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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Well, I managed to screw that up...looking at a holding pattern book to find
PT airspace. Sheesh!! Bob wrote in message ... Bob Gardner wrote: There is a definite difference in the airspace protected for a holding pattern vis-a-vis a procedure turn. Dunno why the missed approach hold couldn't be on the same side as the PT, though, since the PT eats up much more airspace. Not in this case. This is one of those little tiny 5-mile PT areas, which they can design into a CAT A only IAP |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Gardner wrote: Interesting. I have an old copy of FAAO 7130.3 and couldn't find a word about five mile holding patterns, so I was kind of transmitting in the blind (:-). What template is used? Not a 5-mile hold; rather a 5-mile procedure turn. TERPs 234b: "b. Area. The PT areas are depicted in Figure 5. The normal PT distance is 10 miles. See table 1A. **Decrease this distance to 5 miles where only CAT A aircraft or helicopters are to be operating**, and increase to 15 miles to accommodate operational requirement, or as specified in paragraph 234d. No extension of the PT is permitted without a FAF. When a PT is authorized for use by approach CAT E aircraft, use a 15-mile PT distance." |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks.
Tim. On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 20:05:29 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld wrote: On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:29:05 -0600, Tim Auckland wrote: Another question about this approach (and I've seen similar apparent ommisions on other approaches): Why isn't the initial approach segment from PAWLING marked "NoPT"? To me, it makes no more sense to do a PT when coming in over PAWLING than it does when coming in over KINGSTON, yet the KINGSTON IAS is marked "NoPT", and the PAWLING one isn't. Is this just a charting error, or is there a subtlety that I'm missing? On my Jepp chart dtd 5/21/2004, the segment from PWL IS marked NoPT. So probably the NACO chart is incorrect. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:45:40 GMT, zatatime
wrote: I understand what you are saying, but... If you are established on the 010 Radial inside of NETER and outside of SAGGI isn't that sufficient to begin a descent to 1800. I realize a descent anywhere in the hold is not prudent, but I'm having a hard time rationalizing flying a whole procedure turn if between NETER and SAGGI a descent to 1800 is allowed. Maybe there's a subtlety in your reply I did not pick up on, "you can do a procedure turn however you want." Would this include briefly flying through the 010 Radial on the inbound turn of the hold and then re-establish? This would put you on the right (and correct) side of the radial. This is a good one. Thanks for sharing. z Nevermind, I printed the plate and studied it. I now understand what should be done, and it is not what I previously stated. z |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
So here's my swag on this. It looks as though the minimum
altitude on the east side of the final approach course is 2600, and they don't want you descending to 1800 on the east side. 2600 is the altitude inbound from PWL and the holding altitude, but you are supposed to cross SAGGI at 1800 on the final. Hence to get to 1800 you have to fly the PT. Of course in real life you could safely divebomb from 2600 to 1800 on the final approach course. Flying as charted from PWL would be entertaining... intercept the FAC, fly the hold then the PT before finally crossing SAGGI at 1800. John "Roy Smith" wrote in message ... The VOR or GPS-1 into Sky Park, NY (46N) http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...s/05462VG1.PDF has a note saying "Final approach from Saggi Int holding pattern not authorized. Procedure turn required". What doesn't make sense about this is that SAGGI is an IAF, and you're allowed to use a holding pattern as a PT. So, what's the note all about? It's also not clear why the PT and missed hold are charted on opposite sides of the approach course. Let's say you flew the approach, missed, and entered the hold at SAGGI. The weather got a bit better and you were cleared for another approach. The maneuvering you've had to do is absurd. The logical thing would be to just continue in the hold until you were inbound to SAGGI and continue from there. But, no, you've got to turn around again, intercept the approach course outbound, do a PT, re-intercept inbound, and then proceed. What's the point? This seems like the kind of approach I need to bring a student to, just to see how they handle it. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I agree - it's the 2600ft holding pattern alt that's the problem.
Maybe the descent from 2600 ft is outside the specs for an approach? Iain "John Harper" wrote in message news:1086385767.347955@sj-nntpcache-5... So here's my swag on this. It looks as though the minimum altitude on the east side of the final approach course is 2600, and they don't want you descending to 1800 on the east side. 2600 is the altitude inbound from PWL and the holding altitude, but you are supposed to cross SAGGI at 1800 on the final. Hence to get to 1800 you have to fly the PT. Of course in real life you could safely divebomb from 2600 to 1800 on the final approach course. Flying as charted from PWL would be entertaining... intercept the FAC, fly the hold then the PT before finally crossing SAGGI at 1800. John "Roy Smith" wrote in message ... The VOR or GPS-1 into Sky Park, NY (46N) http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...s/05462VG1.PDF has a note saying "Final approach from Saggi Int holding pattern not authorized. Procedure turn required". What doesn't make sense about this is that SAGGI is an IAF, and you're allowed to use a holding pattern as a PT. So, what's the note all about? It's also not clear why the PT and missed hold are charted on opposite sides of the approach course. Let's say you flew the approach, missed, and entered the hold at SAGGI. The weather got a bit better and you were cleared for another approach. The maneuvering you've had to do is absurd. The logical thing would be to just continue in the hold until you were inbound to SAGGI and continue from there. But, no, you've got to turn around again, intercept the approach course outbound, do a PT, re-intercept inbound, and then proceed. What's the point? This seems like the kind of approach I need to bring a student to, just to see how they handle it. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
In article t,
"Iain Wilson" wrote: I agree - it's the 2600ft holding pattern alt that's the problem. Maybe the descent from 2600 ft is outside the specs for an approach? I had thought of that, but the PT outbound altitude is 2600 as well. And since you are allowed to fly a racetrack for the PT, if it's OK for the PT, it must be OK for the hold. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
I was thinking about the descent from the FAF where they've specified 1800.
You'd be at 2600 in the hold and this might be outside the specs. Iain "Roy Smith" wrote in message ... In article t, "Iain Wilson" wrote: I agree - it's the 2600ft holding pattern alt that's the problem. Maybe the descent from 2600 ft is outside the specs for an approach? I had thought of that, but the PT outbound altitude is 2600 as well. And since you are allowed to fly a racetrack for the PT, if it's OK for the PT, it must be OK for the hold. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A question on Airworthiness Inspection | Dave S | Home Built | 1 | August 10th 04 05:07 AM |
Question | Charles S | Home Built | 4 | April 5th 04 09:10 PM |
ALEXIS PARK INN - comments please. | plumbus bobbus | Home Built | 0 | January 22nd 04 12:02 AM |
ALEXIS PARK INN - comments please. | plumbus bobbus | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | January 22nd 04 12:02 AM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |