BE1900 IMC CFIT in Alaska
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The DBV Approach is almost like the one in Trabzon, Turkey...When I flew a jet (727) full of passengers into there at night and/or low vis conditions...I always kept in mind one thing...If everything starts to go south...TURN RIGHT!!! Over the Black Sea...Maybe not correct, but if you lose situational awarness...at night, in IMC, Over the sea is better than towards the mountains....
As has been beaten to death here on this thread by many of us "greybeards"...if you're not sure where you are at, IMC or at night being at 2,000' is not the time or place to try to figure it out....
As has been beaten to death here on this thread by many of us "greybeards"...if you're not sure where you are at, IMC or at night being at 2,000' is not the time or place to try to figure it out....
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by aterpster
because the same terrain controls for both the inner area and the holding pattern.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks again, Zeffy - I could not find any reference to the ROC for TAA procedures (mind you, I got dizzy with all the maths................) Overall it seems odd that the hold at INDRA (1 nm inside ZEDAG) is considered safe at 3800' and yet when we switch to TAA procedures it jumps to 4300'. I assume there is a different (increased) ROC since the terrain is no less 'challenging'.
Incidentally, I see that 8260.19E at 2.74 calls for 200' to be added as an AAO which may account for the 200' discrepancy we see between the FAA and Jepp chart 'spot heights' (basically to allow for the 199' mast), and 2750' + 1000' gives us the 3800' hold, I guess.
Just glad I never had to construct procedures..........................
Sorry for the diversion and back to the accident.
Incidentally, I see that 8260.19E at 2.74 calls for 200' to be added as an AAO which may account for the 200' discrepancy we see between the FAA and Jepp chart 'spot heights' (basically to allow for the 199' mast), and 2750' + 1000' gives us the 3800' hold, I guess.
Just glad I never had to construct procedures..........................
Sorry for the diversion and back to the accident.
Guest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
Chart makers don't use AAO for reference obstacles.
But, the designers made additives to the holding pattern's minimum ROC of 1,000, probably for precipitous terrain and, more important at this location, cold station altimeter errors.
Incidentally, I see that 8260.19E at 2.74 calls for 200' to be added as an AAO which may account for the 200' discrepancy we see between the FAA and Jepp chart 'spot heights' (basically to allow for the 199' mast), and 2750' + 1000' gives us the 3800' hold, I guess.
But, the designers made additives to the holding pattern's minimum ROC of 1,000, probably for precipitous terrain and, more important at this location, cold station altimeter errors.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chart makers don't use AAO for reference obstacles.
Last edited by BOAC; 24th Mar 2013 at 14:57.
Guest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
I was speaking of both in the total context of this aspect of the RNAV 19 procedure. I have no idea how Jeppesen came up with the value they show.
- I was talking ROC not reference obstacles, and Jepp seem to have added 175' (to the reference obstacle)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts