August 5th 20, 04:52 AM
On Friday, September 3, 1999 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-7, Gene Hudson wrote:
> Garner Miller wrote:
> >
> > OK, I'm in need of some 100% trivial information. I have a friend
> > going for an airline interview next week, and rumor has it they're
> > going to whip out an approach plate with an "LDA with Glideslope"
> > approach.
> >
> > I'd say the preponderance of the evidence leans toward an LDA/GS being
> > a precision approach (by its definition in 1.1), but I'd appreciate
> > your thoughts.
>
>
>
> I have had extensive discussions with the FAA and several examiners over
> this exact issue. The bottom line is as follows:
>
> The FAR 1.1 definition is, in the FAA's opinion, incomplete. They
> maintain that in order for an approach to be a precision approach it
> must end at a decision height, not an MDA. Thus, even an ILS is a
> non-precision approach if you must, due to wind, circle to land to
> another runway.
>
> Having said this, not one FAA person can point to a reference that
> clearly states that this is true. All of them refer to TERPS, but no
> one can show me the words. One airspace specialist got hot under the
> collar when I asked him for the exact reference. He said it was
> unreasonable for us to expect that the FAA put *everything* down in
> writing.
>
> So, we are left with the current state of things: according to FAR 1.1,
> any approach with electronic glideslope guidance is a precision
> approach; while, according to the FAA (who writes the violations), only
> approaches with a GS and ending in a DA (decision altitude) are
> precision approaches. According to the FAA, and LDA/GS, or an ILS
> circle to land, are not precision approaches.
>
> I would be delighted if someone, anyone, could support this (FAA)
> position with a real reference. I have a TERPS, and I do not see where
> they get this interpretation.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gene Hudson
> CFI, CFII, MEI, ASC, 7000
In regards to if LDA with GLIDESLOP is a precision APPROACH,IN AIM 5-4-5 ITEM 7 (b)it explains it that 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 deviations information.for example Baro-VNAV ,LDA with glide path,LNAV and LPV are APV approaches..So basically they are telling you that these group of approaches are considered APV approaches and they are not to be considered as an ILS Precision approach because they don't meet the criteria required per ICAO Annex 10.Hope this helps.
> Garner Miller wrote:
> >
> > OK, I'm in need of some 100% trivial information. I have a friend
> > going for an airline interview next week, and rumor has it they're
> > going to whip out an approach plate with an "LDA with Glideslope"
> > approach.
> >
> > I'd say the preponderance of the evidence leans toward an LDA/GS being
> > a precision approach (by its definition in 1.1), but I'd appreciate
> > your thoughts.
>
>
>
> I have had extensive discussions with the FAA and several examiners over
> this exact issue. The bottom line is as follows:
>
> The FAR 1.1 definition is, in the FAA's opinion, incomplete. They
> maintain that in order for an approach to be a precision approach it
> must end at a decision height, not an MDA. Thus, even an ILS is a
> non-precision approach if you must, due to wind, circle to land to
> another runway.
>
> Having said this, not one FAA person can point to a reference that
> clearly states that this is true. All of them refer to TERPS, but no
> one can show me the words. One airspace specialist got hot under the
> collar when I asked him for the exact reference. He said it was
> unreasonable for us to expect that the FAA put *everything* down in
> writing.
>
> So, we are left with the current state of things: according to FAR 1.1,
> any approach with electronic glideslope guidance is a precision
> approach; while, according to the FAA (who writes the violations), only
> approaches with a GS and ending in a DA (decision altitude) are
> precision approaches. According to the FAA, and LDA/GS, or an ILS
> circle to land, are not precision approaches.
>
> I would be delighted if someone, anyone, could support this (FAA)
> position with a real reference. I have a TERPS, and I do not see where
> they get this interpretation.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gene Hudson
> CFI, CFII, MEI, ASC, 7000
In regards to if LDA with GLIDESLOP is a precision APPROACH,IN AIM 5-4-5 ITEM 7 (b)it explains it that 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 deviations information.for example Baro-VNAV ,LDA with glide path,LNAV and LPV are APV approaches..So basically they are telling you that these group of approaches are considered APV approaches and they are not to be considered as an ILS Precision approach because they don't meet the criteria required per ICAO Annex 10.Hope this helps.