-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
What is the deal with PARs?
- Thread starter D_Rob
- Start date
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
I wasn't disagreeing that Otto knows the definitions, disagreeing that he executed a missed approach at Decision Altitude.I think a split is in order at this point, just sayin
Show me a published "Decision Altitude" for NAS North Whiting Field, and I'll eat crow. However, I demonstrated that there is a published "Decision Height". Yes, DA will EVENTUALLY replace DH - but it hasn't yet. Until that point, he will be executing a missed approach at the DH vice the DA.
I've always executed the miss on either the baro or radalt whichever goes first, unless we knew there was a hill infront of the MAP. On a tangent, do helos have a min approach speed (gas not withstanding but from an FAA point of view)?
Well in that case, sure. I'll agree that based on current nomenclature, we execute missed approaches at a "decision height" on precision approaches (except with the previously linked precision RNAV/GPS approaches).
The ENTIRE point of my post which caused this massive thread-jack, was that I viewed the term as flawed and as a PERSONAL preference, I choose to call it Decision Altitude (which it seems terms/definitions are soon changing anyway). I understand that the current convention is to call it "decision height". I never argued that. Just stated my personal preference and explained why.
Are we all happy now? Koombaya!
Why did you re-write an instrument exam that has probably existed in your squadron since its HMR days?! Trying to be Mr. Popular, I see. Let me know how that works out for you.
Playing with fire, my friend.
Well in that case, sure. I'll agree that based on current nomenclature, we execute missed approaches at a "decision height" on precision approaches (except with the previously linked precision RNAV/GPS approaches).
The ENTIRE point of my post which caused this massive thread-jack, was that I viewed the term as flawed and as a PERSONAL preference, I choose to call it Decision Altitude (which it seems terms/definitions are soon changing anyway). I understand that the current convention is to call it "decision height". I never argued that. Just stated my personal preference and explained why.
Are we all happy now? Koombaya!
Once a sea lawyer...
This is like one of those threads where the engineer wanna-be nerds argue over some equasion that's ultimately irrelevant to aviating.
Brett
Per OPNAV, only if you're single-piloted or single-radio, as I recall.
I won't argue the merits of planning for an alternate, but the situation above does speak to the merits of rotorcraft. "Runway? We don't need no stinkin' runway!"
Actually based on that context it's clear that the vibrations are being dampened...likely by a dampener. True, there is a secondary definition of dampen to mean to make moist. But, there's also a primary definition of damp which is to affect with a noxious gas. In the example context, both damped and dampened would be correct. There's no reason to suggest otherwise.
Ah, but what you're doing in the cockpit has no relation to how the approach was designed. A PAR's or ILS's DH is always based on height above the runway. A PAR controller is telling you you're at decision height when her radar says you're 100 feet above the landing zone...not when you're at some barometric altitude. Same thing goes for an ILS. When these approaches are designed, the basis is AGL.
RNAV approaches are different, because the decision altitude is truly what the aircraft is decending to in MSL. The glideslope indications are being provided by the onboard systems and that's why it's a DA, not a DH.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
NERDS!!!!!!!!
It needed to be said.
FTFY. I've heard this same exact discussion countless times in the pit of despair that is the sim building. For what it's worth...they agree with Otto.
Meh. Get back to me when NAVAIR realizes "practicable" isn't a word and issues the appropriate NATOPS changes.:icon_tong