LPV, LNAV/VNAV, and Baro VNAV are considered to be an 'Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV)'. These types of approaches are differentiated from 'Precision' approaches (ILS, PAR, etc.) in the FAA AIM (Section 5-4-5, Paragraph 7):
(b) Approach with Vertical Guidance (APV). An instrument approach based on a navigation system that is not required to meet the ...
The only minimums that apply to any approach are those printed on the plate. Doing anything else is being a test pilot. Minimums are charted based on obstacle clearance, descent gradient, distance from the airport, and a variety of other factors.
The appropriate course of action is to either:
land straight in on 31 and attempt to deal with the crosswind. ...
There are procedures with temperature restrictions, related to altitude constraints. An example is Innsbruck:
The text in the red box says:
Procedure N/A below AD temp -7°
For effect of temperature on altimeter: How will the altimeter read in air colder than ISA?
DME can be used in the published missed, but does not have to be. There are other ways to identify the missed approach fix.
The missed approach instructions are:
MISSED APPROACH: Climb to 1500 then climbing right turn to 3500 on ATL VORTAC R-005 to TROYS INT/ATL 15 DME and hold.
The missed approach procedure calls for a hold at the TROYS intersection. ...
In the US they can (Effective: May 26, 2016).
This change allows for the use of a suitable RNAV system as a means to navigate on the final approach segment of an instrument approach procedure (IAP) based on a VOR, TACAN, or NDB signal. The underlying NAVAID must be operational and monitored for the final segment course alignment.
Still can’t fly an ILS or ...
While researching this subject, I found a few things that shed light on the subject:
FAA ATC Order 4-8-1 Note 1 says:
1. Clearances authorizing instrument approaches are issued on the basis that, if visual contact with the ground is made before the
approach is completed, the entire approach procedure will be followed
unless the pilot ...
Radar is most likely required in this case because there is no defined Initial Approach Fix (IAF).
Also note that in the profile view TIVNE and HORVI have the word RADAR underneath, which means that if you wanted to fly to either of those way points, including a course reversal in the hold, you would still need to be vectored by ATC via RADAR.
This means ...
I think you're overlooking the primary reason pilots fly instrument approaches: the conditions do not permit flight by visual reference.
The fact that a PAPI provides vertical guidance is more or less useless if you can't see it. Most ILS approaches involve a descent of at least 1500' from glideslope intercept.
If you break out from the clouds at ILS ...
This is a bit of an odd situation, but they have a good reason for doing what they did.
First of all, each instrument approach is designed to be a stand-alone procedure, and the designers consider that you may not have any of the other approach plates when you are flying a particular procedure. All of the information that you need to fly the approach ...
Non precision MAP fixes are identified in a number of ways:
Fixes identified by additional terrestrial Navaids eg intersections between the localizer and radial directions from other Navaid beacons like VORs, NDBs, etc..
Fixes identified by DME slant ranges.
Fixes identified by flying a linear course from an identified FAF at a specific airspeed for a ...
As mentioned above, this approach has no IAF.
That's because the the VOR is at 1,301 MSL (note the height of the obstacle next to the VOR is 1,410), and the segment from TIVNE to HORVI descends from 2,800 to 1,340 MSL, and will dip below the usable volume of a Low Altitude VOR. According to AIM 1-1-8, a low altitude VOR with a standard service volume cannot ...
Conceivably the I-ETI DME transponder could be out of service, preventing you from identifying YOCUB (unless you have a second VOR or GPS), but you could still identify BASSO on the CHS DME for the missed.
No, you still have to monitor the underlying NAVAID. You just have to read further in that same section of the AIM. Reference the most recent edition of the AIM, which has Change 3 dated April 27, 2017. In section 1-2-3-c-5 it says:
Use of a suitable RNAV system as a means to navigate
on the final approach segment of an instrument approach
Yes such approaches have existed.
As early as 1944 the North America Low Frequency Radio Range (aka Four-Course Range and Adcock Range) network was quite developed. There are several approach plates using this type of radio aid, e.g. this one from May 1944 for Meridian:
The station is used for IAF and FAF. The approach is done using 334°/154° ...
The FAA's ATC orders cover this for the US. Note that controllers can use radar instead of visual contact:
3−10−7. LANDING CLEARANCE WITHOUT VISUAL OBSERVATION
When an arriving aircraft reports at a position where he/she should be seen
but has not been visually observed, advise the aircraft as a part of
the landing clearance that it is not in ...
No, you may not descend below MDA having only the lead-in lights in sight.
Reference FAA Order 6850.2b, "Visual Guidance Lighting Systems", page 1-3 through 1-5.
According to this order, the list of approach lighting systems is as follows:
Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System (MALS).
Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Sequenced ...
Your confusion may stem from the way you are viewing the instruction not to use it for arrival on the radials 356 to 157. If you were arriving on the 356 Radial of the PIE VORTAC, your course/track (and/or heading in calm winds) would be 176°. If you were arriving on the 157 Radial of the PIE VORTAC, your course/track (and/or heading in calm winds) would be ...
In this scenario, you do in fact have two legal options -- although you must decide if they are safe.
First, you can cancel IFR when you break out on the approach and switch to SVFR (this was mentioned in a comment by @pondlife). You can even coordinate it in advance with the approach controller, and even specify that you intend to do this in the "NOTES&...
It's really only confusing because they are within one degree of each other, but this actually happens quite a bit with feeder routes.
The 151 Degree Course NW of STARN
The 151 degree course (and the OKEST intersection) is only used if you are using AGJ as the Initial Approach Fix (IAF). This is the course that you would fly from OKEST towards the GRK VOR (...
The approach shows that the glideslope (if it were working) is a three degree descent angle. You can calculate your own visual descent point (VDP), since one isn't provided for you, by taking the height above touchdown (600 ft. in this case) and dividing it by 300 ft/NM. This gives you 2.0 miles from the runway. Since the chart shows the runway threshold ...
The Missed Approach Point (MAPt) is at the runway threshold. The other reference you will see on this RNAV chart is the Visual Descent Point (VDP), at 1.1NM RWY05R, which is at the Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA).
The concept of VDP was developed by the FAA to encourage pilots to decide to initiate a missed approach prior to reaching the MAP, in a ...
Possible? Yes, depending. Advisable? That's a matter of opinion. I suspect most these days would probably say no unless you did a circling maneuver to another runway. And then many (most?) would say that you have no business circling at less than, say, 800 ft AGL in a 747 or the like.
Restating my first answer: Possible? Yes, for some MAPs, with some ...
Which one is better for carrying out approaches?
An ILS approach is more precise for two reasons:
The ILS localizer is more sensitive than a VOR radial, therefore providing more accurate lateral guidance.
The ILS has a glide slope providing vertical guidance. A VOR approach does not have any vertical guidance (although with a VOR/DME one can at least ...
Your limitations are exactly the same regardless of runway -- you cannot descend below the published DH without the published flight visibility minimum and the visual references required by 91.175.
What the limited runway markings and lights change is the number of visual cues you have to be able to descend below MDA and land, which affects the likelihood ...
From the FAA Instrument Procedures Handbook, section 6-4: "The 600-2 and 800-2 rules, or any exceptions, only apply to flight planning purposes, while published landing minimums apply to the actual approach at the alternate."
It is allowed.
Runway 07 has a published GNSS straight-in instrument approach as of 10 Nov 2016.
Download link here, or click image for full size.
For non-GNSS equipped planes, there are no published straight-in instrument approaches for runway 07. Only the circling VOR 07.
However, in VMC the crew may request or likely be given a visual straight-in ...
I am not sure which part you don't understand, but here is my attempt to explain in more laymen terms.
Short version: When it is too cold, a certain mode for flying non-precision approaches using the Airbus flight computer cannot be used. This is because the altimeter reading is inaccurate when it is too cold, but the computer is not designed to compensate ...
You have a few different points here but the short version is: IWA is a VORTAC and I-IWA is a localizer, i.e. they're different navaids. DME is available from IWA and it's optional but not required for the I-IWA localizer approach. If you do have it, you can use it to identify the ORIYE fix and use the lower minimums at the bottom of the plate, e.g. 1800-1 ...
ICAO Doc 8168 stipulates that for a non-CDFA non-precision approach, the aircraft should not exceed 15% gradient when descending from FAF to MDA.
1.7.4 Stepdown descent
The third technique involves an expeditious descent and is described as “descend immediately to not below the
minimum stepdown fix altitude/height or MDA/H, as appropriate”. This ...
The 620 is not at WESTS.
It's been discussed in multiple places, e.g.:
The way to read it is [WESTS FIX] MINIMUMS, and not [WESTS] FIX MINIMUMS, i.e., the 620 is not at WESTS, but the 620 is when you can identify WESTS (...