26

It's better to be low(-ish) and ready for a spot to open, than high and far from that spot. As to why, for busy international airports the answer is really simple: ► There isn't a way to manage it near perfectly (yet). To understand that statement, requires some prerequisites, so I'll try to simplify and summarize the basics: There is the concertina ...


23

There is no penalty per se, but visual approaches in particular have lower separation requirements, so having to switch you back to a non-visual approach may require ATC to make corrections (e.g. delay vectors, speed control or, in extreme cases, a missed approach), which may feel like a penalty.


16

The most simple reason is the military has its own set of flight rules (AFI 11-202, OPNAVINST 3710.7U) that for many years duplicated many of the applicable FAR/AIM regulations. In addition, the varied mission sets and training scenarios the military operates under sometimes require them to do non-standard things, so there are a number of "carve-outs" for ...


15

Airports can accept landing aircraft at a (mostly) fixed, constant rate. However, inbound aircraft arrive at different times and rates based on weather and other factors, regardless of the schedules. This means, at times, aircraft will be coming in faster than the airport can accept them, from many different directions. And airplanes can't just stop mid-air ...


12

It's no problem, just tell Approach you have the airport in sight & request the visual. They'll give it to you almost always. A visual approach is generally a little less restrictive for the controller than an instrument approach is.


11

It's a perfectly acceptable practice, provided you disengage the autopilot upon reaching minimums and hand fly it the rest of the way. Some manufacturers, like Cirrus, recommend flying a coupled autopilot approach. I won't sit on the fence about this. Learning how to fly coupled autopilot approaches are fine, but I insist all my students learn how to hand ...


9

The question as it currently stands in the headline "How often do GA pilots use the Autopilot approach feature while landing?" is hard, if not impossible to answer due to lack of relevant statistics. As for the matter(s) raised in the body of the question, is and should the autopilot be used on approaches in GA, here's how I see it, plain and simple: You ...


8

As an aside to the hold explanations furnished above: to save on fuel, an airliner will reduce power to commence descent at a distance from the airport which will place it at either 1) its anticipated hold altitude, or 2) the landing pattern entry altitude, subject to ATC's instructions, upon arrival in the vicinity of the airport. While at reduced power, ...


8

Adding to @J.Hougaard's practical reasons, there is one technical reason in the existing standards I can think of: The identification signal (morse code) is provided by the localizer, not the G/S, so G/S-only approaches would be unidentifiable. (ICAO Annex 10 Vol 1 § 3.1.3.9) Side note: I'm not sure if there can be a workaround for it using existing ...


7

Because there would be no benefit to doing so. where the pilot uses the glideslope for vertical guidance but relies on ground- or satellite-based navigation fixes for lateral guidance. As you correctly point out, if using only a glideslope, the pilot would have to rely on other navigation facilities for the horizontal guidance, for example a locator/NDB ...


5

First, you're reading the EASA table wrong. Type A approaches are not all the green rows, they're the vertical column that says "Type A, 2D or 3D" that covers all the specific column of all the green rows and the blue also. On the right side of that column, you see Type B approaches, divided to subcategories. All of those being 3D approaches. Second, the ...


4

From: AC 120-118 https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120-118.pdf CAT I (FAA) An instrument approach operation with a minimum descent altitude (MDA), decision altitude (DA), or decision height (DH) not lower than 200 feet (60 m) and with either a visibility not less than ½ SM, or a Runway Visual Range (RVR) not less than 1800 feet (...


4

I'm a bit late to the conversation, but I think I have a winner so far, at 9.61° for the KASE VOR/DME-C approach.


4

FYI, what you're trying to do is called "georeferencing." The scale for each plate is whatever is required to fit in all the relevant information without wasting space. Therefore, to properly geo-reference each plate, you will need to identify at least two points (e.g. CUTIS and CFVGK in this case), look up their lat/long in the published tables, and ...


4

In ICAO DOC 9905 (Required Navigation Performance Authorization Required Procedure Design Manual) you can find the following definition in Chapter 2.1 RNP APCH versus RNP AR APCH 2.1.1 RNP APCH is defined as an RNP approach procedure that requires a lateral TSE of +/-1 NM in the initial, intermediate and missed approach segments (MAS) and a lateral ...


4

You haven't told us what country you are referring to. I am going to talk about the United States regulations. There are two separate regulations that come into play. Part 91 and Part 121 or 135. Under Part 91. The pilots are allowed to commence any approach (irrespective of weather) and determine if they can continue to land based on the criteria ...


4

To add to the above points... Circling Approaches are used when the Approach you want to use and the runway you want to use are not aligned with each other. Say for instance, you are arriving to the terminal area from the North. The runway you want to use is from the South (probably due to wind). You want to get down to the ground ASAP. You can get cleared ...


3

A circling approach is executed on an instrument approach procedure which or where the final approach segment is not aligned directly with the runway of intended landing. Circling approaches can also be flown on instrument approaches where the pilot opts to land on another runway not aligned with the final approach segment, but which has more favorable wind ...


3

In the non-student GA world, I would say not very often. Maybe 1 in 6 approaches as a guess and from personal experience. If a pilot is flying actual IMC, they may fly a coupled approach as a safety measure. Most non-commercial GA pilots will avoid flying actual IMC in most cases as a rule. Some will fly actual IMC, when the conditions are not too bad, to ...


3

You fly final approach at the "reference speed" (Vref) for the flap setting which varies with weight. You will normally set up the reference speed for full flap on the speed bug on the speed tape on the primary flight displays, and on final while the autopilot flies the glide slope you will modulate thrust to hold the approach speed (or let the autothrottle ...


3

It's not an IAF according to the FAA approach plate: Besides not being identified as an IAF, JAC could only be an IAF if there was a charted course reversal. As the FAA approach plate specifically says "Procedure Turn NA" that possibility is ruled out.


3

If you take a look at the manual for the 430 you will see that you can only load one approach at a time. Turn the large right knob to highlight ‘Load?’ or ‘Activate?’ (approaches only) and press the ENT Key. (‘Load?’ adds the procedure to the flight plan without immediately using it for navigation guidance. This allows the pilot to continue navigating the ...


3

Using DME only is perfectly acceptable the FAA does not actually specify how exactly to execute the procedure turn but where and at what altitude. This is covered in the AIM: 5-4-9 Procedure Turn and Hold−in−lieu of Procedure Turn. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on ...


3

It really depends on the aircraft. Some have plenty of rudder authority and sideslip very well, others are better at stall onset with still plenty of elevator and aileron authority. Now first to the term "mushing glide": This happens at very low speed when the airplane flies far at the backside of its envelope. Flow on the inner wing is already partly ...


2

Here's another factor in approach speeds - the military fighter/trainer aircraft I flew used 1.2 Vso (20% above landing configuration stall speed) for approach. Airliners are required to use 1.23 Vso and each model uses a different multiplier which often changes with different flap settings. The previous generation 727/757/767 mostly used 1.3 Vso while the ...


2

Let's consider the ILS on its own, with no supplement navigation aids like RNAV / GPS. Assume IFR conditions. A LOC+GS approach can get you onto the runway. A LOC-only approach simply won't work, you need at least one more piece of information, e.g. DME. A LOC+DME approach would be similar to a VOR+DME approach. You'd step down your altitude as your DME ...


2

Minimums is an acceptable plural of Minimum (along with minima). As for why its used as a call out is likely because it is the preferred pluralization used by the FAA and in my experience the term generally used when talking about "approach minimums" or "weather minimums". Its worth noting that the FAA uses both minima and minimums in their handbook.


2

Although I can’t find regulations regarding stabilized approaches in the FAR/AIM, the unofficial but generally accepted definition of a stabilized approach would be “Only small changes in heading/pitch. How small?” Small changes in heading and pitch would mean changes only necessary to maintain a ground track on the lateral guidance and a consistent ...


1

An ASR approach is an Approach Surveillance Radar style approach. The guys on MZeroA.com flew one in this video at KLAN. They are not "at" any airport nor are there plates for them it is effectively a function of ATC. I have heard them flown at a few "smaller" class D facilities near me for practice. Generally to practice them you need to be somewhere that ...


1

Since you ask about ICAO, I have checked ICAO's PANS-OPS and Manual of All-Weather Operations. "Ceiling Required" is not an ICAO term. Since you tagged one of the plates SBAO (a Brazilian FIR; Atlantico ACC), I found a blog post from 2017, Brazil drops Ceiling requirement. From which, only 10 countries use that term, and ICAO hasn't used it since 1979 when ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible