stuckingfk
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
lruppert, I found some more info on this. Have you seen the new 2004 Instrument Procedures Handbook by the FAA? It is amazing at explaining this stuff.
So regarding visibility required for an approach, they list some of the criteria necessary when calcing this: HAT for straight-in, HAT for circling, lighting system, type of approach, etc. But here is a great one:
The penatration of the 34:1 and 20:1 surfaces. (between 200ft-10,000ft outward from runway
"If there is a penetration of the 34:1 surface, the publish visibility can be no lower than 3/4SM. If there is penatration of the 20:1 surface, the published visibility can be no lower than 1SM with a note prohibiting approaches to the affected runway at night. [Yet] Circling may be permitted at night if the penetrating obstacles are marked and lighted."
This still doesn't hit on why exactly you would only be able to have 1100-4 in RNO, but it is getting closer.
Who's good at trig and can caculate the rise over run with a 63 TCH and a 3.10 degree glide slope?
[/ QUOTE ]
What page is that on?
I have the book and haven't read that yet.
I still think the reason the minimums are so high is due because you have to start so high on the initial approach segment and intermediate approach segment and there isn't enough room to get the aircraft down using an ILS.
Look at the approach into Jackson Hole and how much lower the minimums are. They have a really long than usual final following the glideslope (over 8 miles dropping 3000+). Not sure about you, but that is the long time to stay on final. Longest I have seen, but I am sure there are longer.
I think the reason being for lower minimums at JAC, the valley is much wider and longer and nothing gets to close to the 12 mile wide initial and intermediate approach segment.
I really do want to know more about this
Anyone Anyone........
lruppert, I found some more info on this. Have you seen the new 2004 Instrument Procedures Handbook by the FAA? It is amazing at explaining this stuff.
So regarding visibility required for an approach, they list some of the criteria necessary when calcing this: HAT for straight-in, HAT for circling, lighting system, type of approach, etc. But here is a great one:
The penatration of the 34:1 and 20:1 surfaces. (between 200ft-10,000ft outward from runway
"If there is a penetration of the 34:1 surface, the publish visibility can be no lower than 3/4SM. If there is penatration of the 20:1 surface, the published visibility can be no lower than 1SM with a note prohibiting approaches to the affected runway at night. [Yet] Circling may be permitted at night if the penetrating obstacles are marked and lighted."
This still doesn't hit on why exactly you would only be able to have 1100-4 in RNO, but it is getting closer.
Who's good at trig and can caculate the rise over run with a 63 TCH and a 3.10 degree glide slope?
[/ QUOTE ]
What page is that on?
I have the book and haven't read that yet.
I still think the reason the minimums are so high is due because you have to start so high on the initial approach segment and intermediate approach segment and there isn't enough room to get the aircraft down using an ILS.
Look at the approach into Jackson Hole and how much lower the minimums are. They have a really long than usual final following the glideslope (over 8 miles dropping 3000+). Not sure about you, but that is the long time to stay on final. Longest I have seen, but I am sure there are longer.
I think the reason being for lower minimums at JAC, the valley is much wider and longer and nothing gets to close to the 12 mile wide initial and intermediate approach segment.
I really do want to know more about this
Anyone Anyone........
