Non-Precision Approaches. What does your airline recommend?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2dads,
i agree that it is not a difficult concept to grasp. defining the concept might be the problem.
despite your confidence, the design protected airspace for lateral tracking is not based on +/- 5 degrees at all, so they are not the same thing. but i know that aip says i can't descend below a step or whatever unless i am within that tolerance. so i know what that rule is.
my question was where is the aip reference that makes your quoted figures a rule? and don't procedure designers use a 1:7 rule to clear obstacles after stepdown fixes?
i agree that it is not a difficult concept to grasp. defining the concept might be the problem.
despite your confidence, the design protected airspace for lateral tracking is not based on +/- 5 degrees at all, so they are not the same thing. but i know that aip says i can't descend below a step or whatever unless i am within that tolerance. so i know what that rule is.
my question was where is the aip reference that makes your quoted figures a rule? and don't procedure designers use a 1:7 rule to clear obstacles after stepdown fixes?
Grandpa Aerotart
The PIA crash on the KTM VOR/DME was apparently caused by confusion on the part of the pilots about the steps.
Two Questions,
1/. What was a Captain doing on the flight if he had so little knowledge of the approach/ability to read an approach plate?
2/. Wouldn't a company published FPA or approved profile, i.e. 500'/nm from 11800', have avoided that confusion?
CFIT is like a taxiing accident, there is just NO excuse!
Chuck
Two Questions,
1/. What was a Captain doing on the flight if he had so little knowledge of the approach/ability to read an approach plate?
2/. Wouldn't a company published FPA or approved profile, i.e. 500'/nm from 11800', have avoided that confusion?
CFIT is like a taxiing accident, there is just NO excuse!
Chuck
