Finding a non GPS IAF into KSNS

Earlier we had a discussion about "Not Authorized" vs. Not Applicable." Perhaps in a different thread. Attached is state source and the Jeppesen chart for the LOWS RNP Z Runway 33. The source simply does not have a line of CAT D minimums. Jeppesen took it upon themselves to declare CAT D as "Not Applicable" instead of "Not Authorized."

Source LOWS RNP Z Rwy 33.jpg

LOWS RNP Z Rwy 33.jpg
 
aterpster said:
Earlier we had a discussion about "Not Authorized" vs. Not Applicable." Perhaps in a different thread. Attached is state source and the Jeppesen chart for the LOWS RNP Z Runway 33. The source simply does not have a line of CAT D minimums. Jeppesen took it upon themselves to declare CAT D as "Not Applicable" instead of "Not Authorized."
Click to expand...

I do like the waypoint names. Not very creative, but certainly logical.

Of course, fix names with numbers on approaches are not permitted in the U.S.
 
Last edited:
aterpster said:
I thought Russ was part of it.
Click to expand...

I don't remember a discussion off the top of my head about Not Applicable vs Not Authorized, but it's possible. Got a link?

Regardless, for the example in Austria, I don't see that it makes much difference whether the Cat D minimums simply aren't published, or whether it's Cat D Not Applicable, or Cat D Not Authorized. One way or the other, the procedure is not usable by Cat D aircraft. As you know, in the U.S. it's fairly common for the higher Cats to not be usable on a procedure, but here we just say "Cat D - NA".
 
RussR said:
I don't remember a discussion off the top of my head about Not Applicable vs Not Authorized, but it's possible. Got a link?

Regardless, for the example in Austria, I don't see that it makes much difference whether the Cat D minimums simply aren't published, or whether it's Cat D Not Applicable, or Cat D Not Authorized. One way or the other, the procedure is not usable by Cat D aircraft. As you know, in the U.S. it's fairly common for the higher Cats to not be usable on a procedure, but here we just say "Cat D - NA".
Click to expand...
And, that means Not Authorized.
 
aterpster said:
I thought Russ was part of it.
Click to expand...
It was BeechTalk. I remember the discussion because I was sorely tempted to post a face palm.
RussR said:
I don't remember a discussion off the top of my head about Not Applicable vs Not Authorized, but it's possible. Got a link?

Regardless, for the example in Austria, I don't see that it makes much difference whether the Cat D minimums simply aren't published, or whether it's Cat D Not Applicable, or Cat D Not Authorized. One way or the other, the procedure is not usable by Cat D aircraft. As you know, in the U.S. it's fairly common for the higher Cats to not be usable on a procedure, but here we just say "Cat D - NA".
Click to expand...
Of course it makes no difference. Yeah, it was about alternate minimums but same idea that somehow it made a huge difference to someone whether filing as an IFR alternate was "not available" or "not authorized."
 
midlifeflyer said:
It was BeechTalk. I remember the discussion because I was sorely tempted to post a face palm.

Of course it makes no difference. Yeah, it was about alternate minimums but same idea that somehow it made a huge difference to someone whether filing as an IFR alternate was "not available" or "not authorized."
Click to expand...
Ah yes. Well, I am glad I brought it over here for Russ to see.
 
midlifeflyer said:
It was BeechTalk. I remember the discussion because I was sorely tempted to post a face palm.

Of course it makes no difference. Yeah, it was about alternate minimums but same idea that somehow it made a huge difference to someone whether filing as an IFR alternate was "not available" or "not authorized."
Click to expand...

Sounds like an "interesting" discussion. I'm not on Beechtalk though (only so many hours in a day!)
 
ateamer said:
It’s probably all moot. Every time I’ve flown the Salinas ILS, it was vectors no matter where we started from.
Click to expand...
Good to know. That approach is going to be on my instrument cross country hopefully soon
 
Archimago said:
Good to know. That approach is going to be on my instrument cross country hopefully soon
Click to expand...

Do you have GPS? There was a thread here recently about letting the GPS navigator fly it. It kept it in to close to be under the Glideslope when intercepting the Localizer inbound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top