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?