Jepp vs NOS at PRB

Greg Esres wrote:
I'm surprised that the DE didn't know better.

I'm not. Exactly what resources exist which could relieve him of this
misconception once he has acquired it? Zippo.

As I read the post, the examiner just told him to do what was published on the
chart. There's nothing to indicate what the examiner did or did not know.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

On Wed, 05 May 2004 12:01:46 -0400, Dave Butler
wrote:

Greg Esres wrote:
I'm surprised that the DE didn't know better.

I'm not. Exactly what resources exist which could relieve him of this
misconception once he has acquired it? Zippo.

As I read the post, the examiner just told him to do what was published on the
chart. There's nothing to indicate what the examiner did or did not know.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

I read the post differently, Dave.

It seemed to me that the OP was asking the DE about whether Jepp or NACO
was "correct" in view of the difference in the way the PT was charted on
the Plan View. And the DE responded that probably the NACO chart was
correct.

Although I don't have the Jepp chart at hand, it seems to me that both
charts are likely correct, with the PT charted in a different place on the
plan view.

The DE saying that the NACO chart was probably correct means he either
didn't understand the question, or was agreeing that the difference in
location of the PT on the plan view was meaningful.




Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Wed, 05 May 2004 15:23:07 GMT, Greg Esres wrote:

Exactly what resources exist which could relieve him of this
misconception once he has acquired it?

The AIM, for one.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Wed, 05 May 2004 15:23:07 GMT, Greg Esres wrote:

Exactly what resources exist which could relieve him of this
misconception once he has acquired it?

The AIM, for one.

Where in the AIM? I don't think this issue would be clarified without the
use of common sense (i.e., reading the entire chart in context...profile
and plan views) or a good reading of both the NACO and Jeppesen approach
chart legends.

Greg Esres wrote:

I'm surprised that the DE didn't know better.

I'm not. Exactly what resources exist which could relieve him of this
misconception once he has acquired it? Zippo.

Now, that is insight!!!

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Wed, 05 May 2004 11:22:16 GMT, Mark Kolber
wrote:

(Ron or other Jepp users, is this what the Jepp chart for the
procedure shows?)

My Jepp service only covers the East so I can't comment on that approach
per Jepp.


The Jepp chart is no different than the NACO chart. Without referring to the
profile view, it becomes ambiguous to determine the PT fix. Jeppesen doesn't
have ILSIC for the PT fix, only PRB R-138/ 3.0 DME. Still quite clear.

This is an example of how too many folks don't read IAP charts properly. Most
of the time, the PT fix is clear from the plan view, but not always. Charting
convention places the burden for clarity of the course reversal in the profile
view.



I'm surprised that the DE didn't know better.

Alas, I am not.

wrote:
Charting convention places the burden for clarity of the course
reversal in the profile view.


Frank,

I'm not saying you're wrong (in fact, what you say makes a lot of
sense), but is there some reference you could give to that? It's not
anything I've ever seen in any of the standard reference materials.

On that note, I remember once flying the MGJ ILS-3 for practice
(http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...fs/05264I3.pdf). Shame
on me, I hadn't really briefed the approach, and just winged it. I flew
the procedure turn a minute outside of the LOM and ended up AFU.

It's kind of tricky. The first trick is that the PT doesn't start at
the LOM, but at DIYAD. The second trick is that there's a stepdown at
NISSN inbound from the PT, so you really need to be outside of NISSN
before you start the PT, not just outside of DIYAD. The third trick is
that DIYAD and NISSN are both defined by DME, but from different sources
(neither of which is the ILS).

There's a note on the profile view saying "Remain within 10 NM", but I'm
not 100% sure from *where*. I'm reasonably sure it means 10 NM from
DIYAD, but given NISSN, I'm not quite certain about that.

Lastly, it beats the hell out of me why anybody would care that DIYAD is
13.5 DME from HUO. Given the crossing angles, I could see that being on
the localizer and 20.8 DME from SAX is a good way to identify NISSN, but
being on the localizer and being 13.5 DME from HUO is pretty worthless
as a way to identify DIYAD. GPS is wonderful :-)

This is a great approach for training purposes. It's a confusing mess
for flying for real. But it does serve to show a student why briefing
an approach before you actually get to the IAF is a good idea :-)

The third trick is
that DIYAD and NISSN are both defined
by DME, but from different sources
(neither of which is the ILS).


Consider the position of HUO (which is the source of the DME for DIYAD). It
makes no sense to me. The DME distance will not be changing much as you travel
a long way along the FAC. Like you, I don't understand why they didn't use
SAX for both.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On Wed, 05 May 2004 16:28:44 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:

Roy,


On that note, I remember once flying the MGJ ILS-3 for practice
(http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...fs/05264I3.pdf). Shame
on me, I hadn't really briefed the approach, and just winged it. I flew
the procedure turn a minute outside of the LOM and ended up AFU.

It's kind of tricky. The first trick is that the PT doesn't start at
the LOM, but at DIYAD.

That's interesting. Fortunately I have my Jepp charts which show them in
different places. But on the NACO chart you reference, to me they look
like they're in the same spot :-).

The second trick is that there's a stepdown at
NISSN inbound from the PT, so you really need to be outside of NISSN
before you start the PT, not just outside of DIYAD.

I disagree. You only need to become established inbound far enough from
DIYAD so that you can descend from 3000' to 1800' at a comfortable rate of
descent. The presence of the stepdown only tells you what altitude to
maintain if you are outside of that stepdown fix. It does NOT tell you you
can't start the PT at DIYAD or finish it inside of NISSN.


The third trick is
that DIYAD and NISSN are both defined by DME, but from different sources
(neither of which is the ILS).

There's a note on the profile view saying "Remain within 10 NM", but I'm
not 100% sure from *where*. I'm reasonably sure it means 10 NM from
DIYAD, but given NISSN, I'm not quite certain about that.


It's 10 NM from DIYAD. (And it is stated so explicitly on the Jepp chart).


Lastly, it beats the hell out of me why anybody would care that DIYAD is
13.5 DME from HUO. Given the crossing angles, I could see that being on
the localizer and 20.8 DME from SAX is a good way to identify NISSN, but
being on the localizer and being 13.5 DME from HUO is pretty worthless
as a way to identify DIYAD. GPS is wonderful :-)

Diyad is also on the LOC.



This is a great approach for training purposes. It's a confusing mess
for flying for real. But it does serve to show a student why briefing
an approach before you actually get to the IAF is a good idea :-)

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Roy Smith wrote:

wrote:
Charting convention places the burden for clarity of the course
reversal in the profile view.

Frank,

I'm not saying you're wrong (in fact, what you say makes a lot of
sense), but is there some reference you could give to that? It's not
anything I've ever seen in any of the standard reference materials.

The NACO chart legend implies it, but I suspect it is only spelled out in
the IACC specs. (Inter-agency Cartographic Commission, or something like
that, specifications.) Often, the feds miss spelling out this stuff to the
users, because it makes sense to all of them sitting around a table for
their closed meetings.~



On that note, I remember once flying the MGJ ILS-3 for practice
(http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...fs/05264I3.pdf). Shame
on me, I hadn't really briefed the approach, and just winged it. I flew
the procedure turn a minute outside of the LOM and ended up AFU.

It's kind of tricky. The first trick is that the PT doesn't start at
the LOM, but at DIYAD. The second trick is that there's a stepdown at
NISSN inbound from the PT, so you really need to be outside of NISSN
before you start the PT, not just outside of DIYAD. The third trick is
that DIYAD and NISSN are both defined by DME, but from different sources
(neither of which is the ILS).

There's a note on the profile view saying "Remain within 10 NM", but I'm
not 100% sure from *where*. I'm reasonably sure it means 10 NM from
DIYAD, but given NISSN, I'm not quite certain about that.

The descending thick black line begins at DIYAD, so that is the fix upon
which the PT is predicated. If you feel this is inadequately explained, a
well crafted letter to the NACO charting folks in Silver Springs, MD would
be helpful. In my many years of flying it seemed obvious to me, but gee, I
can't cite a public reference.



Lastly, it beats the hell out of me why anybody would care that DIYAD is
13.5 DME from HUO. Given the crossing angles, I could see that being on
the localizer and 20.8 DME from SAX is a good way to identify NISSN, but
being on the localizer and being 13.5 DME from HUO is pretty worthless
as a way to identify DIYAD. GPS is wonderful :-)

The 13.5 DME is there for arrival from HUO to the LOC. The fact it's
charted in the profile view is a mistake in the manner in which the data
were entered into the system. Keep in mind, you're dealing with the same
FAA here who has all but thrown the towel in on WAAS on one hand, yet on the
other hand is going to make it work, "damn it!" ...and so forth.



This is a great approach for training purposes. It's a confusing mess
for flying for real. But it does serve to show a student why briefing
an approach before you actually get to the IAF is a good idea :-)