Hi Guys,
Just wanted to confirm something with you quickly. I think my assumption is correct but to avoid getting an incorrect answer in the test because I was too silly to double check with you guys, I will do just that!
On pages 212 and 213, you refer to the minimums for the RNAV runway 22. The minimums that you provide were incorrect to the actual minimums printed in the DAPs. Was this a spelling error and you meant to write NDB runway 22, as that is the information that seems correct to what you are referring to?
Thanks
-Adam
[attachment=860]IMG_2078.JPG[/attachment]
[attachment=861]IMG_2077.JPG[/attachment]
If you can do an RNAV approach onto RWY 22 when you return, you can depart as long as the conditions will permit you to become visual by the RNAV approach minima of 740 feet and 3.9 km. I can't see anything wrong with the example as it is. The text mentions that there is an NDB approach available, but you don't have to use that if the RNAV approach has a lower minimum. Can you explain why you are concerned about it.
Bob
Thanks for the quick reply Bob!
The first Image I sent is of the NDB approach plate. The minima on the first image (NDB approach) is 780ft with vis of 4.1. and you referred to this in the question (these values) as the RNAV approach. Was this a typo? or is there something I'm missing?
OK. Now I get it! That was a typo which has recently been fixed. The answer used to be the NDB approach and I changed it to the RNAV/GNSS approach when that became the correct answer. These are the perils of 'cut and paste'. Thanks for your feed-back, the paragraph has since been fixed (see attached). All the best with your study.
[attachment=864]Screen Shot 2017-04-10 at 3.50.03 pm.png[/attachment]
Thanks Bob!
