What's a Special Instrument Approach Procedure?

Jim_R

Jim_R

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
1,841
Display Name
Display name:
Jim
So, like almost any pilot I've daydreamed about having a getaway (or primary residence) with an airstrip. One of the practical considerations that makes that less desirable for me is that such a place is not likely to have any instrument procedures associated with it.

I was poking around on a website for an airpark today, and in the "information for pilots" section it says something along the lines of, "Once you're in the club, you'll be taught the secret handshake and also given a serialized copy of the unpublished, double-secret GPS Special Instrument Approach Procedure, along with a briefing on said procedure by an elder in the club."

That led me to search for "special instrument approach procedure", where I found this: http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/order/8260.60.pdf

So now I know these things exist, but I don't know much else about them.

What does an SIAP typically look like? Do they usually look similar to "real" IAPs, or is it Grandpa Joe's landing recipe written on the back of a flour sack, or what? What sort of nav aids and minimum altitudes are typically used?

And how common is it for an airpark or rural airport with no "published instrument procedures" to have an SIAP that only those-in-the-know can use?

I'm wondering how many airstrips I have mistakenly ruled out from my fantasy retirement due to ignorance of this possibility...I may have to start my daydreaming over from square one!
 
SIAPs look just like normal ones.

It's fairly common for commercial operators to have them for airports with terrain that makes for high minimums...Aspen, CO and Juneau, AK are two that I've actually seen SIAPs for.

I've also flown one to a privately-owned airport...they faxed it to us before the trip.
 
I'd also look at the normal area weather, close by approaches and whatnot.

The area where I land my plane, infront of my house is in G airspace and quite close to a airport with an approach, shy of a few days this is more than enough to get to the house if needed.
 
Here is the current approved list.
Many (most?) seem to be helicopter IAPs.
 
If you lived at an air park, would you want everyone shooting approaches for practice over your house or very close to it? I know of a few that have full GPS approaches, but you have to have a reason to be given the procedures (i.e. live there). Believe Spruce Creek has an IAP like that.

Cheers,
Brian
 
Like the list RD attached, a lot of them are copter GPS approaches that go to hospitals. Private contractors (proprietary) design them to go into certain hospitals. ODPs as well.
 
Last edited:
In generic terms Special IAPs are not issued under Part 97. They are restricted to approved operators, which must accept them as regulatory under Ops Specs or a LOA.
 
aterpster said:
In generic terms Special IAPs are not issued under Part 97. They are restricted to approved operators, which must accept them as regulatory under Ops Specs or a LOA.
Click to expand...
Being a dumb little private pilot who's never needed to know such things, I don't fully appreciate what constitutes an "Ops Spec" or an "LOA" (is that Letter of Agreement"?). I know airlines use ops specs, but I don't know how they fit into the regulatory hierarchy.

For the place I was looking at, you have to be a member of the airpark, which means you've paid money and signed various paperwork, some of which is presumably related to this approach. And you're required to get briefed by an instrument-rated airpark member. I suppose those things are all related.

Thanks to all for the replies. I guess these things are not necessarily uncommon at private fields, but they're not necessarily common, either. What I've gotten out of this is that it's a question worth asking if/when I ever start seriously pursuing such a place.
 
OpSpecs and Letters of Authorization basically "flesh out" the regulations a bit to give more specific operating authority...91.175 says:

§91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.
(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United States military aircraft.
Click to expand...

Since, as Wally said, they're not Part 97 approaches, the LOA or OpSpec constitutes "otherwise authorized by the FAA" for SIAPs.
 
Jim_R said:
Being a dumb little private pilot who's never needed to know such things, I don't fully appreciate what constitutes an "Ops Spec" or an "LOA" (is that Letter of Agreement"?). I know airlines use ops specs, but I don't know how they fit into the regulatory hierarchy.

For the place I was looking at, you have to be a member of the airpark, which means you've paid money and signed various paperwork, some of which is presumably related to this approach. And you're required to get briefed by an instrument-rated airpark member. I suppose those things are all related.

Thanks to all for the replies. I guess these things are not necessarily uncommon at private fields, but they're not necessarily common, either. What I've gotten out of this is that it's a question worth asking if/when I ever start seriously pursuing such a place.
Click to expand...

You can actually bring some of these approaches up in your GPS but because a private company owns the approach, they're restricted for them only. ATC should have the details (approach plate) of the approach but I've heard from a couple of company pilots, that isn't always the case.

While the term Ops Specs can apply to airliners (121), it can apply to other Parts such as 135. Basically outlines regulatory practices that are agreed upon between that certificate holder and the FAA.
 
Yes, as talked about you can bring up 7FL6 on your GPS but you cannot get the Spruce Creek approach plate unless you live there ;)
 
In this use, LOA is more likely an "Letter of Authorization "
 
SIAP are generally non-published IAP created for a specific company or airport owner. Terms and conditions for the use of the approach are governed by Letters of Agreement between the FAA and the “owner” of the procedure. They typically have verbiage on the approach plate restricting the use of the procedure to only those aircrew who have had specialized training for the specific procedure and it may require specialized equipment to be installed in the aircraft.

The FAA, in the past, would develop the procedure for a private party upon request, but you would be in for a long wait to see the finished product. I do not know if they will still do that today. Private companies are now typically hired to draft the IAP for submittal to the FAA Airspace people for approval.
 
They also don't necessarily have to be GPS based, in case the OP thinks they are just because that's the popular way to do them today.

Rocky Mtn Airways had their own MLS (Microwave Landing System) approaches into mountain airports, and others have installed privately owned and maintained ILS gear or just Localizers and DME over the years in places FAA didn't feel like building them, or in the case of the Rocky MLS stuff, in cooperation with FAA to help them push the technology, by having operational "wins" for it that could be shown in nice slide shows at HQ. In other words, "We'll install something you want to see more of at our own expense if you'll approve it, so we can shoot approaches down into this valley in total crap weather."

Etc etc etc.

Remember Alaska was the Guinea pig for ADS-B. It's one of the reasons why the system we're having forced upon us today was so bloody antiquated by the time it was grown politically to be a nationwide thing. And why nobody noticed it couldn't handle big city traffic densities and needed a second RF spectrum allocation in the form of a second frequency at 978 MHz.

It was simple math to see for anyone who looked at the design, but the key was re-using the design already in use in AK at the time and "augmenting" it.

The end user experience of that silliness was never taken into account. It grew organically, not via planning and purposeful engineering it "correctly" to scale up properly.

Operators needed something. FAA needed something new to hang "Free Flight" on. Politics aligned and Alaska happened. FAA claimed success and rolled out the 90s era tech nationwide.
 
Prior to the advent of GPS most special IAPs were predicated on NDBs.
 
Minor nitpick: SIAP is used by the FAA as the acronym for public IAPs; i.e., Standard Instrument Approach Procedure. SIAP is defined in FAR 97.3.
 
image.jpeg Another form of special IAP that you won't see published. Military emergency copter GPS. I developed this one, though it was never certified for use.
 
Yep. Everything said so far is right on the money. We've got two private approaches at my home airport. Both GPS. One with LP minima, the other LNAV. You have to have a signed LOA and be briefed on the approaches to get copies of the plates. You agree not to share the plates with unauthorized users, etc. One thing that wasn't brought up was the cost. I'm guessing it'll cost $25K or so to get an approach developed, and it's about $4K a year for maintenance (the FAA will fly the approach at least once a year). And yes, the approaches are in everybody's GPS, but you just can't fly them without authorization.
[EDIT - one more thing. The FAA does not make the approach plate. That is on the user. We had to pay Jepp a pretty penny to draw ours up.]
 
Yeah I heard rumors around 30K for approaches. Don't think that includes ODPs.

We've got a plaque at work from the FAA in 1994 that says "World's first Copter GPS approach." So we've got that going for us...
 
Aspen has several that get the commercial operators down to lower minimums.
 
pburger said:
Yep. Everything said so far is right on the money. We've got two private approaches at my home airport. Both GPS. One with LP minima, the other LNAV. You have to have a signed LOA and be briefed on the approaches to get copies of the plates. You agree not to share the plates with unauthorized users, etc. One thing that wasn't brought up was the cost. I'm guessing it'll cost $25K or so to get an approach developed, and it's about $4K a year for maintenance (the FAA will fly the approach at least once a year). And yes, the approaches are in everybody's GPS, but you just can't fly them without authorization.
[EDIT - one more thing. The FAA does not make the approach plate. That is on the user. We had to pay Jepp a pretty penny to draw ours up.]
Click to expand...
Another factoid that a lot of people don't realize. If you want a public, FAA-developed procedure: First, the FAA has to "study" the public need, then it goes to the regional flight procedures team for approval, then it goes into a 2 to 2.5 year pipeline for FAA design and publication.

But, a special can be done in about one-third of that time.
 
pburger said:
Yep. Everything said so far is right on the money. We've got two private approaches at my home airport. Both GPS. One with LP minima, the other LNAV. You have to have a signed LOA and be briefed on the approaches to get copies of the plates. You agree not to share the plates with unauthorized users, etc. One thing that wasn't brought up was the cost. I'm guessing it'll cost $25K or so to get an approach developed, and it's about $4K a year for maintenance (the FAA will fly the approach at least once a year). And yes, the approaches are in everybody's GPS, but you just can't fly them without authorization.
[EDIT - one more thing. The FAA does not make the approach plate. That is on the user. We had to pay Jepp a pretty penny to draw ours up.]
Click to expand...
It was actually your place that I stumbled upon, and that prompted me to start this thread.
 
denverpilot said:
They also don't necessarily have to be GPS based, in case the OP thinks they are just because that's the popular way to do them today.

Rocky Mtn Airways had their own MLS (Microwave Landing System) approaches into mountain airports, and others have installed privately owned and maintained ILS gear or just Localizers and DME over the years in places FAA didn't feel like building them, or in the case of the Rocky MLS stuff, in cooperation with FAA to help them push the technology, by having operational "wins" for it that could be shown in nice slide shows at HQ. In other words, "We'll install something you want to see more of at our own expense if you'll approve it, so we can shoot approaches down into this valley in total crap weather."

Etc etc etc.

Remember Alaska was the Guinea pig for ADS-B. It's one of the reasons why the system we're having forced upon us today was so bloody antiquated by the time it was grown politically to be a nationwide thing. And why nobody noticed it couldn't handle big city traffic densities and needed a second RF spectrum allocation in the form of a second frequency at 978 MHz.

It was simple math to see for anyone who looked at the design, but the key was re-using the design already in use in AK at the time and "augmenting" it.

The end user experience of that silliness was never taken into account. It grew organically, not via planning and purposeful engineering it "correctly" to scale up properly.

Operators needed something. FAA needed something new to hang "Free Flight" on. Politics aligned and Alaska happened. FAA claimed success and rolled out the 90s era tech nationwide.
Click to expand...

I noticed on the list of Special IAP's (that link doesn't seem to be working anymore) that Alaska seemed to have full TERPS authority over the approaches. There were some others like Jeppesen and some entity that had most of the Hospital Coptor approaches. Did they and/or do they continue to Flight Check them, or does the FAA retain flight check authority?
 
luvflyin said:
I noticed on the list of Special IAP's (that link doesn't seem to be working anymore) that Alaska seemed to have full TERPS authority over the approaches. There were some others like Jeppesen and some entity that had most of the Hospital Coptor approaches. Did they and/or do they continue to Flight Check them, or does the FAA retain flight check authority?
Click to expand...

Alaska Airlines has a sweet deal with the FAA. The airline develops all of its RNP AR IAPs in-house. They even deviate from the FAA RNP AR criteria based on the "unique" performance characteristics of their fleet. They do their own airport surveys. The net result is a nice fence built around most of Alaska that keeps other RNP AR qualified operators out. The survey aspect even locks out some runway ends in the state of Alaska from having an LPV approach because Alaska doesn't share survey data. Unless the airport or the FAA ponies up the money for a duplicative vertical survey LPV is not possible even though the runway may have a great Alaska Airlines RNP AR approach.

If another RNP AR qualified operator were to get a copy of Alaska Airlines RNP AR Jeppesen charts they would be useless because the procedures are only in Alaska Airline's FMS databases.

I have no vested interest in this arrangement, one way or the other, other than the vertical survey issue which came up at Kodiak awhile back.
 
aterpster said:
Alaska Airlines has a sweet deal with the FAA. The airline develops all of its RNP AR IAPs in-house. They even deviate from the FAA RNP AR criteria based on the "unique" performance characteristics of their fleet. They do their own airport surveys. The net result is a nice fence built around most of Alaska that keeps other RNP AR qualified operators out. The survey aspect even locks out some runway ends in the state of Alaska from having an LPV approach because Alaska doesn't share survey data. Unless the airport or the FAA ponies up the money for a duplicative vertical survey LPV is not possible even though the runway may have a great Alaska Airlines RNP AR approach.

If another RNP AR qualified operator were to get a copy of Alaska Airlines RNP AR Jeppesen charts they would be useless because the procedures are only in Alaska Airline's FMS databases.

I have no vested interest in this arrangement, one way or the other, other than the vertical survey issue which came up at Kodiak awhile back.
Click to expand...

That sounds like the FAA isn't flight checking them then.

Another thing I've been wondering about. If I'm getting this right, RNP AR approaches are "Special IAP's." There are a lot of those with the Authorization Required on the plate that are "published." It sounds like a lot of Alaska's are not and are just like any other privately owned Special IAP and are not "published." What's the difference?
 
luvflyin said:
That sounds like the FAA isn't flight checking them then.
Click to expand...

I don't know.

Another thing I've been wondering about. If I'm getting this right, RNP AR approaches are "Special IAP's." There are a lot of those with the Authorization Required on the plate that are "published." It sounds like a lot of Alaska's are not and are just like any other privately owned Special IAP and are not "published." What's the difference?
Click to expand...

All the RNP AR approaches that are available in FAA charts or Jeppesen's regular subscriptions are issued under Part 97, so they are not specials. They are "authorization required," though just like ILS CAT II and III. If you have an airplane that is certified to conduct RNP AR approaches the Part 97 approaches won't be in your navigation database until all the training, database maintenance and other qualification requirements are completed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top