Jeppesen Charts
411A, I think you have missed the point.
In the absence of ATC instructions to the contrary (previously) how would you fly a missed approach following a communications failure?
The original query is very sound and professional - if there is something on an approach chart which appears ambiguous then it behoves any professional pilot to check it out!
In the absence of ATC instructions to the contrary (previously) how would you fly a missed approach following a communications failure?
The original query is very sound and professional - if there is something on an approach chart which appears ambiguous then it behoves any professional pilot to check it out!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well then, fireflybob, in the situation you mention, one should fly the published missed approach. That is precisely why it is published, to give the pilot guideance in the event landing is not possible.
ATC's responsibility is to separate aircraft. This is NOT the pilots job.
Have been to Faro many times and would certainly not describe it as a "death trap".
Lets get real about these things, and give the ATC guys a break.
Besides, the last time I was there, the radar worked really well.
ATC's responsibility is to separate aircraft. This is NOT the pilots job.
Have been to Faro many times and would certainly not describe it as a "death trap".
Lets get real about these things, and give the ATC guys a break.
Besides, the last time I was there, the radar worked really well.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Besides, the last time I was there, the radar worked really well
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was the ILS up and running too 411A?
[ 15 October 2001: Message edited by: Bally Heck ]
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Bally Heck, VOR/DME approaches only as I recall, with a visual nearly every time. Very friendly folks.
And scanscanscan, precisely what is says, climb to 1400 on the radial, then continue to climb to 3000 to the fix. 'Tis NOT rocket science. The Apollo program ended years ago.
And scanscanscan, precisely what is says, climb to 1400 on the radial, then continue to climb to 3000 to the fix. 'Tis NOT rocket science. The Apollo program ended years ago.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bally - I don't know the answer. I expect that Jepps form part of your ops manual and you are entitled to ask them - they should have the original from which the translation came. It would not be the first time a mistake had been made in translation by a chart provider. As said above, the only real reference is the AIP for Portugal, but you could start at Jeppesen
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: LA, Cal, USA
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the quote from the first post:
"Climb on R-289 to 1400' then proceed to the VFA10 holding climbing to 3000' and contact Faro APP."
A subsequent reply says the 25 nm MSA is 1400 ft, which for my response, I will asssume to be correct.
I have never been to Faro, but would read the procedure to mean get to 1400 ft (MSA) on R 289, THEN track to VFA10 on climb to 3000 ft.
i.e. THE CLIMB IS CONTINUOUS from the Missed Approach Point until reaching 3000 ft.
"Climb on R-289 to 1400' then proceed to the VFA10 holding climbing to 3000' and contact Faro APP."
A subsequent reply says the 25 nm MSA is 1400 ft, which for my response, I will asssume to be correct.
I have never been to Faro, but would read the procedure to mean get to 1400 ft (MSA) on R 289, THEN track to VFA10 on climb to 3000 ft.
i.e. THE CLIMB IS CONTINUOUS from the Missed Approach Point until reaching 3000 ft.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: US
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO, too much is being read into this procedure. I have seen similar wording for the MA for other airports in Europe/Middle East.
I use military charts frequently. These charts say: "MISSED APPROACH Climb on VFA R-289 to 3000. When passing 1400 proceed to VFA 10 Holding. Contact approach control."
It seems simple enough.
Bally - Your questions and concerns are valid. Good question, good discussion.
I use military charts frequently. These charts say: "MISSED APPROACH Climb on VFA R-289 to 3000. When passing 1400 proceed to VFA 10 Holding. Contact approach control."
It seems simple enough.
Bally - Your questions and concerns are valid. Good question, good discussion.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Too Far North
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I might be permitted to stick my oar in. The only copy of the Faro plates I can lay my hands on are the Jeppesen ones produced for Microsoft flight sim and I'm assuming that you are talking about plate 13-2 VOR/DME 28.
Firstly the West hold has a MHA of 3000' so I can see your problem with regard to the goaround BUT the only conflict will come from another goaround NOT an arcraft making an approach as there is a remark on the plate that says "Alt procdure - Leave the VOR not below 4000' etc etc" (It is beyond compehension that anyone would hold at VFA west at 3000' and then climb to 4000' to start the approach.
With regard to your point about the 1400' point and the next way point being on the same radial - they might not be!
Assuming I make an approach to the MDA of 460' I will reach that point just after the NDB. My company SOP is to immediately fly the missed approach if nothing is seen (ie not to fly level to the MAP). We will easily pass 1400' before we even get to the VOR so we will be going from the inbound radial of 281 direct to VFA west climbing to 3000' which will keep us nicely under the aircraft that is commencing its approach at 4000' overhead the VOR and never have to intercept the 289 radial.
Flap40
edited for spelling!
[ 22 October 2001: Message edited by: Flap40 ]
Firstly the West hold has a MHA of 3000' so I can see your problem with regard to the goaround BUT the only conflict will come from another goaround NOT an arcraft making an approach as there is a remark on the plate that says "Alt procdure - Leave the VOR not below 4000' etc etc" (It is beyond compehension that anyone would hold at VFA west at 3000' and then climb to 4000' to start the approach.
With regard to your point about the 1400' point and the next way point being on the same radial - they might not be!
Assuming I make an approach to the MDA of 460' I will reach that point just after the NDB. My company SOP is to immediately fly the missed approach if nothing is seen (ie not to fly level to the MAP). We will easily pass 1400' before we even get to the VOR so we will be going from the inbound radial of 281 direct to VFA west climbing to 3000' which will keep us nicely under the aircraft that is commencing its approach at 4000' overhead the VOR and never have to intercept the 289 radial.
Flap40
edited for spelling!
[ 22 October 2001: Message edited by: Flap40 ]
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never been to Faro, or seen any approach charts for the place. But I am an instrument procedure designer so maybe I can add a few relevant comments.
To take issue with a few points raised back on page 1, the procedure designer works in consultation with ATC for ALL procedures in controlled airspace. The designer does not have to account for aircraft separation as this is ATC's job. That's why we consult with the ATCOs so much.
We can also have approaches to each end of a runway and have the Missed Approach for one going toward the FAF for the approach serving the opposite end of the runway. This is precisely because we consult with ATC and logic dictates that, when weather warrants use of a particular runway, ALL TRAFFIC will be directed to the relevant approach by ATC.
Designers have enough problems ensuring terrain clearance and containment within controlled airspace. We also have to ensure the missed approach has adequate length in which to climb to whatever altitude is needed, at 152FT/NM - the well-known 2.5% gradient. Note that we DON'T CARE about the one-engine inoperative case. That is something between your company SOPs and your regulating authority.
Okay, now, if the 25 MSA is 1400FT, is this just in one sector or all around the navaid? If it's in one sector, is the 10DME holding pattern in that same sector? The reason I ask this is that, if terrain is not at issue, then holding at 3,000 or even 4,000 FT for that matter, is either an ATC or airspace containment issue.
If you don't know the way to interpret the chart, your first line of enquiry is to your company's Safety rep (however you refer to the person in charge of operational safety issues in your organisation). Or your C+T folks, or your Fleet Captain or Chief Pilot.
Finally, yes, as someone else has already stated, Jeppesen really does make the occasional error. Seeking clarification from them is a good move, but that really is best done by your company's Chief Pilot or Fleet Captain, etc. My experience of them is that they DO check their information with the regulating authority and, if they are wrong, they'll fix it PDQ.
Hope this has helped to un-muddy the waters a bit.
To take issue with a few points raised back on page 1, the procedure designer works in consultation with ATC for ALL procedures in controlled airspace. The designer does not have to account for aircraft separation as this is ATC's job. That's why we consult with the ATCOs so much.
We can also have approaches to each end of a runway and have the Missed Approach for one going toward the FAF for the approach serving the opposite end of the runway. This is precisely because we consult with ATC and logic dictates that, when weather warrants use of a particular runway, ALL TRAFFIC will be directed to the relevant approach by ATC.
Designers have enough problems ensuring terrain clearance and containment within controlled airspace. We also have to ensure the missed approach has adequate length in which to climb to whatever altitude is needed, at 152FT/NM - the well-known 2.5% gradient. Note that we DON'T CARE about the one-engine inoperative case. That is something between your company SOPs and your regulating authority.
Okay, now, if the 25 MSA is 1400FT, is this just in one sector or all around the navaid? If it's in one sector, is the 10DME holding pattern in that same sector? The reason I ask this is that, if terrain is not at issue, then holding at 3,000 or even 4,000 FT for that matter, is either an ATC or airspace containment issue.
If you don't know the way to interpret the chart, your first line of enquiry is to your company's Safety rep (however you refer to the person in charge of operational safety issues in your organisation). Or your C+T folks, or your Fleet Captain or Chief Pilot.
Finally, yes, as someone else has already stated, Jeppesen really does make the occasional error. Seeking clarification from them is a good move, but that really is best done by your company's Chief Pilot or Fleet Captain, etc. My experience of them is that they DO check their information with the regulating authority and, if they are wrong, they'll fix it PDQ.
Hope this has helped to un-muddy the waters a bit.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No reply from the Portuguese so far. Check 6, your chart seems to have unambiguous wording.
The point becoming clear from this discussion is that after several days of discussion, it is still not clear which is the correct procedure based on the Jepps (and Aerad) wording. How is a crew supposed to brief themselves on the correct procedure in a few seconds. Jeppesens do not seem to have consistent standard wording on all their charts.
A point I brought up a couple of months ago on this forum (which was moved to questions) was the departure charts for certain aerodromes where the go around climb gradients are in the narrative, but the stop height is located elswhere and less obviously on the chart. I am sure many of you have seen this and how easy it would be to miss.
It would be nice if safety related procedures were made clear, unambiguous and easy to understand.
The point becoming clear from this discussion is that after several days of discussion, it is still not clear which is the correct procedure based on the Jepps (and Aerad) wording. How is a crew supposed to brief themselves on the correct procedure in a few seconds. Jeppesens do not seem to have consistent standard wording on all their charts.
A point I brought up a couple of months ago on this forum (which was moved to questions) was the departure charts for certain aerodromes where the go around climb gradients are in the narrative, but the stop height is located elswhere and less obviously on the chart. I am sure many of you have seen this and how easy it would be to miss.
It would be nice if safety related procedures were made clear, unambiguous and easy to understand.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And another thing.......
What exactly is a "holding"?
I know what a holding point, holding pattern etc is.
But a Holding??
Surely this is not ICAO nomenclature.
What exactly is a "holding"?
I know what a holding point, holding pattern etc is.
But a Holding??
Surely this is not ICAO nomenclature.
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gee I wonder how I can possibly make myself any clearer? Okay, let's try the blunt approach...
As a line pilot, it's not up to you to interpret the chart when you have a problem with it. That's the job of your Fleet Captain, Flight Captain, Line Captain, Safety Captain (or as applicable to your particular company), or your C+T folks.
If they have the same problem then they can sort it out pretty quickly, directly with Jepps. They do, after all, have an up-to-date AIP for every country for which they provide procedures.
As a line pilot, it's not up to you to interpret the chart when you have a problem with it. That's the job of your Fleet Captain, Flight Captain, Line Captain, Safety Captain (or as applicable to your particular company), or your C+T folks.
If they have the same problem then they can sort it out pretty quickly, directly with Jepps. They do, after all, have an up-to-date AIP for every country for which they provide procedures.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bally Heck:
No reply from the Portuguese so far. Check 6, your chart seems to have unambiguous wording.
No reply from the Portuguese so far. Check 6, your chart seems to have unambiguous wording.
If you were to stop your climb it would have been specified with then climb.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may be correct Cosmo. But then why even bother mentioning 1400'. If you are correct then this part is completely and utterly superfluous. It shouldn't be there.
Unless you go around from above 1400', you have no choice but to pass through 1400' on the way to 3000'.
Unless you go around from above 1400', you have no choice but to pass through 1400' on the way to 3000'.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless I am mistaking there is nothing that prevents you from maneuvering after passing 1400 feet.
How about this:
"Climb to 1400 feet on R289, then maneuver as you please (if you prefer a teardrop rather than a parallel) to go to the VFA10 holding while climbing to 3000 feet".
How about this:
"Climb to 1400 feet on R289, then maneuver as you please (if you prefer a teardrop rather than a parallel) to go to the VFA10 holding while climbing to 3000 feet".