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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Normal verbage: 6 miles from Hunter, trun left heading xxx maintain
xx until established, cleared.. On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:13:19 -0500, J Haggerty wrote: Bill Zaleski wrote: We customarily get vectors to final all the time on the NDB 22 SCH. It has no FAF, and is a terminal approach. I'm curious, what do they say in the clearance? Do they give a position in relation to the NDB and an altitude to maintain until intercepting the final segment? Based on their own regulation, I don't see how they can legally do that. Based on the procedure design, it's not authorized. JPH |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
What altitude do they assign? Is it 2400? Or higher?
Bill Zaleski wrote: Normal verbage: 6 miles from Hunter, trun left heading xxx maintain xx until established, cleared.. On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:13:19 -0500, J Haggerty wrote: Bill Zaleski wrote: We customarily get vectors to final all the time on the NDB 22 SCH. It has no FAF, and is a terminal approach. I'm curious, what do they say in the clearance? Do they give a position in relation to the NDB and an altitude to maintain until intercepting the final segment? Based on their own regulation, I don't see how they can legally do that. Based on the procedure design, it's not authorized. JPH |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
2400' until established.
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:35:41 -0500, J Haggerty wrote: What altitude do they assign? Is it 2400? Or higher? Bill Zaleski wrote: Normal verbage: 6 miles from Hunter, trun left heading xxx maintain xx until established, cleared.. On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:13:19 -0500, J Haggerty wrote: Bill Zaleski wrote: We customarily get vectors to final all the time on the NDB 22 SCH. It has no FAF, and is a terminal approach. I'm curious, what do they say in the clearance? Do they give a position in relation to the NDB and an altitude to maintain until intercepting the final segment? Based on their own regulation, I don't see how they can legally do that. Based on the procedure design, it's not authorized. JPH |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
The Garmin 300XL is the same way. Whatever fix you're going to cross twice
in a row you need to put it in Hold mode before you go over it the first time. I've seen some like this with the NDB on the airport where the psuedo-FAF is NOT shown on the FAA IAP charts, but is shown on the route page on the GPS. So you need to scan the route page to find it so you can get it in Hold mode at the correct time or it messes up the sequencing. "Richard Kaplan" wrote in message s.com... wrote in message ... On-Aiport VOR and NDB IAPs, by definition, have no FAF, the industry added a Sensor "FAF" to these on-airport IAPs, so that the GPS avionics would have a psuedo-FAF to trigger the approach mode. Jeppesen issued a briefing bulletin on all this several years ago, and it is mention, albiet briefly, in the AIM. Thanks... I agree with all that... what is particularly interesting is how this sort of approach is handled differently in different GPS databases, with the KLN94 for example requiring use of OBS mode to prevent sequencing through the procedure turn early and with the Garmin 430/530 including a procedure turn before the sensor FAF. -------------------- Richard Kaplan, CFII www.flyimc.com |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"KP" wrote
Didn't say it *couldn't* be done. Said it wasn't likely to be done. So the concern over getting vectors to final is probably going to be moot. Just FYI, my home base (EYQ) in the Houston terminal area has exactly this kind of approach. It used to have a GPS overlay just like this approach does, but that went away and a separate GPS approach was created with a slightly lower MDA. Vectors to final are provided as a matter of course - I've never shot the full approach except in training. Michael |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Sounds like ATC isn't abiding by their own regulations.
Consider also that the procedure designer can not use a PT completion altitude higher than 2400 based on the full 10 mile PT length (completion altitude must be within 1500' of MDA). If the procedure had a 5 mile PT distance (which it doesn't), the maximum completion altitude would be limited to 1900 (must be within 1000' of MDA), based on the design constraints of the TERPS manual for the descent gradient on an NDB no-FAF procedure. So, as far as I can tell, ATC is not only ignoring their own rules on vectors to final; they are also exceeding the maximum allowable descent gradient based on the procedure design. I'll run it by the New York FPO to get their feelings on it; the one I'll talk to is a retired controller and a procedures specialist. JPH Bill Zaleski wrote: 2400' until established. On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 21:35:41 -0500, J Haggerty wrote: What altitude do they assign? Is it 2400? Or higher? Bill Zaleski wrote: Normal verbage: 6 miles from Hunter, trun left heading xxx maintain xx until established, cleared.. On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:13:19 -0500, J Haggerty wrote: Bill Zaleski wrote: We customarily get vectors to final all the time on the NDB 22 SCH. It has no FAF, and is a terminal approach. I'm curious, what do they say in the clearance? Do they give a position in relation to the NDB and an altitude to maintain until intercepting the final segment? Based on their own regulation, I don't see how they can legally do that. Based on the procedure design, it's not authorized. JPH |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Kaplan wrote: "Brad Z" wrote in message news:HtUdc.5713$rg5.29836@attbi_s52... I'll give Richard the benefit of the doubt that the inclusion of the Bryne intersection makes this approach just a bit different from your typical on-airport "No FAF" out-n-back approach. The Bryne intersection only serves That is correct... particularly least from the operational perspective of flying the approach on various GPS units. Usually it is very clear when a sensor FAF exists but in this case since Bryne is a published intersection it is not immediately obvious that the FAF in the GPS database is not a published FAF on the approach chart. On the KLN94 it becomes necessary to engage OBS mode during the procedure turn to avoid prematurely sequencing through Bryne. The above seems like a small subtlety but it could easily be a source of confusion flying the approach for real with a KLN94, whereas it is much more clear using the Garmin 530. I will readily state that I have flown uncountable numbers of GPS approaches both in my simulator and in airplanes using just about all IFR GPS units out there, yet I definitely learned something from flying this approach for the first time in the simulator and it will change my approach to briefing GPS approaches in the future -- there is always something new to learn. I have shown it to other pilots who regularly fly GPS approaches as well and they agreed that the use of Bryne as the pseudo-FAF creates a bit of a new "twist" to the variations of GPS approaches out there. It didn't help that the IAP was charted incorrectly with respect to RASS minimums, either. The following NOTAM was issued by AVN-100 yesterday: !FDC 4/3217 UCP FI/T NEW CASTLE MUNI, NEW CASTLE, PA. NDB OR GPS RWY 23, AMDT 2. CHANGE NOTE TO READ: USE YOUNGSTOWN ALTIMETER SETTING; IF NOT RECEIVED, USE PITTSBURGH ALTIMETER SETTING AND INCREASE ALL MDA'S 80 FEET. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why is ADF or Radar Required on MFD ILS RWY 32 Approach Plate? | S. Ramirez | Instrument Flight Rules | 17 | April 2nd 04 11:13 AM |
Why an NDB approach with a miss to an intersection? | Ben Jackson | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | March 25th 04 03:53 AM |
Changes to Aircraft Approach Categories?! | skyliner | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | February 9th 04 08:55 PM |
Completing the Non-precision approach as a Visual Approach | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 45 | November 20th 03 05:20 AM |
IR checkride story! | Guy Elden Jr. | Instrument Flight Rules | 16 | August 1st 03 09:03 PM |