Would there be any sense in choosing alternates automatically?
Normally one chooses alternates manually, for
Unfortunately both the developers of the router seem to have left EuroGA. It’s a pity because EuroGA did a huge amount to help them launch the product and debug it. I personally did a vast amount of beta testing feedback. Well, nothing one can do about it. People come and go… for all sorts of sometimes bizzare reasons. So if you want any answers it may be better to go to their website and open a support ticket. They don’t support anybody on here anymore.
boscomantico wrote:
You mean legally speaking? Where do you take that from?
From there being no requirement in part-NCO for IFR procedures either for departures or approaches.
I was referring specifically to
Of course to make an approach in that case you must have visual conditions below the MSA.
Sure enough, under IFR, you are allowed to go below the MSA for the purpose of landing…
boscomantico wrote:
Sure enough, under IFR, you are allowed to go below the MSA for the purpose of landing…
Sorry, I am totally confused as to what you are asking.
Haha no worries!
It seemed to me you were saying that where no published instrument approach exists, whilst in IMC, one could not legally go below the MSA *. This I was questioning.
Note that I am no friend of DIY approaches in low conditions, but there doesn’t seem to be anything in the current EASA framework which would prohibit that.
* By the way, IIRC, the acronym “MSA” should is only used in connection with published instrument approaches. Outside of those, the term MSA does not apply. Outside of any published procedure, according to ICAO and SERA, the lowest IFR cruise altitude (unless taking off or landing!) is simply 1000 foot above the highest obstacle (2000 in mountaineous areas).
boscomantico wrote:
It seemed to me you were saying that where no published instrument approach exists, whilst in IMC, one could not legally go below the MSA *. This I was questioning.Note that I am no friend of DIY approaches in low conditions, but there doesn’t seem to be anything in the current EASA framework which would prohibit that.
I quite agree with you. If you compare the corresponding parts of part-NCO, part-NCC and part-CAT, it is to clear that part-NCO permits DYI approaches. Many people find that hard to swallow. I raised the issue in a discussion with the Swedish NAA and they simply said they would not argue against me.
But since jeff64 clearly wanted official procedures, that was my context.
How could you disallow DIY approaches when anybody flying IFR can (subject to clearance, etc) descend to the MSA (established as obstacles + 1k / 2k) and go around if not visual, i.e. this is a DIY IAP with a 1k DH.
Trying to prohibit this would leave you with having to draft wording which prohibits doing this with a DH of less than 1k/2k. You could look at 91.175a (which bans DIY approaches in an N-reg) but that is inconsistent with the right to fly down to the MSA. Also see here
And 1k is quite a reasonable DH. At Shoreham EGKA the DH (MDH to be accurate) on 20 is 800ft which is damn nearly 1k.
Peter wrote:
And 1k is quite a reasonable DH.
1k over ground would be kind of reasonable. 1k over obstacles frequently not.
Anyone having trouble with Autorouter?
My autorouter is not working, both telegram interface, and logging in. Anyone else having issues?
I can login and see my airplanes and routes.