Thank you both. Everyday is a school day.
Does the AIP go on to say that the 50 foot PEC should be added only to precision approaches and doesn’t need to be applied to none precision approaches?
AA you say it’s recommended but it doesn’t read that way to me. It says must.
It is the difference between SERA and AIP. It is recommended to add 50ft and I always have this discussion with my examiner at revalidation each year. They want it added even though SERA says I don’t need to, so I add it. In practice I wouldn’t add it because that 50ft might allow me to see the runway environment and land and the really dangerous bit in IMC is going around at minima.
Bathman wrote:
AA you say it’s recommended but it doesn’t read that way to me. It says must.
The AIP is not law. It is information. Unless the +50’ for PEC which is not given in the POH has basis in law, i.e. some EASA regulations (it does not!) or in some recent UK legislation, you can disregard it.
Yes worth reading UK AIP AD it has load of recommandations 
- Non current IR pilots need 100ft extra to their DA
- IMCr pilots need to add 200ft
- PEC error 50ft for DH
- Funky IAP on QFE
But anyway you add whatever sauce ATO wants for initial training and whatever your examiner likes for revalidation, for flying just do like Americans: Jeep’s number rounded to +50ft if you wish for clarity and margin, if something is worth adding it’s visibility and technology
The good news according to AIP one can’t be refused landing “because of weather” but AD minima are legally binding as per ANO, one may still have to do VFR OHJ though in non-IFR ATC airfields but it’s easy to setup on AutoPilot these days
JohnR wrote:
It is the difference between SERA and AIP. It is recommended to add 50ft and I always have this discussion with my examiner at revalidation each year. They want it added even though SERA says I don’t need to, so I add it. In practice I wouldn’t add it because that 50ft might allow me to see the runway environment and land and the really dangerous bit in IMC is going around at minima.
Nitpick: If this requirement was in the EASA regs, it would be in the air ops regulation (part-NCO for most of us) and not SERA.
Nitpick: If this requirement was in the EASA regs, it would be in the air ops regulation (part-NCO for most of us) and not SERA.
True but it isn’t and so it doesn’t matter
Everyone knows that dragons don’t exist. But while this simplistic formulation may satisfy the layman, it does not suffice for the scientific mind. The School of Higher Neantical Nillity is in fact wholly unconcerned with what does exist. Indeed, the banality of existence has been so amply demonstrated, there is no need for us to discuss it any further here. The brilliant Cerebron, attacking the problem analytically, discovered three distinct kinds of dragon: the mythical, the chimerical, and the purely hypothetical. They were all, one might say, nonexistent, but each non-existed in an entirely different way
— Stanislaw Lem, the Cyberiad
