Sidestep Approach Minimums
#11
The EEftPP reference book uses AIM 5-4-18 and states:
3. Landing minimums to the adjacent runway will be based on nonprecision criteria and ...
USMCFLYR
The EEftPP reference book uses AIM 5-4-18 and states:
1. ATC may authorize a nonprecision approach procedure which serves either one of the parallel runways that are separated by ,1200 feet or less ...
.
#12
I mentioned AIM 5-4-20.d. before, now I'll revisit it.
5-4-20. is titled Approach and Landing Minimums, and it discusses a. Landing Minimums, b. Obstacle Clearance, and more. Under the second sub-paragraph, we get a glimpse into why the minimums might be higher:
.
d. Side-Step Maneuver Minimums. Landing
minimums for a side-step maneuver to the adjacent
runway will normally be higher than the minimums
to the primary runway.
Why would the Side-Step Maneuver Minimums "normally be higher than the minimums to the primary runway"? Look at how the minimums are derived.minimums for a side-step maneuver to the adjacent
runway will normally be higher than the minimums
to the primary runway.
5-4-20. is titled Approach and Landing Minimums, and it discusses a. Landing Minimums, b. Obstacle Clearance, and more. Under the second sub-paragraph, we get a glimpse into why the minimums might be higher:
b. Obstacle Clearance. Final approach obstacle
clearance is provided from the start of the final
segment to the runway or missed approach point,
whichever occurs last. Side-step obstacle protection
is provided by increasing the width of the final
approach obstacle clearance area.
The non-precision minimums for the straight-in approach do not take into account obstacles that may affect the adjacent runway. Circling minimums for the approach would account for those obstacles, and side-step minimums would account for them, but straight-in non-precision minimums would not account for them.clearance is provided from the start of the final
segment to the runway or missed approach point,
whichever occurs last. Side-step obstacle protection
is provided by increasing the width of the final
approach obstacle clearance area.
.
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2010
Posts: 327
This has been an educational discussion. I think I got it now...
Parallel runways 1200' apart or less = side-step minimums
Parallel runways 1201' apart or more = circling minimums
For all practical purposes, side-stepping to a parallel runway is a side-step maneveur... in terms of how you control the airplane and the path you fly. But technically speaking, if the distance between the parallel runways is an inch above 1200, it is now a circling maneuver, subject to non-precision criteria and MDA (ie circling minimums).
Straight-In minimums don't apply.
Parallel runways 1200' apart or less = side-step minimums
Parallel runways 1201' apart or more = circling minimums
For all practical purposes, side-stepping to a parallel runway is a side-step maneveur... in terms of how you control the airplane and the path you fly. But technically speaking, if the distance between the parallel runways is an inch above 1200, it is now a circling maneuver, subject to non-precision criteria and MDA (ie circling minimums).
Straight-In minimums don't apply.
Last edited by AKASHA; 03-12-2010 at 06:44 PM.
#14
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2008
Posts: 25
5-4-20. is titled Approach and Landing Minimums, and it discusses a. Landing Minimums, b. Obstacle Clearance, and more. Under the second sub-paragraph, we get a glimpse into why the minimums might be higher:
.
b. Obstacle Clearance. Final approach obstacle
clearance is provided from the start of the final
segment to the runway or missed approach point,
whichever occurs last. Side-step obstacle protection
is provided by increasing the width of the final
approach obstacle clearance area.
The non-precision minimums for the straight-in approach do not take into account obstacles that may affect the adjacent runway. Circling minimums for the approach would account for those obstacles, and side-step minimums would account for them, but straight-in non-precision minimums would not account for them.clearance is provided from the start of the final
segment to the runway or missed approach point,
whichever occurs last. Side-step obstacle protection
is provided by increasing the width of the final
approach obstacle clearance area.
.
#15
Excerpt from:
TERMINAL
Side‐step Maneuver. When authorized by an instru-
.
Chapter 4. IFR
Section 8. Approach Clearance Procedures
4-8-7. SIDE-STEP MANEUVER
TERMINAL
Side‐step Maneuver. When authorized by an instru-
ment approach procedure, you may clear an aircraft
for an approach to one runway and inform the aircraft
that landing will be made on a parallel runway.
for an approach to one runway and inform the aircraft
that landing will be made on a parallel runway.
EXAMPLE-
“Cleared I-L-S Runway seven left approach. Side‐step to
runway seven right.”
“Cleared I-L-S Runway seven left approach. Side‐step to
runway seven right.”
NOTE
Side‐step maneuvers require higher weather minima/
MDA. These higher minima/MDA are published on the
instrument approach charts.
MDA. These higher minima/MDA are published on the
instrument approach charts.
REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 3-3-2, Closed/Unsafe Runway Information.
P/CG Term- Side-step Maneuver.FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 3-3-2, Closed/Unsafe Runway Information.
.
#17
The minimums for the side-step maneuver and the minimums for the straight-in are derived using the same procedures, but they are not the same. The former includes obstacle clearance for both runways. The latter does not.
[EDIT: Oops. Looks like I'm typing over AKASHA. <insert smiley here> ]
.
#18
This has been an educational discussion. I think I got it now...
Parallel runways 1200' apart or less = side-step minimums
Parallel runways 1201' apart or more = circling minimums
For all practical purposes, side-stepping to a parallel runway is a side-step maneveur... in terms of how you control the airplane and the path you fly. But technically speaking, if the distance between the parallel runways is an inch above 1200, it is now a circling maneuver, subject to non-precision criteria and MDA (ie circling minimums).
Straight-In minimums don't apply.
.
#19
Here's another interesting case study.If you look at that approach, you'll see minimums for the straight-in ILS (S-ILS), the straight-in Localizer (S-LOC), and for circling. What you won't see on that approach plate are minimums for a Side-Step to Runway 7R.
Being unfamiliar with the airfield, we might assume that Runways 7L and 7R are more than 1,200 feet apart, and therefore not eligible for this cool Side-Step maneuver. And, we'd be wrong. How do we know we're wrong? Well, it's because there ARE Side-Step minimums for the Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl (ANC) ILS or LOC/DME RWY 7R. The SIDESTEP RWY 7L minimums are higher than the straight-in Localizer minimums, but lower than the circling minimums.
Based on the information available on those approach plates, then, I would deduce that it is permissible to fly the ILS RWY 07R Side-Step 07L, but it is not permissable to fly the ILS RWY 07L Side-Step 07R.
.
Being unfamiliar with the airfield, we might assume that Runways 7L and 7R are more than 1,200 feet apart, and therefore not eligible for this cool Side-Step maneuver. And, we'd be wrong. How do we know we're wrong? Well, it's because there ARE Side-Step minimums for the Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl (ANC) ILS or LOC/DME RWY 7R. The SIDESTEP RWY 7L minimums are higher than the straight-in Localizer minimums, but lower than the circling minimums.
Based on the information available on those approach plates, then, I would deduce that it is permissible to fly the ILS RWY 07R Side-Step 07L, but it is not permissable to fly the ILS RWY 07L Side-Step 07R.
.
#20
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2008
Posts: 25
Originally Posted by TonyC
I disagree with the inferences you're making that side-step minimums are not required, but I understand how you're getting there.
b. Aircraft that will execute a side‐step maneuver will be cleared for a specified approach procedure and landing on the adjacent parallel runway. Example, “cleared ILS runway 7 left approach, side‐step to runway 7 right.” Pilots are expected to commence the side‐step maneuver as soon as possible after the runway or runway environment is in sight. Compliance with minimum altitudes associated with stepdown fixes is expected even after the side-step maneuver is initiated.
If you have runway environment in sight, you are permitted to descend from the MDA for landing (assuming the requirements of FAR 91.175 are all met). What this implies is that you are flying straight-in for runway 7 left and only side-step to runway 7 right after you have runway environment in sight, at which point you are now responsible for obstruction avoidance as you leave lateral limits for the straight-in to runway 7 left. If this is true, then wouldn't that imply that (if no side-step minimums are published) you would be using the straight-in nonprecision minimums?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post