Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Jeppesen Charts

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Jeppesen Charts

Old 10th Oct 2001, 03:34
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Talking Jeppesen Charts

A TECHNICAL remark about Jepps.

The narrative for the missed approach at Faro:

"Climb on R-289 to 1400' then proceed to the VFA10 holding climbing to 3000' and contact Faro APP."

How ambiguous is that?

Having read it twenty times and discussed it with two colleagues I still don't know if the climb to 3000' is continuous or if the inference is to stop at 1400' until the VFA10 fix, which incidentally is on the 289 radial.

This is not an isolated example. Just an example.

Can anyone out there elucidate?
Bally Heck is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2001, 05:08
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Over the horizon
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

sounds like a continuous climb to 3000 and proceed directly to the holding pattern once reaching 1400. perhaps they feel that most airplanes will not reach 3000 by 10dme and that you should continue climbing to 3000 in the hp, or perhaps the description applies regardsless of runway used.

[ 10 October 2001: Message edited by: Diesel8 ]
Diesel8 is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2001, 17:55
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: very close to STN!!
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

indicates reaching 1400 before turning.
stator vane is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2001, 22:54
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

But there is no turn. The VFA 10 fix is on the same 289 radial that the 1400' height restraint is on.
Bally Heck is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2001, 00:10
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wink

I think the cue is climbing. It doesn't say "then climb".

You don't find this abiguous I'm sure: "climb on rwy hdg to 1000 feet then turn right heading 360 climbing to 3000."

You wouldn't stop your climb at 1000 until rolled out on 360 would you?
cosmo kramer is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2001, 13:38
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Perhaps this is not as clear as I thought. To paraphrase the chart, it says is climb on runway heading to 1400'. Then continue on runway heading to the 10 dme holding fix, climbing to 3000',

It does not say to stop at 1400'. But why mention 1400' if not to stop at. There is no turn involved at 1400'.

Call me thick if you like but it is not clear to me,
Bally Heck is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2001, 14:55
  #7 (permalink)  
ft
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: N. Europe
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

IMO it makes sense to stick with the same phraseology they would use if the fix wasn't on the radial even though it is. Otherwise, you'd end up with a gazillion special cases where fixes line up just right (or wrong).

I read it as "when you reach 1400´, stop following the radial, start flying towards VFA10 and climb to 3000 while contacting Faro APP". If VFA10 conveniently happens to be on the R289 it just gets rid of that tedious turning part.

Cheers,
/ft
ft is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2001, 19:49
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

So who is prepared to bet their lives and that of their passengers that the climb is continuous. Lets say for example that an aircraft is commencing the VOR procedure at 3000''. You could climb right into it. I think the climb stops at 1400' for that reason. But it ain't very clear s these answers confirm.
Bally Heck is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2001, 21:13
  #9 (permalink)  
Canuck_AV8R
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Seperation in the missed approach corridor is the responsibility of the appropriate ATC unit NOT the approach plate designer/printer. You may have issues with Jeppesen charts but this one is not valid IMNSHO.

Seperation criteria would be such that only one aircraft can be on the approach or missed approach at any given time. Here in Canada if there is no radar coverage the first aircraft must either a) cancel IFR, b) land and clear the active runway, or c) commence a missed approach prior to another aircraft proceeding inbound past the FAF. I know it is cumbersome but it works and it is safe.

The bottom line is there should be no-one in the missed approach corridor below 4000 ft (in this case) or a minimum of 1000 ft above the missed approach altitude.

I am not familiar with the particular approach in question but surely no-one should be on the opposite approach to you when you are conducting an approach in what I presume is a non-radar environment. In a radar environment ATC has the responsibility to keep the missed approach corridor clear of A/C not you and not the approach plate designer. If ATC want a different missed approach procedure due to traffic then it should be communicated to you well in advance.
 
Old 13th Oct 2001, 00:46
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Having thought about this I am now convinced that the missed approach should be stopped at 1400' which is the 25nm safe altitude. This gives 1000' plus seperation from other aircraft which may be commencing the procedure at 3000' over the VOR. The climb to 3000' continues at the 10dme fix thus giving lateral seperation from other traffic.

I think Canuck that separation is the responsibility of th procedure designer in a non radar environment.

In this case, if I am correct, the wording of the missed approach either by the designer or by Jepps if they have altered it is very dangerous. Something like "climb to and maintain 1400' until reaching the 10dme fix" would be less ambiguous.

Everyone who expressed a preference on this thread interpreted the dangerous option I believe.

Any comments?
Bally Heck is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2001, 02:17
  #11 (permalink)  
NextLeftAndCallGround
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I've come into this from the ATC forum at Bally's invitation.

Without looking at the plates and AIP one thought immediately comes to mind. If the min safe alt for the area is 1400ft, does the mention of 1400ft on the go-around suggest that you should climb at best rate to this level (at which point you'll be terrain safe) and then at a lower rate - if you wish - to the hold/fix?

On the question of separation... Sorry but no instrument approach procedure provides separation - this is achieved by issuing the appropriate clearances. In an ideal world no controller will put another aircraft in the hold at the missed approach level (or if it's absolutely unavoidable, he/she will issue alternative missed approach instructions). Unfortunately I accept we don't live in an ideal world and some airport systems kind of force you into doing so.
 
Old 13th Oct 2001, 03:39
  #12 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Thanks for joining NextLeft. Perhaps I worded that a bit badly. What I meant was that when designing a procedure, the designer would avoid a missed approach procedure which would conflict with an approach procedure. Radio failure etc, must make this vital.

Missed approaches are normally designed such that worst case (single engined) go-around climb gradients are accounted for with a close in turn or increased minima if required . I don't think terrain is a factor here as it is out over the sea.

I believe that an aircraft may be cleared to commence a VOR procedure at say 3000' if the preceeding is on the approach below 2000'.

On this approach, an aircraft heading for the VOR from the west at 3000' would conflict with an aircraft going around on the westerly runway if it climbed above 2000'

I have kind of convinced myself (perhaps erroneously) that 1400' is a stop height for this reason. If it is, then given that the concensus is a climb to 3000' these charts are death traps!!
Bally Heck is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2001, 08:38
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Canada
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question

Could you please tell me what airport you are talking about here. I flipped open my Jeppview to Faro (CZFA) and it isn't even close to what you are saying.
Thanks.
UP2ZSKY is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2001, 11:44
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

With the reservation of not having seen the charts, I still believe that it is a continuous climb.

Why would you have an aircraft on approach to the opposite runway than the one making the go-around? I think that is a little bit too far fetched.
cosmo kramer is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2001, 13:40
  #15 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

UP2ZSKY

The Faro I'm talking about is LPFR.

Cosmo.

If you are carrying out a VOR approach, where the VOR is located on the field, the approach to the IAP could be from any direction. The best direction to approach from, to go directly outbound from the beacon would be from the west. ie in the go-around climb out when landing on the easterly runway. Sorry I can't reproduce the chart, it might make things a bit clearer.

Anyway, bouncing of this question off you chaps has made the answer come to me.

Ta
Bally Heck is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2001, 15:15
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

In that case why 1400 feet and not 2000 feet? Why the need for 1600 seperation? Something is not right in your deduction.
cosmo kramer is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2001, 23:05
  #17 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Could well be. Damned if I can think of another good explanation though.
Bally Heck is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2001, 21:25
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Milliways
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

Just looked this up in Aerads, and the wording is lsightly different:
'Right of VFA 289R to 1400 1380 then to VFA West hold at 3000 2980 and contact Approach.'
I'll let you carry on with the interesting discussion!
IFollowRoads is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2001, 22:35
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,982
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Post

Perhaps we should remember that it is the "State's" AIP which defines the procedure and what we see on the chart is Jeppesen's (Aerad, etc) interpretation of this.

I would be interested in knowing what the Portugese AIP says about the Missed Approach Procedure at Faro.

In practice if a procedure appears ambiguous then it behoves us as pilots to ask for clarification from ATC - the stakes are too high not to do so!

I would say that whether it's 1400 ft or 3,000 ft as the initial "blocked" altitude is open to debate but I would be interested to know what the mimimum level in the VFA 10d holding pattern is - if it's 4,000 ft I would suggest you can climb immediately to 3,000 ft.
fireflybob is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2001, 00:42
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post

....and then there are those who see a sinister plot in the agenda....why not just fly as you have been instructed and stop trying to be...the ATC controller?
Many pilots want to stick their nose in where it does not belong.
Give the ATC guys a break! Fly the bus and go home...good grief!
411A is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.