I've been away from this newsgroup for quite some time, so forgive me if
this has already been covered.

The other day, one of my colleagues pointed out something I hadn't noticed
in the latest set of approach plates, which came out at the end of December.
Its on page A2, under "Aircraft Approach Categories."

Previously, the paragraph included a sentence "...If it is necessary to
MANEUVER at a speed in excess of the upper limit of the speed range for an
aircraft's category, the minimums for the category for that speed shall be
used." Thus, if landing straight-in, one would use the approach speed based
on VREF or 1.3 VSO to determine which category to use, and only move up to a
higher category if -circling- for landing.

Now, the sentence reads, "...If it is necessary to OPERATE at a speed in
excess of the upper limit of the speed range for an aircraft's category, the
minimums for the category for that speed shall be used." And there is also a
new example, "...a Category A airplane which is operating at 130 knots on a
straight-in approach shall use the approach Category C minimums."

This is going to change things...now all my students who like to fly
approaches over 90 kts in their Archers will be moving up to Category
B...whether it's circling or straight-in. Did anyone else miss this? I feel
kinda sheepish for not realizing it for a whole month.

-Eric
CFII, MEI

>>
Now, the sentence reads, "...If it is necessary to OPERATE [was Maneuver] at a
speed in
excess of the upper limit of the speed range for an aircraft's category, the
minimums for the category for that speed shall be used."
<<

I don't see a difference... I've always assumed that one is still maneuvering
when one does a straight-in approach. The word "operate" is clearer in being
all-encompassing, but I always took "maneuver" to also be all-encompassing.
Even on a straight in, if you are going fast enough, you use the next category.
This makes more sense when considering the room needed for a missed at varous
speeds.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:43:37 GMT, "skyliner" >
wrote:

>
>I've been away from this newsgroup for quite some time, so forgive me if
>this has already been covered.
>
>The other day, one of my colleagues pointed out something I hadn't noticed
>in the latest set of approach plates, which came out at the end of December.
>Its on page A2, under "Aircraft Approach Categories."
>

I don't see that on my Jepps. Or in the AIM. Are these "approach plates"
US? (There are ICAO speed restrictions for different categories that might
apply).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Sorry, guess I left that out.

Yes, these are in the latest FAA US Terminal Procedures Publications, aka
"NOS Approach Plates."

EC


"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:43:37 GMT, "skyliner" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >I've been away from this newsgroup for quite some time, so forgive me if
> >this has already been covered.
> >
> >The other day, one of my colleagues pointed out something I hadn't
noticed
> >in the latest set of approach plates, which came out at the end of
December.
> >Its on page A2, under "Aircraft Approach Categories."
> >
>
> I don't see that on my Jepps. Or in the AIM. Are these "approach plates"
> US? (There are ICAO speed restrictions for different categories that
might
> apply).
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 04:39:26 GMT, "skyliner" >
wrote:

>
>Sorry, guess I left that out.
>
>Yes, these are in the latest FAA US Terminal Procedures Publications, aka
>"NOS Approach Plates."

I think I would wait until seeing information in TERPS or in the AIM before
applying the higher category minimums to straight-in procedures.

It seems to me that, as I was taught many years ago, that the issue is with
circling procedures, in that the protected circling radius varies depending
on a/c speed. However, that would not seem to apply to straight-in
procedures.

In addition, it is my understanding that the missed approach procedure is
constructed in accord with the highest category of a/c authorized to use
that approach. So again, flying at a speed attributable to a higher
category a/c should not seem to alter minimums for straight-in procedures.

One area to be careful of, especially with the (expected) proliferation of
GPS/RNAV approaches to smaller airports, is that a number of these may be
designed for just Category A and/or B. If that is the case, you would not
want to execute the approach at a Category C speed. Probably not something
that us FLIB drivers think about, too often.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:It seems to me that, as I was taught many years ago, that
the issue is with

> circling procedures, in that the protected circling radius varies depending
> on a/c speed. However, that would not seem to apply to straight-in
> procedures.
>
> In addition, it is my understanding that the missed approach procedure is
> constructed in accord with the highest category of a/c authorized to use
> that approach. So again, flying at a speed attributable to a higher
> category a/c should not seem to alter minimums for straight-in procedures.
>

There are some approaches where the straight-in minimums step-up for each
higher approach category because of a turning missed approach obstacle issue
that affects the higher turning radii more than the lower.

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 05:31:48 -0800, wrote:

>There are some approaches where the straight-in minimums step-up for each
>higher approach category because of a turning missed approach obstacle issue
>that affects the higher turning radii more than the lower.

Are you certain that is the reason for the higher minima? Could you give
an example of an approach where you believe that to be the case?

I am questioning it because I have also seen straight-in minimum visibility
step-up for higher approach category a/c where the missed approach is NOT a
turning one. So clearly, at those approaches, turn radius is not an issue.
An example of this would be the LOC29 approach at KPWM.

Also, well -- I don't know if you use Jepp charts or NOS charts. But on my
Jepp charts, the minima for straight in approaches is subdivided by
aircraft category. The minima for circle-to-land approaches is subdivided
by speed in knots. To me this suggests that the maneuvering speed is
important only in the circle-to-land approach, and not in the straight-in
approach.

The information in the AIM, and in the FAA Instrument Flying Handbook, and
an FAA inspector with whom I used to fly from time to time, all have
indicated to me that the increased category minima for increased a/c
maneuvering speeds only apply to circling approaches, at least for TERPS'd
approaches.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Dont fly so fast, and it wont be a problem :) 1.3 VSO is a lot different
from 2.0 VSO

yea yea.. I've heard em say "Keep Your Speed Up" too

Dave

skyliner wrote:
> I've been away from this newsgroup for quite some time, so forgive me if
> this has already been covered.
>
> The other day, one of my colleagues pointed out something I hadn't noticed
> in the latest set of approach plates, which came out at the end of December.
> Its on page A2, under "Aircraft Approach Categories."
>
> Previously, the paragraph included a sentence "...If it is necessary to
> MANEUVER at a speed in excess of the upper limit of the speed range for an
> aircraft's category, the minimums for the category for that speed shall be
> used." Thus, if landing straight-in, one would use the approach speed based
> on VREF or 1.3 VSO to determine which category to use, and only move up to a
> higher category if -circling- for landing.
>
> Now, the sentence reads, "...If it is necessary to OPERATE at a speed in
> excess of the upper limit of the speed range for an aircraft's category, the
> minimums for the category for that speed shall be used." And there is also a
> new example, "...a Category A airplane which is operating at 130 knots on a
> straight-in approach shall use the approach Category C minimums."
>
> This is going to change things...now all my students who like to fly
> approaches over 90 kts in their Archers will be moving up to Category
> B...whether it's circling or straight-in. Did anyone else miss this? I feel
> kinda sheepish for not realizing it for a whole month.
>
> -Eric
> CFII, MEI
>
>

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 05:31:48 -0800, wrote:
>
> >There are some approaches where the straight-in minimums step-up for each
> >higher approach category because of a turning missed approach obstacle issue
> >that affects the higher turning radii more than the lower.
>
> Are you certain that is the reason for the higher minima? Could you give
> an example of an approach where you believe that to be the case?

Medford, Oregon, ILS Runway 14. Note the turning missed approach and a higher
DA/H for each higher approach category.

>
>
> I am questioning it because I have also seen straight-in minimum visibility
> step-up for higher approach category a/c where the missed approach is NOT a
> turning one. So clearly, at those approaches, turn radius is not an issue.
> An example of this would be the LOC29 approach at KPWM.

Visibility minimums are based on Approach Category and the geometric relationship
of the height of the MDA or DA/H. It is not directly related to any turning
missed approach issue.

>
>
> Also, well -- I don't know if you use Jepp charts or NOS charts. But on my
> Jepp charts, the minima for straight in approaches is subdivided by
> aircraft category. The minima for circle-to-land approaches is subdivided
> by speed in knots. To me this suggests that the maneuvering speed is
> important only in the circle-to-land approach, and not in the straight-in
> approach.
>
> The information in the AIM, and in the FAA Instrument Flying Handbook, and
> an FAA inspector with whom I used to fly from time to time, all have
> indicated to me that the increased category minima for increased a/c
> maneuvering speeds only apply to circling approaches, at least for TERPS'd
> approaches.
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 05:38:21 -0800, wrote:

>Medford, Oregon, ILS Runway 14. Note the turning missed approach and a higher
>DA/H for each higher approach category.

OK, that's a good example. Thank you.

If I were flying a Category A a/c on that approach, I would still use the
Category A DA(H)/vis UNLESS I were planning to fly that *missed approach*
at a much higher airspeed than normal. I would guess that most small a/c
pilots would fly the missed at Vy, though.




Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"skyliner" > wrote
> Previously, the paragraph included a sentence "...If it is necessary to
> MANEUVER at a speed in excess of the upper limit of the speed range for an
> aircraft's category, the minimums for the category for that speed shall be
> used." Thus, if landing straight-in, one would use the approach speed based
> on VREF or 1.3 VSO to determine which category to use, and only move up to a
> higher category if -circling- for landing.
>
> Now, the sentence reads, "...If it is necessary to OPERATE at a speed in
> excess of the upper limit of the speed range for an aircraft's category, the
> minimums for the category for that speed shall be used." And there is also a
> new example, "...a Category A airplane which is operating at 130 knots on a
> straight-in approach shall use the approach Category C minimums."

Well, one man's rule change is another man's clarification. In my
opinion, this is a clarification, and using Cat A mins while flying
Cat B speeds never made sense in the first place, though I know it's
done.

For one thing, there is a lot of latitude in what defines a
straight-in approach. You could have a heading change of 15 (or is it
20?) degrees and still have straight-in minima published. Also, there
could be a turn at the FAF - not terribly rare for off-field VOR
approaches. There could be a turn associated with the missed approach
procedure. In all these cases, the protected area may need to be
increased due to the increased turn radius. In general, I would say
that where there is a difference between Cat A and Cat B minimums on a
straight in approach (not often) there is a reason, and that reason is
just as applicable to a Cat A airplane flying Cat B speeds as it is to
a true Cat B airplane.

> This is going to change things...now all my students who like to fly
> approaches over 90 kts in their Archers will be moving up to Category
> B...whether it's circling or straight-in.

IMO they always had to. The big question in my mind is why this even
comes up. If there is a difference between Cat A and Cat B mins, the
pilot ought to be able to fly ANY certified single engine airplane at
less than 90 kts. I've seen an instrument student fly the ILS in a
Bonanza at 75 kts and do a good job of it. I've never flown an Archer
but I can't imagine it's all that different from a Cherokee 180, and I
found that it was quite comfortable at 80 kts on an NDB, even for an
instrument student flying the plane for the first time. If the skill
level to comfortably fly the approach at less than 90 kts in an Archer
isn't there, then I would suggest that the pilot has no business going
to minimums anyway.

I suspect the clarification is a reaction to what I've been seeing a
lot of lately - people flying approaches in spam cans much too fast.
Sure, it's important to be able to fly a fast approach - sometimes you
get asked to keep your speed up. But I've been asked to slow down for
the approach as well - not because I was gaining on the airplane ahead
of me (it was an MU-2) but to assure proper separation on the
approach. And sometimes you need to slow down in order to land on a
short runway with a tailwind when the weather is below circling
minimums.

Michael