Re: Only official instrument approaches authorised under FAR?

[Paul Lynch]

There are instrument approaches that are approved by the FAA that are not
available to the general public. The approach plate notes that approach
only applies to aircraft from Company XYZ. You will not find in in any
approach book. Typically the approach was developed by the private entity
and submitted for approval. Our company had one in Alaska. The approach
still exists, but we no longer fly to that destination.

"Peter" > wrote in message
...
>
> FAR 91.175 (a) suggests that it is not permitted to carry out a
> descent in IMC except on an official published IAP.
>
> Any views on this?
>
> How would it differ if the entire procedure was done in Class G?
>
>
> Peter.
> --
> Return address is invalid to help stop junk mail.
> E-mail replies to but remove the X and the Y.
> Please do NOT copy usenet posts to email - it is NOT necessary.

[Daniel Roesen]

* Paul Lynch >:
> There are instrument approaches that are approved by the FAA that
> are not available to the general public. [...] Our company had one
> in Alaska.

Hm, for what reason? Cheaper for your specific route(s) to that
destination than the published approaches?


Best regards,
Daniel

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Daniel Roesen" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hm, for what reason? Cheaper for your specific route(s) to that
> destination than the published approaches?
>

Because there are no published approaches.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Daniel Roesen" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Hm, for what reason? Cheaper for your specific route(s) to that
> > destination than the published approaches?
> >
>
> Because there are no published approaches.

Special instrument approach procedures may be for a location that
doesn't have a public IAP or it may be at a location that does have a
public IAP. An example is KRNO where the special ILS lowers the
minimums by several hundred feet.

[Roy Smith]

In article >, wrote:
> Special instrument approach procedures may be for a location that
> doesn't have a public IAP or it may be at a location that does have a
> public IAP. An example is KRNO where the special ILS lowers the
> minimums by several hundred feet.

What lets a special approach get lower minimums? The nav signals are the
same, the runway is the same, the terrain is the same, so what's different
about this one operator with the special approach that lets them get lower
mins?

[Scott Skylane]

Roy Smith wrote:

>
> What lets a special approach get lower minimums? The nav signals are the
> same, the runway is the same, the terrain is the same, so what's different
> about this one operator with the special approach that lets them get lower
> mins?

Roy,

That's a good question. Our company has several special instrument
approaches, and I know of others with their own special STAR's and DP's.
I always assumed it was due to the presumption of higher training and
proficiency standards, and/or higher performance equipment, than is
available to the "lowest common denominator" standards that TERPS is
written for. I don't know this for sure, though.

Here is one example: http://homepage.mac.com/.Pictures/KodiacSpecial.JPG

Notice that note #5 describes some pretty specific conditions to be met,
not your everyday faire. Not all of the specials include these kind of
notes, but some do.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Scott Skylane]

Scott Skylane wrote:

Whoops! Here's the correct link:

http://homepage.mac.com/scottdb/.Pictures/KodiacSpecial.JPG

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Scott Skylane > wrote:

> Roy Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > What lets a special approach get lower minimums? The nav signals are the
> > same, the runway is the same, the terrain is the same, so what's different
> > about this one operator with the special approach that lets them get lower
> > mins?
>
> Roy,
>
> That's a good question. Our company has several special instrument
> approaches, and I know of others with their own special STAR's and DP's.
> I always assumed it was due to the presumption of higher training and
> proficiency standards, and/or higher performance equipment, than is
> available to the "lowest common denominator" standards that TERPS is
> written for. I don't know this for sure, though.
>
> Here is one example: http://homepage.mac.com/.Pictures/KodiacSpecial.JPG
>
> Notice that note #5 describes some pretty specific conditions to be met,
> not your everyday faire. Not all of the specials include these kind of
> notes, but some do.
>
> Happy Flying!
> Scott Skylane

Thanks for posting that!

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith wrote:

> In article >, wrote:
> > Special instrument approach procedures may be for a location that
> > doesn't have a public IAP or it may be at a location that does have a
> > public IAP. An example is KRNO where the special ILS lowers the
> > minimums by several hundred feet.
>
> What lets a special approach get lower minimums? The nav signals are the
> same, the runway is the same, the terrain is the same, so what's different
> about this one operator with the special approach that lets them get lower
> mins?

In the case of Reno and Missoula ILS IAPs, the operators have the performance
capability to climb at greater than 200 feet per mile in the missed approach
segment. Most light aircraft can't do what's required at mountain airports
like those.

As to your comment about nav signals, etc, being the same, that is in the
process of undergoing a very big change with RNP and performanced-based
concepts. Other parts of the world are ahead of us on this one. Thus far,
the aircraft with both the equipment and the nav performance proof to do this
is the Boeing 737-NG series. They have minimums at some mountain airports
(Canada being a notable example) of 250 and 3/4 where you might find minimums
of 1,500 and 3.

Alaska Airlines has straight-in minimums of 250 and 3/4 at Palm Springs where
your minimums are circling only 2000 and 5.

[Paul Lynch]

Lower mins using more restrictive procedures. Only crews specifically
trained for the approach, as opposed to anyone, can legally fly the
approach.


"Daniel Roesen" > wrote in message
...
>* Paul Lynch >:
>> There are instrument approaches that are approved by the FAA that
>> are not available to the general public. [...] Our company had one
>> in Alaska.
>
> Hm, for what reason? Cheaper for your specific route(s) to that
> destination than the published approaches?
>
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel

[Scott Skylane]

Roy Smith wrote:


>
> Thanks for posting that!

Here is the standard ILS, for comparison:

http://homepage.mac.com/scottdb/.Pictures/KodiacILS.JPG

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane