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
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 
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
MattL wrote:
4.6 Altimeter Error
4.6.1 When calculating Decision Height (DH), account must be taken of the errors of indicated height which occur when the aircraft is in the approach configuration. Details of the Pressure Error Correction (PEC) should be available from the aircraft Flight Manual or handbook. In the absence of this information a PEC of +50 FT has been found to be suitable for a wide range of light aircraft and should be used. This addition of 50 FT need only be applied to DH. The required RVR should be calculated prior to applying the PEC.
That only means that UK authorities recommend the +50’ in the absence of information in the POH.
U.K. AIP AD
4.6 Altimeter Error4.6.1 When calculating Decision Height (DH), account must be taken of the errors of indicated height which occur when the aircraft is in the approach configuration. Details of the Pressure Error Correction (PEC) should be available from the aircraft Flight Manual or handbook. In the absence of this information a PEC of +50 FT has been found to be suitable for a wide range of light aircraft and should be used. This addition of 50 FT need only be applied to DH. The required RVR should be calculated prior to applying the PEC.
Airborne_Again wrote:
This seems like another cultural thing
Does anyone know where it comes from?
I’ve wondered if its just come from ‘bramston and Birch’ and then passed into IMC folk law
I find it very strange that someone could fail an IMC/IR test if they use DA/MDA as published on the jepperson chart as they didn’t add 50 feet PEC for a precision approach.
I love the bit where you add 50 feet to the ILS system minima which then makes it the same as for the none precision localiser only approach.
