Jump to content

XPJavelin

Members
  • Posts

    158
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

XPJavelin last won the day on May 28

XPJavelin had the most liked content!

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

2,715 profile views

XPJavelin's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare

Recent Badges

62

Reputation

  1. A temporary work (subject to frequent updates to better en-light the subject) of synthesis Getting_to_grips_with_approach_minima.pdf
  2. Based on your previous help Rich, n' use of the raw and current information from agencies I'm tempted to correct what is available at Jeppesen AOM publications by : That would help me find some peace of mind ... it it was correct
  3. Now, Rich, Let's practice for the US. Let me settle on an example, that would be the KABQ RNP Y 03 in its 2D flavor. (LNAV only). My LIDO flavor is the one for us customers, as indicated by the TERPS mention, not the LIDO AESA worldwide option, if i am correctly interpretating the LIDO commercial information. I see 2400m rvr. If I'm flying CDFA, no problems, 2400m rvr applies. Now if for any reason, I need to do this the old grandPa way : if I just arrived from Merluchon city, France, and my company is AESA approved, I do 2400mm+400m=2800m, and since this are TERPS I read, I don't apply the 2400m cutoff, since the table 6 is inexistant in TERPS. my minimum is 2800m. 2800m, If I carry candies, merluchons, frogs, or undeclared Goat cheese in my cargo holds. Now, let's pretend I'm used to the smoke-kissed flavor of freshly roasted green chiles and the earthy fruitiness of red chile sauce, backbone of the New Mexican cooking and I'm paid by an FAA approved airline. (Do the pilots there fly with their Stetson and stirrup ?) I can see on an original TERPS document the origin of the rvr2400m As there is no occurrence of the text string CDFA in it, Order_8260.3E.pdf I can co sider 2400m whatever I choose to do, old grandPa or CDFA. (The advisory circular 120 108 on CDFA advises me to opt for a CDFA with a Derived decision altitude, but this not a regulation and othing I side concerns visibility) I am completely wrong in my homework? Now something that explains the confusion I had in the whole thread, is this page of a jeppesen publication where non cdfa penalty is mentioned in the line TERPS... Here it's still confusing to stare at this page since I have just shown the TERPS original document out of the FAA does not mention CDFA. Finally, if I come back to ICAO DOC 9365, for an MDH of 310 with FALS, I find the RVR of 700 meters... I will need to ditch studying the ICAO doc, and retain only AESA doc versus TERPS, I guess, to keep clear of brain melting I fear.
  4. After the night a fresher mind helps recollect all the processed data from the docs and help from Rich That would be Rvr2800 m if I elected non CDFA for this NPA/2D approach that I elected to study as witness, but I keep 2400M because it is already the maximum due to the AESA cutoff in table 6A for cat C, and parameters like angular final track within 5deg of runway track and so on. r2400m + 400m - cutoff = 2400m. CDFA is required, which I was really ignorant before, I thought it was operator or pilot preferences, even if nowadays aircraft designs instead make naturally opt for the CDFA due to advanced avionics. By the way, instead of the annex above from 2012, I use the same AESA doc, but consolidated 2022. Easy Access Rules for Air Operations (Regulation (EU) No 965-2012) – Revision 17 (February 2022)_0.pdf Now, I am at LFLC RNP Y 26, I have RVR 1600m. If I do this non CDFA, I add 400m for my cat C, giving me 2000m and this is inferior to the cutoff 2400 from table 6A. As I fly less and less 2D approaches, there is a chance I forget about doing the increment while flying...
  5. Yes I was re re re reading the doc 9365. I don't believe it's the 200/400 addendum but the wave off of the 1500/2400m cutoff when no CDFA is applied. Butthat not aesa doc, it's icao 9365... so why jeppesen publication in its system thesis table says 9365 does ot requires a non cdfa penalty when I read 9365/6.5.22.. sure it's not the same penalty, but it is one I believe... Now to the AESA part Indeed I add 200m or 400m depending of my category. No that's not quite I took hours to conclude earlier today : The more I work, the less the picture is clear... Practically, if I fly the LGSA y 29 with dive and drive, I use 2800 m rvr, not 2400 ? As charted ? Oww...
  6. Sure, some State still retains old charting or procedure conception habits
  7. I understand better what you say here, after some thinking, provided Jeppesen applies state minimums in priority, which by the way are TERPS in you country. Otherwise, doing dive and drive you would apply a visibility penalty under TERPS rules. Panops don't. Earlier today I concluded easa don't also but I'm confused to ight by a jeppesen doc saying also with aesa the penalty for noon cdfa.
  8. And also carry errors or "interpretations". I have seen military guys saying they purposely avoid in the Air Force private providers and exclusively use State Aip worldwide. So.... I'd would be an airline manager, I'd use LIDO, far more clearer an constant presentation over the years.... ... than jeppesen.... At EDDF ILS z 07L, jeppesen makes no mention of the LTS cat 1 minimums as described in icao doc 9365.... Lido does. Same for lfpg ils 27L. However, I like the recent evolutions at jeppesen, effective 2020, were the mention "vnav DA instead of MDA is operator dependent" now explicitely appears on revised CDFA 2D approach charts. It required at least5 years of charting wigwags at jepp, but at least now itsbetter. A last thing about LIDO, I said it was based on AESA, it's true but in fact two flavor are available, AESA OPS worldwide, or US customers flavor, which has TERPS within Canada and USA territories. Since I see TERPS minimums in Aerosoft Lido KBOI charts for instance, I conclude that Aerosoft is distributing the second option... Which is not bad, to have FAA rules in FAA land. I'd be curious if a more recent documentation of Lido still references AESA OPS or doc 9365...
  9. Rich, YOU picked my curiosity and I spent the whole afternoon researching and learning. I now want to write my new or updated simplified guide to minimums for the simmmer, because I m sure many use those without realizing the backoffice. Gives me headache, not used to imperial units, looks like ancient Greek to me. (Actually I can better read ancient Greek that this stuff). I would hate to be the european transatlantic pilot doing commuts with the US...... Thing is, as a PilotEdge simmer, I'll come across that for sure...
  10. And here is the icao doc 9365 https://elibrary.icao.int/explore;searchText=doc 9365 — manual of all-weather operations;phraseMatch=0
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. Yep I believe most school house want *first* to emphasize to young pilots the conceptual difference between non precision approaches (2D Apps) and precision approaches, where for ages everybody did the same way, ie dive to the MDA and maintain it until the missed approach point. The schools don't want pilots to confuse between approach types and may teach [the traditional] different techniques to make the pilot behavior help differentiate APPs types. I would bet it's a pedagogical approach rather than a complete course an all the developing stories on how to fly an approach with CDFA to MDA + addendum. Then later in the airlines, and depending on SOP and budget, the CDFA may be seen as a supplementary technique to teach in order to bring commonalty of operation for all approach types, but the aware pilot still is able to discern between the various approach categories. Maybe just reassure them that you have perfectly understood the underlayin concept... and nevertheless will apply CDFA techniques. Also, in accordance with the evolution of flying techniques, private providers and State chart depictions may differ for the same approaches. Approach_minimums_LIDO_Jeppesen.pdf
  14. Typo : "It was there that I realized"
  15. Hi, I'm training using a flight plan from KABQ to KASE. KABQ-KASE.mod.pdf I was investigating the landing performance of the Collins FMS, and I was surprised by the value in yellow "MLW", shown in Yellow at 13 tons. I was more expecting a structural limit of 17.2 tons about, and I was ok with my expected landing weight of 15.5 tons. It was there that I realized the importance of the APPR PERF PAGE number 4, which makes the distinction between the limiting factors, and that 13.0 was a value calculated from the runway length limit at Aspen, wet conditions. Next time, Il will plan more carefully, avoid fuel tankering, and remember that the Challenger isn't my Phenom 300, especially with anything else than DRY runways. Always learning and amazed by the product depth.
×
×
  • Create New...