Approach Plate Minimums Explained | Decision Height | Minimum Descent Altitude

The bottom section of the approach plate contains decision heights, minimum descent altitudes, decision altitudes, visibilities... How do you make sense of it all? This video explains the minimums section of the approach plate. You should be able to tell what the minimum altitude is for the approach and aircraft you are flying, and what to do when you get to that altitude.
For more training tips, visit www.flight-ins...

[@colefrahm199]

You should do a video talking about the differences between the LPV, LNAV/VNAV, and LNAV approaches. I think it would help a lot of people understand why they have different minimums

[@MrSuzuki1187]

On LPV and LNAV/VNAV approaches, minimums are a Decision Altitude, or DA, and are treated just like an ILS where that altitude represents the missed approach point. When you reach the DA and the runway is not in sight, you make a misses approach, same as an ILS. In addition, LPV and LNAV/VNAV approaches are glidepaths where an ILS is a glideslope. The LPV and LNAV are still considered to be non-precision approaches even though you might have 200 foot minimums. As for the LNAV only approach, they have no published vertical navigation and use an MDA as minimums. On LNAV only approaches, you descend to the MDA, fly level at MDA until the runway comes in view or you reach the published missed approach point. Many pilots erroneously think reaching MDA without seeing the runway is a reason for going missed approach. Not so! Even if the runway is not in sight at MDA, you still MUST fly at that altitude until reaching the missed approach point before flying the published missed approach procedure. Any turns prior to the MAP could result in a CFIT type of accident.

[@whilewaitingforthemothersh5366]

@@MrSuzuki1187 Actually you can CLIMB on your missed approach before reaching your MAP but you can’t turn before reaching the MAP

[@AviAeroAsis]

Yes , I agree.

[@squaredforce1958]

This week, I started instrument ground at my 141 and I felt lost. I watched numerous videos from other channels but they really weren't that helpful. But, thanks to your videos I feel well prepared. There is something about the way you disseminate the material that makes even the most complex concepts easily digestible. Thank you for all of your hard work!

[@TomTheSiberianHusky]

**THANK YOU** - five years of being a pilot and I can finally share a video to people who I have to teach minimums to who use FAA charts. Best video on the internet to explain minimums on the internet period(for FAA charts).

[@brunogt1982]

Best KZbin page for everything plane related hand down 💪🏽

[@markmartin9346]

under part 91, you can attempt the approach even if RVR is zero. What you need is visual references as specified in FAR 175C. RVR is a ground visibility. You need flight visibility and the visual references and you are the one to determine that. On an ILS with a DA of 200 feet and a half mile of 2400 RVR, if you see the approach lights, you can then continue descent to 100 feet using those lights. If you have the lighting and then see the red side bar lights you can continue.

[@michaelbailey4934]

Honestly the best video I've seen on the subject. Thank you.

[@sarataylor2008]

Your videos have been SO HELPFUL!!!! Thank you so much for all your time and effort!!!!!

[@SuperEddietv]

Just because this is a training channel, I think it should be pointed out that a Cirrus is Category B landing. Hope that helps someone. It surprised me.

[@silversolo10]

thx your explanation is very good and clear

[@DNModels]

LNAV/VNAV is not a precision approach. We cannot think of it as such.

[@aviationfann]

Excellent video! Very well explained. Thank you!

[@kylebeatty3466]

Thanks!

[@griam7641]

Another great video as usual! However you might want to explain the blackened “C” on the circling minimums. (New formula for circling mins) This would make a great video in itself. And forgive me if you’ve already done one! I just haven’t seen it.

[@griam7641]

Never mind! I see you’ve made one already!!

[@annettetozer894]

Any chance this video can be captioned as well?

[@economicintuition]

This is soooooo good! Thank you!

[@Jared-ww1ux]

GREAT VIDEO DUDE! Thanks so much!

[@faridaelghitany]

you doing a GREAT GREAT Job !! THANK YOU

[@vfx7t]

Thanks for all the video !!

[@rackum44]

Very well explained, thank you, I subbed, I'm just a sim pilot but love learning

[@lamylhammoudi103]

Keep them coming this is great !

[@flightinsight9111]

You bet! Look out for new IFR videos twice a week.

[@vittoriafiorentini8276]

Great videos! Love you!

[@azcharlie2009]

Outstanding video!

[@AviAeroAsis]

Nice video. Thank you.

[@NipunDhanraj]

Thank you!!

[@blufis.4806]

Thanks Bro

[@tonyinthe805fd]

Towards the end of the video you talk about requiring to vors to identify zbat, can a wass capable gps be used to id this intersection ?

[@Justathought81]

Thank you!

[@AviatorF16Falcon]

I thought the S-LOC 33L would have a HAA since it's Non Precision. Can you please clarify this? thank you

[@roguepilot523]

Good morning Dan @FlightInsight. I have a question for you... where in the FAR/AIM can I find the information you mentioned at 5:28? I thought it was §91.175 but I don't see the figures of 300' (MSL) and 2 miles or 1000' (MSL) and 1200' RVR like you mentioned. Please advise when you're able. Thanks Dan!

[@tristinb2993]

This also confused me, I’m wondering the same exact thing

[@roguepilot523]

@@tristinb2993 Hey Tristin. So I emailed Dan the question I posted above and he clarified what was said in the video. His statement about 300' (MSL) and 2 miles or 1000' (MSL) and 1200' RVR is just an example, it's not an actual regulation. Dan was basically saying that §91.175 allows us the opportunity to "take a peek" if our ceiling is below our minimum (for example 300' MSL) but NOT if the visibility is below our minimum (for example 1200' RVR). I hope that makes sense!

[@goose8494]

Yikes…my (mis?)understanding is that under Part 91 we can have a look-see irrespective of reported ceiling or visibility/RVR, but to descend below 100’ we need the required flight visibility?

[@roguepilot523]

@@goose8494 If you take a detailed look at §91.175 paragraph (c) Operation below DA/DH or MDA you'll read that you can in fact take a look-see as much as you want regardless of your ceiling or visibility as long as you remain AT or ABOVE your DA/DH or MDA. But if you're looking to descend below your DA/DH or MDA you MUST have the appropriate flight visibility listed for the approach being used. This requirement for flight visibility also applies for landing (§91.175 paragraph (d)(2)). In regards to the 100' number you're referencing, perhaps you're confusing that with §91.175 paragraph (c)(3)(i) which talks about visual references (at least one) that need to be distinctly visible and identifiable, specifically the approach light system.

[@raccoonair]

Again an excellent tutorial. I like to comment that LPV and L/VNAV are (still) considered to be Non Precision Approaches (in regard to Alternate Minimums) and that the ZIBAT intersection can also be identified by GPS instead of two VOR’s.

[@flightinsight9111]

Both good points. LPV and LNAV/VNAV aren't technically precision approaches (they're called "Approaches with Vertical Guidance" so the alternate minimums are 800-2, as they'd be for non-precision approaches. You can use the GPS to fix ZIBAT, but the approach plate will assume you have just the minimum required equipment, so won't mention the GPS. Perfectly good to drop down after ZIBAT no matter how you ID it.

[@raccoonair]

@@flightinsight9111 Thanks for your response; I make the comments only for others who may be confused if they learned something a bit different. Looking forward to your next update...

[@lamylhammoudi103]

Non precision with « CAT 1 » minimums

[@flightinsight9111]

Yes! Any lower than 200' DH and we're in Cat II or III territory. Thanks!

[@MrVoocGaming]

Informative 👍

[@tceterex]

best video

[@valerievallejolee2883]

I subscribed! I enjoy the way you explain. But, is it possible to ask you for a tiny bit more in-depth explanation? Email?

[@parthsharma3138]

03:45 For precision, at DA, Is it a requirement that the runway should be visible to land? Or can we proceed below the DA even if it’s not visible?

[@ghssimulator5960]

what is baro and how do i find it

[@pgreenx]

Noob here and while I understand all this what I dont get is why the altitude differences are all so small (ie does 60 feet make that much of a difference if I see ZIBAT or not or as another example 689 and 1080 really that much for ILS and LOC respectively ? Thanks!

[@flightinsight9111]

This is a great question that can get complicated to answer sometimes. Approach areas have to guarantee obstacle clearance in a certain 3d zone extending out from the runway (the requirements are called TERPS and they are very detailed). By getting an extra 60 feet of descent if you are able to identify ZIBAT, you can take advantage of an area that's been cleared by the approach designers to a slightly lower altitude. You're right it often won't make much difference, but it can sometimes help spot the field. So theoretically there could be a small obstacle before ZIBAT, and you have to stay a bit higher until you know you've past that point. For the ILS vs LOC minimums, it could make a big difference having that extra few hundred feet of descent allowed by the ILS. Hope that clarifies things, let me know and thanks for checking in!

[@pgreenx]

@@flightinsight9111 yes and thanks for the thorough explanation. You can laugh at me now because I am a new sim only pilot but want to learn everything and fly by the book so learning these things is important to me nd probably matter more when in a real airplane. 60 feet dent seem like much on the monitor..... :)

[@christopherbrown1730]

At 5:29, how am I allowed to take a peak if the ceiling is 300' and the DA is 343'? Assuming visibility is there.

[@jeffg7]

1. Ceiling isn't controlling for instrument approaches. You're allowed to shoot the approach regardless of reported ceiling. 2. The reported ceiling of 300' is AGL and the DA of 343' is MSL. So the reported ceiling in this case is about a hundred feet above minimums anyway.

[@jeffg7]

Pretty sure your statement at 5:28 is incorrect. There's no legal reason why pilots operating under part 91 can't attempt an approach with the reported visibility less than the minimum. You're barred from descending below MDA/DA or landing if the *flight* visibility is less than the minimum.

[@Walking_Pilot]

Lnav vnav is not a precision approach

[@braininavatnow9197]

My plane is equipped with automatic airbags so I don't need to pay any attention to this stuff.