BAF LOC 23

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:27:23 +0000 (UTC), (G
Farris) wrote:

It may not be a charting error, but a discrepancy, duly noted by the mention
:

"VGSI and descent gradient not coincident".

See the TERPS manual :

http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Policies1/TIL99014att.PDF


In reviewing the ILS-23 approach plate, I did not see the above
phrase. Where is it located?


You are correct - That condition only applies to the non-precision approach,
and as such does not answer the basic question.

As the step-down fix would appear to be based on the controlling obstacle of
923', within the primary protected area, (corresponds pretty much to ROC
rounded up to nearest 20') one would expect to see the non DME MDA published
as 1160 as well.

Could it be because the military guys used TACAN approaches? This could
explain why the DME fixes are referenced to the vortac, as pointed out
earlier. Just a guess.

G Faris

Thanks.
z

In a previous article, said:
If you have the NACO chart note at the top center that this is a USAF developed
procedure, not an FAA procedure.

Well, John Haggerty at the FAA (Eastern Instrument Procedures branch) saw
this thread, and forwarded my question (correcting my mistake about saying
BAF instead of CEF) and the other question about "track 228" on the missed
approach to Tim Lovell at the USAF (afrc.af.mil). So hopefully either
John will post the answer here, or I'll get CC'ed on the response so that
I can post it here.


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
What philology luser tried to hang "fear of sameness" on bigotry?
Every time i see the word i want to kick his shins.
-- Pat Wade, on homophobia

Thanks.


On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 06:06:25 -0700, wrote:

Visual Glide Slope Indicator; generic term for PAPIs and VASIs. It's in
the AIM.

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:35:03 GMT, (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

So hopefully either
John will post the answer here, or I'll get CC'ed on the response so that
I can post it here.


That'd be great! I've spent a couple hours trying to figure this one
out, and still don't know how to gt down to 900 feet.

Thanks John, and everyone else who's answered my questions.

z

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:17:40 +0000 (UTC), (G
Farris) wrote:

You are correct - That condition only applies to the non-precision approach,
and as such does not answer the basic question.

OK. Thanks.

Could it be because the military guys used TACAN approaches?

Its possible, but what would a TACAN give out as information to allow
you down to 900 feet if no DME is on board?

This is an odd one....

z

Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, said:
If you have the NACO chart note at the top center that this is a USAF developed
procedure, not an FAA procedure.

Well, John Haggerty at the FAA (Eastern Instrument Procedures branch) saw
this thread, and forwarded my question (correcting my mistake about saying
BAF instead of CEF) and the other question about "track 228" on the missed
approach to Tim Lovell at the USAF (afrc.af.mil). So hopefully either
John will post the answer here, or I'll get CC'ed on the response so that
I can post it here.


Good for him. He's not the only FAA TERPster to needle the Air Force about it
today.

zatatime wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:35:03 GMT, (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

So hopefully either
John will post the answer here, or I'll get CC'ed on the response so that
I can post it here.

That'd be great! I've spent a couple hours trying to figure this one
out, and still don't know how to gt down to 900 feet.


You can spend a year trying to figure it out, and will still not have an
answer. ;-)

zatatime wrote:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:17:40 +0000 (UTC), (G
Farris) wrote:

You are correct - That condition only applies to the non-precision approach,
and as such does not answer the basic question.

OK. Thanks.

Could it be because the military guys used TACAN approaches?

Its possible, but what would a TACAN give out as information to allow
you down to 900 feet if no DME is on board?


Nope, TACAN operates just like VOR and DME, except it is integreted and is less
prone to errors from close in reflections, such as on big boats.