Ibra wrote:
Are you sure? don’t you have to degrade LPV to LNAV during planning?
I have never seen any regulation or AMC/GM that says so. (But see below!) But I could be wrong – it is more difficult to show the non-existence of a regulation than its existence. 
say alternate is LPV200 (or LNAV400) and destination is NDB500. For sake of simplicity let’s say they have same ceilings in TAF/MET, can I depart with 100ft ceiling? 200ft? 300ft? 400ft? 500?
200 ft.
Part-NCO has no planning requirements for the destination. You can depart with a zero/zero forecast. The alternate must be “weather-permissible” (NCO.OP.140) meaning that it is forecast to be above minima for one hour before and one hour after the time when you expect to arrive over the alternate.
I’m not saying that would be smart. Personally, I apply the planning minima from part-CAT.
When the recent change to part-NCO comes into force on October 30, higher alternate planning minima will apply. The rule that at least one of the destination and alternate airports has a non-RPN approach will be relaxed so that it is sufficient (if you have an SBAS box) that at least one of the destination and alternate airports has an approach that does not depend on SBAS.
For ILS at alternate, I has the impression “weather permissible” is required VIS/RVR during planning the ceiling can be zero, for LPV at alternate, ceiling will come into the picture (I need to find the reference)
Ibra wrote:
For ILS at alternate, I has the impression “weather permissible” is required VIS/RVR during planning the ceiling can be zero, for LPV at alternate, ceiling will come into the picture (I need to find the reference)
I was taught the same, I think it is in ICAO Annex 3 but cannot find the exact paragraph now. Looking…
Ok having looked at it again, this is all I can find…
NCO.OP.140 Destination alternate aerodromes — aeroplanes
For IFR flights, the pilot-in-command shall specify at least one weather-permissible
destination alternate aerodrome in the flight plan, unless:
(a) the available current meteorological information indicates that, for the period from 1 hour before until 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, or from the actual time of departure to 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival, whichever is the shorter period, the approach and landing may be made under visual meteorological conditions (VMC); or
(b) the place of intended landing is isolated and:
(1) an instrument approach procedure is prescribed for the aerodrome of intended landing; and
Page 18 of 47
(2)
available current meteorological information indicates that the following meteorological conditions will exist from 2 hours before to 2 hours after the estimated time of arrival:
NCO.OP.141
(b) the
place of intended landing is isolated and:
(i) (ii)
a cloud base of at least 300 m (1 000 ft) above the minimum associated with the instrument approach procedure; and
visibility of at least 5.5 km or of 4 km more than the minimum associated with the procedure.
What is this zero ceiling business? If the ceiling is zero surely the RVR would be zero.
Like A_A I tend to stick to Part CAT planning minima. There’s usually an answer to the questions you ask there.
Looking for references to minima and where they are to be found has been interesting of late.
For instance Part 91 take off minima (I’ll leave all the exceptions and qualifications out here) quotes zero/zero take off minima. Except if the aircraft is on hire when you have a 1 mile visibility minima and depending on aircraft this can increase to 2miles and a ceiling is added.
AIUI an N reg operated outside of the USA by an non national is operated on a trust. Does that mean that they are considered renters or owners? I’ve got 2 N reg pilots here arguing this one out.
In English, they are “beneficial owners”, or “trustors” in US English. Not all N-regs over here are in a trust; some are owned by a US citizen (or green card holder) who just lets somebody fly it. I’ve known 2-3 like that; the pilots amusingly tell everybody it is theirs
US minima can apply in Europe but usually doesn’t if the FARs are read carefully – see e.g. this and here.
My minima planning is much more involved because of airport availability, opening hours, even costs (otherwise why not always file for Gatwick – €3k ). The legal requirements would be nothing like sufficient; same for fuel reserves.
gallois wrote:
Like A_A I tend to stick to Part CAT planning minima.
Probably not unwise in less populated areas. I use the below since I did my ME/IR. stick to it religiously…
Like A_A I tend to stick to Part CAT planning minima. There’s usually an answer to the questions you ask there.
That is what you think I know everybody bangs on this, I use CAT not NCO as it’s safer, professional, blabla…ok, let’s use some brain: why do you think operating Part CAT is conservative in this occasion? CAT are likely to operate RNP 3D without SBAS on BARO and likely to operate RNP 2D without GPS on DME/DME, you don’t have that luxury in NCO aircraft if SBAS goes OFF or GPS goes OFF, you are likely to get fried operating under “CAT criteria” with “NCO aircraft” unless your aircraft is equipped with “CAT equipment”…
The logic is,
- In typical NCO aircraft if you degrade SBAS, you have to plan NPA 2D LNAV minima (you can fly LNAV+V on CDFA without SBAS if it makes life easier but the legal minima will be the one for LNAV), if you lose GPS, you have conventional planned and ceiling would apply
- In typical CAT aircraft if you degrade SBAS, you can plan APV 3D L/VNAV without SBAS on BARO, if you lose GPS, you may still operate LNAV on DME/DME
Back to my point, I am dead sure LPV is not treated as ILS for planning but maybe it was MANEX or ICAO rather than NCO/CAT rules?
I tend to use that as well but I don’t think it answers the questions Ibra is asking.
I’m not as au fait with NCO ops relating to IFR as perhaps I should be because I always go by Part Cat.
Plus my own operational limits. For instance, even if it is legal I would probably shy away from a zero/zero take off.
I don’t like driving in thick fog especially on a motorway but it’s legal.
Well a conservative “IR holder” who does it for fun would play conservatively and tend to plan 3km visibility & 600ft in TAF, which even “brave PPL without an IR” can legally plan and fly VFR/SVFR but “personal minima” was not the point…also one like to get challenged, I flew Melun LPV last month on night IFR, it was 600m RVR in Chalons Vatry (with ATC & ILS), 400m RVR in Troyes (no ATS, so MVL minima) and VMC at Pontoise…I am keen to know if that flight planning was legal if Pontoise was closed?
LPV & ILS in destination & alternate during planning, you & A_A seems to suggest they are interchangeable for planning minima? assuming same weather near same system minima: can I swap destination & alternate?
What does the Pontoise VAC say about airport opening hours?
Did Melun have a TAF when you planned it or not? And was there an ATS service.
Or am I getting confused and the 600m RVR in Chalons Vatry (with ATC) nothing to do with the LPV at Melun?
If not and if there are no restrictions on the Pontoise hours of opening it seems fine to me, but I do not have the charts in front of me.
