Jepp vs NOS at PRB

On Wed, 5 May 2004 18:15:44 -0500, "Stan Prevost"
wrote:


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 5 May 2004 16:55:57 -0500, "Stan Prevost"
wrote:

I'm wondering if the NACO chart shows the barb at EXUPY as a
*recommended*
PT commencement point, because one can initiate a nice three degree
stabilized descent from there.

According to what others have written in the past, it is there only for
charting convenience. In other words, whoever designed the chart thought
things would look less cluttered that way.


Yes, it could have been purely for that reason. However, it seems that the
PT barb could have easily been shown inside 10 DME without clutter. And it
is interesting that EXUPY is the point at which a three degree descent would
begin to the VOR, and that invites speculation as to coincidence or intent.
One could do worse than choosing EXUPY as a point for initiating the PT.
Coming in from IAF KIKII, one would begin descent from 3600 at EXUPY, and a
stabilized 3 degree descent could be made all the way to the airport from
there, and it seems possible that the charting person chose to show the PT
barb outside EXUPY, on the 3600 ft segment, as a suggestion to the pilot as
to where to execute the PT. Since s/he has the discretion.....

Stan



I don't use NACO charts so that's why I ask these questions:

Do you have any documentation to indicate that the location of barb
placement on a NACO chart is determined by this method?

Is it a standard for NACO charts that the barb is placed at the 3° descent
point?


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 May 2004 18:15:44 -0500, "Stan Prevost"
wrote:


I don't use NACO charts so that's why I ask these questions:

Do you have any documentation to indicate that the location of barb
placement on a NACO chart is determined by this method?

Is it a standard for NACO charts that the barb is placed at the 3° descent
point?



I didn't mean to imply that either is standard procedure, and I'm quite sure
neither is. I was just speculating that, given the combination of factors
in this approach, the particular chart designer may have acted within the
scope of his charting discretion to chart the PT barb at a logical point,
even though the exact placement has no regulatory meaning.

Stan

On Wed, 5 May 2004 22:18:13 -0500, "Stan Prevost"
wrote:

I didn't mean to imply that either is standard procedure, and I'm quite sure
neither is. I was just speculating that, given the combination of factors
in this approach, the particular chart designer may have acted within the
scope of his charting discretion to chart the PT barb at a logical point,
even though the exact placement has no regulatory meaning.

Stan

Fair enough.

In that case, my interpretation would be that it is there only by chance.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Wed, 5 May 2004 22:18:13 -0500, "Stan Prevost"
wrote:

I didn't mean to imply that either is standard procedure, and I'm quite sure
neither is. I was just speculating that, given the combination of factors
in this approach, the particular chart designer may have acted within the
scope of his charting discretion to chart the PT barb at a logical point,
even though the exact placement has no regulatory meaning.

Stan

Fair enough.

In that case, my interpretation would be that it is there only by chance.

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

The Interagency Air Cartographic Committee's manual states under plan-view
specifications::

"The procedure turn shall be shown by a barb symbol as indicated on the
appenices. The barb shall be a half arrowhead .10" long and .05" wide positioned
on the maneuvering side. Inbound and outbound 45 degree off-course bearing
values (a directional arrow with the inbound value only) shall be shown on either
side of the procedure turn barb in solid color. The chart legend describing this
feature shall indicate that the use of these values is not mandatory."