A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old October 11th 05, 05:43 PM
Mark Hansen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 10/11/2005 09:31, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Daniel Roesen" wrote in message
...

The decision height is 200ft for straight-in ILS 36. What you mean is
the decision altitude. Unless I've misunderstood something completely.


No, I mean decision height. The decision height for the S-ILS 36 is 882
MSL, the height above touchdown is 200 feet.



No...

Decision Height is the height above the touchdown zone elevation.

Decision Altitude is the MSL altitude of the Decision Height.

From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:

DECISION ALTITUDE/DECISION HEIGHT [ICAO]- A specified altitude or height (A/H)
in the precision approach at which a missed approach must be initiated if the
required visual reference to continue the approach has not been established.

Note 1: Decision altitude [DA] is referenced to mean sea level [MSL] and
decision height [DH] is referenced to the threshold elevation.

Note 2: The required visual reference means that section of the visual aids
or of the approach area which should have been in view for sufficient time
for the pilot to have made an assessment of the aircraft position and rate
of change of position, in relation to the desired flight path.

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA
Ads
  #202  
Old October 11th 05, 07:05 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...

No, I mean decision height. The decision height for the S-ILS 36 is 882
MSL, the height above touchdown is 200 feet.


No...

Decision Height is the height above the touchdown zone elevation.

Decision Altitude is the MSL altitude of the Decision Height.

From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:

DECISION ALTITUDE/DECISION HEIGHT [ICAO]- A specified altitude
or height (A/H) in the precision approach at which a missed approach must
be
initiated if the required visual reference to continue the approach has
not been
established.

Note 1: Decision altitude [DA] is referenced to mean sea level [MSL] and
decision height [DH] is referenced to the threshold elevation.

Note 2: The required visual reference means that section of the visual
aids or of the approach area which should have been in view for sufficient
time for the pilot to have made an assessment of the aircraft position and
rate of change of position, in relation to the desired flight path.


That's an ICAO definition, we're talking about a US IAP. See NACO TPP pages
A1 and F2.


  #203  
Old October 11th 05, 09:26 PM
Daniel Roesen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

* Steven P. McNicoll :
That's an ICAO definition, we're talking about a US IAP. See NACO TPP pages
A1 and F2.


http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/frntmatter.pdf (page 2, bottom)

Hm indeed. What ICAO calls DA is called DH there. By mistake?

Do you have an URL for the TPP pages you referenced? I couldn't find
them.


Best regards,
Daniel
  #204  
Old October 12th 05, 11:54 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Daniel Roesen" wrote in message
...

It's the localizer, not a fix.


Localizer identifiers are in the book, LLZ is not. You seem reluctant to
identify this airport. Why?



Probably. Does that matter? Point being that I'm on hdg 150 towards
intercepting the localizer on 4000ft when being cleared for ILS. As
this is radar vectoring and my position not on a published procedure
track until I did capture the localizer and am established on FAC,
I understand that I'm not allowed to descend on my own. In my scenary
I would have the glideslope falling thru while I'm still heading for
localizer, so I may not descend. Ergo I can descend only at a time
when the GS is already below me.


Yes, the point of interception does matter. Aircraft are to be vectored to
intercept the localizer at a point no closer than three miles outside the
FAF and at an altitude not above the glideslope or below the minimum
glideslope intercept altitude specified on the IAP. At 4000 you seem a bit
too high.


  #205  
Old October 12th 05, 12:25 PM
Daniel Roesen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

* Steven P. McNicoll :
It's the localizer, not a fix.


Localizer identifiers are in the book, LLZ is not. You seem reluctant
to identify this airport. Why?


Because I had no specific airport in mind, really. It was a completely
synthetic example.

Yes, the point of interception does matter. Aircraft are to be vectored to
intercept the localizer at a point no closer than three miles outside the
FAF and at an altitude not above the glideslope or below the minimum
glideslope intercept altitude specified on the IAP. At 4000 you seem a bit
too high.


Absolutely. But sometimes things don't go the way they should go, and
my question was what to do then.


Best regards,
Daniel
  #206  
Old October 12th 05, 12:32 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Daniel Roesen" wrote in message
...

The person who posted
.com
as deducted from his email address.


He seems to prefer the handle "150flivver". He was incorrect about the
clearance issued.



OK. Wasn't sure wether IAFs were explicitly marked as such almost 30
years ago. I'm only familiar with today's charts. :-)


They were designated by "(IAF)". LINDEN VOR, FRONT ROYAL VOR, and MRB VOR
are all designated as IAFs, but none of them are actually on the plate.



The MSA for the quadrant they were in is 3300'. The MEA for the route
from Front Royal VOR, which was just 14 degrees off of their track,
was 3400'.


Yeah, that's why I asked what MSA radius was used back then, as it's not
stated on the approach plate. The enroute segment with the 3400ft MEA
is (IIRC) about 18nm long, so it's certainly longer than the MSA radius.


I have a Jeppesen approach chart legend dated October 10, 1975. The MSA
radius is 25 miles unless otherwise noted.


  #207  
Old October 12th 05, 12:39 PM
Ron Rosenfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:35:42 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
.. .

Just so I understand exactly what you are saying, is it your position
that,
when using DEPRE as the IAF for the purpose of starting this SIAP, if one
is inbound, the legal minimum altitude at DEPRE is 2141'?


There is no Minimum Descent Altitude on an ILS approach, there is instead a
Decision Height. AWI123 is level at 3000 and five miles south of DEPRE, on
the localizer, when cleared for the approach. The aircraft leaves 3000
about 2.7 miles south of DEPRE, where it intercepts the glideslope. It
follows the glideslope down, crossing DEPRE at 2141 MSL, to the decision
height of 882 MSL. From that point it will either complete the approach
visually or execute the missed approach procedure.


I didn't see your response of mine to this post of yours. Perhaps you
missed it, or I missed your response. In any event, here it is again:

=======================================

Your answer is not responsive to my question, but perhaps I did not write
clearly. So I will try to be more clear:

I did not mean to ask you about an MDA for this ILS approach. Nor am I
concerned about how the approach is flown from the FAF to DH.

I ask how your procedure without radar vectors satisfies the requirement
that this approach begin at an IAF.

I thought you indicated that DEPRE was the applicable IAF to satisfy this
requirement. Was that an incorrect assumption?

If DEPRE is the applicable IAF, it must have a minimum crossing altitude.
Since traffic is passing DEPRE at 2141', I would have expected that you
would think that is legal when DEPRE is being used as the IAF from which
this approach begins. Is that your position?

If DEPRE is not the applicable IAF, then I don't see how your procedure
meets the requirements of the 7110.65 that a non-vectored approach begin at
an IAF.
========================


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
  #208  
Old October 12th 05, 02:34 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Daniel Roesen" wrote in message
...

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/frntmatter.pdf (page 2, bottom)

Hm indeed. What ICAO calls DA is called DH there. By mistake?


No.



Do you have an URL for the TPP pages you referenced? I couldn't find
them.


You just posted a URL for the TPP pages I referenced. TPP page A1 is page 2
of the above .pdf file, and TPP page F2 is page 6.


  #209  
Old October 14th 05, 12:58 AM
Ron Garret
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Ron Garret wrote:

In article ,
Mark Hansen wrote:

Now, if they created a fix somewhere out on V21, and wrote a feeder
route from that fix, then you could. Effectively, you've be flying
V21 to the fix, then initiating the SIAP from there. However, they
didn't, so you can't ;-)


OK, I'll buy that.

I wonder if Steven P. McNicoll buys it too.

And I wonder what Socal Approach would have to say about it. (I think
I'll go find out. What a great excuse to fly to Catalina!)


Well, I did this experiment today. Flew VNY-AVX-FUL-VNY. It was a
gorgeous day, though I didn't get to do as much sightseeing as I would
have liked. All those approaches keep you busy!

So coming out of AVX I was cleared V21 SLI Direct, but coming out of AVX
I was immediately put on a 050 vector, which is not actually a vector to
SLI but takes you about 15nm east. So I asked Socal if I lost comm just
then what would he expect me to do? The controller seemed a little
taken aback, as if lost comm. was not something that he ever thought
about, but then improvised that he'd expect me to fly the vector until
abeam SLI, then turn towards SLI. But he added that "no one ever flies
their clearance around here. We always just give out vectors."

So I guess the bottom line is that as a practical matter no one ever
flies a PT in southern california because we always get vectors to final.

rg
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question A Lieberman Instrument Flight Rules 18 January 30th 05 05:51 PM
Required hold? Nicholas Kliewer Instrument Flight Rules 22 November 14th 04 02:38 AM
more radial fans like fw190? jt Military Aviation 51 August 28th 04 04:22 AM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM
IFR in the 1930's Rich S. Home Built 43 September 21st 03 01:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.