TDZE replaced with RWY on Jeppesen.

[B737NG_Pilot]

What have Jeppesen replace the TDZE with runway elevation in the new charts?

[aterpster]

What have Jeppesen replace the TDZE with runway elevation in the new charts?

What country?

In the U.S. the FAA changed from TDZ elevation to threshold elevation a couple of years ago. But, it shows up slowly as procedures are revised by the FAA.

I don't know whether any other country has done the same.

[vinayak]

Looks like everywhere... Or everywhere I fly to... Which is India, UAE, Singapore and Thailand...

Don't know why they'd change it.......

[aterpster]

Looks like everywhere... Or everywhere I fly to... Which is India, UAE, Singapore and Thailand...

Don't know why they'd change it.......

Have you checked for a Jeppesen Briefing Bulletin on this issue?

[underfire]

Hard to have TCH without threshold elevation...

TCH is the foundation of the procedures.

[aterpster]

underfire:

Hard to have TCH without threshold elevation...

True.

TCH is the foundation of the procedures.

I wouldn't agree with that.

For all these years, until about two years ago, straight-in minimums in TERPs were predicated on the TDZ elevation, the highest elevation in the first 3,000 feet of the runway.

[underfire]

I say that because the TCH is the point where the Approach and Missed lines intersect.

Note that RWY is NOT the threshold per FAA stds, it is the edge of pavement.

Anything coded has used TCH, and unfortunately runway endpoint, not elevation at the threshold.

For all these years, until about two years ago, straight-in minimums in TERPs were predicated on the TDZ elevation, the highest elevation in the first 3,000 feet of the runway.

Dont agree, the TCH runway elevation in any FAA database has always been the edge of pavement. One had to check the highest elevation in the first 3000, just to make sure you wouldnt keep floating down the runway (like the orginal PSP design!)

Think about that, a runway 3000' long, at a 2 percent slope, would be 60 feet higher at one end. You would base the TCH on that? (most ac land well before 3000 feet past TCH)

[vinayak]

@aterpster... No joy with the bulletins

[Desert185]

http://aeronav.faa.gov/content/aeronav/safety_alerts/SA_TCP_13-09_TPP.pdf

[aterpster]

underfire:

Dont agree, the TCH runway elevation in any FAA database has always been the edge of pavement. One had to check the highest elevation in the first 3000, just to make sure you wouldnt keep floating down the runway (like the orginal PSP design!)

You aren't conversant with TERPs criteria, at least with respect to TDZ vs. HATh usage.

Look it up in FAA Order 8260.3B (TERPS)

[underfire]

I know exactly what TARGETS uses.

http://i59.tinypic.com/jzv140.jpg

[aterpster]

underfire:

I know exactly what TARGETS uses. (8260.52)

That is an illustration of obstacle clearance criteria, not how minimums are computed. Also, FAAO 8260.52 no longer exists; incorporated into FAAO 8260.58 over one year ago. In any case calculation of MDA or DA is still in FAAO 8260.3B, Chapter 3.

[underfire]

no, that is exactly how the elevation of LTP, the foundation of the origin of GPA is calculated.

8260.52 has a good illustration of the calc of LTP, but 8260.58 dose it the same exact way.
From 8260.58

http://i59.tinypic.com/32zosc9.jpg

OCS origin is BASED on LTP, but LTP calc is the foundation of virtually all of the calcs.

http://i60.tinypic.com/2qsz4oo.jpg

http://i61.tinypic.com/w1tybn.jpg

Please tell me you are not actively designing procedures...

[underfire]

This 'feature' is always interesting to note with GPS navigation: (and of course the HATh/LTP relationship...)

http://i62.tinypic.com/b9f09u.jpg

ASBL

http://i62.tinypic.com/16gqcw.jpg

[aterpster]

underfire:

Nonetheless, that derived value is then subject to all the criteria, conditions, and limitations of 8260.3B, Chapter 3, "Takeoff and Landing Minimums."