LDA w/Glideslope

[avbug]

It's a common inteview question.

 

[AC560]

It's a common inteview question.

To which there is no definitive answer, but it is also a practical concern which if somebody isn't sure of the answer could cause them a problem.

Precision approaches also I will add to the discussion require precision markings on the runways and specific lighting. I don't believe that any of the GPS approaches require any special markings or lighting.

 

[avbug]

To which there is no definitive answer,

No, there certainly is a difinitive answer, and it's already been provided. What there is not is room for discussion or debate; the matter is clear.

 

[paulsalem]

No, there certainly is a difinitive answer, and it's already been provided. What there is not is room for discussion or debate; the matter is clear.

I disagree bug. FAR 1.1 gives one answer. The AIM gives another answer, and 121 OpSpecs give a 3rd answer.

 

[avbug]

Operations specifications are irrelevant, as previously discussed. They do not define the regulation.

14 CFR 1.1 and the AIM don't disagree. The AIM merely clarifies the definition as provided in Part 1.1.

For the purposes of the regulation, 1.1 is difinitive and applicable. This includes the application of regulation pertaining to the selection of an alternate, etc. The AIM serves to expand on that, but in no case replaces the regulation, nor is the AIM regulatory in any respect.

What one's operations specifications, general operations manual, fortune cookie card, horoscope, or underwear label has to say does not replace the regulation, count for regulation, or change what is stated in the regulation.

 

[paulsalem]

Operations specifications are irrelevant, as previously discussed. They do not define the regulation.

14 CFR 1.1 and the AIM don't disagree. The AIM merely clarifies the definition as provided in Part 1.1.

For the purposes of the regulation, 1.1 is difinitive and applicable. This includes the application of regulation pertaining to the selection of an alternate, etc. The AIM serves to expand on that, but in no case replaces the regulation, nor is the AIM regulatory in any respect.
.

So you agree that 1.1 defines it as a precision approach? And that the AIM lists it as a APV?

 

[AC560]

No, there certainly is a difinitive answer, and it's already been provided. What there is not is room for discussion or debate; the matter is clear.

We will just agree to disagree on that. The only matter of relevance for precision/non-precision is flight planning and in that regard it counts clearly as non-precision (or do you debate that as well).

 

[pilotyip]

Op Spec C52 Inst Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV) other than ILS or MLS
LDA/w GS, LDA PRM, LDA PRM DME; SDF/w GS, LOC BC/w GS

 

[avbug]

Once again for those just tuning in...the opspec is irrelevant.

 

[pilotyip]

How come?

Once again for those just tuning in...the opspec is irrelevant.

Why is anything in my GOM irrelevant?

 

[avbug]

Because neither your OpSpecs nor your GOM define the regulation. The definition for the regulation is found in 14 CFR Part 1.

 

[AC560]

Because neither your OpSpecs nor your GOM define the regulation. The definition for the regulation is found in 14 CFR Part 1.

Not 100% positive but doesn't part 97 make approach plates regulatory?

Standard alternate minimums for non precision approaches are 800-2 (NDB, VOR, LOC, TACAN, LDA,VORTAC, VOR/DME, ASR or WAAS LNAV); for precision approaches 600-2 (ILS or PAR). Airports within this geographical area that require alternate minimums other than standard or alternate minimums with restrictions are listed below. NA - means alternate minimums are not authorized due to unmonitored facility or absence of weather reporting service. Civil pilots see FAR 91. IFR Alternate Airport Minimums: Ceiling and Visibility Minimums not applicable to USA/USN/USAF. Pilots must review the IFR Alternate Airport Minimums Notes for alternate airfield suitability.

Source

 

[pilotyip]

Back to the future

Because neither your OpSpecs nor your GOM define the regulation. The definition for the regulation is found in 14 CFR Part 1.

"Precision or non-precision.

Op Spec C072 says it is a non precision for air carriers. It is a precision like non precision approach.

What about for 135/91?"

WTF? Only answering the original question, C52 is used in both 121 and 135 ops, it can not be applied to 91 except as a 121 or 135 operating under 91 for a repositioning, etc flight. It defines the LDA as a non-precision approach.

 

[avbug]

The OpSpec is compliance-mandatory for a given certificate holder, but does not define the regulation, nor is the OpSpec found as part of the Code of Federal Regulations...and does not define the regulation.

The OpSpec doesn't provide definition for Parts 121 or 135, either. Those parts of the CFR have their own definitions, found in Parts 1.1, 119.3, and 121.7.

What your GOM has to say is entirely irrelevant.

 

[AC560]

What your GOM has to say is entirely irrelevant.

Is the definition on the approach plates irrelevant or an error?

 

[paulsalem]

Bug is it a precision approach?

 

[AC560]

Bug is it a precision approach?

I don't suspect he is going to respond anymore which is disappointing. I personally suspect they are classified as non-precision. But whatever they are precision or non-precision the are considered non-precision for planning purposes, so it isn't exactly relevant to know the exact answer (though it would be nice).

 

[JettBoii]

What about PTSRA?

 

[avbug]

Bug is it a precision approach?

This has already been answered, earlier in the thread, with specific changes to the regulation applicable to the question. Ergo, read the thread.

This is an old thread, but has been referenced today by another thread (http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?p=1851015#post1851015), and therefore will receive an additional reply.

I don't suspect he is going to respond anymore which is disappointing.

There should have been no need to respond again, given that the topic was already covered...to which I say again, read the thread.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Bug is it a precision approach?

This has already been answered, earlier in the thread, with specific changes to the regulation applicable to the question. Ergo, read the thread.

Paul, here's the reply from earlier:

The AIM does provide a definition that has been given. Until recently, any approach with a glideslope was precision. The LDA with a glideslope contrary to popular belief, was a precision approach. It is now considered "precision-like" due to an expansion in the definition.