5
$\begingroup$

Can anyone advise why for some airfields there are minimum approach climb gradients for LNAV with none for LPV, while at other airfields there are minimum approach climb gradients for both LPV and LNAV?

This is an extract from the plate for Campbeltown - EGEC.

enter image description here

For other airfields, MPA gradients are also given for the LPV as well as LNAV such as Islay - EGPI, shown below.

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

When it is not stated, it means it is the nominal value of 2.5%, i.e., for the first example, the LPV climb gradient is 2.5%. When an additional OCA/H is published, then the OCA/H and gradient values are published (second example).

From PANS-OPS:

6.2.2.2 Climb gradient in the intermediate phase. The nominal climb gradient (tan Z) of the missed approach surface is 2.5 per cent.

6.2.2.3.2 The OCA/H for the nominal 2.5 per cent must always be published on the instrument approach chart. If additional gradients are specified in the construction of the missed approach procedure, they and their associated OCA/H values must be published as alternative options.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer ymb1, I understand the nominal 2.5% for missed appr. climb gradients. What I'm still uncertain of however is why in a case such as EGEC, a steeper gradient is not given for the LPV approach when it would allow a lower minima? $\endgroup$ – andy-m Jun 18 '18 at 9:09
  • $\begingroup$ @andy-m - The other runway end goes lower (where the missed approach is over water), so the terrain is probably the limiting factor for rwy 11. Do note that the LPV's 2.5% is already lower than the LNAV's 2.5%. The minima design is different for the different procedures. $\endgroup$ – ymb1 Jun 18 '18 at 10:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.