Approach Question

David Kazdan wrote:
And perhaps they were drinking "decent" wines while preparing the chart,
rather than worrying about "descent" angles.

David
????

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.

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?

;-)

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.

Originally Posted by Thomas Borchert

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? [/i][/color]

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?[/i][/color]


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.

Jim Baker

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]

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.