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 |
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. |
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? |
I take it from your post that you would be in favour of my suggestion - just a display of speeds? |
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. |
BOAC:
- 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. http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps1248d5e9.jpg |
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. |
@ BOAC
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.:p Respect the rule is easy Rh |
roulishollandais:
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 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." |
Originally Posted by aterpstr
If authorized, the formating is Jeppesen's (or Lido's) not the state's.
Rh;) |
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.
|
Bubbers, I reckon you were right. If you use the higher cat circling speeds then you have to use everything else as well, min altitude and min vis.
|
roulishollandais:
The State gives authorization Rh |
bubbers44:
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. |
CTL maoeuvres in TERPS are much tighter than ICAO, in terms of protected area. ICAO have a much wider area.
So speeds and minima should be different |
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. |
de facto:
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. |
Understood:)
|
OK465:
A bit harsh....and broadbrushish. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/sowee.gif 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. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...s/badteeth.gif 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. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:13. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.