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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 23:16:31 GMT, Sam Spade wrote:
Thus the LOC FAF altitude and the GS intercept altitude differ more than 20' and the note would be appropriate. What specifically am I missing? Let's say the G/S intercept altitude at ASH was 1,900 and the LOC crossing altitude was 1,800. In that case the note would be correct. Yea, light dawned - I was thinking about the difference in altitude would be crossing the LOM depending on whether you'd be flying the ILS or LOC. Thanks. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?
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. --Gary You're correct. It appears that at the last time the procedures had a major revision, the criteria in effect at the time (FAAO 8260.19 previous amendment) required both the GS INTCP altitude AND the LOC altitude to be published, even if they were the same altitude (one for GS INTCP and another for LOC ONLY). The SWF chart is correct for that time period. The ASH chart had both altitudes listed on the form that was submitted for publication, but they were incorrectly combined on the plate into one altitude entry, instead of 2 separate altitude entries, which could be confusing. (The SWF altitudes don't cause the same confusion since both altitudes are depicted). Since both altitudes are not depicted on the ASH chart, there will be a NOTAM next week to remove the annotation "* LOC ONLY". This will put it in compliance with the newer criteria that only calls for 2 altitudes when the altitudes differ. Any newer procedures will only have "LOC ONLY" altitude shown if it differs from the GS INTCP altitude. JPH |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?
"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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
... 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. --Gary |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?
JPH wrote:
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. --Gary You're correct. It appears that at the last time the procedures had a major revision, the criteria in effect at the time (FAAO 8260.19 previous amendment) required both the GS INTCP altitude AND the LOC altitude to be published, even if they were the same altitude (one for GS INTCP and another for LOC ONLY). The SWF chart is correct for that time period. The ASH chart had both altitudes listed on the form that was submitted for publication, but they were incorrectly combined on the plate into one altitude entry, instead of 2 separate altitude entries, which could be confusing. (The SWF altitudes don't cause the same confusion since both altitudes are depicted). Since both altitudes are not depicted on the ASH chart, there will be a NOTAM next week to remove the annotation "* LOC ONLY". This will put it in compliance with the newer criteria that only calls for 2 altitudes when the altitudes differ. Any newer procedures will only have "LOC ONLY" altitude shown if it differs from the GS INTCP altitude. JPH It never made sense to publish two altitudes when they are both the same. My recollection was the policy used to be the same as it now is. There may have been an interim period where it was changed to publish both, even though they are the same, and now it has been corrected to what it was for many years. It is very confusing to have 2100 and 2100, for example. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
... Gary Drescher wrote: In the NACO plate for ASH ILS 14, the GS intercept altitude (1800') is labeled "LOC only". How can a GS intercept altitude apply to the LOC approach and not to the ILS approach? Is this a charting error? http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0610/05036I14.PDF The note is a mistake. That note is supposed to appear only when the G/S intercept altitude and the LOC FAF crossing altitude differ by more than 20 feet. Thanks! But what happens if they differ by only 20'? Is the LOC altitude then not designated "LOC only"? Or is the LOC altitude omitted altogether? I don't quite see the rationale for either. The procedure will be corrected by NOTAM sometime next week (or so they say. ;-) Great! (I'd also emailed NACO, but their only reply so far is that they're looking into it.) --Gary |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?
"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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?
JPH wrote:
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. --Gary You're correct. It appears that at the last time the procedures had a major revision, the criteria in effect at the time (FAAO 8260.19 previous amendment) required both the GS INTCP altitude AND the LOC altitude to be published, even if they were the same altitude (one for GS INTCP and another for LOC ONLY). The SWF chart is correct for that time period. The ASH chart had both altitudes listed on the form that was submitted for publication, but they were incorrectly combined on the plate into one altitude entry, instead of 2 separate altitude entries, which could be confusing. (The SWF altitudes don't cause the same confusion since both altitudes are depicted). Since both altitudes are not depicted on the ASH chart, there will be a NOTAM next week to remove the annotation "* LOC ONLY". This will put it in compliance with the newer criteria that only calls for 2 altitudes when the altitudes differ. Any newer procedures will only have "LOC ONLY" altitude shown if it differs from the GS INTCP altitude. JPH Here is what is said in the original issuance of 8260.19C, dated 9/16/93 ( Page 8-11, Paragraph 811 d.): (1) Fix altitudes established on ILS for LOC-only should be coincident with the glide slope when possible. Where the stepdown fix altitude is not within 20 feet of the glide slope, annotate it for LOC use as follows: MIN ALT CAROL 1600^ *LOC ONLY This is the same as it reads today, for all practical purposes. Can you cite the language that changed this for some period between late 1993 and today? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
Parachute fails to save SR-22 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 72 | February 10th 05 05:14 AM |
Pressure Altitude and Terminology | Icebound | Piloting | 0 | November 27th 04 09:14 PM |
GPS Altitude with WAAS | Phil Verghese | Instrument Flight Rules | 42 | October 5th 03 12:39 AM |
GPS Altitude with WAAS | Phil Verghese | Piloting | 38 | October 5th 03 12:39 AM |