Jeppesen Charts

[Bally Heck]

A TECHNICAL remark about Jepps.

The narrative for the missed approach at Faro:

"Climb on R-289 to 1400' then proceed to the VFA10 holding climbing to 3000' and contact Faro APP."

How ambiguous is that?

Having read it twenty times and discussed it with two colleagues I still don't know if the climb to 3000' is continuous or if the inference is to stop at 1400' until the VFA10 fix, which incidentally is on the 289 radial.

This is not an isolated example. Just an example.

Can anyone out there elucidate?

[Diesel8]

sounds like a continuous climb to 3000 and proceed directly to the holding pattern once reaching 1400. perhaps they feel that most airplanes will not reach 3000 by 10dme and that you should continue climbing to 3000 in the hp, or perhaps the description applies regardsless of runway used.

[ 10 October 2001: Message edited by: Diesel8 ]

[stator vane]

indicates reaching 1400 before turning.

[Bally Heck]

But there is no turn. The VFA 10 fix is on the same 289 radial that the 1400' height restraint is on.

[cosmo kramer]

I think the cue is climbing. It doesn't say "then climb".

You don't find this abiguous I'm sure: "climb on rwy hdg to 1000 feet then turn right heading 360 climbing to 3000."

You wouldn't stop your climb at 1000 until rolled out on 360 would you?

[Bally Heck]

Perhaps this is not as clear as I thought. To paraphrase the chart, it says is climb on runway heading to 1400'. Then continue on runway heading to the 10 dme holding fix, climbing to 3000',

It does not say to stop at 1400'. But why mention 1400' if not to stop at. There is no turn involved at 1400'.

Call me thick if you like but it is not clear to me,

[ft]

IMO it makes sense to stick with the same phraseology they would use if the fix wasn't on the radial even though it is. Otherwise, you'd end up with a gazillion special cases where fixes line up just right (or wrong).

I read it as "when you reach 1400´, stop following the radial, start flying towards VFA10 and climb to 3000 while contacting Faro APP". If VFA10 conveniently happens to be on the R289 it just gets rid of that tedious turning part. :)

Cheers,
/ft

[Bally Heck]

:confused: So who is prepared to bet their lives and that of their passengers that the climb is continuous. Lets say for example that an aircraft is commencing the VOR procedure at 3000''. You could climb right into it. I think the climb stops at 1400' for that reason. But it ain't very clear s these answers confirm. :confused:

[Canuck_AV8R]

Seperation in the missed approach corridor is the responsibility of the appropriate ATC unit NOT the approach plate designer/printer. You may have issues with Jeppesen charts but this one is not valid IMNSHO.

Seperation criteria would be such that only one aircraft can be on the approach or missed approach at any given time. Here in Canada if there is no radar coverage the first aircraft must either a) cancel IFR, b) land and clear the active runway, or c) commence a missed approach prior to another aircraft proceeding inbound past the FAF. I know it is cumbersome but it works and it is safe.

The bottom line is there should be no-one in the missed approach corridor below 4000 ft (in this case) or a minimum of 1000 ft above the missed approach altitude.

I am not familiar with the particular approach in question but surely no-one should be on the opposite approach to you when you are conducting an approach in what I presume is a non-radar environment. In a radar environment ATC has the responsibility to keep the missed approach corridor clear of A/C not you and not the approach plate designer. If ATC want a different missed approach procedure due to traffic then it should be communicated to you well in advance.

[Bally Heck]

Having thought about this I am now convinced that the missed approach should be stopped at 1400' which is the 25nm safe altitude. This gives 1000' plus seperation from other aircraft which may be commencing the procedure at 3000' over the VOR. The climb to 3000' continues at the 10dme fix thus giving lateral seperation from other traffic.

I think Canuck that separation is the responsibility of th procedure designer in a non radar environment.

In this case, if I am correct, the wording of the missed approach either by the designer or by Jepps if they have altered it is very dangerous. Something like "climb to and maintain 1400' until reaching the 10dme fix" would be less ambiguous.

Everyone who expressed a preference on this thread interpreted the dangerous option I believe.

Any comments?

[NextLeftAndCallGround]

I've come into this from the ATC forum at Bally's invitation.

Without looking at the plates and AIP one thought immediately comes to mind. If the min safe alt for the area is 1400ft, does the mention of 1400ft on the go-around suggest that you should climb at best rate to this level (at which point you'll be terrain safe) and then at a lower rate - if you wish - to the hold/fix?

On the question of separation... Sorry but no instrument approach procedure provides separation - this is achieved by issuing the appropriate clearances. In an ideal world no controller will put another aircraft in the hold at the missed approach level (or if it's absolutely unavoidable, he/she will issue alternative missed approach instructions). Unfortunately I accept we don't live in an ideal world and some airport systems kind of force you into doing so.

[Bally Heck]

Thanks for joining NextLeft. Perhaps I worded that a bit badly. What I meant was that when designing a procedure, the designer would avoid a missed approach procedure which would conflict with an approach procedure. Radio failure etc, must make this vital.

Missed approaches are normally designed such that worst case (single engined) go-around climb gradients are accounted for with a close in turn or increased minima if required . I don't think terrain is a factor here as it is out over the sea.

I believe that an aircraft may be cleared to commence a VOR procedure at say 3000' if the preceeding is on the approach below 2000'.

On this approach, an aircraft heading for the VOR from the west at 3000' would conflict with an aircraft going around on the westerly runway if it climbed above 2000'

I have kind of convinced myself (perhaps erroneously) that 1400' is a stop height for this reason. If it is, then given that the concensus is a climb to 3000' these charts are death traps!!

[UP2ZSKY]

Could you please tell me what airport you are talking about here. I flipped open my Jeppview to Faro (CZFA) and it isn't even close to what you are saying.
Thanks. :)

[cosmo kramer]

With the reservation of not having seen the charts, I still believe that it is a continuous climb.

Why would you have an aircraft on approach to the opposite runway than the one making the go-around? I think that is a little bit too far fetched.

[Bally Heck]

UP2ZSKY

The Faro I'm talking about is LPFR.

Cosmo.

If you are carrying out a VOR approach, where the VOR is located on the field, the approach to the IAP could be from any direction. The best direction to approach from, to go directly outbound from the beacon would be from the west. ie in the go-around climb out when landing on the easterly runway. Sorry I can't reproduce the chart, it might make things a bit clearer.

Anyway, bouncing of this question off you chaps has made the answer come to me.

Ta :)

[cosmo kramer]

In that case why 1400 feet and not 2000 feet? Why the need for 1600 seperation? Something is not right in your deduction.

[Bally Heck]

Could well be. Damned if I can think of another good explanation though. :confused:

[IFollowRoads]

Just looked this up in Aerads, and the wording is lsightly different:
'Right of VFA 289R to 1400 1380 then to VFA West hold at 3000 2980 and contact Approach.'
I'll let you carry on with the interesting discussion! :p

[fireflybob]

Perhaps we should remember that it is the "State's" AIP which defines the procedure and what we see on the chart is Jeppesen's (Aerad, etc) interpretation of this.

I would be interested in knowing what the Portugese AIP says about the Missed Approach Procedure at Faro.

In practice if a procedure appears ambiguous then it behoves us as pilots to ask for clarification from ATC - the stakes are too high not to do so!

I would say that whether it's 1400 ft or 3,000 ft as the initial "blocked" altitude is open to debate but I would be interested to know what the mimimum level in the VFA 10d holding pattern is - if it's 4,000 ft I would suggest you can climb immediately to 3,000 ft.

[411A]

....and then there are those who see a sinister plot in the agenda....why not just fly as you have been instructed and stop trying to be...the ATC controller?
Many pilots want to stick their nose in where it does not belong.
Give the ATC guys a break! Fly the bus and go home...good grief!

[fireflybob]

411A, I think you have missed the point.

In the absence of ATC instructions to the contrary (previously) how would you fly a missed approach following a communications failure?

The original query is very sound and professional - if there is something on an approach chart which appears ambiguous then it behoves any professional pilot to check it out!

[411A]

Well then, fireflybob, in the situation you mention, one should fly the published missed approach. That is precisely why it is published, to give the pilot guideance in the event landing is not possible.
ATC's responsibility is to separate aircraft. This is NOT the pilots job.
Have been to Faro many times and would certainly not describe it as a "death trap".
Lets get real about these things, and give the ATC guys a break.
Besides, the last time I was there, the radar worked really well.

[Oktas8]

411A, you have definitely missed the point.

Never been to Faro, but now I'm curious what the local AIP says about it. Who's going to look it up for everyone?

[scanscanscan]

411a Please state, at what altitudes, and where on it,and in listed sequence, you would change these altitudes, on this published plate.

[Bally Heck]

Besides, the last time I was there, the radar worked really well .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was the ILS up and running too 411A? :p

[ 15 October 2001: Message edited by: Bally Heck ]

[411A]

No Bally Heck, VOR/DME approaches only as I recall, with a visual nearly every time. Very friendly folks.

And scanscanscan, precisely what is says, climb to 1400 on the radial, then continue to climb to 3000 to the fix. 'Tis NOT rocket science. The Apollo program ended years ago. :rolleyes:

[scanscanscan]

411a Thank you, however as the fix is on the concerned radial what is the reason and significence of the mention of 1400ft.

[BOAC]

Bally - I don't know the answer. I expect that Jepps form part of your ops manual and you are entitled to ask them - they should have the original from which the translation came. It would not be the first time a mistake had been made in translation by a chart provider. As said above, the only real reference is the AIP for Portugal, but you could start at Jeppesen (http://www.jeppesen.com/)

[Bally Heck]

Thanks BOAC
I emailed the Portuguese AIP people last night. Interested to see if I get an answer.

[strobes_on]

This is the quote from the first post:

"Climb on R-289 to 1400' then proceed to the VFA10 holding climbing to 3000' and contact Faro APP."

A subsequent reply says the 25 nm MSA is 1400 ft, which for my response, I will asssume to be correct.

I have never been to Faro, but would read the procedure to mean get to 1400 ft (MSA) on R 289, THEN track to VFA10 on climb to 3000 ft.

i.e. THE CLIMB IS CONTINUOUS from the Missed Approach Point until reaching 3000 ft.

[Check 6]

IMHO, too much is being read into this procedure. I have seen similar wording for the MA for other airports in Europe/Middle East.

I use military charts frequently. These charts say: "MISSED APPROACH Climb on VFA R-289 to 3000. When passing 1400 proceed to VFA 10 Holding. Contact approach control."

It seems simple enough.

Bally - Your questions and concerns are valid. Good question, good discussion.

[Flap40]

If I might be permitted to stick my oar in. The only copy of the Faro plates I can lay my hands on are the Jeppesen ones produced for Microsoft flight sim and I'm assuming that you are talking about plate 13-2 VOR/DME 28.

Firstly the West hold has a MHA of 3000' so I can see your problem with regard to the goaround BUT the only conflict will come from another goaround NOT an arcraft making an approach as there is a remark on the plate that says "Alt procdure - Leave the VOR not below 4000' etc etc" (It is beyond compehension that anyone would hold at VFA west at 3000' and then climb to 4000' to start the approach.

With regard to your point about the 1400' point and the next way point being on the same radial - they might not be!
Assuming I make an approach to the MDA of 460' I will reach that point just after the NDB. My company SOP is to immediately fly the missed approach if nothing is seen (ie not to fly level to the MAP). We will easily pass 1400' before we even get to the VOR so we will be going from the inbound radial of 281 direct to VFA west climbing to 3000' which will keep us nicely under the aircraft that is commencing its approach at 4000' overhead the VOR and never have to intercept the 289 radial.

Flap40
edited for spelling!

[ 22 October 2001: Message edited by: Flap40 ]

[OzExpat]

I've never been to Faro, or seen any approach charts for the place. But I am an instrument procedure designer so maybe I can add a few relevant comments.

To take issue with a few points raised back on page 1, the procedure designer works in consultation with ATC for ALL procedures in controlled airspace. The designer does not have to account for aircraft separation as this is ATC's job. That's why we consult with the ATCOs so much.

We can also have approaches to each end of a runway and have the Missed Approach for one going toward the FAF for the approach serving the opposite end of the runway. This is precisely because we consult with ATC and logic dictates that, when weather warrants use of a particular runway, ALL TRAFFIC will be directed to the relevant approach by ATC.

Designers have enough problems ensuring terrain clearance and containment within controlled airspace. We also have to ensure the missed approach has adequate length in which to climb to whatever altitude is needed, at 152FT/NM - the well-known 2.5% gradient. Note that we DON'T CARE about the one-engine inoperative case. That is something between your company SOPs and your regulating authority.

Okay, now, if the 25 MSA is 1400FT, is this just in one sector or all around the navaid? If it's in one sector, is the 10DME holding pattern in that same sector? The reason I ask this is that, if terrain is not at issue, then holding at 3,000 or even 4,000 FT for that matter, is either an ATC or airspace containment issue.

If you don't know the way to interpret the chart, your first line of enquiry is to your company's Safety rep (however you refer to the person in charge of operational safety issues in your organisation). Or your C+T folks, or your Fleet Captain or Chief Pilot.

Finally, yes, as someone else has already stated, Jeppesen really does make the occasional error. Seeking clarification from them is a good move, but that really is best done by your company's Chief Pilot or Fleet Captain, etc. My experience of them is that they DO check their information with the regulating authority and, if they are wrong, they'll fix it PDQ.

Hope this has helped to un-muddy the waters a bit.

[Bally Heck]

No reply from the Portuguese so far. Check 6, your chart seems to have unambiguous wording.

The point becoming clear from this discussion is that after several days of discussion, it is still not clear which is the correct procedure based on the Jepps (and Aerad) wording. How is a crew supposed to brief themselves on the correct procedure in a few seconds. Jeppesens do not seem to have consistent standard wording on all their charts.

A point I brought up a couple of months ago on this forum (which was moved to questions) was the departure charts for certain aerodromes where the go around climb gradients are in the narrative, but the stop height is located elswhere and less obviously on the chart. I am sure many of you have seen this and how easy it would be to miss.

It would be nice if safety related procedures were made clear, unambiguous and easy to understand.

[Chinaboy]

I fly to Faro often and always understood it as a continuous climb! as far as I can see there is no restrictions at 1400'; I will try to check on the Portuguese AIP!

[Bally Heck]

And another thing.......
What exactly is a "holding"?

I know what a holding point, holding pattern etc is.

But a Holding??

Surely this is not ICAO nomenclature. :confused:

[OzExpat]

Gee I wonder how I can possibly make myself any clearer? Okay, let's try the blunt approach...

As a line pilot, it's not up to you to interpret the chart when you have a problem with it. That's the job of your Fleet Captain, Flight Captain, Line Captain, Safety Captain (or as applicable to your particular company), or your C+T folks.

If they have the same problem then they can sort it out pretty quickly, directly with Jepps. They do, after all, have an up-to-date AIP for every country for which they provide procedures.

[cosmo kramer]

Bally Heck:
No reply from the Portuguese so far. Check 6, your chart seems to have unambiguous wording.

I don't find the Jeppesen ambiguous. It's worded as almost every other chart that specifies a continuous climb - i.e. climbing!

If you were to stop your climb it would have been specified with then climb.

[Bally Heck]

You may be correct Cosmo. But then why even bother mentioning 1400'. If you are correct then this part is completely and utterly superfluous. It shouldn't be there.

Unless you go around from above 1400', you have no choice but to pass through 1400' on the way to 3000'.

[cosmo kramer]

Unless I am mistaking there is nothing that prevents you from maneuvering after passing 1400 feet.

How about this:
"Climb to 1400 feet on R289, then maneuver as you please (if you prefer a teardrop rather than a parallel) to go to the VFA10 holding while climbing to 3000 feet".

[ft]

Bally H,
as I suggested way back in this thread - until 1400' you fly the radial, after that you change your navigational references to fly to the fix - the fact that it IS on the radial doesn't change a thing really. It's just a special case. Wiggle the yoke about a bit, pretend that you DID turn towards the fix and blame turbulence over the P/A if it makes you feel better about it. ;)

Cheers,
/ft

[fms146]

I cant believe there is any confussion with the missed approach instruction at all. I think ft is absolutly correct in his/her reply. Ozexpat has explained and 411A/strobes-on/check6/are on the money. as ozexpat says if you find an issue with a plate take it up with the company but otherwise just fly the procedure and in this case it is very clear what to do..Why you are to do it is not your concern..How anyone can think you would stop the climb at 1400'is beyond me when it clearly states climbing to 3000.

[Bally Heck]

Oh Dear!

Sorry for airing my confusion chaps.

On with the dunces hat and of to the corner to suck my thumb. :confused:

[fms146]

Bally Heck
I ment no disrespect to yourself and yes if you are not sure of something this forum is definately the right place to get advise from any amount of experienced pilots. My advise to you is to read the plates carefully and brief the procedure as written making sure both pilots have a clear understanding of what you are going to do. To understand the sequence of the missed break it into sections if it helps and you will see that there can be no confusion with the plate you have refered to in your post.
I hope that helps

[moggie]

I reckon it is an attempt to legislate for poor climb performance. I reckon it is "climb on the 289 radial to 300 to hold at VFA10. However, do not turn into the hold until you are above 1400' - even if this means extending beyond VFA10". After all, you have to allow for B727s somehow!

That is how I would read it, anyway.

[cosmo kramer]

So, does anybody still find the wording ambiguous?

[Bally Heck]

Ahh Yes OK I'll bite.

It could say "Climb on R-289 radial to 3000' to the VFA10 hold" or it could say what it says.

I guess no lawyers are involved here.

[cosmo kramer]

It could say "Climb on R-289 radial to 3000' to the VFA10 hold" or it could say what it says.

No it couldn't. Because if you only climb at the minimun required gradient 2.5%, you wouldn't be able to get to 3000 feet by VFA10.

10 nm x 2.5% = 0.25 nm = 1500 feet.

Climb to 1400 on the radial. Then you will be above the MSA and free to maneuver in whatever way necessary to go to the holding.

If it said what you just wrote, someone would probably ask "I am only at 2700 feet when reaching VFA10, shold I continue on the radial or enter the holding"? ;)

[ 26 October 2001: Message edited by: cosmo kramer ]

[sky9]

Cosmo Kramer and Moggie, you have the answer; the go around is based on minimum performance. The trouble is the bally heck is to used to flying in 757's. Give him an Apache for the G/A and he will understand exactly what he would have to do.

[Tinstaafl]

I don't see any ambiguity with the wording.

It's a two part missed approach.

1. Climb to 1400' while tracking on R-289.

2. After reaching 1400' track to the VFA10 hold while climbing to 3000'

Whether or not a turn is involved is irrelevent. The congruence of the tracks required for the two parts is just a coincidence.

[604driver]

Looking at the chart, the holding fix is only 7 miles from the MAP. The holding fix lies within the MSA of the VFA VOR. If u assume for one moment this procedure was written in the days of the viscount, in a worst case with a couple of engine failures, you would probably take 12-15 miles to get to 1400', ie past the holding fix. After 1400' you would be clear of obstacles as long as you stay south of the 285-R whilst manoeuvering back to the Holding fix.

Looking at the arrival plate. as the charts are not drawn to scale, it is impossible to tell if the arrival route brings you close to the D6/10 holding pattern.

If you are flying an aircraft with far superior performance to a 2 engined viscount, a brick for example, you climb directly to 3000' whence you level off say after only 5 track miles from the MAP and then you join the hold.

As i suppose there have been more go arounds at Faro than mid air collisions, it is probably ok to assume that the controllers will be looking out for you as if you do collide, they have to live with it, you probably wont.

[cosmo kramer]

I which slot machine did you guys win your licenses? No procedures take engine failures or seperation into account. How many times does it need to be mentioned in this thread? Ok - I'm finished ranting. :D

A usefull information was the 7 nm, since that would mean that it's impossible to reach VFA10 when climbing on the minimum required gradient with all engines operating.

7 nm x 2.5% = 0.175 nm =1065 feet.

Infact you would need 9.2 nm to reach 1400 feet.

1400 feet = 0.23 nm <=> 0.23 / 2.5% = 9.2 nm.

So there you have it Bally Heck. You have passed the VFA10 fix before you reach 1400 and need to turn to go back to the VFA10 holding.

[604driver]

Cosmo,

you're right i just used the engine failure point to try to show why you might only be able to climb at 2.5% as opposed to 7.0 or 8.0%. I could have suggested an Apache with a pilot on board that had forgotten to remove the tie down blocks.

Sometimes we take all that power, available to us now, for granted. Its nice to know its there when required however. :)

[OzExpat]

If, as has been said, the 10DME holding fix is only 7NM from the MAPt., the nominal maximum height gain possible is, indeed, 1064FT. But a Pans Ops procedure design does not assume that the aircraft will start to climb immediately upon reaching the MAPt. Nor does it even assume that your DME equipment will show you the MAPt at precisely the right point.

It allows a fix tolerance area within which your DME will indicate the distance appropriate to the MAPt. Then the design assumes that it'll take a bit of time for the pilot to recognise the position (3 seconds at final approach TAS, with tailwind, is the usual allowance). Then a further 3 seconds for the pilot to react and start cleaning the aircraft up.

All up, the whole thing came easily come out to a mile or more before the procedure can assume that the aircraft is climbing away at 152 FT/NM. On the assumption that you will have 6 miles available for climb, the maximum height gain would be (6 x 152) 912FT.

Now for some "reverse engineering" for a moment. As 1400FT is the MSA and you have to reach that before you can do any necessary manoeuvring to enter the 10DME holding pattern, we have a discrepancy of (1400 - 912) 488FT. What is the MDA for this approach?

I'm thinking that the lowest it could possibly be is around 450FT. It's probably somewhat higher than that but, if it IS 450FT, there's a (488 - 450) 38FT discrepancy. To gain this additional height, the aircraft needs a further 0.25NM so, in effect, the aircraft could be 0.25NM beyond the 10DME holding fix by the time it reaches 1400FT.

But that is only part of the problem. The procedure design applies a fix tolerance at the 10DME position. This fix tolerance could mean that you reach 10DME where you are supposed to, or a bit before it, or even a bit after it. This won't make any difference to you when you fly the missed approach, but it can make a lot of difference in the design for it - there must always be enough distance available for climb to the safe manoeuvring altitude.

If the MDA is significantly above 450FT, one would think that there is plenty of distance available for climb to 1400FT. Thus, without knowing the location or the approach, I begin to wonder if there is some kind of airspace limitation, like maybe a TMA boundary that's close by.

[ 27 October 2001: Message edited by: OzExpat ]

[Chinaboy]

The Portuguese AIP States:
Missed App: climb on RDL 290 VFA to 3000 ft when passing 1400ft proceed to VFA West holding; ctc App.
No comments...

[Bally Heck]

Thanks NIDB.

What aboout this. Note the punctuation.

LERS missed approach procedure VOR ILS DME 25.

"Climb to 750', then turn LEFT onto R-236 to D7.0 RES. Turn LEFT onto heading 179* climbing to 4000' then turn LEFT direct to VOR and hold."

That reads to me, maintaining 750' until after D7.0. I do not believe this is what is intended but it is what the wording implies.

"Helmets on. Incoming"

[604driver]

OzExpat, for your info the MDA is published as 460' for the Faro approach.

As for LERS.............?

[cosmo kramer]

I would still say that climbing implies a continuous climb. How would you be -ing anything if you had stopped doing it?

[Bally Heck]

Cosmo.

The point of this post is that instructions should be instructions, not implications. Suppose you misinterpreted the implication and got it wrong.

Even I think it's obvious that flying along level below MSA is unwise. All I want is clear, unambiguous, simple to interpret, hard to get wrong, instructions

If you follow this instruction, to the letter, you would do (probably) the wrong thing.

Given that most pilots are not native English speakers, I think that these things should be clear.

I thought that my original post was ambiguous regarding the correct procedure. I think this one is just plain wrong.

[Monty Nivo]

Worryingly, this discussion demonstrates that

(a) many of you guys have been inadequately trained and checked, and,

(b) the Jeppesen plates are very poorly written (though streets ahead of anything published in Seattle, thank the Lord).

Remember KISS? How about...

'Missed approach: Climb altitude 3000ft. Track 289 radial from XYZ until passing 1400ft, then turn left to VFA and enter the hold'. Simple, clear, unambiguous - and thus completely out of reach of the idiots at Jeppesen. (Note, this wording demonstrates that it is possible to write a procedure clearly, it is NOT meant to represent the particular procedure under discussion).

[Bally Heck]

Monty

(a) many of you guys have been inadequately trained and checked

Not quite with you old chap. Could you enlarge upon that statement.

[OzExpat]

Monty... I've got better things to do with my time than try to write missed approach instructions - you can have that part of my job! Thanks for your interest and your application... :rolleyes:

604driver... thanks for that. Looks like there's still a technical 28 feet height gain to make that won't occur in the distance directly to the hold. This is why it is sometimes awkward to write missed approach instructions. I have the problem most of the time here, in order to keep the aeroplane from smacking into some bloodey rock or other.

BTW, I just love that signature! If you ever get tired of it... :D

[Lima Xray]

Firtsly, I never been to Faro.

The missed approach always come in the same ‘order’ for consistency and clarity.

Jeppesen plate LPFR Faro 13-3 (dated 23 Mar 01)

Climb on R-289 keep you in the 3000’ MSA sector. Only when you pass 1400’ you are deemed to be on a safe height clearance by tracking the R-289. You are directed to hold above sea 3000’ MHA.With the climbing gradient would you be out over sea at 1400’?

Runway centerline track is 284° For the NDB missed approach you are instructed to Climb straight ahead. In theory you are then in the 1400’ MSA sector.

Indeed the same VOR approach on RWY 28 without DME is done so ie Climb straight ahead 1800’……..

I always advice to fly the more ‘demanding’ IFR approaches in good weather ‘to see and visualize’ the profile and instruments and to fully appreciate the critical parts like turn away from or through or between high ground like the one below. Just refer to the statistics.

Furthermore according the airport plate 13-1 the VOR is located just south of the runway, so is this why they calculate 289-284= 5° ‘intercept angle’ towards the runway center line. Your CDI will be indicating, assuming correct tuning, intercept required if any.

Your SOP performance plates will indicate obstacle clearance limits and if any emergency turns are required, like Floro, Norway. What do you think of Mosjoen, Norway and Innsbruck , Austria ! Anyone done any of those in minimum weather conditions and had an engine failure. I would be very interested to hear your account.

I always advice to fly the more ‘demanding’ IFR approaches in good weather ‘to see and visualize’ the profile and instruments and to fully appreciate the critical parts like turn away from or through or between high ground like the one below. Just refer to the statistics.

Cheers
L-X

Bartender make that a definite maybe......
:(

[lurkio]

I would fly this missed approach (FAO) as a continuous climb. You will not conflict with anyone starting the procedure because you are proceeding to the IAF for rwy 10 which is to the west of the field. Anyone starting the procedure would be comencing from the IAF 28 which is east of the field and is probably 20 miles behind you by now. That is if my memory of Faro charts is correct.

[Monty Nivo]

OzExpat,

If it is part of your job (which I don't believe - do you work for Jeppesen?), then you're doing it badly. And what was the 'thanks for your interest and application' remark about, by the way?

Bally Heck,

My point is, that if you don't know how to fly the procedure, you shouldn't operate to the aerodrome. People posting here don't know how to fly the procedure, and yet are operating there (it would seem).

Putting it bluntly (as I was), this shouldn't happen.

My main gripe is with Jeppesen, whose output is very worryingly sub-standard, and yet who don't (it would appear) listen to reason or seek expertise. This applies to their charts and performance data.

However, pilots who don't know what they are doing are a liability to us all, and very specifically, to their passengers.

Problems arise when unclear material is published, especially that which is outside the run-of-the-mill 'fly the aeroplane' type of guidance, as even the trainers won't understand it. Various schools of thought will develop, and will be taught and learnt. Trainees (and checkees) will be exposed to a variety of incorrect techniques and interpretations.

We all need to wake up to this problem before we have too many more fatal accidents as a consequence.

I hope that's a bit clearer.

[ 30 October 2001: Message edited by: Monty Nivo ]

[Bally Heck]

The whole point of the thread Monty, is that if the published procedure is unclear, then it may not be possible for even you, with your undoubted skills to fly. Not being a procedure designer, I don't see it as part of my job to second guess what they have designed. I know these guys do a good and thorough job. This should be reflected in the way the information is presented to pilots.

Approach plates should be clear, accurate, easy to read and use. They should also be standard in the way they are laid out and worded.

I repeat my earlier posting.

LERS missed approach procedure VOR ILS DME 25.

"Climb to 750', then turn LEFT onto R-236 to D7.0 RES. Turn LEFT onto heading 179* climbing to 4000' then turn LEFT direct to VOR and hold."

This clearly instructs the pilot to fly level at 750 feet until D7.0 RES. This is also clearly wrong.

Let a lawyer get his teeth into that and he would tear it apart.

The English language is one of the most important tools of our trade. If the tool is used incorrectly, it can, will and has caused accidents. It seems strange to me that our R/T phraseology is quite rightly strictly regulated. Yet Jeppesens and other flight guide publishers and some regulatory authorities can use unclear, ambiguous and plainly incorrect wording on their publications.

[Monty Nivo]

Bally Heck,

You are quite right, and we are in agreement.

My point is, that the lawyers won't get involved until it's too late to avoid the consequences. That's why we (as responsible professionals) should do something about this now (in fact, we should have done something about it long ago).

[OzExpat]

Monty... thank you so much for trying to flame me. That's been done before and by much more talented people than you. And it always defeats the point.

Not that it's really any of your business, but no, I do not work for Jeppesen. I work for an aviation regulator and I design instrument approach procedures. I have done this work for 15 years, so I reckon I have a few more clues about it than you do.

I do, however, take the point that all instructions on an approach chart should be as clear and simple as possible. This isn't always easy to achieve, however, as folks like me also have to consider the legal aspect of everything we do, while trying to ensure we don't miss something that ends up being safety-critical.

You will undoubtedly not have seen any of the procedures I've designed, much less ever flown them in practice or for real. So I'm unable to comprehend how you can make such a heinous accusation about the way I do the job I've done for 15 years - and am still doing. If you're going to flame someone, it might be a good idea to get some facts first, unless they just get in your way, of course.

In case you're interested, I liaise fairly closely with Jeppesen and they will always ask about any aspect of a procedure that they don't understand. That has been my experience of them over the whole of my 15 year tenure to date.

Note, however, that I'm under no regulatory obligation to them. Whatever they do with the procedures I produce is up to them. In effect, they take legal responsibility for their reproduction of my procedures - and all procedures from every other aviation regulator. So, if you have a gripe with any of their charts, take it up with them ... just as I suggested earler in this thread.

[Monty Nivo]

OzExpat,

I wasn't trying to flame you, and I don't take kindly to your aggressive remark about 'more talented people'. Cheeky b*****d. Care to compare CVs/experience/works published etc.?

You made a claim to have expert opinion on the issue, and yet it seems to me, from your post, that you know that the procedures you write are incorrectly interpreted by those publishing and those using them. That means that you are failing in your aims - to write safe procedures that are used corectly. Blaming this error on a third party doesn't wash now, and won't wash in Court. Likewise, any safe procedure correctly published will stand up to legal scrutiny, because it's (a) safe and (b) robust. If you have to skew the figures to protect your six, the figures are wrong.

There is no point in writing any procedure that won't be correctly executed, and I know this because I write procedures too - though I also fly them.

Despite your close liaison with Jeppesen you have failed to convince them to write procedures clearly and correctly. You obviously have great influence there!

And no, I haven't flown any of your procedures. I fly in Europe, you know, the area with high mountains, busy airspace, high traffic density etc. etc., not in PNG, where I guess the grass grows long....

And don't worry - you've thrown down the gauntlet - but I like to marinade the meat before I fry it.

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[411A]

...once again guys, it ain't rocket science, altho would have to admit the Jeppesen charts do seem to have fallen on hard times when they cannot (or will not) make the message clear. This is a very big problem and I suspect it will only get worse. :(

[PPRuNe Towers]

I won't bore you with tales of endless frustration with Jepps performance and nav planning department but I do have to chip in regarding their plates.

Head honcho Jim Terpstra is very active on line, likes to hear from users in the field and his chart clinics are well worth a visit. Try the Jepp site.

[OzExpat]

Monty... you mean to tell me you got ALL of that from my previous post? I haven't had such amusement in ages ... must be all that marinade that you use.

I enjoy a good laugh so please don't stop now!

[Bally Heck]

Anyway chaps, no-one has got their teeth into this previously posted one.

Please someone tell me I'm wrong. (with reasoned argument.

LERS missed approach procedure VOR ILS DME 25.

"Climb to 750', then turn LEFT onto R-236 to D7.0 RES. Turn LEFT onto heading 179* climbing to 4000' then turn LEFT direct to VOR and hold."

This clearly instructs the pilot to fly level at 750 feet until D7.0 RES. This is also clearly wrong.

[pigboat]

I see no restriction there to maintain 750' till 7 DME RES. The restriction is straight ahead to 750'. The next altitude restriction is 4000' on the heading of 179* before turning left again for the hold at the VOR. The requirements are to turn left at 750' and intercept the 236* radial, at 7 DME to turn further left to a heading of 179*, climb to 4000' then turn left again direct the VOR and enter hold.
No?

[OzExpat]

Bally... I'm fairly sure that, if the procedure requires a level segment at 750 FT, it would say so. Having said that, I've thought of one possibility of why the wording is the way it is.

When Pans Ops 3rd Edition first burst on the scene, it had a requirement to provide for a level acceleration segment of 6NM length. This design feature was later repealed but, for progressive aviation authorities that already had many such procedures in issue, the removal of this feature had to be reflected in their procedures. This could have entailed massive changes to the charts already in issue.

It is possible that, as an interim measure, the authority responsible for this procedure may have simply modified the textual description of the missed approach by deleting words that may have said something along the lines of "Climb to 750FT prior to level acceleration, then turn LEFT onto 179 and climb to 4000."

If this is anywhere near the fact, I would think the wording you've quoted could be a reasonable alternative. I agree that it might have been better expressed, but I have to come back to my statement at the outset here that "if the procedure requires a level segment at 750 FT, it would say so".

Indeed, unless space on the chart is too small, it would probably also say why it is necessary to fly level at such an altitude. So I tend to agree with pigboat in that, the textual description only states key altitudes and assumes the aircraft will continue climbing straight after reaching 750 FT. In absense of other information, or any modifying instructions from ATC, that's how I would fly it.

[cosmo kramer]

Instead of all this thinking, why not just read what the instruction says. Again, it says climbing. What I have seen, this is what all Jeppesen charts says when it specifies a continuous climb.

[Bally Heck]

Cosmo. Please pay attention. The point I am trying to make is that the wording is wrong. I am perfectly aware that 750' is not a stop height.

In the english language it is normal to give instructions in chronological sequence. That way they make sense. In this go around, the first instruction is

"Climb to 750', then turn LEFT onto R-236 to D7.0 RES."....end of sentence. End of first instruction.

The next sentence is "Turn LEFT onto heading 179* climbing to 4000' then turn LEFT direct to VOR and hold."

New sentence. New instruction.

If I gave you directions like "Go down the road to the red building. Open the door, and climb the stairs." It would not mean the same as "Go down the road to the red building, Climb the stairs and open the door."

This is because the instructions are in a different order.

Oz may be right about the reasoning behind it. But in a world where ATC get p1ssed off by pilots reading back "Line up after the landing aircraft" instead of "After the landing aircraft line up." I think we have a right to clear unambiguous instructions for safety critical procedures.

[cosmo kramer]

Bally Heck, I am paying full attention. I don't doubt that you will carry out the instruction the way it was intendet.

You are obviously not paying attention to what I say. I don't find the wording ambiguous. When I read it there is no doubt in my mind that it's a continous climb for several reasons, besides the obvious that you apparently also see since you do understand the instruction.

First reason is because you are not instructed to level off.

Secondly it says climbing. As I argumented earlier you can be doing anything if you have stopped doing it already. If you had stopped your climb the next sentence should say something like "turn left to.. then climb to..". You are climbing and you shoud continue your climbing to whatever.

Thirdly, it not a Haynes manual for an old Morris Minor, you don't read one sentence at a time before carrying out the next. You should read the entire instruction in it's full length instead of taking it apart. I think it's a completely logical punctuation, otherwise the sentence would be so long that it would be almost completely unreadable.

[Bally Heck]

How would you interpret this instruction Cosmo?

"Climb to 2000', then turn LEFT onto R-236 to D7.0 RES. Turn LEFT onto heading 179* climbing to 4000' then turn LEFT direct to VOR and hold."

[cosmo kramer]

Climb to 2000 before turning left. Continue climbing to 4000 while following the remainder of the routing to the holding at the VOR.

If your point is that it is the altitude of 750 that tick me off, it's not. It's still climbing. I think it makes sense that it is emphasised in one sentence, "don't turn until you reached this altitude - period." - "Now we will give you the rest of your instruction in this new sentence"

But I guess that it just shows how different we perceive things as people, and how hard it must be to write them darn charts :)

[ 10 November 2001: Message edited by: cosmo kramer ]

[Bally Heck]

Have to agree to differ on this one Cosmo.

[Airking]

Bally Heck,
from Jeps / Introduction / Page110 :
Missed Approach text is located...."It may be supplemented by a state specific acceleration altitude / height on charts labeled PANS OPS / PANS OPS3." (refer to Air traffic control series 200)
ATC , page 201 : PANS OPS 4 FURTHER INDICATES THAT THE ACCELERATION SEGMENT CRITERIA HAVE BEEN DELETED...
FARO plates are labeled PANS OPS 4...

Just as an example, how Jep would tell you to climb to an intermidiate alt , EDMA MA RWY25:
"Climb straight ahead to D2.5AUG,then turn right on track 010° climbing to 3300´. At D6.0WLD continue climb to 5000´.

I agree, sometimes it´s not as clear as possible, but for LEPF / LERS I cannot see the problem...
yours
Airking