Another thing important to take into consideration when deriving alternate minimums is whether or not the aircraft is WAAS-equipped. If it is, then you can plan an RNAV approach at BOTH your alternate AND your destination. If it is NOT WAAS-equipped however, you MUST have a WORKING ground based navaid approach available at EITHER your destination OR your alternate. This is something dispatchers at say Southwest have to deal with alot. We have WAAS on our entire fleet at my company so this is one less thing we have to worry about. Just something that is sometimes overlooked:)
Thanks for making an excellent point about this! It is definitely a factor that some companies must consider for deriving mins. I am glad you made that clarification!
Derived alternate minimums using Ops Spec C055 are done PRIOR to the flight leaving. This is necessary to figure out legal weather requirements for choosing an alternate for preflight planning, and also if weather changes enroute. Once the decision to divert is made, you're correct that the crew uses landing minimums printed on the approach chart.
That is a great topic idea - what checkride are you thinking about? I do have an oral prep for the instrument checkride: ruclips.net/video/6sq-7TPTsdM/видео.html which might be of use to you.
If I had an ILS 35L and VOR 35L approach, given they have different identifiers (navaids), could I use those two approaches for the 2NAV rule? Or would I not be able too since it’s the same runway
Not sure exactly where in the video you're referring to, but the DA is the height MSL at which the approach can go down to, and DH is decision height which is above touchdown zone elevation (so in AGL.)
Hello, thanks for watching. I am assuming you are asking about the second example to KJFK (3:57 in the video) where I changed the wind to 260 degrees at 25 knots in the METAR. The tailwind limit for most airliners and even business jets is frequently 10 knots. The wind of 260 at 25 knots means on runway 4, there will be way too much tailwind - over the 10 knot limit. So we have to consider wind, and we cannot use a runway where the tailwind component is higher than what the aircraft is approved for. Does this help?
Another thing important to take into consideration when deriving alternate minimums is whether or not the aircraft is WAAS-equipped. If it is, then you can plan an RNAV approach at BOTH your alternate AND your destination. If it is NOT WAAS-equipped however, you MUST have a WORKING ground based navaid approach available at EITHER your destination OR your alternate. This is something dispatchers at say Southwest have to deal with alot. We have WAAS on our entire fleet at my company so this is one less thing we have to worry about. Just something that is sometimes overlooked:)
Thanks for making an excellent point about this! It is definitely a factor that some companies must consider for deriving mins. I am glad you made that clarification!
Keep them coming. Even as a review i am relearning because i forget
Thank you so much for watching and commenting! I am glad you like them!
Why do we have to derive Alt mins when landing mins are used if a decision to divert is made ?
Derived alternate minimums using Ops Spec C055 are done PRIOR to the flight leaving. This is necessary to figure out legal weather requirements for choosing an alternate for preflight planning, and also if weather changes enroute. Once the decision to divert is made, you're correct that the crew uses landing minimums printed on the approach chart.
Laura , are able to do a video on oral faa exam prep/questions
That is a great topic idea - what checkride are you thinking about? I do have an oral prep for the instrument checkride: ruclips.net/video/6sq-7TPTsdM/видео.html which might be of use to you.
ADX oral please!!!
If I had an ILS 35L and VOR 35L approach, given they have different identifiers (navaids), could I use those two approaches for the 2NAV rule? Or would I not be able too since it’s the same runway
Thank you for watching! No, you could not use the 2 navaid rule for this, because they are the same exact runway.
Why do you say DA when you’re referring to the Decision Height? Am I missing something?
Not sure exactly where in the video you're referring to, but the DA is the height MSL at which the approach can go down to, and DH is decision height which is above touchdown zone elevation (so in AGL.)
why cant you land on RWY 4. Please show us.
Hello, thanks for watching. I am assuming you are asking about the second example to KJFK (3:57 in the video) where I changed the wind to 260 degrees at 25 knots in the METAR. The tailwind limit for most airliners and even business jets is frequently 10 knots. The wind of 260 at 25 knots means on runway 4, there will be way too much tailwind - over the 10 knot limit. So we have to consider wind, and we cannot use a runway where the tailwind component is higher than what the aircraft is approved for. Does this help?