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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Approach Question
David Kazdan wrote:
And perhaps they were drinking "decent" wines while preparing the chart, rather than worrying about "descent" angles. David ???? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Approach Question
Sam Spade wrote in
: David Kazdan wrote: And perhaps they were drinking "decent" wines while preparing the chart, rather than worrying about "descent" angles. David ???? "VGSI and decent angles not coincident" had spelling error on the chart. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Approach Question
Gino Marchetti wrote:
Sam Spade wrote in : David Kazdan wrote: And perhaps they were drinking "decent" wines while preparing the chart, rather than worrying about "descent" angles. David ???? "VGSI and decent angles not coincident" had spelling error on the chart. Maaybe they have very loose morals? ;-) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
If you don't mind my taking a stab at this. I've been working as a Terminal Procedures Specialist, contractor, for the FAA for the last couple of years. While not an expert, or even close, I may have some insights that others may not.
Quote:
Last edited by J. Baker : August 29th 08 at 03:32 AM. Reason: typo |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Approach Question
Jeppesen may have its own set of rules, so to speak, but since they
distribute the RNAV database, their view is the one that counts. Every one of those "fixes" is flown as a waypoint by anyone using a 129 or 245/146 navigator. Nearly every missed approach waypoint charted is a FO waypoint. This one is a very early design and is non-compliant because the HIL is at the FAF. It should have been redesigned years ago, but you know that biannual reviews are a farce. J. Baker wrote: If you don't mind my taking a stab at this. I've been working as a Terminal Procedures Specialist, contractor, for the FAA for the last couple of years. While not an expert, or even close, I may have some insights that others may not. Thomas Borchert;655278 Wrote: Vor-Dme, - If so, have a look at this one : http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0808/00382G22.PDF GPS22, KSCH. I believe there is an error in the hold in lieu of PT, which cannot be both "1-min" AND "4NM, but perhaps there is a good reason why it is charted this way. - Notice that this is a GPS and not an RNAV (GPS) procedure. In the early days of building these procedures rules and criteria were, well, mixed. You'd see VOR or GPS approaches, GPS overlays of existing approaches, etc. The criteria now is miles only for RNAV procedures. My real question though concerns the IAF waypoints. Why are OTOLE and GALWA charted as fixes or reporting points, and not as GPS waypoints? The way a fix is charted depends upon it's make up. These were probably existing fixes made up of ground based navaid radials/bearings/courses. A fix will only be charted as a WP if the procedure is an RNAV type. As I mentioned before, this is a mix and match procedure build. If entering using OTOLE as IAF, is one required to fly the hold in lieu of? Yes. The HIL is required whenever thre is no specific NoPT directive. OTOLE is on a NNW -SSE airway. Since there isn't a proper INTERMEDIATE you must fly the HIL where, upon turning to the inbound course toward OTOLE, that is considered the IF, thence to the FAF. We don't do this anymore. VGSI and decent angles not coincident" had spelling error on the chart. Yup...a typo. Our QA has gotten a lot better as has the automation in procedure production. Over four sets of eyes look at each procedure before it ever gets to flight check. The Jeppesen chart shows OTOLE as a flyby waypoint and GALWA as a flyover waypoint. Thus, more NACO charting issues Not so. Jeppesen has their own set of rules. GALWA is a FO fix. You must fly over it to hold else the obstacle evaluation area would mean nothing. OTOLE is a FO fix as well but since it's on an airway and existed prior to GPS inception, it gets charted as a fix. Take alook at AIRNAV and the AIRSPACE FIXES section...has all the fix make-up data there. [/i][/color] Jim Baker [/i][/color] |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Approach Question
Sam Spade wrote:
Jeppesen may have its own set of rules, so to speak, but since they distribute the RNAV database, their view is the one that counts. Every one of those "fixes" is flown as a waypoint by anyone using a 129 or 245/146 navigator. Nearly every missed approach waypoint charted is a FO waypoint. This one is a very early design and is non-compliant because the HIL is at the FAF. It should have been redesigned years ago, but you know that biannual reviews are a farce. I meant to say missed approach holding waypomt. The MAP itself is a FO. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPS approach question | Matt Whiting | Instrument Flight Rules | 30 | August 29th 08 03:54 AM |
Another approach question | Andrew Sarangan | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | November 7th 04 05:44 PM |
GPS approach question | Matt Whiting | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | November 1st 04 10:51 PM |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
where to ask question about approach? | J Haggerty | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | August 17th 04 06:30 AM |