RobertL18C wrote:
The KLN94 requires a baro input to carry out the RAIM in the run up to the FAF, without baro input it is not approved for approaches, albeit LNAV only. You also have to set QNH when loading the approach.
From what I understand, you don’t need to enter the QNH for an approach. It only serves to improve the odds of being able to calculate RAIM. Now a days, GPS baro aided RAIM algorithms are designed using pressure altitude and do their own corrections for the purposes of RAIM.
Ibra wrote:
Yes I agree planning minima in NCO are lose (they will get tight though) but one has to check if complying with CAT legal minima (now and in near future), automatically complies with NCO legal minima? is this a proven fact or an assumption? then look if they are safe or sensible without “CAT equipment” and “CAT training”?
Well, since there are no destination planning minima at all in part-NCO, anything will be compliant.
As the alternate planning minima in part-NCO are exactly the operating minima, anything higher will be compliant. When the new alternate planning minima in part-NCO come into force, I will use them.
But we’ve gone through the planning minima several times already so do you really have to ask?
I’m not using part-CAT planning minima because they are “more professional.” It’s because part-NCO doesn’t provide any planning minima at all for the destination and the alternate planning minima are – yes – not “safe” enough IMO. So I have to come up with something reasonable and as it happens something is written in part-CAT
Yes I agree planning minima in NCO are lose (they will get tight though) but one has to check if complying with CAT legal minima (now and in near future), automatically complies with NCO legal minima? is this a proven fact or an assumption? then look if they are safe or sensible without “CAT equipment” and “CAT training”?
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)
“Weather permissible” is defined in the definition part of the Air Ops regulation:
‘weather-permissible aerodrome’ means an adequate aerodrome where, for the anticipated time of use, weather reports, or forecasts, or any combination thereof, indicate that the weather conditions will be at or above the required aerodrome operating minima,
And, if you’re curious:
‘adequate aerodrome’ means an aerodrome on which the aircraft can be operated, taking account of the applicable performance requirements and runway characteristics;
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:
I’m not using part-CAT planning minima because they are “more professional.” It’s because part-NCO doesn’t provide any planning minima at all for the destination and the alternate planning minima are – yes – not “safe” enough IMO. So I have to come up with something reasonable and as it happens something is written in part-CAT .
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?
It wouldn’t be unreasonable if you could, but with our current regulations you can’t
400 is a typo I was curious if ILS200 and LPV200 are treated the same for ceiling minima during planning? apparently no one knows…
Well… I would normally say that I “know” they are treated the same as I have never ever read anything to the contrary anywhere and I’ve read through part-NCO many times. But I’m not infallible and you seem very certain so there may be something that I’ve missed.
boscomantico wrote:
I think many of these terms that you are using (ILS200, LPV400, etc.) don‘t formally exist. The only ones that do are LPV-200 and LPV-250.
400 is obviously typo 
I was curious if ILS200 and LPV200 are treated the same regarding ceiling minima during planning? apparently no one knows, the legal requirement for SBAS degradation during planning on RNP is likely just another myth…I would take A_A answer: ILS & LPV are the same for NCO operations legal planning (makes life easier)
For IFR flight I tend to rent twin engined aircraft these days and most of the people I rent from insist on Part Cat minima and operations.
Yes that is a good point (they may not even have NCO minima in their books, although the rental operations is still NCO)
@ Ibra I never wrote or hopefully gave any impression that part CAT is safer or more professional than NCO blah blah blah.
I simply made the point that as far as legality is concerned I stick to part CAT for 2 reasons.
1) Part NCO didn’t exist when I did my IR and I know where to look to find something.
2) For IFR flight I tend to rent twin engined aircraft these days and most of the people I rent from insist on Part Cat minima and operations.
The point I made about safety was a nod to my own preferences. As someone who flies for fun I can choose if I fancy flying that day or not.
Nothing to do with safety but I don’t like flying the DA40 or DA42 in the rain. The reason is simply you, your clothes, the avionics, and the seats get wet, when you get in and out. It is not always possible, even when flying for fun, to avoid it. But if I can I will.
I think many of these terms that you are using (ILS200, LPV400, etc.) don‘t formally exist. The only ones that do are LPV-200 and LPV-250.
Ignore the example, I did the flight and Pontoise was open and VMC
If it was NOTAMed closed, I would have cancelled the flight !
Is LPV200 equivalent to ILS200 during planning minima at destination/alternate?
Sorry made a mistake there 400m RVR for an approach at Troyes. Isn’t that below minima for any approach even with auto pilot?
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.
