Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Why uses RA instead of DH in ILS CAT 2 approach ?

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Why uses RA instead of DH in ILS CAT 2 approach ?

Old 11th Aug 2020, 07:46
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Taipei
Posts: 14
Why uses RA instead of DH in ILS CAT 2 approach ?

Below is LOWW ILS 29 chart.
When shooting ILS 29 CAT 2 approach, we need to insert 97' as decision height in RADIO entry field of APPR panel in FMS, but, why don't we insert 100', which is DH, in stead of the RA 97' ? I mean what regulation (FAR, AIM, or ICAO something, whatever ) stands for that ? I've looked for it couples days but can't find it, and people just say "If there's RA, you insert RA, not DH, in the RADIO ". The RA xxx' only shows in CAT 2.



LOWW ILS 29 chart
LegiossTypeH is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2020, 08:41
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Central Europe
Posts: 65
The CAT 2 minimum is measured by the radio altimeter. As you are typically not above concrete runway surface yet when passing through 100 ft DH your charting provider has to calculate the RA minimum considering the (possibly uneven) terrain contour in front of the runway threshold. Depending on whether it is higher/lower than the runway threshold elevation it will show a RA value lower/higher than the DH.
FLX/MCT is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2020, 09:04
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 763
And to give an extreme example have a look at the Luton (EGGW) Cat2 minima
deltahotel is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2020, 11:47
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 722
why don't we insert 100', which is DH, in stead of the RA 97' ? I mean what regulation (FAR, AIM, or ICAO something, whatever ) stands for that ?
If no inner marker is installed there must be an RA minimum which you are required to use for 100' Cat II. It is not permitted to use the baralt for this minimum unless there is an inner marker. Equally, if the inner marker is installed and operational there is no general prohibition on using the baralt to fly to the DH, but as with most of these questions, whatever is in your company manual is the law for you. Sorry I don't have the time to cite the regulatory basis right now.

Edit: EASA (part SPA) "The operator shall only conduct CAT II operations if the DH is determined by means of a radio altimeter"

Last edited by oggers; 11th Aug 2020 at 17:02.
oggers is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2020, 14:06
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 610
Originally Posted by deltahotel View Post
And to give an extreme example have a look at the Luton (EGGW) Cat2 minima

Lost in Saigon is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2020, 18:59
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: sussex
Posts: 76
66 - I asume you accept DA(H) as OCH? In that case, in the example given for LOWW, do you set 97 RA or 100?
42go is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 07:41
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: sussex
Posts: 76
"You should use RA for Cat II, so 97 ft.". But 97 is less than 100, is it not? Lost's example has RA > DA(H).
42go is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 10:13
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia the Awesome
Posts: 336
Originally Posted by 42go View Post
66 - I asume you accept DA(H) as OCH? In that case, in the example given for LOWW, do you set 97 RA or 100?
Set 97Ft RA.

At the point where you reach the DH, 97Ft RA, you will be 100Ft above the landing runway. (There is obviously a 3ft difference in the height of the ground at that point to the end of the runway, ARTE)

I hope that helps
Roj approved is online now  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 11:55
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 763
Originally Posted by 42go View Post
"You should use RA for Cat II, so 97 ft.". But 97 is less than 100, is it not? Lost's example has RA > DA(H).
Thatís because EGGW is on a big hill and the ground falls away sharply at both ends of the runway, so 100í ARTE 1/3 of a mile before the threshold is a lot more than 100íRA.
deltahotel is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 15:41
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: sussex
Posts: 76
Roj - "At the point where you reach the DH, 97Ft RA, you will be 100Ft above the landing runway. (There is obviously a 3ft difference in the height of the ground at that point to the end of the runway, ARTE)

I hope that helps"

Not really - slightly irrelevant? It disregards the wording quoted by 66. I repeat, with emphasis:

A Category 2 decision height must be identified by reference to radio altitude and must not be less than
100ft arte or the OCH


What do you reckon the OCH is?
42go is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 18:22
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: sussex
Posts: 76
So, your 'quoted quote' is not legally binding, then? Un-confuse me.
42go is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 18:37
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 59
Posts: 325
Originally Posted by 42go View Post
Roj - "At the point where you reach the DH, 97Ft RA, you will be 100Ft above the landing runway. (There is obviously a 3ft difference in the height of the ground at that point to the end of the runway, ARTE)

I hope that helps"

Not really - slightly irrelevant? It disregards the wording quoted by 66. I repeat, with emphasis:

A Category 2 decision height must be identified by reference to radio altitude and must not be less than
100ft arte or the OCH


What do you reckon the OCH is?
AIP Austria chart LOWW AD 2.24-6-4 states that the OCH for a Cat C a/c conducting a Cat II ILS rwy 29 at LOWW is 91ft. Does this allay your worries?

Last edited by Sepp; 13th Aug 2020 at 09:07. Reason: Missed the "I" out of "AIP"!
Sepp is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 19:40
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,137
Perhaps this picture can help clarify

https://images.app.goo.gl/5mEjCw7snK7uyYPo9
Check Airman is offline  
Old 12th Aug 2020, 20:07
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: sussex
Posts: 76
Thanks, Sepp - at least you understood.
42go is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2020, 03:05
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Escapee from Ultima Thule
Posts: 4,271
Baro. alt. has a greater variation in true altitude, compared to rad. alt. The closer proximity to the ground for Cat II compared to Cat I means the approach design is predicated on the more accurate vertical positioning provided by rad. alt.
Tinstaafl is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2020, 07:16
  #16 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Taipei
Posts: 14
Many thanks all replies above !!
but my question just derives from the EASA regulation:
"The operator shall only conduct CAT II operations if the DH is determined by means of a radio altimeter"
Same words are in CAT 3 (as below), so the words can't solve my question.

CAT 3 regulations in EASA


According to the LOWW ILS 29 chart, there are 3 numbers depicted in CAT 2:
1. RA 97'
2. DA 700'
3. DH 100'

We know how the RA 97' comes from ( just as mentioned above), and DA 700' is advisory only which is applicable in some exceptional cases,
but, how about the DH100' ?
Why can't we setup 100' in FMS radio altitude field then rely on radio altimeter callout ?
If I do that, do I violate any regulation, expectation or something? fail in checkride ? <-- This is my real question.


Initially I thought it is about provider's legend, because there's no mention about RA 97' in LOWW's officially chart.
https://eaip.austrocontrol.at/lo/200..._24-6-4_en.pdf

LOWW 29 profile and minimums
( It also shows another question about the OCH for Category C in CAT 2 is 91' some guy mentions above. )


So I check the JEPPESEN's legend, but only get the words "Radio Altimeter height, associated with CAT 2 precision approaches". That's all, no mention about what I'm looking for like "RA numbers are prior to DH numbers" or "DH numbers in the chart is nothing if RA numbers are published" at all.

Jeppesen's label about DA(H) and RA


Then I google it, and find the story why RA numbers depicted in CAT 2 approach chart.

FAA recommendation document 1/2

FAA recommendation document 2/2


====
I summarize my finding and question:

In old time, CAT 2 approach uses radio altimeter and the associated DH depicted in the chart, but since the format is easy to confuse pilot to use DA, men in FAA suggest to change CAT 2 minima depiction to what we see now, a RA XX' been added.

Here is my question: The DH is still depicted in the chart, not been erased, so if no regulation mentions which has priority, or DH is advisory only, or something like that, how can we say RA is prior to DH to been used ? EASA regulation says only DH, never RA.

PS.
My company's manuals quote the words "DH is determined by radio altimeter" only, no mention about RA. But some peaky checkman could ask me this question someday.

Last edited by LegiossTypeH; 15th Aug 2020 at 07:29.
LegiossTypeH is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2020, 09:37
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 722
According to the LOWW ILS 29 chart, there are 3 numbers for CAT 2:
1. RA 97'
2. DA 700'
3. DH 100'
All those 3 represent the exact same point on the glideslope. With perfect equipment you could use 700 QNH, 100 QFE, or 97 AGL. But the baralt is not accurate enough for these low minimums, therefore the reference you use is the radalt which happens to be 97 feet at that point on the glideslope. As for what goes into the kit, your aircraft also needs to have the correct reference as determined by the approval process. As for regulation, in the USA at least, you can in theory use an inner marker instead of the radalt - which would be the case if you saw "RA NA" (not authorised), but not in Europe.

My company's manuals quote the words "DH is determined by radio altimeter" only, no mention about RA.
...using the published RA puts you at the DH. That is what it means.
oggers 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


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.