VOR/DME Approach Chart
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
From: N/A
VOR/DME Approach Chart
I've not seen an approach chart like this before, since coming to Asia so I'm wondering if I have interpreted the chart correctly. My question lies in when the timing of 2.5 minutes actually begins before turning inbound. This is how I have interpreted the chart. (I fly category B aircraft)
1. After over MIA VOR, track outbound on 001 deg and commence descent from 3000 ft (at an arbitrary 500 ft/min).
2. On reaching 2200 ft, maintain this altitude and start timing for 2.5 minutes. At a groundspeed of 120 knots, this will give a distance of 8.2 NM from the VOR. (3.2 NM during the descent at 500 ft/min, and 5 NM during the 2.5 min level segment)
3. When 2.5 minutes timing is up, commence the turn to intercept the inbound course 166 deg. Maintain 2200 ft until 6.4 DME from MIA, and then commence the descent to the MDA.
4. If no visual contact by 1.7 DME, commence the Missed Approach Procedure.
The ambiguity lies in when the 2.5 minutes timing begins. Where I come from and where I've been trained, we usually commence the timing overhead the VOR station outbound, but that obviously isn't the case with this procedure as that would not give you sufficient distance to commence the inbound descent at 6.4 DME.
Have I interpreted this chart correctly? Your thoughts appreciated.
1. After over MIA VOR, track outbound on 001 deg and commence descent from 3000 ft (at an arbitrary 500 ft/min).
2. On reaching 2200 ft, maintain this altitude and start timing for 2.5 minutes. At a groundspeed of 120 knots, this will give a distance of 8.2 NM from the VOR. (3.2 NM during the descent at 500 ft/min, and 5 NM during the 2.5 min level segment)
3. When 2.5 minutes timing is up, commence the turn to intercept the inbound course 166 deg. Maintain 2200 ft until 6.4 DME from MIA, and then commence the descent to the MDA.
4. If no visual contact by 1.7 DME, commence the Missed Approach Procedure.
The ambiguity lies in when the 2.5 minutes timing begins. Where I come from and where I've been trained, we usually commence the timing overhead the VOR station outbound, but that obviously isn't the case with this procedure as that would not give you sufficient distance to commence the inbound descent at 6.4 DME.
Have I interpreted this chart correctly? Your thoughts appreciated.
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 77
From: 🇬🇧🇪🇸
Timing starts from over the VOR outbound. The relevance of 2200' is that you must not descend below it until 6.4 DME inbound on the final approach course. If you're really smart you can fly a CDA to reach 2200' at the 6.4 DME point inbound without actually levelling off, that saves fuel and keeps the environmental noise down.
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 3
From: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
NS is correct, the 2.5 minutes are timed from the VOR overhead.
The descent from 6.4d and 2200ft to the MDA/MAP at 1.7d is a nominal 3deg path as shown on the chart. What you may be missing is that the chart is drawn showing altitudes, and the runway threshold is 286ft, so your 6.4d at 2200ft is actually about 1900ft above the threshold.
The descent from 6.4d and 2200ft to the MDA/MAP at 1.7d is a nominal 3deg path as shown on the chart. What you may be missing is that the chart is drawn showing altitudes, and the runway threshold is 286ft, so your 6.4d at 2200ft is actually about 1900ft above the threshold.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,575
Likes: 4
From: UK
What others are 'missing' is the question!
It cannot be flown as advocated by you two. Is 2.5/1.5 minutes enough time to reach 6.4DME outbound? That requires more than 250kts procedure speed outbound for Cat C/D and 155kts for Cat A/B and that gives no room to intercept the radial either. Everyone happy with that? I can see errajane's logic in flying the 'turn' but more terrain info is needed. Since there is no 'do not exceed xx DME outbound' warning one HOPES there is no terrain problem!
Why on earth the turn point is not defined on DME I cannot fathom! Not a chart I would be happy with and I would probably turn at about 8D like errajane to give track intercept space. Back to company for a decision, errajane, I think!
It cannot be flown as advocated by you two. Is 2.5/1.5 minutes enough time to reach 6.4DME outbound? That requires more than 250kts procedure speed outbound for Cat C/D and 155kts for Cat A/B and that gives no room to intercept the radial either. Everyone happy with that? I can see errajane's logic in flying the 'turn' but more terrain info is needed. Since there is no 'do not exceed xx DME outbound' warning one HOPES there is no terrain problem!Why on earth the turn point is not defined on DME I cannot fathom! Not a chart I would be happy with and I would probably turn at about 8D like errajane to give track intercept space. Back to company for a decision, errajane, I think!
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
From: The World
Strange map, never seen such before. If you have to start turn 2.5 min. after MIA on 001 and have to reach 166 inbound at 6.4 DME, then this would be no constant turn, but would require turn with increasing bank? Any more enlightening in the textual part of the procedure?
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 4,704
Likes: 589
From: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
FWIW, the VYMD AIP entry (not Jepp) has the same outbound timing labelled so that it is unambiguous that the timing starts passing MIA (not that was really in any doubt).
http://www.ais.gov.mm/files/pdf/VYMD.pdf
That does not, however, solve the issue that you go outbound in a cat C aircraft at 240kts=4nm/min*1.5mins you'll only get 6nm…..
http://www.ais.gov.mm/files/pdf/VYMD.pdf
That does not, however, solve the issue that you go outbound in a cat C aircraft at 240kts=4nm/min*1.5mins you'll only get 6nm…..
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,246
Likes: 202
From: Here and there
My guess is that you turn at the time from MIA. If you didn't have any great tail wind or anything you end up turning inside 6.4D and can descend below 2200 as soon as you are established on final. On the other hand if your timing took you beyond 6.4D due to a high tail wind or whatever then you must wait until 6.4 D on final before descending below 2200'. Clear as mud.
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 4,704
Likes: 589
From: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Possibly, but if you did it by the book at your maximum category speed for initial approach, you'll be rolling out inbound with the descent point for the 3° slope half a mile behind you….
As for how far out the design could have been drawn to take you out safely at 2200, well Google earth shows some reasonably high hills starting at 10DME - just off the map north of the rivers' junction. Photo from them looking south to the airport. Panoramio - Photo of Sagaing - View from the top of Sagaing hill ???? these are probably the limiting factor.
As for how far out the design could have been drawn to take you out safely at 2200, well Google earth shows some reasonably high hills starting at 10DME - just off the map north of the rivers' junction. Photo from them looking south to the airport. Panoramio - Photo of Sagaing - View from the top of Sagaing hill ???? these are probably the limiting factor.
Last edited by compressor stall; 30th November 2014 at 10:11. Reason: Clarity
PPRuNeaholic
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
From: Cairns FNQ
May I inject some realism to this discussion?
Initial Approach speed is essentially used to determine splayed angle between outbound and inbound track. This often results in different outbound courses for a common final approach track. Let me say, right here, is that I hope that I'll never have to fly with a pilot who doesn't have the first clue where outbound timing commences
Okay, the splay angle (aforementioned) is based on the outbound max IAS for category and a max bank angle of 25 degrees. This is done because the procedure designer, regardless of his or her flying experience, cannot predict the point at which a pilot will reach the point at which a lower IAS is required. Prior to final approach in a non-precision approach, the design speed and bank angle are assumed under Pans Ops - and TERPs, for that matter.
But you better be at the appropriate speed for final approach when passing the FAF!
Now then, you don't go below 2200 until established on final approach. Period. If you want to*make*a CDA approach, you'll find a few airports where obstacles have been placed, seemingly without regard for a 3-degree approach. That's life and it happens so suck it up and deal with it professionally.
If it means that you can't reach MDA at your precious 3-degree approach then, hey, YOUR MDA will be higher. Your company procedures should account for that in SOPs - in some countries, there's actually a legal requirement for this. There's an expression that covers this situation admirably - Proper Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance.
Okay, the splay angle (aforementioned) is based on the outbound max IAS for category and a max bank angle of 25 degrees. This is done because the procedure designer, regardless of his or her flying experience, cannot predict the point at which a pilot will reach the point at which a lower IAS is required. Prior to final approach in a non-precision approach, the design speed and bank angle are assumed under Pans Ops - and TERPs, for that matter.
But you better be at the appropriate speed for final approach when passing the FAF!
Now then, you don't go below 2200 until established on final approach. Period. If you want to*make*a CDA approach, you'll find a few airports where obstacles have been placed, seemingly without regard for a 3-degree approach. That's life and it happens so suck it up and deal with it professionally.
If it means that you can't reach MDA at your precious 3-degree approach then, hey, YOUR MDA will be higher. Your company procedures should account for that in SOPs - in some countries, there's actually a legal requirement for this. There's an expression that covers this situation admirably - Proper Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,575
Likes: 4
From: UK
May I inject some realism to this discussion?
Where is aterpster when you need him? Does Jepp carry this chart? If it is the same, how does Jepp reckon we fly it?
Last edited by BOAC; 30th November 2014 at 09:13.
Guest
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
From: On the Beach
OK465:
It's coded in the Garmin database as two procedures: one for the A/B turn and one for the C/D turn.
The coding flies outbound to 6.4 DME then turns inbound to FF17.
This is a DME required procedure so the timing makes no sense whatsoever. Seems like either a poor implementation of PANS-OPs or a poor rendering on the AIP chart.
There are RNAV fixes FF17 and MA17 associated with this approach, so it is coded in somebody's onboard nav database somewhere.
I can see loading this approach and receiving the "TILT" warning message.
I can see loading this approach and receiving the "TILT" warning message.
The coding flies outbound to 6.4 DME then turns inbound to FF17.
This is a DME required procedure so the timing makes no sense whatsoever. Seems like either a poor implementation of PANS-OPs or a poor rendering on the AIP chart.
Only half a speed-brake
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,459
Likes: 136
From: Commuting not home
Hi,
I believe the defenition of the procedure is very clear, timing starts overhead. Positioning of the text box in the profile view section of the chart is fairly common, and is just a matter of graphical layout, with no real substance.
I agree that with the speed range* for A/B or C/D aricraft, the geometry just would not work.
First thing to do is check AIP and see, wheter or not Jepp ommited something and they very rarely do.
http://www.ais.gov.mm/files/pdf/VYMD.pdf
Hmm. Same story. Problem seems to be with the source of the data, and not the delivery boy.
Best course of action, in my opinion, is to bring the issue up within the airline to people who may send some e-mails / make phone calls.
2OP: Errajane WELL SPOTTED!!
* PANS-OPS for initial approach
I believe the defenition of the procedure is very clear, timing starts overhead. Positioning of the text box in the profile view section of the chart is fairly common, and is just a matter of graphical layout, with no real substance.
I agree that with the speed range* for A/B or C/D aricraft, the geometry just would not work.
First thing to do is check AIP and see, wheter or not Jepp ommited something and they very rarely do.
http://www.ais.gov.mm/files/pdf/VYMD.pdf
Hmm. Same story.
Problem seems to be with the source of the data, and not the delivery boy.Best course of action, in my opinion, is to bring the issue up within the airline to people who may send some e-mails / make phone calls.
2OP: Errajane WELL SPOTTED!!
* PANS-OPS for initial approach