Leaderboard

@robderthere are a few things that will change on the exterior for the next art update. I want to get those finalized before getting the REGA variant under way. But as Pils said, still planned.

Correct.

Finally finished and available... Jet2 current fleet of 7 liveries on X-Plane.org: https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/files/file/81139-jet2-fleet-repaints-for-the-ixeg-737-classic/ Go Fly fleet of 27 liveries is on box.com: https://app.box.com/s/j0injoqx848o4npuwtxwvmndy6du3jf0

Hi Javelin, Excellent research. The August 2019 Jeppesen Briefing Bulletin is attached below for the benefit of others. Pardon the extensive highlighting. Bad habit of mine. Here's my take on it. Referring to the following document: Annex to ED Decision 2012/018/R: AMC4 CAT.OP.MPA.110 Aerodrome operating minima CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING RVR/CMV (a) Aeroplanes The following criteria for establishing RVR/CMV should apply: (1) In order to qualify for the lowest allowable values of RVR/CMV specified in Table 6.A the instrument approach should meet at least the following facility specifications and associated conditions: (i) Instrument approaches with designated vertical profile up to and including 4.5° for category A and B aeroplanes, or 3.77° for category C and D aeroplanes where the facilities are: (A) ILS / microwave landing system (MLS) / GBAS landing system (GLS) / precision approach radar (PAR); or (B) APV; and where the final approach track is offset by not more than 15° for category A and B aeroplanes or by not more than 5° for category C and D aeroplanes. (ii) Instrument approach operations flown using the CDFA technique with a nominal vertical profile, up to and including 4.5° for category A and B aeroplanes, or 3.77° for category C and D aeroplanes, where the facilities are NDB, NDB/DME, VOR, VOR/DME, LOC, LOC/DME, VDF, SRA or GNSS/LNAV, with a final approach segment of at least 3 NM, which also fulfil the following criteria: (A) the final approach track is offset by not more than 15° for category A and B aeroplanes or by not more than 5° for category C and D aeroplanes; (B) the final approach fix (FAF) or another appropriate fix where descent is initiated is available, or distance to threshold (THR) is available by flight management system / GNSS (FMS/GNSS) or DME; and (C) if the missed approach point (MAPt) is determined by timing, the distance from FAF or another appropriate fix to THR is ≤ 8 NM. (iii) Instrument approaches where the facilities are NDB, NDB/DME, VOR, VOR/DME, LOC, LOC/DME, VDF, SRA or GNSS/LNAV, not fulfilling the criteria in (a)(1)(ii), or with an MDH ≥ 1 200 ft To use Table 6A, for a NPA approach CDFA techniques must be used. Table 6A is attached below. From Table 6A at the bottom: For NDB, NDB/DME, VOR, VOR/DME, LOC, LOC/DME, VDF, SRA, GNSS/LNAV: - not fulfilling the criteria in in AMC4 CAT.OP.MPA.110, (a)(1)(ii), or - with a DH or MDH ≥1 200 ft Min 1 000 1 000 1 200 1 200 Max According to Table 5 if flown using the CDFA technique, otherwise an add-on of 200 m for Category A and B aeroplanes and 400 m for Category C and D aeroplanes applies to the values in Table 5 but not to result in a value exceeding 5 000 m. Since paragraph (a)(1)(ii) states "Instrument approach operations flown using the CDFA technique", if you do not use CDFA technique even on these approaches where the vertical path falls within the maximum values specified, there is a 200 m (CAT A & B ) or 400 m (CAT C & D) applied. I can see where it might be interpreted the other way as well. That's what makes this so dang confusing. When I see CDFA on the approach, I interpret that to mean that I need to use CDFA on that approach. As US based operator, we do not use the State charts or the AIP. We rely on Jeppesen to figure this out for us, which is the value added service of using a provider like Jeppesen or LIDO. They provide standardized format regardless of where you fly in the world. To be honest, the who concept of AOM has been confusing as hell to US operators. We don't have to worry about this in the US because US TERPS defines the visibility minimums for every approach based on runway/approach lighting, obstructions in the visual segment, the published MDA or DA, etc. They apply to all operators. That said, back in 2010 or so, there was a change in US TERPS to allow the promulgation of visibility minima in 1/8 SM increments specifically to support the ICAO SARPS and EASA rules supporting CDFA. A European operator flying a US non-precision approach to a MDA and not using CDRA would have to increase the published landing minima for the approach by 1/8 SM for CAT A and CAT B aircraft, and by 1/4 SM for CAT C and CAT D aircraft. That's why we see approaches in the US with strange visibility minima like 7/8 SM or 1 3/8 SM. We never used to do that. Because US operators had to apply CDFA in Europe and other ICAO States that adopted the Annex 6 SARP, the FAA published AC 120-108 providing operator guidance on the application of CDFA. CDFA can be used voluntarily in the US. It's not required. You've piqued my curiosity. I may need to do further research. It's been a while since I have looked at the EASA operating rules. Thanks, Rich Briefing-Bulletin-JEP-15-A-Announcement-AOM-Concept-23-AUG-19 (002).pdf AC 120-108 Continuous Descent Final Approach.pdf 1065467017_AnnextoEDDecision2012-018-R.pdf

I have never really bothered about Jeppesen "standard" as I don't use this provider usually but now that I am lead to dig info about it, I am learning things.... Those 2400 and 3600 meters in the circling minimums boxes are indeed not from the State but applied by Jeppesen (and Lido) from the AMC7 CAT.OP.MPA.110Table 7 of the Jeppesen paper about -EASA AIR OPERATIONS (~ ICAO AWOM). I have seen also a reference to a penalty. U.S. OPSPEC requirement for non-CDFA penalty applies of the jepp charts provided are based on TERPS, but that very US I guess, as a European simmer, I would need to dig more to learn what is TERPS, but chances this is becoming outdated and not very required, as we transition to the ICAO AWOM world wide at Jeppesen, and this is the flavor we get with Navigraph. Edition : also on the aesa doc for a VOR app I can see some non CDFA penalty, the max RVR is According to AMC5 CAT.OP.MPA.110 Table 5 if flown using theCDFA technique, otherwise an add-on of 200m for categoryA andB aeroplanesand 400m forcategoryC andD aeroplanesapplies to thevalues in AMC5 CAT.OP.MPA.110 Table 5 but not to result in avalue exceeding5000m. But this not applies to LGSA VOR Y 29 which is my template study here, here I understand AMC5 CAT.OP.MPA.110 Table 6.ACAT I, APV,NPA Minimum and Maximum applicable RVR applies to provide the maximum RVR of 1500m/2400m charted by Jeppesen (and Lido for cat C and D acft). (Edition : The TERPS table does not cut the maximum RVR at 1500m/2400m, an equivalent of this table 6 does not exists for the FAA) So I can confirm, with standard ops, no eed to worry about non CDFA penalty I guess, I can fly dive and drive or CDFA to the same numbers (and the private provider like Jeppesen can draw the same chart and mins being valid for both techniques). In AESA ops, penalty does exist, but only for approach not fulfilling the criteria in AMC4 CAT.OP.MPA.110 a.1.(ii). (Ie, more than. 3.77 angle for cat C and D, final track of the approach more than 15° off runway track....) I interpret better now what you meant by the term "penalty". Politically speaking, I interpret (from the Jeppesen publication about AESA ops) the fact that more thrust is placed in CDFA technique for those last approaches than the old school dive and drive which get a visibility penalty. Now if you don't have a private company like Jeppesen that did all the calculation in application of those pages and pages of tables, and you use the State charts (without RVR, visibility minimum like at LGSA) I would be bothered to do all the digging and calculation myself in the cockpit. I now some pilots fly only with the State charts, and this is legal and even the only legal source, but then, if you don't pay attention, you could fly an approach not complying to AMC4 CAT.OP.MPA.110 a.1.(ii) with less than legal RVR without realizing it.... Isn't it ? I have checked on my LIDO manual (from 2013!) And they say their minima are AESA ops based. (Similar to ICAOM AWOM except that in this later, the concept of visibility penalty for a niche of NPA approaches has not be retained). I wasn't able to find a more recent lido chart legend manual.

Thanks for your precisions, I did source this briefing when I made my empirical review of minimum depiction above. It was intended as no more of a parenthesis in this topic and didn't intended to elaborate very more... The change was documented indeed. Nevertheless in between, Jeppesen had a confusing move by charting DA/H on NPAs that people knew for years charted with MDA/H. The mention CDFA is now more clear, when accompanied by the read of the 2015 bulletin. But take a look at LGSA 13-3 chart. It was only in June 2021 than the AOM conversion with appearance of the CDFA text happened, it stayed with the sole half-baked "DA" for years, explaining why I've read confusion on the the internet for such a VOR app. Here I'm listening... I didn't catch that before. "They" ? Who ? Pilots ? If I take LGSA VOR approach, it's not intended for CDFA in the State AIP (which pictures a dive and drive profiles and an OCA/OCH), so I would either Fly this CDFA with MDA1310+addendum 50= Derived DA 1360. (In the Challenger with the FMS Derived vertical path that would be my natural choice after careful check of the angle encoding). Or fly this the old fashioned way (but nevertheless legal) dive and drive to the MDA 1310 feet (= State OCA if no further limiting parameter apply from my aircraft or airline), Vis2400m. I don't see where I would apply a penalty anywhere here as pilot ? Or maybe the 2400 meters seen here are exactly the application of the Standard AOM (as they don't show up on the State chart), and that may be what you call a penalty ? (I will continue reading here https://ww2.jeppesen.com/publications/ to check that myself and learn) From the 2015 briefing I can read : ...State-published visibilities and, if necessary, compare them to the ICAO-based values. When available, State AOM will always be depicted. State AOM may be supplemented with higher ICAO AOM values and noted accordingly. So the only visibility penalty that I understand here is when Jeppesen draws a chart, it can write a bigger visibility minimum (from ICAO guidance, as "standard" moved from ECOMS to ICAO AWOM) than what is published by the State. Caution : that has changed between 2015 and the new Jeppesen briefing of 2019 ! That 2019 new policy explains in my view what I see on the LGSA 13-3 chart : not "standard" but "Std/State". Jeppesen is really playing the valse since the 2000s, changing their charting. Briefing-Bulletin-JEP-15-A-Announcement-AOM-Concept-23-AUG-19 (1) (1).pdf

Jeppesen began publishing the "DA/MDA (H)" several years ago when ICAO and EASA adopted the "Aerodrome Operating Minima" concept, which you see by the "Standard" annotation in the upper left corner (cut off here in this graphic") is applied to this procedure. It is one of the approaches where the pilot, if they do not have use CDFA techniques, they must add visibility penalty to the approach's minima, which also affects the approach ban. The attached Jeppesen Briefing Bulletin from 2015 was written by Ted Thompson, Jeppesen's former Direct of Standards and Corporate Technical Lead. I worked with Ted a number of years in various FAA and industry groups. Ted was able to explain how Jeppesen came to charting the DA/MDA minima on their charts. Rich Briefing_Bulletin_JEP_15A_Aerodrome_Operating_Minimums_Web_Version.pdf