⁰Yesterday I was at an ATO with a group of about 30 others, instructors,young and not so young, examiners, compliance officers, air traffic controllers and ATP students from all over Europe.
I was invited to sit in at some of the discussions. As the only non aviation professional there and that I was the only one well passed retirement age, I soon realised how out of date I was with some basic regulations and definitions.
I was asked the question used in the title. I dug into my memory and said “An approach with vertical guidance” WRONG. OK I thought perhaps they want a fuller answer so I added with horizontal guidance as well. Wrong again.
I was pretty sure that’s what I learnt for my IR theory. Ahh but that is not today’s definition.
Before I post what is now the definition of a precision approach I’d like to see your thoughts on the answer and whether it is a generational thing, or perhaps I am losing it and I should start re reading all my old books.
It’s not a generational thing, but it is a relatively recent change at ICAO level. Whether the niceties of such definitions are important is another matter.
It’s somewhere in ICAO Annex 10. But really, I don’t care, as the distinction hinges on technicalities and does not seem to be relevant for pilots nowadays.
Even on the annual IR check, it no longer is of any relevance. The only requirement is that you fly one 3D and one 2D approach.
@Bosmantico apparently a 2D and a 3D approach do not technically come into it as a definition. For instance apparently you can fly a 2D precision approach. It’s not recommended and did result in a crash I think one of the experts said it was in Canada.
I agree very much with both you and Bookworm about whether these definitions really matter.However I chose this one because it was one of the changes that stuck in my mind. These changes or perhaps more developments I should say they are apparently aimed at taking away more of the power of decision making from ATCO’s and give it back to pilots. I am not qualified to say whether any of them will do that or how it will go down in the UK having read other threads here. But that too is only an amateur opinion.
That‘s not correct, but perhaps a popular misconception. In the US, the only precision approach is an ILS (MLS might be, but do any exist?). No APV approaches qualify as precision approaches, not even an RNAV(GPS) approach to LPV DA. This is relevant when planning alternates, where the non-precision 800-2 wx limit applies to all RNAV(GPS) approaches. Only an ILS qualifies for the 600-2 limit.
The answer is apparently much simpler or at least simpler to remember.I suppose the definition has been written or rewritten to future proof it.I must admit thar I thought that can’t be all there is to it.Other definitions cover other areas.
@chflyer you forgot PAR is a precision approach also using the old definition.
chflyer wrote:
That‘s not correct, but perhaps a popular misconception.
I don’t think you’re right here. To quote verbatim from the FAR/AIM, quote from 14 CFR.subchapterA.Defintions and General Requirements.
Precision approach procedure means a standard instrument approach procedure in which an electronic glide slope is provided, such as ILS and PAR.
That’s the entire entry for precision approach definition.
Part 91.169 then describes the wx minima but only differentiates between precision and non-precision approaches without further guidance.
A precision approach is an approach which meets the precision approach criteria set by ICAO.
EGNOS enables precision (LPV CAT I) and non precision 3D approach with vertical guidance (LPV…).
Both (LPV & LPV CAT I) are 3D approaches and are flown the same way.
Here are the technical specifications https://images.app.goo.gl/zcKYXHK2YjPEtWLL7
