Talk:Instrument approach

message: Couple of changes:
* Added Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS), currently in development for use by all services and possibly select contract carriers.
* Changed NDB approach to ADF approach (the correct term found on today's approach plates).
:many countries call them NDB approaches.  Added back.BaseTurnComplete 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ICAO calls them Surveillance Radar Approaches (as per Doc 4444 PANS-ATM).  Changed back.BaseTurnComplete 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Much of it added back as it wasn't aberrant.  Please sign your comments in discussion with four tildes!BaseTurnComplete 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: GPS+WAAS (LPV) is listed as a precision approach type, but it's not.  Some LPV approaches have minima that are the same as those for ILS Category 1 approaches, but LPV can't be theoretically proven to meet ICAO Annex 10 tolerances for a precision approach.  Therefore, I'm moving LPV to the Non-precision approach types, despite the functional regularity and precision of the system.
--Conortodd (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precision Approaches Don't Include LPV 

message: Most folks focus on the airplane, a few on the flight crew, and most don't think about the need for airports to have an adequate infrastructure to support reduced visibility landings.  With new technologies such as GPS, WAAS/LAAS, Head Up Displays, Enhanced Vision (Infrared) and Synthetic Vision (is that real or is it Flight Simulator? :) ) it is technically possible to do a landing under Cat II or even Cat IIIa conditions without having a properly equipted airport - and in fact this is a real concern for those doing design and approval of these new systems.   HOWEVER the pilot should also consider "What happens if I go off the runway and require emergency equipment? or Will I be able to taxi if the taxiway lights are not visible because of this fog?"   All these are addressed by the appropriate airport infrastructure requirements. Brian (ZazenCID 13:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added reference to FAA requirements for airports 

message: HUDs have been approved for manually flown approaches and landings down to Cat IIIc for some time.  HUDs offer a lower cost solution to providing this capability then the traditional fully coupled autoland systems and are gaining increasing popularity for feeder aircraft which typically do not have the required redundancy of flight control systems for autoland.  (A computer "glitch" at flare during a CAT III landing which causes a multi-axis hard-over is considered unrecoverable and catastrophic - designing automated systems to prevent that, and then getting approval for those systems, is very expensive.  The alternative is to keep the pilot actively flying the aircraft following guidance cues provided by the ILS sensors.  If a sensor provides a guidance cue which suddenly goes hard right, the pilot can act in a more rational manner then just following the cue as an automated system would.)  
In addition, aircraft equipped with an approved HUD with Enhanced Vision (infrared camera such as Max-Viz or CMC) are approved to fly a Cat I approach to Cat II minimums. 14 CFR 91.175 (amendment 281) 121.651 (ammendment 303) 125.381 (amendment 45) 135.225 (amendment 93)  Brian (ZazenCID 14:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added References to Head Up Displays 

message: The definition given for a straight in approach is actually the definition of a straight in landing. A straight in approach is one that does not involve a procedure turn or hold in lieu of a procedure turn. See the AIM pilot controller glossary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.234.2.90 (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Definition of a "Straight In" Approach 

message: Why does the chart have one side in standard measurements, and the other side in metric? It should be consistant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.184.155 (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Low visibility approaches [obsolete] 

message: Should there not be some mention of the contact approach here? LeadSongDog (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contact approach? 

message: ICAO documents (Annexes, PANS and several other relevant docs) contain no explicit definition of low visibility approach or low visibility operation. The nearest I can find is in a note to Para 7.12.1 of ICAO Doc 4444 (PANS-ATM). The para says
"7.12.1 Control of aerodrome surface traffic in conditions of low visibility
Note.— These procedures apply whenever conditions are such that all or part of the manoeuvring area cannot be visually monitored from the control tower. Additional requirements which apply when category II/III approaches are being conducted are specified in Section 7.12.2."
That being the case the sentence deleted is at best unsourced and as far as the ICAO documentation is concerned, incorrect. treesmill (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low Visibility Approach definition 

message: The section on Visual Approaches (most likely added from the "contact approach" suggestion) has and insufficient and incorrect information.  A Visual Approach is not a precision instrument approach; it's not even an instrument approach at all, as it is an instrument or IFR procedure.  
However, they are "kinda-sorta" instrument approaches because you must be on an IFR flight plan to fly one, so I would suggest renaming the section "Other IFR Approaches" or something, and adding additional "other approaches" such as contact approach, circling approach, side-step, etc.
Also, I suggest moving Circling Approach and Visual Approach, with the suggestions above, to the main section of the article.  They are unique Instrument Approach Procedures and not "concepts."  Perhaps the "body" should have 3 sections (keeping the intro and basic principles): Precision, Non-Precision, and Other Approaches with information in other parts of the document. I'll try to edit ASAP, unless somebody beats me to it. Captjosh (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual Approach Section Has Errors and Needs Additional Information 

message: Back course approaches shouldn't be listed under concepts but under non-precision approaches, or even better, move the section on back course approaches to the article for localizer (with a redirect from back course approach).  A back course would be what I call a variation of a localizer approach, since they're using the same beam that a front-course uses (i.e. you won't ever have a back course without having a front course, but the reverse can not be said to be true).
(BTW, I put my opinion on the re-write of this article in the WikiProject discussion). HiFlyChick (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back course approach 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Instrument approach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160519021503/http://dcaa.trafikstyrelsen.dk:8000/icaodocs/Doc%208168%20-%20Aircraft%20Operations/Volume%202%20-%20Construction%20of%20Visual%20and%20Instrument%20Flight%20Procedures.pdf to http://dcaa.trafikstyrelsen.dk:8000/icaodocs/Doc%208168%20-%20Aircraft%20Operations/Volume%202%20-%20Construction%20of%20Visual%20and%20Instrument%20Flight%20Procedures.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified