Non-Precision, NA?

Given a choice, chances are a pilot will pick a vertically guided approach over a non-precision approach. Theyre easier to fly and the minimums are almost always lower. From a design perspective they also afford stricter obstacle clearance assurances. Whats not to love? Thats probably what the thought process was like that nearly led to a significant portion of non-precision approaches being cancelled or severely restricted in late 2017. …

Editorial Staff

Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 12:00 AM ET

Verified

Key Takeaways:

The FAA's plan to apply stricter vertical guidance criteria (VGS) to non-precision approaches in 2017 aimed to enhance safety but threatened to cancel or severely restrict many existing procedures.
A core issue is the fundamental difference in obstacle protection: vertically guided approaches guarantee clearance below the Decision Altitude (DA), while non-precision approaches offer no assured protection below the Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA), a distinction sometimes confused by advisory vertical guidance.
Applying the VGS to non-precision approaches would have rendered numerous procedures unusable, particularly at smaller airports, due to obstacle penetrations requiring unacceptably steep descent angles or other impractical mitigations.
Due to significant stakeholder concerns regarding the widespread negative impact on airport utility, the FAA indefinitely delayed the VGS application, acknowledging the value of non-precision approaches despite their inherent risks, which it frames as a pilot training and risk management issue.

See a mistake? Contact us.

Given a choice, chances are a pilot will pick a vertically guided approach over a non-precision approach. They’re easier to fly and the minimums are almost always lower. From a design perspective they also afford stricter obstacle clearance assurances. What’s not to love? That’s probably what the thought process was like that nearly led to a significant portion of non-precision approaches being cancelled or severely restricted in late 2017.

They’re technically still on the chopping block; although due to the significance of the impact they were granted an indefinite stay of execution until further study can be conducted. The motivation for this change is the FAA’s stated near-term priority to define flight-procedure criteria to increase the number of runways qualifying for vertically guided approaches—clearly a worthwhile goal. However, to jeopardize many non-precision approaches at the same time seems potentially misguided.