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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?
In the NACO plate for ASH ILS 14, the GS intercept altitude (1800') is
labeled "LOC only". How can a GS intercept altitude apply to the LOC approach and not to the ILS approach? Is this a charting error? http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0610/05036I14.PDF --Gary |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message ...
In the NACO plate for ASH ILS 14, the GS intercept altitude (1800') is labeled "LOC only". How can a GS intercept altitude apply to the LOC approach and not to the ILS approach? Is this a charting error? http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0610/05036I14.PDF --Gary Maybe a little ambiguous, instead of a full-blown error. The note applies to the "1800 ft", not to the glide-slope intercept. Jeppesen clearly shows 1800 ft to the marker for the LOC approach, whereas the ILS intercepts the glide path well outside the marker. Without GS, you won't go below 1800 ft until reaching the marker. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?
Gary Drescher wrote:
In the NACO plate for ASH ILS 14, the GS intercept altitude (1800') is labeled "LOC only". How can a GS intercept altitude apply to the LOC approach and not to the ILS approach? Is this a charting error? http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0610/05036I14.PDF --Gary It appears that someone got carried away with the "LOC ONLY". This procedure has the same glideslope intercept altitude and LOC FAF crossing altitude. The LOC ONLY annotation should only be there if the 2 altitudes are not the same. Last FLIP cycle had it the same way, so I'm sure AVN-110 will check into why it's there and take whatever action is needed to correct it. JPH |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?
"John R. Copeland" wrote in message
... "Gary Drescher" wrote in message ... In the NACO plate for ASH ILS 14, the GS intercept altitude (1800') is labeled "LOC only". How can a GS intercept altitude apply to the LOC approach and not to the ILS approach? Is this a charting error? http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0610/05036I14.PDF Maybe a little ambiguous, instead of a full-blown error. The note applies to the "1800 ft", not to the glide-slope intercept. But on the NACO plate, 1800' *is* the glide slope intercept altitude (it's so designated by the zig-zag arrow from the "1800" to the intercept point). Jeppesen clearly shows 1800 ft to the marker for the LOC approach, whereas the ILS intercepts the glide path well outside the marker. Without GS, you won't go below 1800 ft until reaching the marker. Right, but if NACO wants to say "LOC only" it should be for a separate specification of 1800', not for the (sole) one that's designated as the intercept altitude. For example, in SWF ILS 9, there's a 2100' intercept altitude, and separately from that there's a minimum altitude of 2100' specified for the approach segment leading up to the OM; the latter altitude is marked "LOC only". http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0610/00450I9.PDF So the SWF chart seems right, but not the ASH chart. --Gary |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:44:28 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote: In the NACO plate for ASH ILS 14, the GS intercept altitude (1800') is labeled "LOC only". How can a GS intercept altitude apply to the LOC approach and not to the ILS approach? Is this a charting error? http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0610/05036I14.PDF --Gary Good question. It'll be interesting to see what others say. There are a couple of other oddities on this plate which struck me: a) MUGGY is shown as an IAF, but the plate doesn't show how to locate it. I'm assuming it's on the relevant low-altitude chart, but is it common for plates to omit this information? b) The procedure turn altitude is 1600 ft. above the intercept altitude. The way I normally fly procedure turns (1-minute legs in a C172) I'd have to do a substantial dive when procedure turn inbound to get below the glide slope for intercept. Is this amount of altitude difference common? Tim. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?
b) The procedure turn altitude is 1600 ft. above the intercept
altitude. The way I normally fly procedure turns (1-minute legs in a C172) I'd have to do a substantial dive when procedure turn inbound to get below the glide slope for intercept. Is this amount of altitude difference common? I suppose that depends on terrain and other traffic conditions. I've seen it before. Remember, you can gou out quite a bit farther before making the procedure turn, allowing a shallower descent. You need to remain within 10NM (presumably of the LOM), but that's plenty of distance to descend from 3400 to zero, picking up the GS from underneath on the way. Jose -- "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter). for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?
Gary Drescher wrote: In the NACO plate for ASH ILS 14, the GS intercept altitude (1800') is labeled "LOC only". How can a GS intercept altitude apply to the LOC approach and not to the ILS approach? Is this a charting error? http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0610/05036I14.PDF It's either a charting error or the feds are trying to save ink. The ILS 31L approach at Boeing Field also has an 1800' glideslope intercept and localizer-only minimum altitude outside the marker. The NACO plate for that approach shows two separate 1800' indications. See http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0609/00384I31L.PDF. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:44:28 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote: In the NACO plate for ASH ILS 14, the GS intercept altitude (1800') is labeled "LOC only". How can a GS intercept altitude apply to the LOC approach and not to the ILS approach? Is this a charting error? http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0610/05036I14.PDF It's underlined. I believe that this is read as GS intercept at 1800 (lightning bolt and start of descent on profile view), but remain at or above 1800 until the LOM for the glideslope only. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?
On 09/22/06 11:55, Peter Clark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:44:28 -0400, "Gary Drescher" wrote: In the NACO plate for ASH ILS 14, the GS intercept altitude (1800') is labeled "LOC only". How can a GS intercept altitude apply to the LOC approach and not to the ILS approach? Is this a charting error? http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0610/05036I14.PDF It's underlined. I believe that this is read as GS intercept at 1800 (lightning bolt and start of descent on profile view), but remain at or above 1800 until the LOM for the glideslope only. Somethings not right there, Peter. If you remain at or above 1800 MSL until the LOM, you'll be above the GS. The GS crosses the LOM at 1586 MSL Perhaps you meant "... remain at 1800 for LOC only"? .... which is correct, by the way ;-) -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane Cal Aggie Flying Farmers Sacramento, CA |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 12:04:03 -0700, Mark Hansen
wrote: On 09/22/06 11:55, Peter Clark wrote: On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:44:28 -0400, "Gary Drescher" wrote: In the NACO plate for ASH ILS 14, the GS intercept altitude (1800') is labeled "LOC only". How can a GS intercept altitude apply to the LOC approach and not to the ILS approach? Is this a charting error? http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0610/05036I14.PDF It's underlined. I believe that this is read as GS intercept at 1800 (lightning bolt and start of descent on profile view), but remain at or above 1800 until the LOM for the glideslope only. Somethings not right there, Peter. If you remain at or above 1800 MSL until the LOM, you'll be above the GS. The GS crosses the LOM at 1586 MSL Perhaps you meant "... remain at 1800 for LOC only"? Yea, what he said |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? | Rick Umali | Piloting | 29 | February 15th 06 04:40 AM |
Parachute fails to save SR-22 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 72 | February 10th 05 05:14 AM |
Pressure Altitude and Terminology | Icebound | Piloting | 0 | November 27th 04 09:14 PM |
GPS Altitude with WAAS | Phil Verghese | Instrument Flight Rules | 42 | October 5th 03 12:39 AM |
GPS Altitude with WAAS | Phil Verghese | Piloting | 38 | October 5th 03 12:39 AM |