View Full Version : what do you think of this SID
kontrolor
3rd Feb 2008, 14:29
MODRO 1D (http://www.sloveniacontrol.si/acrobat/aip/eaip/Operations/2008-01-30/html/index-en-GB.html) Page 30.
there are many of us who are not happy with it.:hmm::hmm:
electricdeathjet
3rd Feb 2008, 21:52
Been there over 20 times, never done a full SID... Just dont hit any hard bits!! :=
Pilot Pete
3rd Feb 2008, 22:36
there are many of us who are not happy with it.
Care to elaborate why you are not happy with it?
PP
kontrolor
4th Feb 2008, 10:22
first of all it uses heading and after that a fix - what happens in case of strong wind and slow aircraft? it is not clear what to do in case of r/t failure... and heading 179....and it is not connected to any airway....it simply stops at point modro. I haven't seen anything like that...so I'm asking if there are some examples in the world...just for comparison.
On AIP charts is says:
Comm failure procedure:
In case of radio failure climb on HDG 179deg, after passing R264 DOL turn left inbound DOL and enter holding. Climb to 8000ft MSL.
It is not connected to any airway because it is used only when radar vectored. To me the only questionable part is HDG to MODRO - I cannot see the RNAV requirement for this departure.
This departure was presumably established to shorten departure clearance (after departure climb straight ahead, at marker west turn left heading 180deg, further by radar..).
kontrolor
4th Feb 2008, 13:17
comm failure procedure is written alright, but what to do with it? when will the aircraft, let's say a light one, commence approach? and what happens when due to heavy r/t plane passes modro point? will it follow r/t failure procedure?
Oktas8
5th Feb 2008, 19:45
the only questionable part is HDG to MODRO
While MODRO does use the symbol for a fix, the text beside it says "after passing R264 DOL turn left..." Seems pretty clear to me that, practically speaking, MODRO is intended to refer to a line of position rather than a fix. In any case, does it actually matter whether an aircraft maintaining a heading passes over or merely abeam MODRO? Either way it has to turn left to track to the VOR.
Again practically speaking, it seems unlikely that an aircraft without R/T failure would actually get that far on the SID ("after reaching 6000' expect further clearance" etc).
O8
Pilot Pete
6th Feb 2008, 08:07
kontrolor
comm failure procedure is written alright, but what to do with it? when will the aircraft, let's say a light one, commence approach? They should follow the standard radio failure procedure for the state in question if not advised of any differences from standard in the airfield briefing notes.
first of all it uses heading and after that a fix - what happens in case of strong wind and slow aircraft? Could be one of a couple of things.
1. Someone who knows about procedure design will be able to tell you what requirements need to be met regarding terrain separation limits during a SID procedure. This takes into account a certain error margin producing a 'funnel' which meets the minimum requirements, which presumably this procedure must comply with in order to be promulgated.
2. Heading could be a misprint and should read TRACK. Have had this before on Jeppesen charts, which take their info from the AIP.
PP