![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Airbus wrote:
In article , says... John T wrote: "Sam Spade" wrote in message Their bone was with NACO LPV charts because they don't understand NACO's way of portraying the P-FAF with a lightening bolt. Apparently you do. Also, apparently a lot of their readers don't. What's the demographic of the typical "Flying" reader? Armchair pilots I suppose. Sincerely doubt it. Why don't you write to them instead of writing about it here? Pilots are supposed to be goal oriented - only balloon pilots are hot winded. . . (I'm like Mac on this one - only use Jepp charts so I have no idea how off the wall you are on this. Write to them directly and you are sure to win your reward or meet your match.) Oh, I did write them about it. They erected a giant stone wall. Here is the entire exchange: http://www.terps.com/Flying/Flying.pdf |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I like reading Richard Collins's stuff but he was a bit of a wise-ass in
that exchange. It seems to me the fundamental issue is their preference to the Jeppesen way of charting step down segments versus the NACO way. I'm surprised you didn't stress the underlining of the segment altitudes as NACO's way of identifying the level-off altitudes in a LNAV-only approach as opposed to the Jepp way of depicting the step-downs visually with the line. That said, with the advent of LPV and the increased frequency of one chart showing both precision* and non-precision approaches, Jeppesen's method will create less confusion to the average pilot (especially in bumpy IMC). In a pure "legalese" view, you are correct in that the NACO chart is not charting the approach "incorrectly." However, I think they have a legitimate gripe in taking issue with the way NACO charts the step-downs in GPS approaches with mixed LPV-LNAV/VNAV-LNAV minima. What makes their case a bit stronger is the fact the WAAS GPS units will default to the LPV approach as long as the HAL/VAL is within limits and (at least in the 430/530 series) there is no way of manually choosing the LNAV-only approach. Therefore the majority of the time the approach will be flown closer to the Jeppesen visual representation rather than the NACO's representation. Using the CRQ RNAV(GPS) RWY 24 chart you used in the email exchange, a typical LPV approach will have the aircraft level-off at 3,100 ft between KANEC and JABAL with glideslope intercept occurring at JABAL. The NACO chart shows this transition only with the [thin] lightening bolt whereas the Jepp shows it quite clearly with the visual step down depiction. Like you stated, neither way is wrong but Jepp is just clearer IMO. Question for you. You say that the sloping outside JABAL is "advisory only." Given the typical GPS T-configuration, would anyone be expected as standard practice to actually intercept the glideslope at KANEC? Also, If you're on the glideslope at JABAL, your altitude should be 3,100 feet (or close to it) correct? Therefore, if you choose to follow the advisory glideslope at KANEC, would your altitude be 3,800 feet? If one can not expect to cross-check their altitude at KANEC with the depicted altitude of 3,800 ft., it would be another misleading representation (notice I didn't say "incorrect"). I look forward to your point of view. Regards, Marco * I realize that LPV approaches are not considered "precision" in some contexts, thus the asterisk. "Sam Spade" wrote in message ... Airbus wrote: In article , says... John T wrote: "Sam Spade" wrote in message Their bone was with NACO LPV charts because they don't understand NACO's way of portraying the P-FAF with a lightening bolt. Apparently you do. Also, apparently a lot of their readers don't. What's the demographic of the typical "Flying" reader? Armchair pilots I suppose. Sincerely doubt it. Why don't you write to them instead of writing about it here? Pilots are supposed to be goal oriented - only balloon pilots are hot winded. . . (I'm like Mac on this one - only use Jepp charts so I have no idea how off the wall you are on this. Write to them directly and you are sure to win your reward or meet your match.) Oh, I did write them about it. They erected a giant stone wall. Here is the entire exchange: http://www.terps.com/Flying/Flying.pdf |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Marco Leon wrote:
I like reading Richard Collins's stuff but he was a bit of a wise-ass in that exchange. It seems to me the fundamental issue is their preference to the Jeppesen way of charting step down segments versus the NACO way. I'm surprised you didn't stress the underlining of the segment altitudes as NACO's way of identifying the level-off altitudes in a LNAV-only approach as opposed to the Jepp way of depicting the step-downs visually with the line. That said, with the advent of LPV and the increased frequency of one chart showing both precision* and non-precision approaches, Jeppesen's method will create less confusion to the average pilot (especially in bumpy IMC). In a pure "legalese" view, you are correct in that the NACO chart is not charting the approach "incorrectly." However, I think they have a legitimate gripe in taking issue with the way NACO charts the step-downs in GPS approaches with mixed LPV-LNAV/VNAV-LNAV minima. What makes their case a bit stronger is the fact the WAAS GPS units will default to the LPV approach as long as the HAL/VAL is within limits and (at least in the 430/530 series) there is no way of manually choosing the LNAV-only approach. Therefore the majority of the time the approach will be flown closer to the Jeppesen visual representation rather than the NACO's representation. Using the CRQ RNAV(GPS) RWY 24 chart you used in the email exchange, a typical LPV approach will have the aircraft level-off at 3,100 ft between KANEC and JABAL with glideslope intercept occurring at JABAL. The NACO chart shows this transition only with the [thin] lightening bolt whereas the Jepp shows it quite clearly with the visual step down depiction. Like you stated, neither way is wrong but Jepp is just clearer IMO. Question for you. You say that the sloping outside JABAL is "advisory only." Given the typical GPS T-configuration, would anyone be expected as standard practice to actually intercept the glideslope at KANEC? Also, If you're on the glideslope at JABAL, your altitude should be 3,100 feet (or close to it) correct? Therefore, if you choose to follow the advisory glideslope at KANEC, would your altitude be 3,800 feet? If one can not expect to cross-check their altitude at KANEC with the depicted altitude of 3,800 ft., it would be another misleading representation (notice I didn't say "incorrect"). I look forward to your point of view. Regards, Marco Last first: LPV IAPs are indeed precision IAPs. And, let me add, my entire professional life has been with Jeppesen charts. But, I work with TERPS and the FAA a lot. NACO charts are the FAA's method of charting IAP source. So, if they were wrong, they need to be called on it. But, if is an issue of style, and Collins feels strongly enough about it, he is welcome to attend the semi-annual FAA/Industry Aeronautical Charting Forum, even submitting an issue paper in advance. (His attendance has been mentioned to him before). At CRQ let's say I am flying the terminal routing from OCN. I would not receive an LPV G/S on a Garmin 400/500W series navigator until crossing KANAC at 3800. the LPV G/S would be a full fly-up because the G/S at KANEC would be just over 5100. (So, there is no cross-check info for that provided by either Jepp or NACO, nor should there be.) I can choose to maintain 3800 until G/s intercept (just over 2 miles prior to JABEL, or descend to 3100 to intercept at JABAL. Will the G/S be precisely 3100 at JABEL? That depends on altimeter error, just like with an ILS. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Sam Spade" wrote in message ... Last first: LPV IAPs are indeed precision IAPs. And, let me add, my entire professional life has been with Jeppesen charts. But, I work with TERPS and the FAA a lot. NACO charts are the FAA's method of charting IAP source. So, if they were wrong, they need to be called on it. But, if is an issue of style, and Collins feels strongly enough about it, he is welcome to attend the semi-annual FAA/Industry Aeronautical Charting Forum, even submitting an issue paper in advance. (His attendance has been mentioned to him before). I've always wondered how much NACO would be able to copy Jeppesen (i.e. the Briefing Strip) and not get sued for copyright infringement At CRQ let's say I am flying the terminal routing from OCN. I would not receive an LPV G/S on a Garmin 400/500W series navigator until crossing KANAC at 3800. the LPV G/S would be a full fly-up because the G/S at KANEC would be just over 5100. (So, there is no cross-check info for that provided by either Jepp or NACO, nor should there be.) I can choose to maintain 3800 until G/s intercept (just over 2 miles prior to JABEL, or descend to 3100 to intercept at JABAL. Will the G/S be precisely 3100 at JABEL? That depends on altimeter error, just like with an ILS. If you'll be at 5,100 feet at KANEC, then (again in my opinion) the visual depiction of a "glideslope" intersecting the waypoint at 3,800 feet is misleading. I realize the G/S intersect at JABEL will be subject to altimeter error which is why I made sure to qualify it with "or close to it." Marco |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Marco Leon wrote:
I've always wondered how much NACO would be able to copy Jeppesen (i.e. the Briefing Strip) and not get sued for copyright infringement The briefing strip came about as a result of a government study (Volpe, DOT). So, that wasn't invented by Jeppesen. If you'll be at 5,100 feet at KANEC, then (again in my opinion) the visual depiction of a "glideslope" intersecting the waypoint at 3,800 feet is misleading. I realize the G/S intersect at JABEL will be subject to altimeter error which is why I made sure to qualify it with "or close to it." Marco No, I said the G/S would be 5,100 at KANEC, but in my example coming from the north the airplane was at 3,800, thus the intercept 4 miles west of KANEC. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sam Spade wrote:
Last first: LPV IAPs are indeed precision IAPs. The AIM refers to them as APV approaches, approaches with vertical guidance. For alternate purposes, they're to be considered non- precision. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Greg Esres wrote:
Sam Spade wrote: Last first: LPV IAPs are indeed precision IAPs. The AIM refers to them as APV approaches, approaches with vertical guidance. For alternate purposes, they're to be considered non- precision. First, the term APV is applied to any FAA approach with vertical guidance that does not meet the precision approach requirements of ICAO Annex 10. The FAA does not agree with Annex 10 because the FAA considers LPV IAPs to be precision IAPs and, in fact, use ILS obstacle clearance containment areas for obstacle protection. An LDA with a G/S is also an APV because it clearly does not meet any definition of a precision IAP. As to the alternate requirements, your statement is incomplete. You cannot plan to use the precision line of minimums on a WAAS IAP for alternate planning purposes. But, if WAAS LPV is available when arriving at the alternate you may use the LPV *precision* line of minima. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sam Spade wrote:
FAA considers LPV IAPs to be precision IAP The FAA that writes the AIM says differently: =================== 1-1-20. .... A new type of APV approach procedure, in addition to LNAV/VNAV, is being implemented to take advantage of the lateral precision provided by WAAS. This angular lateral precision, combined with an electronic glidepath allows the use of TERPS approach criteria very similar to that used for present precision approaches, with adjustments for the larger vertical containment limit. The resulting approach procedure minima, titled LPV (localizer performance with vertical guidance)... ================ But, if WAAS LPV is available when arriving at the alternate you may use the LPV *precision* line of minima. Yes, that's obvious, but it still underlines that the FAA doesn't not consider the LPV approach to be a precision approach as far as the user is concerned. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Greg Esres wrote:
Sam Spade wrote: FAA considers LPV IAPs to be precision IAP The FAA that writes the AIM says differently: =================== 1-1-20. ... A new type of APV approach procedure, in addition to LNAV/VNAV, is being implemented to take advantage of the lateral precision provided by WAAS. This angular lateral precision, combined with an electronic glidepath allows the use of TERPS approach criteria very similar to that used for present precision approaches, with adjustments for the larger vertical containment limit. The resulting approach procedure minima, titled LPV (localizer performance with vertical guidance)... ================ But, if WAAS LPV is available when arriving at the alternate you may use the LPV *precision* line of minima. Yes, that's obvious, but it still underlines that the FAA doesn't not consider the LPV approach to be a precision approach as far as the user is concerned. The FAA is covering its butt with ICAO. Technically, there are now three types of IAPs. 1. Precision 2. APV 3. Non-precision 1 and 2 are flown identically when the APV is an RNAV IAP with LPV or VNAV minimums. They both have DAs. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..... When you fly an LPV (or teach it) do you teach precision or non-precision procedures and flap settings, etc, for the final approach segment? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NACO Plates/How do you hold them? | Mitty | Instrument Flight Rules | 14 | November 4th 07 02:37 PM |
NACO charts | Michael Ware | Piloting | 13 | December 1st 05 10:10 PM |
NACO charts | Michael Ware | Owning | 12 | December 1st 05 10:10 PM |
NACO charts | Michael Ware | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | December 1st 05 10:10 PM |
Jep p or NACO Charts? | Judah | Instrument Flight Rules | 66 | December 9th 04 03:34 AM |