Jeppesen Charts
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: N. Europe
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bally H,
as I suggested way back in this thread - until 1400' you fly the radial, after that you change your navigational references to fly to the fix - the fact that it IS on the radial doesn't change a thing really. It's just a special case. Wiggle the yoke about a bit, pretend that you DID turn towards the fix and blame turbulence over the P/A if it makes you feel better about it.
Cheers,
/ft
as I suggested way back in this thread - until 1400' you fly the radial, after that you change your navigational references to fly to the fix - the fact that it IS on the radial doesn't change a thing really. It's just a special case. Wiggle the yoke about a bit, pretend that you DID turn towards the fix and blame turbulence over the P/A if it makes you feel better about it.
Cheers,
/ft
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cant believe there is any confussion with the missed approach instruction at all. I think ft is absolutly correct in his/her reply. Ozexpat has explained and 411A/strobes-on/check6/are on the money. as ozexpat says if you find an issue with a plate take it up with the company but otherwise just fly the procedure and in this case it is very clear what to do..Why you are to do it is not your concern..How anyone can think you would stop the climb at 1400'is beyond me when it clearly states climbing to 3000.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bally Heck
I ment no disrespect to yourself and yes if you are not sure of something this forum is definately the right place to get advise from any amount of experienced pilots. My advise to you is to read the plates carefully and brief the procedure as written making sure both pilots have a clear understanding of what you are going to do. To understand the sequence of the missed break it into sections if it helps and you will see that there can be no confusion with the plate you have refered to in your post.
I hope that helps
I ment no disrespect to yourself and yes if you are not sure of something this forum is definately the right place to get advise from any amount of experienced pilots. My advise to you is to read the plates carefully and brief the procedure as written making sure both pilots have a clear understanding of what you are going to do. To understand the sequence of the missed break it into sections if it helps and you will see that there can be no confusion with the plate you have refered to in your post.
I hope that helps
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon it is an attempt to legislate for poor climb performance. I reckon it is "climb on the 289 radial to 300 to hold at VFA10. However, do not turn into the hold until you are above 1400' - even if this means extending beyond VFA10". After all, you have to allow for B727s somehow!
That is how I would read it, anyway.
That is how I would read it, anyway.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It could say "Climb on R-289 radial to 3000' to the VFA10 hold" or it could say what it says.
No it couldn't. Because if you only climb at the minimun required gradient 2.5%, you wouldn't be able to get to 3000 feet by VFA10.
10 nm x 2.5% = 0.25 nm = 1500 feet.
Climb to 1400 on the radial. Then you will be above the MSA and free to maneuver in whatever way necessary to go to the holding.
If it said what you just wrote, someone would probably ask "I am only at 2700 feet when reaching VFA10, shold I continue on the radial or enter the holding"?
[ 26 October 2001: Message edited by: cosmo kramer ]
No it couldn't. Because if you only climb at the minimun required gradient 2.5%, you wouldn't be able to get to 3000 feet by VFA10.
10 nm x 2.5% = 0.25 nm = 1500 feet.
Climb to 1400 on the radial. Then you will be above the MSA and free to maneuver in whatever way necessary to go to the holding.
If it said what you just wrote, someone would probably ask "I am only at 2700 feet when reaching VFA10, shold I continue on the radial or enter the holding"?
[ 26 October 2001: Message edited by: cosmo kramer ]
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cosmo Kramer and Moggie, you have the answer; the go around is based on minimum performance. The trouble is the bally heck is to used to flying in 757's. Give him an Apache for the G/A and he will understand exactly what he would have to do.
I don't see any ambiguity with the wording.
It's a two part missed approach.
1. Climb to 1400' while tracking on R-289.
2. After reaching 1400' track to the VFA10 hold while climbing to 3000'
Whether or not a turn is involved is irrelevent. The congruence of the tracks required for the two parts is just a coincidence.
It's a two part missed approach.
1. Climb to 1400' while tracking on R-289.
2. After reaching 1400' track to the VFA10 hold while climbing to 3000'
Whether or not a turn is involved is irrelevent. The congruence of the tracks required for the two parts is just a coincidence.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the chart, the holding fix is only 7 miles from the MAP. The holding fix lies within the MSA of the VFA VOR. If u assume for one moment this procedure was written in the days of the viscount, in a worst case with a couple of engine failures, you would probably take 12-15 miles to get to 1400', ie past the holding fix. After 1400' you would be clear of obstacles as long as you stay south of the 285-R whilst manoeuvering back to the Holding fix.
Looking at the arrival plate. as the charts are not drawn to scale, it is impossible to tell if the arrival route brings you close to the D6/10 holding pattern.
If you are flying an aircraft with far superior performance to a 2 engined viscount, a brick for example, you climb directly to 3000' whence you level off say after only 5 track miles from the MAP and then you join the hold.
As i suppose there have been more go arounds at Faro than mid air collisions, it is probably ok to assume that the controllers will be looking out for you as if you do collide, they have to live with it, you probably wont.
Looking at the arrival plate. as the charts are not drawn to scale, it is impossible to tell if the arrival route brings you close to the D6/10 holding pattern.
If you are flying an aircraft with far superior performance to a 2 engined viscount, a brick for example, you climb directly to 3000' whence you level off say after only 5 track miles from the MAP and then you join the hold.
As i suppose there have been more go arounds at Faro than mid air collisions, it is probably ok to assume that the controllers will be looking out for you as if you do collide, they have to live with it, you probably wont.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I which slot machine did you guys win your licenses? No procedures take engine failures or seperation into account. How many times does it need to be mentioned in this thread? Ok - I'm finished ranting. 
A usefull information was the 7 nm, since that would mean that it's impossible to reach VFA10 when climbing on the minimum required gradient with all engines operating.
7 nm x 2.5% = 0.175 nm =1065 feet.
Infact you would need 9.2 nm to reach 1400 feet.
1400 feet = 0.23 nm <=> 0.23 / 2.5% = 9.2 nm.
So there you have it Bally Heck. You have passed the VFA10 fix before you reach 1400 and need to turn to go back to the VFA10 holding.
A usefull information was the 7 nm, since that would mean that it's impossible to reach VFA10 when climbing on the minimum required gradient with all engines operating.
7 nm x 2.5% = 0.175 nm =1065 feet.
Infact you would need 9.2 nm to reach 1400 feet.
1400 feet = 0.23 nm <=> 0.23 / 2.5% = 9.2 nm.
So there you have it Bally Heck. You have passed the VFA10 fix before you reach 1400 and need to turn to go back to the VFA10 holding.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cosmo,
you're right i just used the engine failure point to try to show why you might only be able to climb at 2.5% as opposed to 7.0 or 8.0%. I could have suggested an Apache with a pilot on board that had forgotten to remove the tie down blocks.
Sometimes we take all that power, available to us now, for granted. Its nice to know its there when required however.
you're right i just used the engine failure point to try to show why you might only be able to climb at 2.5% as opposed to 7.0 or 8.0%. I could have suggested an Apache with a pilot on board that had forgotten to remove the tie down blocks.
Sometimes we take all that power, available to us now, for granted. Its nice to know its there when required however.
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If, as has been said, the 10DME holding fix is only 7NM from the MAPt., the nominal maximum height gain possible is, indeed, 1064FT. But a Pans Ops procedure design does not assume that the aircraft will start to climb immediately upon reaching the MAPt. Nor does it even assume that your DME equipment will show you the MAPt at precisely the right point.
It allows a fix tolerance area within which your DME will indicate the distance appropriate to the MAPt. Then the design assumes that it'll take a bit of time for the pilot to recognise the position (3 seconds at final approach TAS, with tailwind, is the usual allowance). Then a further 3 seconds for the pilot to react and start cleaning the aircraft up.
All up, the whole thing came easily come out to a mile or more before the procedure can assume that the aircraft is climbing away at 152 FT/NM. On the assumption that you will have 6 miles available for climb, the maximum height gain would be (6 x 152) 912FT.
Now for some "reverse engineering" for a moment. As 1400FT is the MSA and you have to reach that before you can do any necessary manoeuvring to enter the 10DME holding pattern, we have a discrepancy of (1400 - 912) 488FT. What is the MDA for this approach?
I'm thinking that the lowest it could possibly be is around 450FT. It's probably somewhat higher than that but, if it IS 450FT, there's a (488 - 450) 38FT discrepancy. To gain this additional height, the aircraft needs a further 0.25NM so, in effect, the aircraft could be 0.25NM beyond the 10DME holding fix by the time it reaches 1400FT.
But that is only part of the problem. The procedure design applies a fix tolerance at the 10DME position. This fix tolerance could mean that you reach 10DME where you are supposed to, or a bit before it, or even a bit after it. This won't make any difference to you when you fly the missed approach, but it can make a lot of difference in the design for it - there must always be enough distance available for climb to the safe manoeuvring altitude.
If the MDA is significantly above 450FT, one would think that there is plenty of distance available for climb to 1400FT. Thus, without knowing the location or the approach, I begin to wonder if there is some kind of airspace limitation, like maybe a TMA boundary that's close by.
[ 27 October 2001: Message edited by: OzExpat ]
It allows a fix tolerance area within which your DME will indicate the distance appropriate to the MAPt. Then the design assumes that it'll take a bit of time for the pilot to recognise the position (3 seconds at final approach TAS, with tailwind, is the usual allowance). Then a further 3 seconds for the pilot to react and start cleaning the aircraft up.
All up, the whole thing came easily come out to a mile or more before the procedure can assume that the aircraft is climbing away at 152 FT/NM. On the assumption that you will have 6 miles available for climb, the maximum height gain would be (6 x 152) 912FT.
Now for some "reverse engineering" for a moment. As 1400FT is the MSA and you have to reach that before you can do any necessary manoeuvring to enter the 10DME holding pattern, we have a discrepancy of (1400 - 912) 488FT. What is the MDA for this approach?
I'm thinking that the lowest it could possibly be is around 450FT. It's probably somewhat higher than that but, if it IS 450FT, there's a (488 - 450) 38FT discrepancy. To gain this additional height, the aircraft needs a further 0.25NM so, in effect, the aircraft could be 0.25NM beyond the 10DME holding fix by the time it reaches 1400FT.
But that is only part of the problem. The procedure design applies a fix tolerance at the 10DME position. This fix tolerance could mean that you reach 10DME where you are supposed to, or a bit before it, or even a bit after it. This won't make any difference to you when you fly the missed approach, but it can make a lot of difference in the design for it - there must always be enough distance available for climb to the safe manoeuvring altitude.
If the MDA is significantly above 450FT, one would think that there is plenty of distance available for climb to 1400FT. Thus, without knowing the location or the approach, I begin to wonder if there is some kind of airspace limitation, like maybe a TMA boundary that's close by.
[ 27 October 2001: Message edited by: OzExpat ]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks NIDB.
What aboout this. Note the punctuation.
LERS missed approach procedure VOR ILS DME 25.
"Climb to 750', then turn LEFT onto R-236 to D7.0 RES. Turn LEFT onto heading 179* climbing to 4000' then turn LEFT direct to VOR and hold."
That reads to me, maintaining 750' until after D7.0. I do not believe this is what is intended but it is what the wording implies.
"Helmets on. Incoming"
What aboout this. Note the punctuation.
LERS missed approach procedure VOR ILS DME 25.
"Climb to 750', then turn LEFT onto R-236 to D7.0 RES. Turn LEFT onto heading 179* climbing to 4000' then turn LEFT direct to VOR and hold."
That reads to me, maintaining 750' until after D7.0. I do not believe this is what is intended but it is what the wording implies.
"Helmets on. Incoming"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cosmo.
The point of this post is that instructions should be instructions, not implications. Suppose you misinterpreted the implication and got it wrong.
Even I think it's obvious that flying along level below MSA is unwise. All I want is clear, unambiguous, simple to interpret, hard to get wrong, instructions
If you follow this instruction, to the letter, you would do (probably) the wrong thing.
Given that most pilots are not native English speakers, I think that these things should be clear.
I thought that my original post was ambiguous regarding the correct procedure. I think this one is just plain wrong.
The point of this post is that instructions should be instructions, not implications. Suppose you misinterpreted the implication and got it wrong.
Even I think it's obvious that flying along level below MSA is unwise. All I want is clear, unambiguous, simple to interpret, hard to get wrong, instructions
If you follow this instruction, to the letter, you would do (probably) the wrong thing.
Given that most pilots are not native English speakers, I think that these things should be clear.
I thought that my original post was ambiguous regarding the correct procedure. I think this one is just plain wrong.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Angleterre
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worryingly, this discussion demonstrates that
(a) many of you guys have been inadequately trained and checked, and,
(b) the Jeppesen plates are very poorly written (though streets ahead of anything published in Seattle, thank the Lord).
Remember KISS? How about...
'Missed approach: Climb altitude 3000ft. Track 289 radial from XYZ until passing 1400ft, then turn left to VFA and enter the hold'. Simple, clear, unambiguous - and thus completely out of reach of the idiots at Jeppesen. (Note, this wording demonstrates that it is possible to write a procedure clearly, it is NOT meant to represent the particular procedure under discussion).
(a) many of you guys have been inadequately trained and checked, and,
(b) the Jeppesen plates are very poorly written (though streets ahead of anything published in Seattle, thank the Lord).
Remember KISS? How about...
'Missed approach: Climb altitude 3000ft. Track 289 radial from XYZ until passing 1400ft, then turn left to VFA and enter the hold'. Simple, clear, unambiguous - and thus completely out of reach of the idiots at Jeppesen. (Note, this wording demonstrates that it is possible to write a procedure clearly, it is NOT meant to represent the particular procedure under discussion).
