Michael wrote:
wrote
Without the special knowledge gained by the Air Force explanation, how could
you conclude that. The 2.5 DME stepdown states 1160. Descending to 900
after the FAF because I don't have DME would cause me to have a major pucker
factor and is contrary to every FAA-developed IAP.
If that is what the Air Force intends, then the chart should state, "Non DME
equipped aircraft using LOC minimums may descend to 900 after Belch.
Recall that you picked a nit on me, claiming the error was in the
design of the procedure rather than the charting. I maintain that
given the AF explanation, this is a charting error rather than a
procedural design error since 900 is a safe altitude at any point
after BELCH.
It is an error in the design of the procedure. I have no way of knowing I can
"bust" the 2.5 DME altitude unless there is a procedural data note to tell me
that. Some Air Force guy's response on this forum hardly fills that bill!
A charting error occurs when NACO or Jeppesen does not correctly chart what is on
the source 8260-3 or -5. That is not the case here.
Also, this business of Air Force pilots tracking is pure drivel; this
procedure is for civil use.
Concur. The logical solution is to track the localizer SW course,
which will assure a 228 track. It's simply not stated as such.
And, the hold-in-lieu pattern is screwed up. It should state "one minute" in
the profile view for non-DME aircraft.
Concur.
Further, since this is a RADAR
REQUIRED (not radar required or....) radar vectors are the entry method for
such an IAP.
Not necessarily. I've seen approaches that have an IAF and can be
flown without RADAR assistance but still say RADAR REQUIRED. The
VOR-B at LVJ is one example.
This is what the 8260.19C has to say about it,
(2) Where radar is the only method for procedure entry from the en route
environment, enter the following: "Chart planview note: RADAR REQUIRED."
The fact you can find a procedure that doesn't comply with that requirement only
speaks to the fact the feds do make mistakes.
Michael