may not be the case. It certainly wasn't for my company.
You are correct. For part 121, the minima are increased for restricted (less than 100hr) Captains. However, there is no hard limit on hand flying down to minima. The company wants us to use the AP if the visibility is low, but we can be dispatched without it all the way down to 200ft and 1800RVR...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, when I was flying on a Cat 1 approach minimums were the same as coupled. On a Cat 2 or 3 of course you need it. Once in a while the auto stuff craps out before breaking out with only 100 more feet to minimums so you just proceed, you don't have to go around unless handflying at minimums you don't have the runway in sight. On a Cat 2 or 3 you have to go around.
ap
ap
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check Airman:
Like I said it was probably a company restriction (TWA). No FD or autopilot it was LOC MDA as DA and not less than 3/4 or RVR 4000.
The restricted captain limitation is across the board for all U.S. carriers. Kind of stupid for a 7,000 hour 727 captain newly checked out on the 767.
You are correct. For part 121, the minima are increased for restricted (less than 100hr) Captains. However, there is no hard limit on hand flying down to minima. The company wants us to use the AP if the visibility is low, but we can be dispatched without it all the way down to 200ft and 1800RVR...
The restricted captain limitation is across the board for all U.S. carriers. Kind of stupid for a 7,000 hour 727 captain newly checked out on the 767.