Fix Minimums

PHXAvi8tor

PHXAvi8tor

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
160
Location
KPHX
Display Name
Display name:
PHXAvi8tor
What are "Fix Minimums"?

Example, on an ILS to Runway 30C at IWA, the "Fix Minimum" for Oriye is lower than the MDA on a Localizer-only approach.

More than anything, looking for written documentation of what a "Fix Minimum" is. I can pretty much figure out what they are from looking at dozens of different approach plates.

But, cannot locate definition in Instrument Procedures Handbook, Instrument Flying Handbook or FAR/AIM.
 
PHXAvi8tor said:
What are "Fix Minimums"?

Example, on an ILS to Runway 30C at IWA, the "Fix Minimum" for Oriye is lower than the MDA on a Localizer-only approach.

More than anything, looking for written documentation of what a "Fix Minimum" is. I can pretty much figure out what they are from looking at dozens of different approach plates.

But, cannot locate definition in Instrument Procedures Handbook, Instrument Flying Handbook or FAR/AIM.
Click to expand...
I think you're reading the line incorrectly. It's the ORIYE Fix Minimums, not the ORIYE Fix Minimums. In other words, the term fix goes with the name of the fix, not the term minimums. In this case, if you identify the ORIYE Fix, you may descend to lower minimums after you have passed ORIYE.
 
I can't find the explanation, either, and the IPH shows three approaches which have such additional step-down minima -- all used as examples of other issues. Perhaps the FAA thought it was too obvious to discuss?:confused:

In any event, the extra minima are shown when the use of a piece of equipment not required to fly the baseline approach (and therefore not listed as required by either the approach title or notes) enables you to fly to lower minima. For example, the Salisbury VOR 23 approach can be flown in its entirety (entry, final segment, and missed) with only a VOR, but if you also have a DME (or IFR GPS), you get lower minima after passing the 2.3 DME fix.
 
Looking up the approach for IWA ILS 30C. All crossing radials are from Stanfield (TDF) You don't need DME for the approach, but if you had it you can get lower on a localizer approach.
Straight in ILS minimums (S-ILS 30C) are 1580 (200)
Straight in LOC minumums (S-LOC 30C) are 1940 (560)

But if you have DME and can identify ORIYE at 2.5DME then the LOC minimum becomes 1800 (420). There is no crossing radial for ORIYE. Without DME and no glide slope you are stuck at 1940 on the approach. With DME you can get to 1800.

I noticed the weather minima changed too.
 
That's good.

Because I'm working on my CFII, I need to back up those conclusions with published information from NACO, the FAA, or other authoritative sources.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to locate such backup data.

Even several DPEs, when pressed simply said, "That's just the way it is; stop looking for proof."

But, students demand proof. And, I am sure an FAA examiner will demand that I prove the assertion about a named Fix Minimum, as well.
 
PHXAvi8tor said:
And, I am sure an FAA examiner will demand that I prove the assertion about a named Fix Minimum, as well.
Click to expand...
If the examiner asks that question, explain what you did in post #1 (it's not in any pilot-related manual), and that it's most likely somewhere in TERPS (FAA Order 8260.3) but you haven't slogged through that large document to find it. In any event, few examiners ask questions unless they know the answer, so I doubt this one will be asked.
 
Ben,

I saw this same issue following your quest for the CFI. I appreciate your high standards but I think you're beating yourself up too much, that's your wife's job.

If I were asked this question, I would answer like Ron did, with examples. I find it hard to believe an obscure TERPS reference would add much if anything.

Joe
 
Thanks guys.

Actually, it might be my Check Airman, who insists I find this answer before I can get the endorsement. We have a very tough FSDO out here, and am seeing a lot of check airmen lately reacting more out of fear of the FSDO beating them up, rather than out of concern that we become the best instructors possible.

It will pass in time. My focus has always been on turning out the best pilots I can muster.

Right now, for example, I'm obsessed with finding a simpler way to teach holding pattern entries, based on the standard entries recommended in the Instrument Flying Handbook.

Think I finally found a way, and will test it on a couple of former students tomorrow!
 
I'll tell you my favorite holding pattern intro lesson.

Take a piece of chalk out to the ramp and draw a race track on an empty tiedown tee. Then take the student to different points outside the chalk and ask them what kind of entry they would use, and what do they see on the DG.

Joe
 
Areeda said:
I'll tell you my favorite holding pattern intro lesson.

Take a piece of chalk out to the ramp and draw a race track on an empty tiedown tee. Then take the student to different points outside the chalk and ask them what kind of entry they would use, and what do they see on the DG.

Joe
Click to expand...

Ahh.. visuals.. I love visuals... nice and big.

I do the same thing teaching flying on tow and the upper parts of boxing the wake. Stand behind the tow plane with 200ft of rope (tow rope) to the tail hook. Put the other end in the students hand and walk left and right to see the "visuals" for the upper corners of the "box".
 
Areeda said:
I'll tell you my favorite holding pattern intro lesson.

Take a piece of chalk out to the ramp and draw a race track on an empty tiedown tee. Then take the student to different points outside the chalk and ask them what kind of entry they would use, and what do they see on the DG.

Joe
Click to expand...

I like it!
 
FYI, two master CFIs have been unable to find any documentation of fix minimums. It was kicked all the way up to the FAA in DC, who has now kicked it back down to a local FSDO to explain.

Isn't government grand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top