A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Misleading Notam



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 1st 03, 05:49 PM
Greg Esres
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Misleading Notam

One of our local pilots misunderstood a common Notam, as shown below.
He thought the "ADD: From Shelby to RW 17: 3.52 degrees" meant add
3.52 degrees to the final approach course.

How reasonable do you think his interpretation?

(BTW, the notam just adds a descent gradient to a NP approach.)

FDC 3/0143 M01 FI/T GENERAL DEWITT SPAIN, MEMPHIS, TN. VOR RWY
16, ORIG...CHANGE ALL REFERENCES TO RWY 16/34 TO RWY 17/35.
ADD: FROM SHLBY TO RW 17: 3.52 DEGREES, TCH 31. ADD NOTE: VGSI
AND DESCENT ANGLES NOT COINCIDENT.

  #2  
Old December 1st 03, 07:29 PM
Larry Fransson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 2003-12-01 09:49:46 -0800, Greg Esres said:

One of our local pilots misunderstood a common Notam, as shown below.
He thought the "ADD: From Shelby to RW 17: 3.52 degrees" meant add
3.52 degrees to the final approach course.

How reasonable do you think his interpretation?

(BTW, the notam just adds a descent gradient to a NP approach.)


I can see where one might interpret it that way. But what the "ADD" means is
that you should ADD that note to the chart. That 3.52 degrees is the "glide
path" angle from SHLBY to the missed approach point.

If there was a change to the final approach course, that would have been
explicitly stated.



  #3  
Old December 2nd 03, 12:28 AM
Bob Gardner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gotta agree with Larry. The whole thing smacks of vertical descent path, not
lateral alignment. Poorly written, for sure. Should at least have had
quotation marks surrounding the phrase between "From" and "degrees."

Bob Gardner

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
One of our local pilots misunderstood a common Notam, as shown below.
He thought the "ADD: From Shelby to RW 17: 3.52 degrees" meant add
3.52 degrees to the final approach course.

How reasonable do you think his interpretation?

(BTW, the notam just adds a descent gradient to a NP approach.)

FDC 3/0143 M01 FI/T GENERAL DEWITT SPAIN, MEMPHIS, TN. VOR RWY
16, ORIG...CHANGE ALL REFERENCES TO RWY 16/34 TO RWY 17/35.
ADD: FROM SHLBY TO RW 17: 3.52 DEGREES, TCH 31. ADD NOTE: VGSI
AND DESCENT ANGLES NOT COINCIDENT.



  #4  
Old December 2nd 03, 12:52 AM
Mike Granby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hmmmm. Just how accurate is this guy's DG?

Headings in one hundredths of a degree???

--
Mike Granby, PP-ASEL,IA
Warrior N44578
http://www.mikeg.net/plane


  #5  
Old December 2nd 03, 01:45 AM
Greg Esres
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Headings in one hundredths of a degree???

What about descent angles to within one hundredths of a degree?

  #6  
Old December 2nd 03, 01:31 PM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Greg Esres wrote
One of our local pilots misunderstood a common Notam, as shown below.
He thought the "ADD: From Shelby to RW 17: 3.52 degrees" meant add
3.52 degrees to the final approach course.

How reasonable do you think his interpretation?


For someone coversant with TERPS - not very. For someone who meets
the knowledge requirements for the instrument rating but not much more
- pretty reasonable. Note the context - the runway numbers are
changed (increased). I can easily see how someone might think that
this means the final approach course should also be adjusted, and the
direction and magnitude of the adjustment are consistent with the
runway change.

(BTW, the notam just adds a descent gradient to a NP approach.)

FDC 3/0143 M01 FI/T GENERAL DEWITT SPAIN, MEMPHIS, TN. VOR RWY
16, ORIG...CHANGE ALL REFERENCES TO RWY 16/34 TO RWY 17/35.
ADD: FROM SHLBY TO RW 17: 3.52 DEGREES, TCH 31. ADD NOTE: VGSI
AND DESCENT ANGLES NOT COINCIDENT.


Not exactly plain English, is it?

Michael
  #7  
Old December 2nd 03, 02:16 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Greg Esres" wrote in message ...
Headings in one hundredths of a degree???

What about descent angles to within one hundredths of a degree?


They are consistantly listed in approach plates to that precision. Even
when they are exactly 3 degrees, the notation looks like:

GS 3.00


  #8  
Old December 2nd 03, 03:46 PM
Gary L. Drescher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...
Headings in one hundredths of a degree???

What about descent angles to within one hundredths of a degree?


That makes more sense. A hundredth-degree change in descent angle is
(barely) perceptible on the ASI or VSI. A hundredth-degree change in
heading is not perceptible on the HI or MC.

--Gary


  #9  
Old December 2nd 03, 04:08 PM
Roy Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gary L. Drescher" wrote:
A hundredth-degree change in descent angle is
(barely) perceptible on the ASI or VSI.


I'd like to see a pilot or VSI which can notice the difference between
500 fpm and 502 fpm.
  #10  
Old December 2nd 03, 04:23 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Roy Smith" wrote in message ...
"Gary L. Drescher" wrote:
A hundredth-degree change in descent angle is
(barely) perceptible on the ASI or VSI.


I'd like to see a pilot or VSI which can notice the difference between
500 fpm and 502 fpm.


It's not even that much.

However, the charts always show the glideslope to the 100th. They never
show headings to that accuracy. If he'd actually looked hard at the chart
as to what they were changing, the fact that the elevation (which is depecited
on the chart in the same location) also changed would have been a big clue.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Carefull of NOTAMS on NavCanada website Ross Magnaldo Instrument Flight Rules 4 October 10th 03 11:46 PM
ILS Notam question John Clonts Instrument Flight Rules 6 August 22nd 03 11:53 PM
"GPS Unreliable" NOTAM Robert Henry Instrument Flight Rules 20 July 23rd 03 01:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.