LDA w/Glideslope

[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.

 

[AC560]

Paul, here's the reply from earlier:

I would disagree that it was ever considered precision. The approach plates (which as I understand are regulatory) have always listed it as non-precision for alternate purposes which again is really the only basis for the question. You also have the issue of lighting and runway markings for a precision approach in TERPS which an LPV/LDA don't require.

The AIM while guidance is not specifically regulatory and I wouldn't base a regulatory decision off it. Nothing has changed in the FAR's in regard to LPV/LDA, the wording in the AIM has changed but that isn't specifically legally binding (though it does further support the concept that only a ILS/MLS/PAR are precision approaches).

 

[brokeflyer]

it's not a precision approach....otherwise it wouldn't be called "precision-like"....

 

[avbug]

The AIM while guidance is not specifically regulatory and I wouldn't base a regulatory decision off it. Nothing has changed in the FAR's in regard to LPV/LDA, the wording in the AIM has changed but that isn't specifically legally binding (though it does further support the concept that only a ILS/MLS/PAR are precision approaches).

If you want specific language in the regulation itself, then look at 14 CFR 1.1, which defines a precision approach as a SIAP with an electronic glideslope:

Precision approach procedure means a standard instrument approach procedure in which an electronic glide slope is provided, such as ILS and PAR.

AIM 5-4-5 grants further clarification in it's latest edition by stating:

7. TERPS criteria are provided for the following types of instrument approach procedures:
(a) Precision Approach (PA). An instrument approach based on a navigation system that provides course and glidepath deviation information meeting the precision standards of ICAO Annex 10. For example, PAR, ILS, and GLS are precision approaches.
(b) Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV). An instrument approach based on a navigation system that is not required to meet the precision approach standards of ICAO Annex 10 but provides course and glidepath deviation information. For example, Baro-VNAV, LDA with glidepath, LNAV/VNAV and LPV are APV approaches.
(c) Nonprecision Approach (NPA). An instrument approach based on a navigation system which provides course deviation information, but no glidepath deviation information. For example, VOR, NDB and LNAV. As noted in subparagraph i, Vertical Descent Angle (VDA) on Nonprecision Approaches, some approach procedures may provide a Vertical Descent Angle as an aid in flying a stabilized approach, without requiring its use in order to fly the procedure. This does not make the approach an APV procedure, since it must still be flown to an MDA and has not been evaluated with a glidepath.

The difference between former definitions and the present? The inclusion of compliance with ICAO standards for Annex 10.

What is cited in one's operation specifications does not define the regulalation, neither does any particular SIAP standard instrument approach procedure define the regulation. The SIAP is appended to Part 97 of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, making compliance with the procedure when having accepted a clearance for that procedure, mandatory. However, the procedure does not define the regulation. Compliance therewith is enforced by the regulation, specifically 14 CFR 91.123. The SIAP itself is not binding upon an airman or operator until a clearance for that procedure has been received and accepted. Accordingly, while one may say the procedure is "regulatory" as it is appended in it's current form to Part 97, it doesn't define the regulation nor does it set or establish regulation. The procedure itself is defined by regulation, and one cannot look to a given procedure, in this case, to help define what is or is not a precision approach. We have other specific guidance to tell us that.

The clearing house of information in this regard, the AIM, is very specific on the matter as to not only the definition, but the reason behind it. The AIM is not a regulation, but a summary of regulation, policy, and procedure. Further, contrary to the belief of many, you will be held accountable for adherence to what's contained therein. Much of it is verbatim from the regulation, and it's intended as a clear, concise summary that brings all the necessary information into one place as a reference. You really don't have the option of dismissing or ignoring it. It's accurate and correct, and provides important clarification on many operational issues and procedures. Title 14 of the CFR (the "FAR's") was designed with this purpose in mind. The regulation provides the framework, or the skeleton, if you will, and the additional documentation (Federal Register Preambles, FAA Chief Counsel Legal Interpretations, and other documents and summation, to include the AIM) forms the flesh.

Again, the information has already been covered and provided in enough scope and detail that as stated before, no further response should be necessary. All the "I think it should mean" or "it ought to say" in the world doesn't change what's provided, and what's provided is clear enough.

 

[AC560]

Again, the information has already been covered and provided in enough scope and detail that as stated before, no further response should be necessary. All the "I think it should mean" or "it ought to say" in the world doesn't change what's provided, and what's provided is clear enough.

Your right I should have been more clear in my resposne. An LDA with a G/S has never been considered a precision approach by the FAA. Though we can agree that it isn't now and we are left with ILS/MLS/PAR/GLS as the only precision approaches recogonized by the FAA.

 

[avbug]

Your right I should have been more clear in my resposne. An LDA with a G/S has never been considered a precision approach by the FAA.

Not so. Given the clarification which has been added to the AIM, we see specific categorization of the LDA with glideslope as precision like, but not precision. However, the purpose of Part 1 of the regulation is to define the regulation, and the definition in Part 1 for a very long time now has simply been that a precision approach is an approach procedure with an electronic glideslope.

As you can see, lacking the recent clarification by the AIM, and operating by the standard of 14 CFR Part 1 as the proper and official definition, an LDA with glideslope certainly was defined as a precision approach. It is no longer so defined, given alignment with ICAO Annex 10, and this is a change.