Yeah, you could say I’m doing some ‘deducing.’ It comes from regulatory information. The MAP info in the Airport Sketch box is about the LOC Approach. Here’s an example that illustrates the point. KLVK ILS RWY 25R.
KLVK is a different situation. The ILS and LOC procedures are published separately because of climb gradient requirements.
They say that because that's what it is. @aterpster can correct me but in both cases, the protected area of the missed assumes (with a margin for error) that you are at MDA at the the non-APV MAP and are on glideslope/path you reach DA. That's why DA's aren't a uniform 200 AGL.
TERPS Chapter 3 mandates that an ILS CAT I DA be 200 feet, HAT, provided the GS is 3 degrees and there are no obstacles that penetrate the ILS final segment W, X, and Y obstacle clearance surfaces, and that the standard missed approach areas and surfaces be free of obstacles. DAs higher than 200 feet, HAT, can result from obstacle penetrations of the W, X, or Y surfaces, or the missed approach areas. The final segment W surface is particularly critical. Penetrations of the X and Y areas can be mitigated by an extensive analysis. Obstacles can be mitigated in the missed approach area with a climb gradient, except for the first portion of the missed approach that protects for a height loss below DA while transitioning from descent to missed approach configuration.
Such an entry on the 8260-3 would serve no useful purpose. Inaccurate arguments are beyond the purview of procedure design and publication. Inaccurate arguments related to ILS are because of inadequate training or understanding by pilots.
Most of them are gone, or soon to be gone. Remember the regulation of long ago that required adding 50 feet to DA if the MM was inop or the airplane was not equipped to receive it?
This just illustrates there is knowledge required to pass a test and knowledge required to actually do things. Oh. And pilots are generally pedantic. Lol
I recall locating the LOM for KCRQ in a parking lot 5 miles northeast of the airport. It was expensive to maintain and easy to sabotage. That's why the LOMs at LAX were on the early list. The FAA maintenance people refused to go to the site unless the cops went with them.
You really think defining the point horizontally rather than vertically (or anything for that matter) can stop people making inaccurate arguments?
You really think defining the point horizontally rather than vertically (or anything for that matter) can stop people making inaccurate arguments?
I bring the law?
In Before the Lock
I never agreed with the FAA's current policy of keeping the question bank secret because pilots would just memorize the question and answer and fail to "understand" the reason for the answer. Most study guides included a discussion of why each answer was correct or incorrect. I learned a lot from this approach. Now you see the poorly worded questions one time and spend an inordinate amount of brain cells choosing the least incorrect answer to a bull **** question and end up missing the answer because the test writer had some other rationale for crediting a different incorrect answer as being less incorrect. I was a flight examiner in the military and I could determine very easily whether someone had an understanding of a concept being asked without looking at his written test score. Passing a multiple choice written test should not be considered having an understanding of anything other than how to pass a multiple choice test.same. Reflecting on it, there were odd questions like this that were annoying - but then maybe the faa wants pilots to actually think rather than just regurgitate info....... nah lol
OM not MM.Hopefully the fact that the MM at LAX was at some point in time a rough neighborhood doesn’t turn this discussion into something lockworthy.
I disagree. The MAP on an ILS is an altitude and doesn't have a defined geographical point. If you can show me where an ILS has a defined geographical point, I'd love to see it. By your logic, if I was flying a crappy ILS and was hanging out 1/4 dot low, I could descend below DA because I hadn't reached my "defined geographical missed approach point."
I don't see anything in FAR 91.175(c) that makes me think that the DH/DA is defined over a geographic point. Yes, if you are on glideslope, at the DA, you will be over a geographic point, but that's not what determines when you are at the MAP.
The U.S. should do what all the other ICAO countries do, issue a chart directly into the 28-day AIP. I have uploaded an example to my FTP site, because it is too large for the forum. For ground-based IAPs, SIDs, and STARs, they issue just a one page chart. For RNAV, particularly RNP AR they include the necessary supplemental pages.
I see no purpose for this....nada. It isn't any different on approach charts from other countries.
Still doesn't show where the DH/DA "point" is, so what's the point? I'm not into this pin waltz at all though. Since OEI climb gradients aren't charted for IFR DPs, why should failures of another kind need to clutter up approach charts? Can't we all just do the best we we can under the circumstances? After all, abandoning the approach early means you have extra obstruction clearance already, so guessing at an approximate MAP to begin any required turn isn't going to be as critical. Besides, what about a rejected landing below minimums? Certainly as possible as an early missed approach, I'd think, but you're on your own there too. The best practice then is to apply the DP, presumably something included in an approach briefing (not holding my breath for it), so because you have that in mind who really needs a DH/DA "point"?
You don't want that, do you? Being 200 feet above the end of the runway when you break out at minimums?
