![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mark Kolber wrote in
: When we look at a map, our minds generally expect it to be to scale. If the final approach course is 10 NM long, we will tend to (actually should) use that segment as a "ruler" for situational awareness. That 2000' AGL tower 5 NM left of the FAC "looks" 5 NM away. Unfortunately, the similar tower on the missed that takes us 10 NM away from the airport might be closer than it appears on the chart. Thanks Mark, that makes sense. The circle is =visually= telling us the limits. A simple statement that "Not to scale beyond 10 miles" may be enough for you, but some people want a picture. Ever notice that DPs and STARS are done both in text and graphically? Here's where I get confused, and maybe the problem is that I'm thinking about it too much. Every NACO chart I've looked at is to scale, even outside the reference circle. The exceptions to that are when the wiggly lines are shown on the route segments, or the conentric dashed circles indicating enroute & feeder facilities. Does anyone know of a NACO chart that is not to scale and does not show either the wiggly lines or the concentric dashed circles? Your point about obstructions outside the reference circle is good. That's what got me measuring distances on the charts and discovering that things even outside the reference circle are actually to scale. By the way, NACO charts are the same scale as a sectional (when the reference circle is 10 NM). By way of example, take a look at the approaches to Boise, ID (BOI). Most of them show a 7310' obstacle 12.5 NM NNE of the airport. That obstacle is outside the reference circle, but it's to scale on every chart. Additionally all the feeder routes are to scale unless they have the wiggly lines on them (or there are the concentric dashed circles). Compare the Boise ILS 10R approach to the RNAV (GPS) 10L. Both show feeder routes from the RENOL intersection, and RENOL is not shown to scale on either plate as indicated by the wiggly line. I find the GPS plate easier to read since it doesn't have the reference circle distracting me. If the whole point of the reference cirlce is to show me the boundary of where the "to scale" part of the map ends, then the wiggly lines from RENOL are redundent on the ILS plate. Notice on the ILS 10R approach, there's a feeder route from SALLA without wiggly lines on the route. SALLA is drawn to scale at 14.4 NM out (4.4 NM outside the reference circle). So my contention is the reference circle doesn't really show anything, and I find it distracting. I think I can safely ignore it. Please correct me if you feel that is unsafe to just ignore the reference circle. Phil www.pfactor.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 00:39:13 -0000, Phil Verghese
wrote: That's what got me measuring distances on the charts and discovering that things even outside the reference circle are actually to scale. By the way, NACO charts are the same scale as a sectional (when the reference circle is 10 NM). [snip] So my contention is the reference circle doesn't really show anything, and I find it distracting. I think I can safely ignore it. Please correct me if you feel that is unsafe to just ignore the reference circle. I was never interested enough to measure myself, but it may be a "guarantee" issue. The word isn't really used but I think what the circle is telling you is that NACO vouches for the accuracy of the terrain/obstruction information within the circle and not outside of it. Can you safely ignore it? The reality is that most of the obstruction information is "nice to know stuff." For flying the approach, all you really need are the frequency, course, altitude, and distance/time numbers. So, the obstruction/terrain information probably doesn't really matter much. It's when you get into trouble (engine problem that requires that you get on the ground now) that you want to know where the terrain and obstructions are. so, based on pilot input, you get charts with terrain in as much detail as Jepp. Less for flying the approach than for general situational awareness and emergency use. Can you safely ignore it then? I guess that depends on the nature of the problem and your personal analysis of whether the risk of the information being wrong is worth it. Mark Kolber APA/Denver, Colorado www.midlifeflight.com ====================== email? Remove ".no.spam" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|