LDA w/Glideslope

[avbug]

That three o'clock position just makes it a more stable signal...if it doesn't move out of the parked null, then everything must be going according to plan.

I thought I was in heaven with respect to flying the NDB during training in the 747. I was a little surprised when we were flying NDB approaches in that airplane, but found that with the FMS set up to replicate it and the course on the display, it was really a no-brainer. The FE called out drift and correction could be made, literally, without looking at the ADF needle...though I doubt anybody would do that. The FE began calling drift numbers to me, and I had no idea where he was getting his information...until he later pointed out it was on my display :blush:.

The FE kept wondering why I was saying "you're going to have to speak up, I can't hear you." Division of labor...let the FE listen to the ident, they said. Old habits die hard.

 

[jak378]

Although I have neither had nor given a type rating in anything, and although I am now retired, I have been at this full and part time since the very early 1960's, with a fairly steady yearly tally, between instructing and 135, of somewhere around 150 to 250 hours, just about completely in nothing over a total of 600 hoursepower, I am still surprised from time to time. I still fly fairly regularly, pretty much just for pleasure, and so that I do not totally deteriorate, with a good friend who is an Instrument Rated, Private Pilot. Shortly after we met and started flying together he went off on a trip somewhere alone. When he returned he told me that he flew an ILS in pretty much VMC, and that he couldn't figure out why the needles weren't working properly. When he landed, he learned at the FBO that the ILS was undergoing maintenance and that it was at best unreliable. He seemed peeved that ATC did not tell him that. I asked if the identifier was being transmitted, and he gave me a quizzical look, and said that he never bothers to check that, and that no one ever told him to do that. I was actually a little flabbergasted at that, and I only hope that whoever instructed him in his Instrument Rating did teach that, and that my friend merely forgot that lesson.

That started me wondering a little and I asked some other pilots around the airport. Several of them said that they never bothered to check identifiers, a couple did not know how, and that since the radios were all crystal controlled, there was no reason to do so. I guess times change, but safe practices do not.

 

[LavMan]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8877394/LIDAMA-LDADME-RWY-22-0813

NP, look at MAP point? What's the MAP on a ILS? DH right. Not a DME point, time, etc..

 

[JAFI]

Avbug, I know many "back up" their approaches with the FMS. The problem is where the VOR system is weak or non existant the FMS can be VERY inaccurate. I know of one case where the FMS was 50 miles off and the pilot caught it before it was a problem and later had to change a procedure to ensure it would not happen again.

I see basic airmanship skills (situational or position awareness) lacking in some pilots. Just understanding if you need to turn right or left can be a big problem if you are wrong......

jac, IMHO the size or complexity of an aircraft does not make a skilled professional pilot, that pilots ability to operate the aircraft they are flying does. I say never talk down to the aircraft you flew compared to others. The fact that you survived to retirement can speak volumes to your ability, or you can be like me and just been very lucky.....

 

[livin'thesim]

Interesting. The AIM reference mentions the TERPS aspect and the ICAO Annex 10 reference.

The issue at hand is filing alternates under 91. None of the 135 or 121 carriers I flew for had alternate minimums based on whether the approach was precision or not. Perhaps some carriers have such stipulations, I am guessing it is rare if they do exist.


FAR 91.169:
(i) For aircraft other than helicopters: The alternate airport minima specified in that procedure, or if none are specified the following standard approach minima:
(A) For a precision approach procedure. Ceiling 600 feet and visibility 2 statute miles. (B) For a nonprecision approach procedure. Ceiling 800 feet and visibility 2 statute miles.

This regulation does not list Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV). One could argue that you can't use APV approaches for alternate planning, since only precision and non-precision approaches are mentioned in this regulation. Even though we know this is not
the likely case.

Is an LDA/GS a precision approach? Apparently not according to the AIM APV definition.

Is it non-precision? Not according to FAR 1:
Nonprecision approach procedure means a standard instrument approach procedure in which no electronic glide slope is provided.


Perhaps this will be clarified in a future revision of FAR 1.

What is abundantly clear is that if a message board full of intelligent professional pilots are able to point out apparent conflicts in the FAR and AIM and operations specifications, that it would be in the best interest of all if the FAA would issue clarifying language.

Some poster's professed clairvoyance into the minds of regulators notwithstanding, of course.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Although I have neither had nor given a type rating in anything, and although I am now retired, I have been at this full and part time since the very early 1960's, with a fairly steady yearly tally, between instructing and 135, of somewhere around 150 to 250 hours, just about completely in nothing over a total of 600 hoursepower, I am still surprised from time to time. I still fly fairly regularly, pretty much just for pleasure, and so that I do not totally deteriorate, with a good friend who is an Instrument Rated, Private Pilot. Shortly after we met and started flying together he went off on a trip somewhere alone. When he returned he told me that he flew an ILS in pretty much VMC, and that he couldn't figure out why the needles weren't working properly. When he landed, he learned at the FBO that the ILS was undergoing maintenance and that it was at best unreliable. He seemed peeved that ATC did not tell him that. I asked if the identifier was being transmitted, and he gave me a quizzical look, and said that he never bothers to check that, and that no one ever told him to do that. I was actually a little flabbergasted at that, and I only hope that whoever instructed him in his Instrument Rating did teach that, and that my friend merely forgot that lesson.

That started me wondering a little and I asked some other pilots around the airport. Several of them said that they never bothered to check identifiers, a couple did not know how, and that since the radios were all crystal controlled, there was no reason to do so. I guess times change, but safe practices do not.

How do these guys get their certificates?

I've had a few random instances where various NAVAIDs were OTS and not NOTAMed. Some during IMC. Often, ATC isn't even aware of the outage until I've reported it.

 

[JAFI]

How do these guys get their certificates?

Remember they only have to show they know how once, and at some schools - if the check cashes they pass.....

I met too many pilots (IMHO) that "never heard of that" when it comes to something they did not do. I do get "I sorta remember that from 20 years ago".....

 

[AC560]

Is it non-precision? Not according to FAR 1:
Nonprecision approach procedure means a standard instrument approach procedure in which no electronic glide slope is provided.

Open any set of NACO approach plates and it will be listed in the non-precision section for alternate selection. If for 121/135 precision/non-precision does not apply for alternate selection then really fail to see any reason then why somebody would care what it is (short of for a checkride/IPC).

There are several requirements for a precision approach other then just the navigation equipment. Precision runway markings, lights, at one time marker beacons, etc. Drop out in the middle of the night in rain at 250' on a LPV and things are going to look a lot different at podunk airport XYZ versus dropping out 250' at an airport with an ILS.

 

[Coool Hand Luke]

Sorry for the thread revival, but an excerpt from the remarks section of an instrument approach procedure chart notes the following:

Standard alternate (airport weather) 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).

So, according to TERPs (as this chart was generated by the TERPsters), an LDA must be considered as a non precision approach when flight planning for an alternate airport and considering the prescribed required alternate airport weather minimums
.