JPH wrote:

Gary Drescher wrote:


Right, but if NACO wants to say "LOC only" it should be for a separate
specification of 1800', not for the (sole) one that's designated as
the intercept altitude. For example, in SWF ILS 9, there's a 2100'
intercept altitude, and separately from that there's a minimum
altitude of 2100' specified for the approach segment leading up to the
OM; the latter altitude is marked "LOC only".

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0610/00450I9.PDF

So the SWF chart seems right, but not the ASH chart.

--Gary


You're correct.
It appears that at the last time the procedures had a major revision,
the criteria in effect at the time (FAAO 8260.19 previous amendment)
required both the GS INTCP altitude AND the LOC altitude to be
published, even if they were the same altitude (one for GS INTCP and
another for LOC ONLY). The SWF chart is correct for that time period.
The ASH chart had both altitudes listed on the form that was submitted
for publication, but they were incorrectly combined on the plate into
one altitude entry, instead of 2 separate altitude entries, which could
be confusing. (The SWF altitudes don't cause the same confusion since
both altitudes are depicted). Since both altitudes are not depicted on
the ASH chart, there will be a NOTAM next week to remove the annotation
"* LOC ONLY". This will put it in compliance with the newer criteria
that only calls for 2 altitudes when the altitudes differ.
Any newer procedures will only have "LOC ONLY" altitude shown if it
differs from the GS INTCP altitude.

JPH

It never made sense to publish two altitudes when they are both the
same. My recollection was the policy used to be the same as it now is.
There may have been an interim period where it was changed to publish
both, even though they are the same, and now it has been corrected to
what it was for many years.

It is very confusing to have 2100 and 2100, for example.