Quote:
The whole procedure looks to me that it was constructed pre-PANSOPS
There are a lot of those in South East Asia. Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia Vietnam abound with these 'hybrid' approaches. The aviation authorities need to amend them - it's just laziness.
Quote:
(just ask any PANSOPS guy to fit a CAT C holding at 5000 ft MSL to an NDB surrounded by a 10 x 15 NM controlled airspace)
There isn't such a thing as a PANSOPS pilot. There are those who are more used to PANSOPS and those more used to TERPS, but pilots aren't certified on each standard. I think you will find many of us are used to both.
This approach is sloppy, but shouldn't have been too difficult on the ATR with it's flight management system. We don't know the exact reason and the circumstances as to why they went around. It wasn't the approach that killed them It was impacting the ground on go around and we don't know why that happened either.
Dear Dan,
it seems that I created a bit of misunderstanding with my last post.
The current procedure at Pakse is according to PANSOPS. At least this is what the Jeppesen chart states. It just appears to me that a VOR placed smack in the middle of the approach, being neither IAF, IF nor FAF shows that the original location was calculated pre PANSOPS.
With the "PANSOPS guy" I of course meant a certified procedure designer, not a pilot.
You call the approach sloppy. As a retired PANSOPS procedure designer I cannot understand this statement. With the adverse affects of location, terrain, available navaids and the PANSOPS restrictions it looks pretty decent to me. I have flown some rather hair raising approaches in California single-handed IFR night w/o autopilot, this one - not taking into account adverse weather - is pretty straightforward and easygoing to me.