why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?

Gary Drescher wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

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.


That chart is wrong, too.


Ok, but at the SWF chart makes sense. It's wrong only in that the extra,
LOC-only altitude is superfluous.

--Gary


Why does it make sense?

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

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.

That chart is wrong, too.

Ok, but at least the SWF chart makes sense. It's wrong only in that the
extra, LOC-only altitude is superfluous.

Why does it make sense?

Because the chart has two altitude designations, and one of those
designations applies only to LOC approaches (and is thus to be ignored when
flying an ILS approach). It's just that the LOC-only altitude is superfluous
in this case, because the (identical, in this case) GS-intercept altitude
already serves as the LOC-approach altitude too (unless otherwise noted).

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

Gary Drescher wrote:

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
. ..


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.

That chart is wrong, too.

Ok, but at least the SWF chart makes sense. It's wrong only in that the
extra, LOC-only altitude is superfluous.


Why does it make sense?


Because the chart has two altitude designations, and one of those
designations applies only to LOC approaches (and is thus to be ignored when
flying an ILS approach). It's just that the LOC-only altitude is superfluous
in this case, because the (identical, in this case) GS-intercept altitude
already serves as the LOC-approach altitude too (unless otherwise noted).

--Gary


But, the two altitude designations when they are the same is incorrect,
redundant, and has the potential for some confusion.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...
But, the two altitude designations when they are the same is incorrect,
redundant, and has the potential for some confusion.

I agree that it's redundant, confusing, contrary to the chart-design rules,
and shouldn't be done. My only point is that at least nothing in the SWF ILS
9 chart is overtly false (whereas the LOC-only annotation for the
GS-intercept altitude in the ASH ILS 14 chart is indeed false; if it were
true, there'd be no specified GS-intercept altitude for the ILS approach).

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

But, the two altitude designations when they are the same is incorrect,
redundant, and has the potential for some confusion.


I agree that it's redundant, confusing, contrary to the chart-design rules,
and shouldn't be done. My only point is that at least nothing in the SWF ILS
9 chart is overtly false (whereas the LOC-only annotation for the
GS-intercept altitude in the ASH ILS 14 chart is indeed false; if it were
true, there'd be no specified GS-intercept altitude for the ILS approach).

--Gary


Yes, one is bad, the other is worse. ;-)