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 |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
On 10/11/2005 09:31, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Daniel Roesen" wrote in message ... The decision height is 200ft for straight-in ILS 36. What you mean is the decision altitude. Unless I've misunderstood something completely. No, I mean decision height. The decision height for the S-ILS 36 is 882 MSL, the height above touchdown is 200 feet. No... Decision Height is the height above the touchdown zone elevation. Decision Altitude is the MSL altitude of the Decision Height. From the Pilot/Controller Glossary: DECISION ALTITUDE/DECISION HEIGHT [ICAO]- A specified altitude or height (A/H) in the precision approach at which a missed approach must be initiated if the required visual reference to continue the approach has not been established. Note 1: Decision altitude [DA] is referenced to mean sea level [MSL] and decision height [DH] is referenced to the threshold elevation. Note 2: The required visual reference means that section of the visual aids or of the approach area which should have been in view for sufficient time for the pilot to have made an assessment of the aircraft position and rate of change of position, in relation to the desired flight path. -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane Sacramento, CA |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
"Mark Hansen" wrote in message ... No, I mean decision height. The decision height for the S-ILS 36 is 882 MSL, the height above touchdown is 200 feet. No... Decision Height is the height above the touchdown zone elevation. Decision Altitude is the MSL altitude of the Decision Height. From the Pilot/Controller Glossary: DECISION ALTITUDE/DECISION HEIGHT [ICAO]- A specified altitude or height (A/H) in the precision approach at which a missed approach must be initiated if the required visual reference to continue the approach has not been established. Note 1: Decision altitude [DA] is referenced to mean sea level [MSL] and decision height [DH] is referenced to the threshold elevation. Note 2: The required visual reference means that section of the visual aids or of the approach area which should have been in view for sufficient time for the pilot to have made an assessment of the aircraft position and rate of change of position, in relation to the desired flight path. That's an ICAO definition, we're talking about a US IAP. See NACO TPP pages A1 and F2. |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
* Steven P. McNicoll :
That's an ICAO definition, we're talking about a US IAP. See NACO TPP pages A1 and F2. http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/frntmatter.pdf (page 2, bottom) Hm indeed. What ICAO calls DA is called DH there. By mistake? Do you have an URL for the TPP pages you referenced? I couldn't find them. Best regards, Daniel |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
"Daniel Roesen" wrote in message ... It's the localizer, not a fix. Localizer identifiers are in the book, LLZ is not. You seem reluctant to identify this airport. Why? Probably. Does that matter? Point being that I'm on hdg 150 towards intercepting the localizer on 4000ft when being cleared for ILS. As this is radar vectoring and my position not on a published procedure track until I did capture the localizer and am established on FAC, I understand that I'm not allowed to descend on my own. In my scenary I would have the glideslope falling thru while I'm still heading for localizer, so I may not descend. Ergo I can descend only at a time when the GS is already below me. Yes, the point of interception does matter. Aircraft are to be vectored to intercept the localizer at a point no closer than three miles outside the FAF and at an altitude not above the glideslope or below the minimum glideslope intercept altitude specified on the IAP. At 4000 you seem a bit too high. |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
* Steven P. McNicoll :
It's the localizer, not a fix. Localizer identifiers are in the book, LLZ is not. You seem reluctant to identify this airport. Why? Because I had no specific airport in mind, really. It was a completely synthetic example. Yes, the point of interception does matter. Aircraft are to be vectored to intercept the localizer at a point no closer than three miles outside the FAF and at an altitude not above the glideslope or below the minimum glideslope intercept altitude specified on the IAP. At 4000 you seem a bit too high. Absolutely. But sometimes things don't go the way they should go, and my question was what to do then. Best regards, Daniel |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
"Daniel Roesen" wrote in message ... The person who posted .com as deducted from his email address. He seems to prefer the handle "150flivver". He was incorrect about the clearance issued. OK. Wasn't sure wether IAFs were explicitly marked as such almost 30 years ago. I'm only familiar with today's charts. :-) They were designated by "(IAF)". LINDEN VOR, FRONT ROYAL VOR, and MRB VOR are all designated as IAFs, but none of them are actually on the plate. The MSA for the quadrant they were in is 3300'. The MEA for the route from Front Royal VOR, which was just 14 degrees off of their track, was 3400'. Yeah, that's why I asked what MSA radius was used back then, as it's not stated on the approach plate. The enroute segment with the 3400ft MEA is (IIRC) about 18nm long, so it's certainly longer than the MSA radius. I have a Jeppesen approach chart legend dated October 10, 1975. The MSA radius is 25 miles unless otherwise noted. |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:35:42 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote: "Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message .. . Just so I understand exactly what you are saying, is it your position that, when using DEPRE as the IAF for the purpose of starting this SIAP, if one is inbound, the legal minimum altitude at DEPRE is 2141'? There is no Minimum Descent Altitude on an ILS approach, there is instead a Decision Height. AWI123 is level at 3000 and five miles south of DEPRE, on the localizer, when cleared for the approach. The aircraft leaves 3000 about 2.7 miles south of DEPRE, where it intercepts the glideslope. It follows the glideslope down, crossing DEPRE at 2141 MSL, to the decision height of 882 MSL. From that point it will either complete the approach visually or execute the missed approach procedure. I didn't see your response of mine to this post of yours. Perhaps you missed it, or I missed your response. In any event, here it is again: ======================================= Your answer is not responsive to my question, but perhaps I did not write clearly. So I will try to be more clear: I did not mean to ask you about an MDA for this ILS approach. Nor am I concerned about how the approach is flown from the FAF to DH. I ask how your procedure without radar vectors satisfies the requirement that this approach begin at an IAF. I thought you indicated that DEPRE was the applicable IAF to satisfy this requirement. Was that an incorrect assumption? If DEPRE is the applicable IAF, it must have a minimum crossing altitude. Since traffic is passing DEPRE at 2141', I would have expected that you would think that is legal when DEPRE is being used as the IAF from which this approach begins. Is that your position? If DEPRE is not the applicable IAF, then I don't see how your procedure meets the requirements of the 7110.65 that a non-vectored approach begin at an IAF. ======================== Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
"Daniel Roesen" wrote in message ... http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/frntmatter.pdf (page 2, bottom) Hm indeed. What ICAO calls DA is called DH there. By mistake? No. Do you have an URL for the TPP pages you referenced? I couldn't find them. You just posted a URL for the TPP pages I referenced. TPP page A1 is page 2 of the above .pdf file, and TPP page F2 is page 6. |
#209
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Ron Garret wrote: In article , Mark Hansen wrote: Now, if they created a fix somewhere out on V21, and wrote a feeder route from that fix, then you could. Effectively, you've be flying V21 to the fix, then initiating the SIAP from there. However, they didn't, so you can't ;-) OK, I'll buy that. I wonder if Steven P. McNicoll buys it too. And I wonder what Socal Approach would have to say about it. (I think I'll go find out. What a great excuse to fly to Catalina!) Well, I did this experiment today. Flew VNY-AVX-FUL-VNY. It was a gorgeous day, though I didn't get to do as much sightseeing as I would have liked. All those approaches keep you busy! So coming out of AVX I was cleared V21 SLI Direct, but coming out of AVX I was immediately put on a 050 vector, which is not actually a vector to SLI but takes you about 15nm east. So I asked Socal if I lost comm just then what would he expect me to do? The controller seemed a little taken aback, as if lost comm. was not something that he ever thought about, but then improvised that he'd expect me to fly the vector until abeam SLI, then turn towards SLI. But he added that "no one ever flies their clearance around here. We always just give out vectors." So I guess the bottom line is that as a practical matter no one ever flies a PT in southern california because we always get vectors to final. rg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question | A Lieberman | Instrument Flight Rules | 18 | January 30th 05 04:51 PM |
Required hold? | Nicholas Kliewer | Instrument Flight Rules | 22 | November 14th 04 01:38 AM |
more radial fans like fw190? | jt | Military Aviation | 51 | August 28th 04 04:22 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
IFR in the 1930's | Rich S. | Home Built | 43 | September 21st 03 01:03 AM |