Jeppesen Charts
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monty... I've got better things to do with my time than try to write missed approach instructions - you can have that part of my job! Thanks for your interest and your application... 
604driver... thanks for that. Looks like there's still a technical 28 feet height gain to make that won't occur in the distance directly to the hold. This is why it is sometimes awkward to write missed approach instructions. I have the problem most of the time here, in order to keep the aeroplane from smacking into some bloodey rock or other.
BTW, I just love that signature! If you ever get tired of it...
604driver... thanks for that. Looks like there's still a technical 28 feet height gain to make that won't occur in the distance directly to the hold. This is why it is sometimes awkward to write missed approach instructions. I have the problem most of the time here, in order to keep the aeroplane from smacking into some bloodey rock or other.
BTW, I just love that signature! If you ever get tired of it...
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firtsly, I never been to Faro.
The missed approach always come in the same ‘order’ for consistency and clarity.
Jeppesen plate LPFR Faro 13-3 (dated 23 Mar 01)
Climb on R-289 keep you in the 3000’ MSA sector. Only when you pass 1400’ you are deemed to be on a safe height clearance by tracking the R-289. You are directed to hold above sea 3000’ MHA.With the climbing gradient would you be out over sea at 1400’?
Runway centerline track is 284° For the NDB missed approach you are instructed to Climb straight ahead. In theory you are then in the 1400’ MSA sector.
Indeed the same VOR approach on RWY 28 without DME is done so ie Climb straight ahead 1800’……..
I always advice to fly the more ‘demanding’ IFR approaches in good weather ‘to see and visualize’ the profile and instruments and to fully appreciate the critical parts like turn away from or through or between high ground like the one below. Just refer to the statistics.
Furthermore according the airport plate 13-1 the VOR is located just south of the runway, so is this why they calculate 289-284= 5° ‘intercept angle’ towards the runway center line. Your CDI will be indicating, assuming correct tuning, intercept required if any.
Your SOP performance plates will indicate obstacle clearance limits and if any emergency turns are required, like Floro, Norway. What do you think of Mosjoen, Norway and Innsbruck , Austria ! Anyone done any of those in minimum weather conditions and had an engine failure. I would be very interested to hear your account.
I always advice to fly the more ‘demanding’ IFR approaches in good weather ‘to see and visualize’ the profile and instruments and to fully appreciate the critical parts like turn away from or through or between high ground like the one below. Just refer to the statistics.
Cheers
L-X
Bartender make that a definite maybe......
The missed approach always come in the same ‘order’ for consistency and clarity.
Jeppesen plate LPFR Faro 13-3 (dated 23 Mar 01)
Climb on R-289 keep you in the 3000’ MSA sector. Only when you pass 1400’ you are deemed to be on a safe height clearance by tracking the R-289. You are directed to hold above sea 3000’ MHA.With the climbing gradient would you be out over sea at 1400’?
Runway centerline track is 284° For the NDB missed approach you are instructed to Climb straight ahead. In theory you are then in the 1400’ MSA sector.
Indeed the same VOR approach on RWY 28 without DME is done so ie Climb straight ahead 1800’……..
I always advice to fly the more ‘demanding’ IFR approaches in good weather ‘to see and visualize’ the profile and instruments and to fully appreciate the critical parts like turn away from or through or between high ground like the one below. Just refer to the statistics.
Furthermore according the airport plate 13-1 the VOR is located just south of the runway, so is this why they calculate 289-284= 5° ‘intercept angle’ towards the runway center line. Your CDI will be indicating, assuming correct tuning, intercept required if any.
Your SOP performance plates will indicate obstacle clearance limits and if any emergency turns are required, like Floro, Norway. What do you think of Mosjoen, Norway and Innsbruck , Austria ! Anyone done any of those in minimum weather conditions and had an engine failure. I would be very interested to hear your account.
I always advice to fly the more ‘demanding’ IFR approaches in good weather ‘to see and visualize’ the profile and instruments and to fully appreciate the critical parts like turn away from or through or between high ground like the one below. Just refer to the statistics.
Cheers
L-X
Bartender make that a definite maybe......
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
I would fly this missed approach (FAO) as a continuous climb. You will not conflict with anyone starting the procedure because you are proceeding to the IAF for rwy 10 which is to the west of the field. Anyone starting the procedure would be comencing from the IAF 28 which is east of the field and is probably 20 miles behind you by now. That is if my memory of Faro charts is correct.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Angleterre
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OzExpat,
If it is part of your job (which I don't believe - do you work for Jeppesen?), then you're doing it badly. And what was the 'thanks for your interest and application' remark about, by the way?
Bally Heck,
My point is, that if you don't know how to fly the procedure, you shouldn't operate to the aerodrome. People posting here don't know how to fly the procedure, and yet are operating there (it would seem).
Putting it bluntly (as I was), this shouldn't happen.
My main gripe is with Jeppesen, whose output is very worryingly sub-standard, and yet who don't (it would appear) listen to reason or seek expertise. This applies to their charts and performance data.
However, pilots who don't know what they are doing are a liability to us all, and very specifically, to their passengers.
Problems arise when unclear material is published, especially that which is outside the run-of-the-mill 'fly the aeroplane' type of guidance, as even the trainers won't understand it. Various schools of thought will develop, and will be taught and learnt. Trainees (and checkees) will be exposed to a variety of incorrect techniques and interpretations.
We all need to wake up to this problem before we have too many more fatal accidents as a consequence.
I hope that's a bit clearer.
[ 30 October 2001: Message edited by: Monty Nivo ]
If it is part of your job (which I don't believe - do you work for Jeppesen?), then you're doing it badly. And what was the 'thanks for your interest and application' remark about, by the way?
Bally Heck,
My point is, that if you don't know how to fly the procedure, you shouldn't operate to the aerodrome. People posting here don't know how to fly the procedure, and yet are operating there (it would seem).
Putting it bluntly (as I was), this shouldn't happen.
My main gripe is with Jeppesen, whose output is very worryingly sub-standard, and yet who don't (it would appear) listen to reason or seek expertise. This applies to their charts and performance data.
However, pilots who don't know what they are doing are a liability to us all, and very specifically, to their passengers.
Problems arise when unclear material is published, especially that which is outside the run-of-the-mill 'fly the aeroplane' type of guidance, as even the trainers won't understand it. Various schools of thought will develop, and will be taught and learnt. Trainees (and checkees) will be exposed to a variety of incorrect techniques and interpretations.
We all need to wake up to this problem before we have too many more fatal accidents as a consequence.
I hope that's a bit clearer.
[ 30 October 2001: Message edited by: Monty Nivo ]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole point of the thread Monty, is that if the published procedure is unclear, then it may not be possible for even you, with your undoubted skills to fly. Not being a procedure designer, I don't see it as part of my job to second guess what they have designed. I know these guys do a good and thorough job. This should be reflected in the way the information is presented to pilots.
Approach plates should be clear, accurate, easy to read and use. They should also be standard in the way they are laid out and worded.
I repeat my earlier posting.
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."
This clearly instructs the pilot to fly level at 750 feet until D7.0 RES. This is also clearly wrong.
Let a lawyer get his teeth into that and he would tear it apart.
The English language is one of the most important tools of our trade. If the tool is used incorrectly, it can, will and has caused accidents. It seems strange to me that our R/T phraseology is quite rightly strictly regulated. Yet Jeppesens and other flight guide publishers and some regulatory authorities can use unclear, ambiguous and plainly incorrect wording on their publications.
Approach plates should be clear, accurate, easy to read and use. They should also be standard in the way they are laid out and worded.
I repeat my earlier posting.
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."
This clearly instructs the pilot to fly level at 750 feet until D7.0 RES. This is also clearly wrong.
Let a lawyer get his teeth into that and he would tear it apart.
The English language is one of the most important tools of our trade. If the tool is used incorrectly, it can, will and has caused accidents. It seems strange to me that our R/T phraseology is quite rightly strictly regulated. Yet Jeppesens and other flight guide publishers and some regulatory authorities can use unclear, ambiguous and plainly incorrect wording on their publications.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Angleterre
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bally Heck,
You are quite right, and we are in agreement.
My point is, that the lawyers won't get involved until it's too late to avoid the consequences. That's why we (as responsible professionals) should do something about this now (in fact, we should have done something about it long ago).
You are quite right, and we are in agreement.
My point is, that the lawyers won't get involved until it's too late to avoid the consequences. That's why we (as responsible professionals) should do something about this now (in fact, we should have done something about it long ago).
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monty... thank you so much for trying to flame me. That's been done before and by much more talented people than you. And it always defeats the point.
Not that it's really any of your business, but no, I do not work for Jeppesen. I work for an aviation regulator and I design instrument approach procedures. I have done this work for 15 years, so I reckon I have a few more clues about it than you do.
I do, however, take the point that all instructions on an approach chart should be as clear and simple as possible. This isn't always easy to achieve, however, as folks like me also have to consider the legal aspect of everything we do, while trying to ensure we don't miss something that ends up being safety-critical.
You will undoubtedly not have seen any of the procedures I've designed, much less ever flown them in practice or for real. So I'm unable to comprehend how you can make such a heinous accusation about the way I do the job I've done for 15 years - and am still doing. If you're going to flame someone, it might be a good idea to get some facts first, unless they just get in your way, of course.
In case you're interested, I liaise fairly closely with Jeppesen and they will always ask about any aspect of a procedure that they don't understand. That has been my experience of them over the whole of my 15 year tenure to date.
Note, however, that I'm under no regulatory obligation to them. Whatever they do with the procedures I produce is up to them. In effect, they take legal responsibility for their reproduction of my procedures - and all procedures from every other aviation regulator. So, if you have a gripe with any of their charts, take it up with them ... just as I suggested earler in this thread.
Not that it's really any of your business, but no, I do not work for Jeppesen. I work for an aviation regulator and I design instrument approach procedures. I have done this work for 15 years, so I reckon I have a few more clues about it than you do.
I do, however, take the point that all instructions on an approach chart should be as clear and simple as possible. This isn't always easy to achieve, however, as folks like me also have to consider the legal aspect of everything we do, while trying to ensure we don't miss something that ends up being safety-critical.
You will undoubtedly not have seen any of the procedures I've designed, much less ever flown them in practice or for real. So I'm unable to comprehend how you can make such a heinous accusation about the way I do the job I've done for 15 years - and am still doing. If you're going to flame someone, it might be a good idea to get some facts first, unless they just get in your way, of course.
In case you're interested, I liaise fairly closely with Jeppesen and they will always ask about any aspect of a procedure that they don't understand. That has been my experience of them over the whole of my 15 year tenure to date.
Note, however, that I'm under no regulatory obligation to them. Whatever they do with the procedures I produce is up to them. In effect, they take legal responsibility for their reproduction of my procedures - and all procedures from every other aviation regulator. So, if you have a gripe with any of their charts, take it up with them ... just as I suggested earler in this thread.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Angleterre
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OzExpat,
I wasn't trying to flame you, and I don't take kindly to your aggressive remark about 'more talented people'. Cheeky b*****d. Care to compare CVs/experience/works published etc.?
You made a claim to have expert opinion on the issue, and yet it seems to me, from your post, that you know that the procedures you write are incorrectly interpreted by those publishing and those using them. That means that you are failing in your aims - to write safe procedures that are used corectly. Blaming this error on a third party doesn't wash now, and won't wash in Court. Likewise, any safe procedure correctly published will stand up to legal scrutiny, because it's (a) safe and (b) robust. If you have to skew the figures to protect your six, the figures are wrong.
There is no point in writing any procedure that won't be correctly executed, and I know this because I write procedures too - though I also fly them.
Despite your close liaison with Jeppesen you have failed to convince them to write procedures clearly and correctly. You obviously have great influence there!
And no, I haven't flown any of your procedures. I fly in Europe, you know, the area with high mountains, busy airspace, high traffic density etc. etc., not in PNG, where I guess the grass grows long....
And don't worry - you've thrown down the gauntlet - but I like to marinade the meat before I fry it.
I wasn't trying to flame you, and I don't take kindly to your aggressive remark about 'more talented people'. Cheeky b*****d. Care to compare CVs/experience/works published etc.?
You made a claim to have expert opinion on the issue, and yet it seems to me, from your post, that you know that the procedures you write are incorrectly interpreted by those publishing and those using them. That means that you are failing in your aims - to write safe procedures that are used corectly. Blaming this error on a third party doesn't wash now, and won't wash in Court. Likewise, any safe procedure correctly published will stand up to legal scrutiny, because it's (a) safe and (b) robust. If you have to skew the figures to protect your six, the figures are wrong.
There is no point in writing any procedure that won't be correctly executed, and I know this because I write procedures too - though I also fly them.
Despite your close liaison with Jeppesen you have failed to convince them to write procedures clearly and correctly. You obviously have great influence there!
And no, I haven't flown any of your procedures. I fly in Europe, you know, the area with high mountains, busy airspace, high traffic density etc. etc., not in PNG, where I guess the grass grows long....
And don't worry - you've thrown down the gauntlet - but I like to marinade the meat before I fry it.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...once again guys, it ain't rocket science, altho would have to admit the Jeppesen charts do seem to have fallen on hard times when they cannot (or will not) make the message clear. This is a very big problem and I suspect it will only get worse.
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I won't bore you with tales of endless frustration with Jepps performance and nav planning department but I do have to chip in regarding their plates.
Head honcho Jim Terpstra is very active on line, likes to hear from users in the field and his chart clinics are well worth a visit. Try the Jepp site.
Head honcho Jim Terpstra is very active on line, likes to hear from users in the field and his chart clinics are well worth a visit. Try the Jepp site.
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monty... you mean to tell me you got ALL of that from my previous post? I haven't had such amusement in ages ... must be all that marinade that you use.
I enjoy a good laugh so please don't stop now!
I enjoy a good laugh so please don't stop now!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway chaps, no-one has got their teeth into this previously posted one.
Please someone tell me I'm wrong. (with reasoned argument.
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."
This clearly instructs the pilot to fly level at 750 feet until D7.0 RES. This is also clearly wrong.
Please someone tell me I'm wrong. (with reasoned argument.
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."
This clearly instructs the pilot to fly level at 750 feet until D7.0 RES. This is also clearly wrong.
I see no restriction there to maintain 750' till 7 DME RES. The restriction is straight ahead to 750'. The next altitude restriction is 4000' on the heading of 179* before turning left again for the hold at the VOR. The requirements are to turn left at 750' and intercept the 236* radial, at 7 DME to turn further left to a heading of 179*, climb to 4000' then turn left again direct the VOR and enter hold.
No?
No?
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bally... I'm fairly sure that, if the procedure requires a level segment at 750 FT, it would say so. Having said that, I've thought of one possibility of why the wording is the way it is.
When Pans Ops 3rd Edition first burst on the scene, it had a requirement to provide for a level acceleration segment of 6NM length. This design feature was later repealed but, for progressive aviation authorities that already had many such procedures in issue, the removal of this feature had to be reflected in their procedures. This could have entailed massive changes to the charts already in issue.
It is possible that, as an interim measure, the authority responsible for this procedure may have simply modified the textual description of the missed approach by deleting words that may have said something along the lines of "Climb to 750FT prior to level acceleration, then turn LEFT onto 179 and climb to 4000."
If this is anywhere near the fact, I would think the wording you've quoted could be a reasonable alternative. I agree that it might have been better expressed, but I have to come back to my statement at the outset here that "if the procedure requires a level segment at 750 FT, it would say so".
Indeed, unless space on the chart is too small, it would probably also say why it is necessary to fly level at such an altitude. So I tend to agree with pigboat in that, the textual description only states key altitudes and assumes the aircraft will continue climbing straight after reaching 750 FT. In absense of other information, or any modifying instructions from ATC, that's how I would fly it.
When Pans Ops 3rd Edition first burst on the scene, it had a requirement to provide for a level acceleration segment of 6NM length. This design feature was later repealed but, for progressive aviation authorities that already had many such procedures in issue, the removal of this feature had to be reflected in their procedures. This could have entailed massive changes to the charts already in issue.
It is possible that, as an interim measure, the authority responsible for this procedure may have simply modified the textual description of the missed approach by deleting words that may have said something along the lines of "Climb to 750FT prior to level acceleration, then turn LEFT onto 179 and climb to 4000."
If this is anywhere near the fact, I would think the wording you've quoted could be a reasonable alternative. I agree that it might have been better expressed, but I have to come back to my statement at the outset here that "if the procedure requires a level segment at 750 FT, it would say so".
Indeed, unless space on the chart is too small, it would probably also say why it is necessary to fly level at such an altitude. So I tend to agree with pigboat in that, the textual description only states key altitudes and assumes the aircraft will continue climbing straight after reaching 750 FT. In absense of other information, or any modifying instructions from ATC, that's how I would fly it.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instead of all this thinking, why not just read what the instruction says. Again, it says climbing. What I have seen, this is what all Jeppesen charts says when it specifies a continuous climb.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cosmo. Please pay attention. The point I am trying to make is that the wording is wrong. I am perfectly aware that 750' is not a stop height.
In the english language it is normal to give instructions in chronological sequence. That way they make sense. In this go around, the first instruction is
"Climb to 750', then turn LEFT onto R-236 to D7.0 RES."....end of sentence. End of first instruction.
The next sentence is "Turn LEFT onto heading 179* climbing to 4000' then turn LEFT direct to VOR and hold."
New sentence. New instruction.
If I gave you directions like "Go down the road to the red building. Open the door, and climb the stairs." It would not mean the same as "Go down the road to the red building, Climb the stairs and open the door."
This is because the instructions are in a different order.
Oz may be right about the reasoning behind it. But in a world where ATC get p1ssed off by pilots reading back "Line up after the landing aircraft" instead of "After the landing aircraft line up." I think we have a right to clear unambiguous instructions for safety critical procedures.
In the english language it is normal to give instructions in chronological sequence. That way they make sense. In this go around, the first instruction is
"Climb to 750', then turn LEFT onto R-236 to D7.0 RES."....end of sentence. End of first instruction.
The next sentence is "Turn LEFT onto heading 179* climbing to 4000' then turn LEFT direct to VOR and hold."
New sentence. New instruction.
If I gave you directions like "Go down the road to the red building. Open the door, and climb the stairs." It would not mean the same as "Go down the road to the red building, Climb the stairs and open the door."
This is because the instructions are in a different order.
Oz may be right about the reasoning behind it. But in a world where ATC get p1ssed off by pilots reading back "Line up after the landing aircraft" instead of "After the landing aircraft line up." I think we have a right to clear unambiguous instructions for safety critical 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, I am paying full attention. I don't doubt that you will carry out the instruction the way it was intendet.
You are obviously not paying attention to what I say. I don't find the wording ambiguous. When I read it there is no doubt in my mind that it's a continous climb for several reasons, besides the obvious that you apparently also see since you do understand the instruction.
First reason is because you are not instructed to level off.
Secondly it says climbing. As I argumented earlier you can be doing anything if you have stopped doing it already. If you had stopped your climb the next sentence should say something like "turn left to.. then climb to..". You are climbing and you shoud continue your climbing to whatever.
Thirdly, it not a Haynes manual for an old Morris Minor, you don't read one sentence at a time before carrying out the next. You should read the entire instruction in it's full length instead of taking it apart. I think it's a completely logical punctuation, otherwise the sentence would be so long that it would be almost completely unreadable.
You are obviously not paying attention to what I say. I don't find the wording ambiguous. When I read it there is no doubt in my mind that it's a continous climb for several reasons, besides the obvious that you apparently also see since you do understand the instruction.
First reason is because you are not instructed to level off.
Secondly it says climbing. As I argumented earlier you can be doing anything if you have stopped doing it already. If you had stopped your climb the next sentence should say something like "turn left to.. then climb to..". You are climbing and you shoud continue your climbing to whatever.
Thirdly, it not a Haynes manual for an old Morris Minor, you don't read one sentence at a time before carrying out the next. You should read the entire instruction in it's full length instead of taking it apart. I think it's a completely logical punctuation, otherwise the sentence would be so long that it would be almost completely unreadable.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would you interpret this instruction Cosmo?
"Climb to 2000', 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."
"Climb to 2000', 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."
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Climb to 2000 before turning left. Continue climbing to 4000 while following the remainder of the routing to the holding at the VOR.
If your point is that it is the altitude of 750 that tick me off, it's not. It's still climbing. I think it makes sense that it is emphasised in one sentence, "don't turn until you reached this altitude - period." - "Now we will give you the rest of your instruction in this new sentence"
But I guess that it just shows how different we perceive things as people, and how hard it must be to write them darn charts
[ 10 November 2001: Message edited by: cosmo kramer ]
If your point is that it is the altitude of 750 that tick me off, it's not. It's still climbing. I think it makes sense that it is emphasised in one sentence, "don't turn until you reached this altitude - period." - "Now we will give you the rest of your instruction in this new sentence"
But I guess that it just shows how different we perceive things as people, and how hard it must be to write them darn charts
[ 10 November 2001: Message edited by: cosmo kramer ]
