TDZE vs THRE

John Collins said:
I did a search on the TERPS 1-25 document for THRE and couldn't find it. Can you provide a reference.
Click to expand...
I'm just going on something Wally Roberts said. But it's hard to figure how they could be putting it on approach charts without it being in TERPS. Or maybe there's another document on the charts themselves rather than the procedures?
 
Thanks Ron, I searched on THRE and not THRe. I assume they are the same, but I have yet to find a definition that matches the all capitalized Acronym that clarifies that they are the same. I will re-search 8260.19E to see if THRe shows up.
 
John Collins said:
Thanks Ron, I searched on THRE and not THRe. I assume they are the same, but I have yet to find a definition that matches the all capitalized Acronym that clarifies that they are the same. I will re-search 8260.19E to see if THRe shows up.
Click to expand...

Nice of them to make their search case-sensitive. (Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.)
 
Ron Levy said:
That's what the reg says, but Flight Standards tells me it's just a case of missing all the ramifications of a change elsewhere. It will be addressed as a technical correction on the next cycle by the branch responsible for that section. Meanwhile, Flight Standards isn't going headhunting over the issue, so like they say in Russia, "nyet sweat."
Click to expand...

As I said before you use the best information available.
 
An update. I had a lunch time conversation with several folk at the prior ACF/IPG in Nov of 2012 on the subject and followed up with some emails. I took the issue formally to ACF/IPG at this meeting. The FAA was working the issue from my previous correspondence and was ready with a presentation at this meeting. Bottom line is that it is a problem as Captain pointed out that TDZE is not on the chart. AeroNav agrees that there can be up to a 20 foot difference. The FAA got a legal interpretation although I have not seen it published other than at the ACF/IPG meeting. In it, the attorney says if TDZE is not on the chart, then the provision for descending below the DA using the approach lights is not permitted. AeroNav is exploring ways of adding the TDZE back on to the some 3000+ charts where it is not included. They may publish a list of runways and TDZE values for a short term fix. They are exploring a regulation change, but that could be a multi year process and is a substantial change, not a minor technical edit. Several of the airline pilots noted that TDZE is used in setting their FMS up for Category II and III and not having the TDZE value may cause other unintended consequences.
 
John Collins said:
An update. I had a lunch time conversation with several folk at the prior ACF/IPG in Nov of 2012 on the subject and followed up with some emails. I took the issue formally to ACF/IPG at this meeting. The FAA was working the issue from my previous correspondence and was ready with a presentation at this meeting. Bottom line is that it is a problem as Captain pointed out that TDZE is not on the chart. AeroNav agrees that there can be up to a 20 foot difference. The FAA got a legal interpretation although I have not seen it published other than at the ACF/IPG meeting. In it, the attorney says if TDZE is not on the chart, then the provision for descending below the DA using the approach lights is not permitted. AeroNav is exploring ways of adding the TDZE back on to the some 3000+ charts where it is not included. They may publish a list of runways and TDZE values for a short term fix. They are exploring a regulation change, but that could be a multi year process and is a substantial change, not a minor technical edit. Several of the airline pilots noted that TDZE is used in setting their FMS up for Category II and III and not having the TDZE value may cause other unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

They are quite adept at shooting themselves in the foot. :goofy:

Although "they" claim it is not a technical FAR amendment, it would be a minor amendment; i.e. NPRM with 45 day comment period. They could have that out the door quickly if they had the will.
 
aterpster said:
They are quite adept at shooting themselves in the foot. :goofy:

Although "they" claim it is not a technical FAR amendment, it would be a minor amendment; i.e. NPRM with 45 day comment period. They could have that out the door quickly if they had the will.
Click to expand...

They said they are going to ask for expedited handling which would permit going directly to a final rule, but weren't optimistic on the prospects.
 
John Collins said:
They said they are going to ask for expedited handling which would permit going directly to a final rule, but weren't optimistic on the prospects.
Click to expand...

Nonetheless, they can bang it out as an NPRM with a 45 day comment period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top