Hi
keithl
I don't seem to have an earlier post from you in this discussion. Wouldn't want to miss any pearls...
It was at the very start of the first para of my previous post.
Another thought is that Jepp plates show a fix symbol at the end of the o/b leg of a base turn procedure
In
THAT event, Pans Ops says that you
MUST be established on the outbound leg by the time you reach that point. I thought that the discussion related to an NDB-only procedure tho.
Having said that, your "statistical wind" certainly doesn't cope with several base turn procedures that I know.
Then you probably need to take the matter up with the Regulator of the State concerned.
Hi
bookworm
Are you suggesting that there is less protection at the end of the outbound timing than after the completion of the inbound turn?
No, I'm saying that there is less protection for that
WHOLE manoeuvre than there is in any part of the protection area for a holding pattern.
I really don't see the harm in modifying the outbound track to end up a mile off the nominal track when the protected area is, what, 6 miles?
You're making an assumption here that I would regard as dangerous. My main problem with this is... okay, so you fly a 5-degree offset as indicated on your ADF. How do you
KNOW FOR SURE that your ADF needle is properly calibrated? If you actively insist on going
at least 5 degrees OFF the published track, you have just eroded
ALLLLLLL of your regulatory tracking tolerances. Is your ADF needle really sensitive enough for that? I would counsel some caution on that, if you're flying raw data.
I think you're looking at it with blinkers, OzExpat. At the risk of sounding flippant, as long as the aircaft doesn't hit anything on the approach, you can say you've done your job as procedure designer.
No blinkers at all. I've been flying NDB approaches my whole flying career. This is the fact of any single navaid approach because you really have no clear idea of exactly where you are, with reference to the NDB (on a single navaid approach). All that I can do as a procedure designer is abide by Pans Ops. Sure, I could add another half minute, or full minute, outbound to the timing (well, maybe I could!) but then I'd get complaints about an excessively long procedure. I can't win, so I just go with Pans Ops and add nothing to timing - unless there are constraints for ROD on final, of course. And that IAW Pans Ops too.
Finally, I must admit to blinkers too. I'm normally flying a Cat B procedure, often charted with a smaller splay angle than the Cat C/D. That means I'm confident that there is more protection on the outside of the turn.
Yes and no. If you're flying at Cat "C" speed the whole way, then you should be safe because the higher TAS means less time for wind effect. At Cat B speed, you're flying slower than Cat C and, therefore, are under wind (drift) influence through the turn for longer. This gets a bit hypothetical because of turn rate, of course, but the basic situation means that there's a chance that you may not be fully protected for the base turn because you have a lot more degrees to turn through at the lower speed - and that is not taken into account in the design of the procedure (ie using the Cat C outbound track in a Cat B aircraft at Cat B speeds).
If it's there, I want to use it to reduce the risk of an unstablised approach when inbound.
I have to assume here that you're talking about flying a single navaid approach in a large-ish heavy jet? I'm not sure that any such aircraft are well equipped for such a procedure these days because it is very difficult to meet the criteria for a stabilised approach in those circumstances.