The answer is no-

Localizer-type directional aid (LDA). A NAVAID used for nonprecision instrument approaches with utility and accuracy comparable to a localizer but which is not a part of a complete ILS and is not aligned with the runway. Some LDAs are equipped with a
glideslope.
-FAA-H-8083-25A pilots handbook of aeronautical knowledge.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Localizer-type directional aid (LDA). A NAVAID used for nonprecision instrument approaches with utility and accuracy comparable to a localizer but which is not a part of a complete ILS and is not aligned with the runway. Some LDAs are equipped with a
glideslope.
-FAA-H-8083-25A pilots handbook of aeronautical knowledge.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The answer is no because it does give a decision altitude. End of story.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

FAA Ops Specs for air carriers have a middle column for types of approved approaches called “APV” - Approaches with Vertical Guidance, LDA-GS is listed in this column and not under Precision Approach. I’d give that answer in an interview, even
though Instrument ACS would allow it to be substituted on checkrides if minimums are below 300’ AGL.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 3, 1999 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-7, Gene Hudson wrote:

Garner Miller wrote:

OK, I'm in need of some 100% trivial information. I have a friend
going for an airline interview next week, and rumor has it they're
going to whip out an approach plate with an "LDA with Glideslope"
approach.

I'd say the preponderance of the evidence leans toward an LDA/GS being
a precision approach (by its definition in 1.1), but I'd appreciate
your thoughts.

I have had extensive discussions with the FAA and several examiners over
this exact issue. The bottom line is as follows:

The FAR 1.1 definition is, in the FAA's opinion, incomplete. They
maintain that in order for an approach to be a precision approach it
must end at a decision height, not an MDA. Thus, even an ILS is a non-precision approach if you must, due to wind, circle to land to
another runway.

Having said this, not one FAA person can point to a reference that
clearly states that this is true. All of them refer to TERPS, but no
one can show me the words. One airspace specialist got hot under the
collar when I asked him for the exact reference. He said it was
unreasonable for us to expect that the FAA put *everything* down in
writing.

So, we are left with the current state of things: according to FAR 1.1,
any approach with electronic glideslope guidance is a precision
approach; while, according to the FAA (who writes the violations), only approaches with a GS and ending in a DA (decision altitude) are
precision approaches. According to the FAA, and LDA/GS, or an ILS
circle to land, are not precision approaches.

I would be delighted if someone, anyone, could support this (FAA)
position with a real reference. I have a TERPS, and I do not see where
they get this interpretation.

Regards,

Gene Hudson
CFI, CFII, MEI, ASC, 7000

In regards to if LDA with GLIDESLOP is a precision APPROACH,IN AIM 5-4-5 ITEM 7 (b)it explains it that an instrument approach based on a navigation system that is not required to meet the precision approach standards of ICAO Annex 10 but provides course
and glidepath deviations information.for example Baro-VNAV ,LDA with glide path,LNAV and LPV are APV approaches..So basically they are telling you that these group of approaches are considered APV approaches and they are not to be considered as an ILS
Precision approach because they don't meet the criteria required per ICAO Annex 10.Hope this helps.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)