AKASHA

I thought so too... that's why I already referenced your red highlighted remarks in an earlier post. But after further thought, just because you have to comply with step-down altitudes does not change the fact that your final authorized altitude is the either the circling minimum or the side-step minimum.

TonyC

No. As long as the pilot remains above the MDA, he assumes no greater responsibility for obstacle avoidance. What he does have to do is comply with the procedure which he is cleared to fly. If he is cleared for the straight-in approach and remains on centerline above MDA, obstacle clearance is assured. If he deviates from that centerline to the centerline of an adjacent runway, obstacle clearance is not assured.


I don't think we disagree so much on how the side-step maneuver should be flown. What we disagree on is whether a controller can clear you for a Side-Step Maneuver when no Side-Step Minimums are published. I believe the ATC Manual I quoted above (7110.65T 4-8-7.) clearly says the Side-Step Minimums will be published.

You're flying an ILS and the Glideslope goes out of service. Can you fly a Localizer approach instead?

How about with this approach: ILS RWY 14

Or, you're flying the approach to RWY 14, and you want to circle to land on RWY 07R. Can you do that? (Reference same approach)

If there's no LOC mins, you can't fly the LOC, and if there's no Circling mins, you can't fly a circling approach. If there's no Side-Step Mins, ...






.

AKASHA

I think some confusion is stemming from the issuance of a specified IAP. Suppose weather is not an issue and you recieve a visual approach clearance. Say you're landing RDU and want a shorter taxi to Landmark... and you request a sidestep to the parallel runway. Weather is severe clear and tower approves. Here we are referring to the maneveur as a side-step, which it is. Although no side-step minimums exist (I assume so without looking), still you can request or accept such a maneuver. I suppose a visual approach is a visual approach, but still you must request the side-step from tower.

But i do agree with Tony C that in terms of minimums when flying the approach, you either side-step or circle. Afterall, how could you trust straigh-in minimums for the parallel runway when you have to cross from one approach path to the other?

USMCFLYR

Yes - my book is the newest of its' kind, but lists the reference in AIM as 5-4-18; so there is new info out there.

If I read your quote right, now if a runway is 1,500 apart there can be no side-step manuver (with or without side-step mins applied) and you could do a side-step, but it would be called a circling approach and use circling minimums?

Got it. Man...I need to go back to flying TACANs and PARs and leave this complicated stuff to you pros >insert smiley face here<

USMCFLYR

USMCFLYR

[quote=TonyC;777976] Surely you've seen approaches that have multiple non-precision minimums based on lighting, Approach category, Navaid capability, and even altimeter settings. They are all computed using non-precision criteria, but that doesn't make them the same, nor does it make them interchangeable.

As far as this part - I did say that in the example given in the book that you would be cleared for a specific NP approach and those would be the mins used for a side-step approach for a runway less than 1,200'.
The rules may have recently changed but that is how I read the previous quoted material.

USMCFLYR

USMCFLYR

Or they could have for a runway within 1,200' UNLESS there were obstacles and then different criteria could have been applied thus accounting for different side-step approach mins.

USMCFLYR

USMCFLYR

You're right AKASHA - this has been an educational thread - and done so with professionalism and tutoring. Well done all. I'm still not sure of everything, but then again I am writing these replys as I read instead of reviewing the whole thread first - which can sometimes lead to unnecessary posts!

USMCFLYR

Rustee

That is a very good reference. I'm much more inclined to believe that side-step minimums must be published, yet I have seen/heard ATC authorizing side-steps without minimums being published. But to be fair, I've seen a lot of stuff that I cannot find valid references for.

I've heard this question many times, and unless it is Not Authorized (as your ILS RWY 14 example shows) you are permitted to use higher minimums as appropriate (e.g., glideslope OTS, revert to LOC mins, but ATC cleared you for the full ILS approach). This makes sense because the approach course is the same, only the altitude has increased. It would not work the other way around, however.

An interesting interjection on this specific topic: Let's say you're cleared for an RNAV (GPS) procedure and you are WAAS equipped. Does ATC care if you use LPV mins over LNAV mins? I think the same logic would apply to the ILS vs. LOC mins debate (again, assuming there is not a restriction indicated for that specific approach).

From the context of this discussion, I think you are correct. I've just seen the side-step done even without published side-step minimums.

You're just trying to get your post count up! [insert wink here]

USMCFLYR

Trying to keep up with Rickair7777 is getting tougher and tougher!

I too have seen side-step procedures in use with nothing published.
I've done side-steps in the traffic pattern and during instrument approaches (as long as you saw the runway by a certain DME) at my former home field of NAS Lemoore. They may have had FCLPs going on 32L (primary instrument runway) and they would bring a PAR down until 3-5 miles and then sidestep you to the 32R so as not to interfer with the FCLP pattern.
I have to sy again that this is what I imagine when I see questions posted on APC. INFORMATIVE discussion and I know I will at least be smarter for it in the end!

USMCFLYR

TonyC

Is it your position that a Side-Step Maneuver can always be performed unless the IAP states "SIDESTEP N/A"?


Might you have observed clearance for an Instrument Straight-In approach, followed by clearance for a Visual Straight-In approach to an adjacent runway? Might imprecise terminology have led to confusion?







.