Approach categories ABCDE and COPTER

[Planedriver28]

Ok, I have made several posts lately, but only in an effort to learn (or re-learn, as the case may be). I have Googled, read the Instrument Flying Handbook, and the AIM. In reference to Approach Category Minima section of IAP: They all give the Vref, or VSO X 1.3 speeds of 0-90 for A, 91-120 for B, 121-140 for C, 141-165 for D, and >165 for E. PLEASE Don't judge me if this is a dumb question. Those speeds HAVE to be KIAS, right? Seems like groundspeed would be more pertinent, but which is it? It could be TAS for all I know. All the books say is knots. I feel dumb asking, but I just don't know.

Thanks

 

[tgrayson]

VSO X 1.3

Such a calculation is only meaningful if the airspeeds are calibrated. While you're right that groundspeed would be more useful, it has historically been more difficult to get than airspeed.

 

[ProudPilot]

Also, you use the category that you FLY... not that the aircraft is built for. So, if 1.3x Vso is 80 knots, but you fly the approach at 100 knots, use Category B minimums.

So, does it really matter? Yes calibrated is correct, but KIAS will get you the same emphasis of, if in doubt, use the higher minimums.

 

[Bernoulli Fan]

When I realized that approach categories were based on airspeed, but time from FAF to MAP is based on groundspeed, I said, "This is silly."

Maybe groundspeed has historically been more difficult to derive, but nowadays?

 

[tgrayson]

Maybe groundspeed has historically been more difficult to derive, but nowadays?

Still a lot of /U and /A aircraft out there. Even for the GPS equipped aircraft, it'd make GPS a requirement for every approach, since you've got to be able to determine your approach category. And, groundspeed will vary during a circling approach. Which one would apply? It'd be a complicated solution.

 

[Blackhawk]

Also, you use the category that you FLY... not that the aircraft is built for. So, if 1.3x Vso is 80 knots, but you fly the approach at 100 knots, use Category B minimums.

So, does it really matter? Yes calibrated is correct, but KIAS will get you the same emphasis of, if in doubt, use the higher minimums.

You may go up in category, but not down. The approach category is based upon the approach speed at maximum gross weight (FAR part 97.3). If this puts you in Cat D, then you are flying a Cat D airplane and using Cat D minimums even if your approach speed is lower.

 

[Hacker15e]

You may go up in category, but not down. The approach category is based upon the approach speed at maximum gross weight (FAR part 97.3). If this puts you in Cat D, then you are flying a Cat D airplane and using Cat D minimums even if your approach speed is lower.

The USAF (which doesn't fly by the FARs, of course, but operates with regs that are agreed upon with the FAA) will allow certain Cat E aircraft (specifically the F-15E and T-38 -- there may be more, but those are the only ones I know) to fly Cat D approaches, so long as the actual calculated final approach and missed approach airspeeds are IAW Cat D requirements (e.g. < 165).

 

[Blackhawk]

The USAF (which doesn't fly by the FARs, of course, but operates with regs that are agreed upon with the FAA) will allow certain Cat E aircraft (specifically the F-15E and T-38 -- there may be more, but those are the only ones I know) to fly Cat D approaches, so long as the actual calculated final approach and missed approach airspeeds are IAW Cat D requirements (e.g. < 165).

I would not go so far as to write "... doesn't fly by the FARs..." For example, try flying through a TFR without permission or entering class B airspace without permission. While the FSDO will not take action against you I can assure you your CO will find out about it and the proverbial turd will roll down hill.
Also, I should have written "normally you can't go down." I know there are some exceptions, but you can not just decide on your own to do so.

 

[tgrayson]

I would not go so far as to write "... doesn't fly by the FARs..."

Yes, given that Part 91 contains numerous exemptions for military aircraft, saying that they don't apply to military aircraft seems unsupportable. For instance:

§ 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.
​

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United States military aircraft.
​

Why have this exception if the FARS as a whole do not apply to military aircraft?

During a previous discussion, Hacker posted a copy of an exemption given by the FAA for some activity or another, so it seems the more accurate statement is that Part 91 regulations apply unless some other arrangement is reached with the FAA.

 

[MikeD]

Yes, given that Part 91 contains numerous exemptions for military aircraft, saying that they don't apply to military aircraft seems unsupportable. For instance:

§ 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.
​

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United States military aircraft.
​

Why have this exception if the FARS as a whole do not apply to military aircraft?

During a previous discussion, Hacker posted a copy of an exemption given by the FAA for some activity or another, so it seems the more accurate statement is that Part 91 regulations apply unless some other arrangement is reached with the FAA.

The mil regs and 14 CFR 91 mirror each other on a number of things, and 91 does provide for a number of exemptions, as noted above.....another big one being 91.117(d) for tactical jets. I think what Hacker is trying to say is that though we don't fly by the FARs, per se, we actually end up following them since our regs mirror them. IE- I can point out any number of mil pilots who have never opened up a FAR/AIM and probably wouldn't even know what 14 CFR 91 is, but they're still (whether they know it or not) unknowingly following 91 due to the mirroring of the regs. In fact, they might not even know certain exemptions exist for them under the FARs, they've just always assumed it as "normal ops" since that's what they've always done. For me, coming from both backgrounds, I can see both sides of the equation.

 

[MikeD]

will allow certain Cat E aircraft (specifically the F-15E and T-38 -- there may be more, but those are the only ones I know) to fly Cat D approaches, so long as the actual calculated final approach and missed approach airspeeds are IAW Cat D requirements (e.g. < 165).

Nighthawk! It hates doing anything slow, what with the permanent 73 degree wingsweep! I believe F-16, F/A-18, F-111, and F-4 are also Cat E. Lots of former birds were also (104, etc).

In the Hog, we were Cat D, but could fly Cat C (straight-in only) for the same reasons you cite.

 

[Blackhawk]

The mil regs and 14 CFR 91 mirror each other on a number of things, and 91 does provide for a number of exemptions, as noted above.....another big one being 91.117(d) for tactical jets. I think what Hacker is trying to say is that though we don't fly by the FARs, per se, we actually end up following them since our regs mirror them. IE- I can point out any number of mil pilots who have never opened up a FAR/AIM and probably wouldn't even know what 14 CFR 91 is, but they're still (whether they know it or not) unknowingly following 91 due to the mirroring of the regs. In fact, they might not even know certain exemptions exist for them under the FARs, they've just always assumed it as "normal ops" since that's what they've always done. For me, coming from both backgrounds, I can see both sides of the equation.

I use the analagy of 135/121. Where the Army/Air Force/Navy regulations are silent, FAA takes priority. Where the military regulations take priority there is normally some kind of agreement with the FAA. I obviously don't know the Air Force regulations, but I know the Army regulations did not cover everything in the FAR and the AIM. We were expected to know those things.

 

[Hacker15e]

though we don't fly by the FARs, per se, we actually end up following them since our regs mirror them.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say.

Every time this comes up, people quote exemptions in the CFR for military as evidence that military aviators operate "under the FARs".

No, sorry, we don't, regardless of what you imply from what is written in the FARs.

As part of my military flying career I've never been given a copy of 14 CFR, or the FAR/AIM, or any other type of FAA regulatory information, and been told to learn it, get tested on it, or fly in accordance with it. I *have* had to do all that with USAF regs like 11-202V2, 11-2F-15E vol 3, etc, which are the *actual* regs that I'm held accountable for.

I'm not required to know a thing about 14 CFR -- but I have to know all about the applicable USAF regs that closely mirror the CFR, and are negotiated directly with the FAA.

Since military pilots aren't certificated by the FAA, nor are our aircraft registered or regulated by the FAA, it's not really possible for there to be "certificate action" against a military pilot for violation of 14 CFR.

On the other hand, there is plenty of action that military leadership can take for violation of military regs. Part of the military liaison program with the FAA is ensuring that the military regs "play nice" with the CFR, and that any military violations are taken care of via those military channels.

 

[MikeD]

Since military pilots aren't certificated by the FAA, nor are our aircraft registered or regulated by the FAA, it's not really possible for there to be "certificate action" against a military pilot for violation of 14 CFR.

On the other hand, there is plenty of action that military leadership can take for violation of military regs. Part of the military liaison program with the FAA is ensuring that the military regs "play nice" with the CFR, and that any military violations are taken care of via those military channels.

One reason too we don't want names/SSNs printed on the DD-175/1801 (mil flt plan/intl flt plan) or want to call an ATC facility in the event of a potential pilot deviation, is if you hold FAA certs as a mil pilot. Even though when piloting a military aircraft, you're NOT operating under the priviliges of your FAA certificate(s); the FAA can and has violated military pilots under their FAA certs for a violation that has occurred when flying a military plane........ie- when not even operating under the privilege of the civil/FAA certs. Which is complete crap for the FAA to do, IMO. But that's one reason we don't, and also why we have a AF/FAA liasion officer.

 

[ghogue]

Yes, given that Part 91 contains numerous exemptions for military aircraft, saying that they don't apply to military aircraft seems unsupportable. For instance:

§ 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.
​

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United States military aircraft.
​

Why have this exception if the FARS as a whole do not apply to military aircraft?

During a previous discussion, Hacker posted a copy of an exemption given by the FAA for some activity or another, so it seems the more accurate statement is that Part 91 regulations apply unless some other arrangement is reached with the FAA.

I can't speak about other military services, but I can about the Army. The FAR's do apply to Army aircraft except where specifically exempted, as you mentioned.

I've been retired for a few years, but having been an Instructor Pilot and Flight Examiner for most of my 23 years in the Army, I do have experience in this. The wording in the current version of AR 95-1 has not changed in many years. A couple of examples below.

While the FAA cannot directly impose sanctions on Army pilots, if a pilot is suspected of violating a FAR, it will be reported to the Army through appropriate channels and action, if called for, will be taken, and the results forwarded to the FAA. I personally served several times as the investigating officer for pilots accused of violating FAR's.

Again, I have no experience with other branches of service.

AR 95-1

1–6. Deviations
a. Individuals may deviate from provisions of this regulation during emergencies.
b. Individuals who deviate from the provisions of this regulation, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), or host country regulations must report details of the incident directly to their unit commander. The incident must be reported within 24 hours after it occurs.
c. Violations of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), host country, and military aviation regulations will be treated per paragraph 2–13.

2–13. Flight violations
Policies and procedures for reporting and investigating alleged flight rules violations follow: a. Violations. Any violation of FAA, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), host country, and/or any other pertinent aviation regulation will be reported. Any person witnessing or involved in a flight violation involving
civil or military aircraft will report it as soon as possible. (1) Violations by military aircraft should be reported to one of the following: (a) The commander of the unit, activity, or installation if known, to which the aircraft belongs. (b) The DAR of the FAA service area in which the alleged violation took place. (See AR 95–2 for addresses.)

 

[MikeD]

I can't speak about other military services, but I can about the Army. The FAR's do apply to Army aircraft except where specifically exempted, as you mentioned.

I've been retired for a few years, but having been an Instructor Pilot and Flight Examiner for most of my 23 years in the Army, I do have experience in this. The wording in the current version of AR 95-1 has not changed in many years. A couple of examples below.

While the FAA cannot directly impose sanctions on Army pilots, if a pilot is suspected of violating a FAR, it will be reported to the Army through appropriate channels and action, if called for, will be taken, and the results forwarded to the FAA. I personally served several times as the investigating officer for pilots accused of violating FAR's.

Again, I have no experience with other branches of service.

Working with and around Army aviators is also the only place I've ever seen a FAR/AIM at a military unit or operations section. Never have seen one in any USAF/USN/USMC unit or base operations, etc.

 

[tgrayson]

No, sorry, we don't, regardless of what you imply from what is written in the FARs.

The last time this came up, the only evidence you could supply to support your assertion was a letter of exemption from the FAA, which actually undermines your point. Why would you need an exemption from a law that doesn't apply to you?

As part of my military flying career I've never been given a copy of 14 CFR, or the FAR/AIM, or any other type of FAA regulatory information,

I think you're drawing an improper inference from this. Perhaps following your own operating rules will keep you within federal regulations, but that's not the same thing as saying the regulations don't apply to you.

 

[Hacker15e]

The last time this came up, the only evidence you could supply to support your assertion was a letter of exemption from the FAA, which actually undermines your point. Why would you need an exemption from a law that doesn't apply to you?

No, I think if you go read the letter I posted, you'll see that it perfectly supports my position.

It is a letter to the DoD representative to the FAA coordinating the speed authorization below 10K. The name of that letter is "SPEED AUTHORIZATION GRANTED TO DOD". It is the FAA authorizing the DoD to have an exception to FAA rules. It is a government-level coordination of policy, and has nothing to do with the status of any military aviator with regard to falling under FAA rule.

My position is that, as a military aviator, I am responsible to the military regulations and NOT the parts of the CFR that civilian pilots are responsible to. Those military regulations are directly coordinated with the FAA, as demonstrated in the Speed Authorization letter, and ensure that military airmen are following rules that closely mirror the CFR. In areas that military rules do not mirror the CFR, the liaisons have worked out agreements allowing it to be that way (again, as seen in the letter).

 

[tgrayson]

It is the FAA authorizing the DoD to have an exception to FAA rules. I

Why would the FAA need to authorize the DoD to do anything if the part 91 regulations do not inherently apply to military operations?

 

[Hacker15e]

Why would the FAA need to authorize the DoD to do anything if the part 91 regulations do not inherently apply to military operations?

I'll say this again - the military regulations are negotiated with the FAA. This is an area where the DoD has said that it is not going to comply with the FARs, and the letter is the FAA saying, "yep, that's all right".

This is staff-level work. It has nothing to do with weather or not individual aviators fall under the FARs. I'm guessing that you've never had an opportunity to work in a staff-level office that coordinates this sort of thing. It's pretty standard stuff.

Again, military aviators are not certificated by the FAA, and thus are not regulated by the FAA.

How much clearer does that need to be? What exactly do you need to get this?

If you want something more concrete, then write the DoD and ask their FAA rep to send you a letter with it spelled out for you. Anything else I have to contribute on the matter is obviously going to fall on ears that have all ready made up their mind.