Runway Ceiling Crosswind Visibility Tailwind visual range phenomena (AC) landing M M M M M PD PD PD AC PD AC PD IAP IAP IAP minima Weighting METAR Aircraft RWY Approach Below 3 23 47 91 61 Yes 750 360 -41 -26 4200 3 No 23 47 91 480 129 360 231 RNP precipitation -26 1700 RNAV heavy I 3 or No 23 33 91 10 N/A N/A N/A 800 213 250 340 360 608 -26 2500 1100 ILS 3 05 14 91 26 Yes 421 161 178 RNP 2200 RNAV -160 thunderstorms, No 3 05 91 26 500 120 Yes 113 -11 2800 RNAV GNSS -160 5 34 N/A N/A N/A -5 Yes RNP 257 100 150 -95 1900 1845 1785 RNAV B737-800 I 0 27 -1 Yes 550 363 176 110 -88 -34 2740 2735 Boeing ILS I 0 5 16 10 50 Yes 550 125 206 100 precipitation -88 -77 2326 2274 ILS heavy II 0 5 16 or 98 33 50 N/A N/A Yes 100 300 125 100 -58 4998 5000 4967 ILS 0 5 16 48 50 N/A N/A Yes 175 125 100 -29 ILS IIIa 10312 10309 thunderstorms, No 0 5 0 5 16 75 67 N/A N/A Yes 125 100 ILS IIIb -500 49980 0 1 09 85 10 90 N/A N/A N/A Yes RNP 397 -96 2300 1159 1091 RNAV This example is shown for two different locations, each with five instrument approach procedures (IAPs) applying to the selected aircraft. Data from each of the five rows would be applied to every METAR and SPECI in the same fashion. Note that even if other runways exist, the algorithm has excluded these based on none of the instrument approach procedures applying to the selected aircraft. For example, consider the top five rows showing instrument approach options for runways 05 and 23 for a Boeing 737. Even if the airport had an additional runway 18/36, only runways 05 and 23 are combined for comparison because published instrument approach procedures applicable to the aircraft and in this example do not exist for runway 18 and 36. These comparisons are covered in further depth in the section approaches linked to aircraft models’ on page 48. ‘Instrument
Aircraft (AC) RWY Approach METAR phenomena Visibility Runway visual range Ceiling Crosswind Tailwind Below landing minima Weighting IAP M PD IAP M PD IAP M PD AC M PD AC M PD Boeing B737-800 23 No thunderstorms, or heavy precipitation 4200 2500 -41 N/A N/A N/A 750 1100 47 33 3 91 10 -26 360 Yes 61 23 RNAV RNP 1700 47 480 129 3 91 -26 360 No 231 23 ILS I 800 213 250 340 3 91 -26 360 No 608 05 RNAV RNP 2200 14 421 161 3 91 26 -160 Yes 178 05 RNAV GNSS 2800 -11 500 120 3 91 26 -160 Yes 113 34 RNAV RNP No thunderstorms, or heavy precipitation 1900 100 -95 N/A N/A N/A 257 4998 1845 33 5 100 10 -5 150 Yes 1785 27 ILS I -88 550 363 -34 176 2740 0 -1 110 Yes 2735 16 ILS I -88 550 125 -77 206 2326 0 100 5 50 Yes 2274 16 ILS II N/A N/A 300 125 -58 98 5000 0 100 5 50 Yes 4967 16 ILS IIIa N/A N/A 175 125 -29 48 10312 0 100 5 50 Yes 10309 16 ILS IIIb N/A N/A 75 125 67 0 49980 5 100 0 5 -500 Yes 09 RNAV RNP 2300 -96 N/A N/A N/A 397 1159 0 85 10 1 90 Yes 1091 This example is shown for two different locations, each with five instrument approach procedures (IAPs) applying to the selected aircraft. Data from each of the five rows would be applied to every METAR and SPECI in the same fashion. Note that even if other runways exist, the algorithm has excluded these based on none of the instrument approach procedures applying to the selected aircraft. For example, consider the top five rows showing instrument approach options for runways 05 and 23 for a Boeing 737. Even if the airport had an additional runway 18/36, only runways 05 and 23 are combined for comparison because published instrument approach procedures applicable to the aircraft and in this example do not exist for runway 18 and 36. These comparisons are covered in further depth in the section ‘Instrument approaches linked to aircraft models’ on page 48.
methodology-ar-2013-200.docx