Parallel entries to the racetrack
Thread Starter
Parallel entries to the racetrack
According to my reading of PANS-OPS (3.3.2.2), I can join a racetrack procedure as a sector 1 parallel entry.
But...
3.3.3.4 ... If a further descent is
specified after the inbound turn, this descent shall not be
started until established on the inbound track ("established"
is considered as being within half full scale deflection for
the ILS and VOR or within 5 deg of the required bearing for
the NDB)
The timing specified on some French procedures seems to make it mighty difficult to do that from a parallel entry when there's a FAF or FAP outside the facility.
For example:
Agen L/DME 29
At 120 kt I cross the AG NDB (3.5d from the AG DME) at 2500 ft and proceed outbound on 114 for 1 min 30 s. I then, at about 6.5d, make a right turn to intercept the I'll end up 294 inbound to AG. I'm expecting to be turning through 294 (180 degrees into the turn), still the diameter of a rate 1 turn off the inbound track, at about 6.5d. But the FAF, at which I should leave 2500 ft is at 6.5d!
Another:
Albi L 09
At 120 kt I cross the AB at 2200 and proceed outbound on 271 for 1 min 30 s. I then make a left turn back to intercept the 091 to the AB. With a 30 degree intercept, I'll get established about a mile outside the AB, which I'm then expected to cross at 1250 ft. (I do have 1.6 miles after the AB if necessary before the MAPT to get down to the MDA which is 1250 anyway.)
Amiens L 30 looks similarly difficult.
Calais ILS 24 was the one that first got my attention. It would seem that it would be very difficult to establish inbound before the glideslope intercept point at 6.1d.
Am I misinterpreting PANS-OPS's permissiveness with regard to parallel racetrack entries, misinterpeting its strictness in forbidding descent before established inbound, or are some IAPs almost impossible to fly?
But...
3.3.3.4 ... If a further descent is
specified after the inbound turn, this descent shall not be
started until established on the inbound track ("established"
is considered as being within half full scale deflection for
the ILS and VOR or within 5 deg of the required bearing for
the NDB)
The timing specified on some French procedures seems to make it mighty difficult to do that from a parallel entry when there's a FAF or FAP outside the facility.
For example:
Agen L/DME 29
At 120 kt I cross the AG NDB (3.5d from the AG DME) at 2500 ft and proceed outbound on 114 for 1 min 30 s. I then, at about 6.5d, make a right turn to intercept the I'll end up 294 inbound to AG. I'm expecting to be turning through 294 (180 degrees into the turn), still the diameter of a rate 1 turn off the inbound track, at about 6.5d. But the FAF, at which I should leave 2500 ft is at 6.5d!
Another:
Albi L 09
At 120 kt I cross the AB at 2200 and proceed outbound on 271 for 1 min 30 s. I then make a left turn back to intercept the 091 to the AB. With a 30 degree intercept, I'll get established about a mile outside the AB, which I'm then expected to cross at 1250 ft. (I do have 1.6 miles after the AB if necessary before the MAPT to get down to the MDA which is 1250 anyway.)
Amiens L 30 looks similarly difficult.
Calais ILS 24 was the one that first got my attention. It would seem that it would be very difficult to establish inbound before the glideslope intercept point at 6.1d.
Am I misinterpreting PANS-OPS's permissiveness with regard to parallel racetrack entries, misinterpeting its strictness in forbidding descent before established inbound, or are some IAPs almost impossible to fly?
The Sector 1 (parallel) join is designed - as far as I'm aware - for entry into the holding pattern.
I always thought that, having overflown the VOR (beacon joining) and tracked outbound for the specified time, the inbound turn off the entry is flown to roll out direct to the beacon, not to 'couch the needle' in an attempt to achieve the holding radial. Then, overhead the beacon, the hold is entered (beacon holding) and the approach flown from the subsequent inbound turn.
Which is why I would always try to fly a Sector 2 or 3 join!
I always thought that, having overflown the VOR (beacon joining) and tracked outbound for the specified time, the inbound turn off the entry is flown to roll out direct to the beacon, not to 'couch the needle' in an attempt to achieve the holding radial. Then, overhead the beacon, the hold is entered (beacon holding) and the approach flown from the subsequent inbound turn.
Which is why I would always try to fly a Sector 2 or 3 join!
ECON cruise, LR cruise...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agen Lctr+DME 29 : the racetrack is protected out til D 9,5 for the outbound leg. Since you are permitted to have same speed (110/140 KIAS) until the IF (in this case established inbound), you are also protected similarily to D 9,5 on brg 114 deg. from the AG. Solution - go to 9,5 D, then turn inbound 
Albi - states clearly that the timing outbound is 2:30 for Cat A or 2:00 for Cat B or C. So go to the appropriate timing - should again solve the problem.
Amiens - agree, no DME present, so might need one turn to get established. The procedure is at the MSA, so you could extend outbound, but then the question arises - when to descend?
Calais - again, stated time for IAS lower than 130 KIAS = 2:00. Should solve the problem.
Remember - if you are protected on the outbound leg of the racetrack, you are also protected on the outbound leg of the parallel entry. It doesn't matter how you get there - it's just a block of airspace free from obstacles.
Hope this helps & saves some fuel. Brgds from
Empty.
Edited for spelling - danmed lydsexia...
Albi - states clearly that the timing outbound is 2:30 for Cat A or 2:00 for Cat B or C. So go to the appropriate timing - should again solve the problem.
Amiens - agree, no DME present, so might need one turn to get established. The procedure is at the MSA, so you could extend outbound, but then the question arises - when to descend?
Calais - again, stated time for IAS lower than 130 KIAS = 2:00. Should solve the problem.
Remember - if you are protected on the outbound leg of the racetrack, you are also protected on the outbound leg of the parallel entry. It doesn't matter how you get there - it's just a block of airspace free from obstacles.
Hope this helps & saves some fuel. Brgds from
Empty.
Edited for spelling - danmed lydsexia...
Last edited by Empty Cruise; 6th Feb 2005 at 22:29.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Empty Cruise is absolutely right. There's a total misconception, in many UK FTOs, about sector 1 entry in a race track procedure. What they teach is nothing but a sector 1 entry in the hold followed by the outbound leg of the race track procedure from the beacon overhead (as described by Beagle).
As far as PAN-OPS is concerned, you can perform a sector 1 entry in the racetrack, then, having intercepted the FAT, you can descend with the procedure as you are already on the final approach track.
It took me a while to convince a CAAFU examiner but I never convinced the then Head of Standards at the FTO I was working for...
Edited cause my brain was on strike earlier...
As far as PAN-OPS is concerned, you can perform a sector 1 entry in the racetrack, then, having intercepted the FAT, you can descend with the procedure as you are already on the final approach track.
It took me a while to convince a CAAFU examiner but I never convinced the then Head of Standards at the FTO I was working for...
Edited cause my brain was on strike earlier...
Last edited by Leo45; 6th Feb 2005 at 21:34.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always thought that, having overflown the VOR (beacon joining) and tracked outbound for the specified time, the inbound turn off the entry is flown to roll out direct to the beacon, not to 'couch the needle' in an attempt to achieve the holding radial. Then, overhead the beacon, the hold is entered (beacon holding) and the approach flown from the subsequent inbound turn.
As a side note are "sectors" 1,2, and 3 in refrence to the different entry procedures for holds? Parallel, offset, and direct respectively? Are there also "sectors" for approach joining pro's?
ECON cruise, LR cruise...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeepilot,
Tracking outbound on a parallel entry should give you a pretty good idea about the wind.
The idea about tracking direct to the beacon might be a good idea to prevent the student from trying to get established & then drop like a stone to try to establish on the approach profile.
Answer - fly the CANPA profile. Easier, even single pilot in a Cessna or Beech. Safer - and less complex, especially talking ME pistons executing OEI approach, since there will be no level segment on the approach (unless circling).
Any UK FTOs teach CANPA techniques?
Brgds,
Empty
Tracking outbound on a parallel entry should give you a pretty good idea about the wind.
The idea about tracking direct to the beacon might be a good idea to prevent the student from trying to get established & then drop like a stone to try to establish on the approach profile.
Answer - fly the CANPA profile. Easier, even single pilot in a Cessna or Beech. Safer - and less complex, especially talking ME pistons executing OEI approach, since there will be no level segment on the approach (unless circling).
Any UK FTOs teach CANPA techniques?
Brgds,
Empty
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For some reason unknown to me, I was unable to open the link for the Agen procedure, but I've looked at both Albi and Calais. I have to assume that, as holding does not appear to be separately defined, the racetrack is protected for Sector 1, 2 and 3 entries.
I can't read French so don't know how Empty Cruise came up with 2 minutes outbound timing but am prepared to accept that he's correct. That being the case, a descent from 2200 FT to 1250 FT requires a ROD of 450 FPM in nil wind, so the approach is quite flyable.
Much the same for the Calais approach, as a 2 minutes outbound timing should allow descent from 2000 FT to 1310 FT at a ROD of 345 FPM in nil wind. Should be plenty of flexibility to go steeper than that, if you end up closer to the navaid at the end of the reversal from the Sector 1 entry. All in all, this procedure seems to be readily flyable at the outbound timing of 2 minutes.
If you're going to use just 1 minute on the Sector 1 entry, you'd undoubtedly need to fly around the pattern before starting the final descent, or your ROD would likely be excessive.
I can't read French so don't know how Empty Cruise came up with 2 minutes outbound timing but am prepared to accept that he's correct. That being the case, a descent from 2200 FT to 1250 FT requires a ROD of 450 FPM in nil wind, so the approach is quite flyable.
Much the same for the Calais approach, as a 2 minutes outbound timing should allow descent from 2000 FT to 1310 FT at a ROD of 345 FPM in nil wind. Should be plenty of flexibility to go steeper than that, if you end up closer to the navaid at the end of the reversal from the Sector 1 entry. All in all, this procedure seems to be readily flyable at the outbound timing of 2 minutes.
If you're going to use just 1 minute on the Sector 1 entry, you'd undoubtedly need to fly around the pattern before starting the final descent, or your ROD would likely be excessive.
Thread Starter
I can't read French so don't know how Empty Cruise came up with 2 minutes outbound timing but am prepared to accept that he's correct. That being the case, a descent from 2200 FT to 1250 FT requires a ROD of 450 FPM in nil wind, so the approach is quite flyable.
I didn't explain the reason for my confusion very well, OzExpat. The charts appear to depict the turn at 2200, with descent to 1250 after establishing inbound. On a sector 2 or 3 entry I should roll out from the turn close to the inbound track. Fine, in nil wind, I've got about 1 min 30" to descend 950 ft. Not a problem.
However for a sector 1 entry, I will roll out of the turn the diameter of a rate 1 turn south of the inbound track. If my interpretation of PANS-OPS is correct, I now have 1 min 30 to first establish on the inbound track of 091, then descend the 950 ft.
Can I descend to 1250 before/during the turn, or after the turn but before establishing on the 091 inbound track?
It says that entries into the racetrack are protected, but does that guarantee protection on the southern straight leg at 1250 ft?
Guest
Posts: n/a
My understanding is that when you turn at the end of the timing period following a parallel entry, the idea is to intercept the inbound track to the fix - not track directly to the fix.
This gives you time to establish yourself on the inbound track of the holding pattern before reaching the fix and thus avoids the awkward manoeuvering needed to regain track after the fix - where depending on the final angle that you attacked the fix as you approached it after the parallel entry, you could find yourself badly placed on leaving the fix on final.
For example if you tracked direct to the fix rather than intercept track to the fix, you could finish up 25-35 degrees off track after passing the fix and having to S turn back to get on track again.
This gives you time to establish yourself on the inbound track of the holding pattern before reaching the fix and thus avoids the awkward manoeuvering needed to regain track after the fix - where depending on the final angle that you attacked the fix as you approached it after the parallel entry, you could find yourself badly placed on leaving the fix on final.
For example if you tracked direct to the fix rather than intercept track to the fix, you could finish up 25-35 degrees off track after passing the fix and having to S turn back to get on track again.
Yes, you might indeed finish up 30 deg off track - that's part of the design. So you then go round the hold again...to refine the holding track the next time inbound.
Trying to make good the inbound track after turning back to the beacon during the Sector 1 (Parallel) entry is going to be quite difficult in anything except low speed a/c which can achieve higher rates of turn than those which cannot achieve Rate 1 at 25 deg AoB. Hence wherever possible, it's best to ensure that you can navigate to achieve a Sector 2 join if approaching from non-holding direction! Usually achievable as the holding radial is normally aligned with the arrival route...and there's a 5 deg flexibility to benefit from!
Trying to make good the inbound track after turning back to the beacon during the Sector 1 (Parallel) entry is going to be quite difficult in anything except low speed a/c which can achieve higher rates of turn than those which cannot achieve Rate 1 at 25 deg AoB. Hence wherever possible, it's best to ensure that you can navigate to achieve a Sector 2 join if approaching from non-holding direction! Usually achievable as the holding radial is normally aligned with the arrival route...and there's a 5 deg flexibility to benefit from!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Making a parallel entry the aircraft parallels the inbound track it does not backtrack along it. This gives the aircraft some advantage with regard to radius of turn when turing inbound.
In a racetrack when making a parallel entry it is mandatory to regain the inbound track prior to reaching the beacon.
For Calais, if the speed is below 130Kt, the aircraft can only enter the racetrack after first entering the hold.
Since you are at 120Kt, you have no choice but to make an entry to the hold and then fly the racetrack.
Regards,
DFC
In a racetrack when making a parallel entry it is mandatory to regain the inbound track prior to reaching the beacon.
For Calais, if the speed is below 130Kt, the aircraft can only enter the racetrack after first entering the hold.
Since you are at 120Kt, you have no choice but to make an entry to the hold and then fly the racetrack.
Regards,
DFC
ECON cruise, LR cruise...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, OzExpat & others, 
Looked at the wrong procedure for Albi 09, Lctr 09 indeed states a timing of 1:30 for the racetrack. However, since the navaid, tracks & altitudes are the same as for the VOR or Lctr LLZ approach to 09, the airspace protection from obstacles will be the same. Therefore, one could inform the controller that one would like to extend to 2:00 or 2:30 depending on category, and - provided that is approved - enjoy the same obstacle clearance while leaving more room to establish. But yes, 1:30 should be enough, especially if you keep 120 kt. outbound (Cat. B limit of 2:00 applies).
Bookworm, yes, indeed without DME or any other supplemental naviagtion, you face the same problem as in Amiens. 1 round in the racetrack probably required. And absolutely right, you cannot dsc before being established on the inbound track, so no dsc below procedure altitude during the turn.
DFC, sorry, but cannot see why an aircraft flying less than 130 KIAS cannot make a paralllel entry to the racetrack, time outbound to 2:00 as described on the plate, and then make the inbound turn from there? Or even go al the way to DIPKA at MK DME 9,6, then turn inbound? Especially since the initial & intermediate approach altitudes are at the MSA, AFAIK we could proceed on MK brg 063 deg. until 23,5 NM and then turn inbound (allowing 1,5 NM turn radius). You are spot on on the requirement to track the inbound course in a racetrack after a parallel entry - I must admit I do it with both holdings & racetracks, so I only have to use one procedure
- lazy as I am
Regarding the suitability of higher-speed aircraft to fit into the procedure - agree, a real PITA. Assuming that anything being CAT B or above will nowadays have B-RNAV, arriving from the WNW I would personally - in lieu of vectors - ask to self-establish via DIPKA. Avoids the speed/config hazzle - again being a lazy pilot beliving in making it the easiest way - when that also turns out to be the safest way.
Best reagrds to all from
Empty.
Once again - lydsexia slrikes beck :doh:
Looked at the wrong procedure for Albi 09, Lctr 09 indeed states a timing of 1:30 for the racetrack. However, since the navaid, tracks & altitudes are the same as for the VOR or Lctr LLZ approach to 09, the airspace protection from obstacles will be the same. Therefore, one could inform the controller that one would like to extend to 2:00 or 2:30 depending on category, and - provided that is approved - enjoy the same obstacle clearance while leaving more room to establish. But yes, 1:30 should be enough, especially if you keep 120 kt. outbound (Cat. B limit of 2:00 applies).
Bookworm, yes, indeed without DME or any other supplemental naviagtion, you face the same problem as in Amiens. 1 round in the racetrack probably required. And absolutely right, you cannot dsc before being established on the inbound track, so no dsc below procedure altitude during the turn.
DFC, sorry, but cannot see why an aircraft flying less than 130 KIAS cannot make a paralllel entry to the racetrack, time outbound to 2:00 as described on the plate, and then make the inbound turn from there? Or even go al the way to DIPKA at MK DME 9,6, then turn inbound? Especially since the initial & intermediate approach altitudes are at the MSA, AFAIK we could proceed on MK brg 063 deg. until 23,5 NM and then turn inbound (allowing 1,5 NM turn radius). You are spot on on the requirement to track the inbound course in a racetrack after a parallel entry - I must admit I do it with both holdings & racetracks, so I only have to use one procedure
- lazy as I am Regarding the suitability of higher-speed aircraft to fit into the procedure - agree, a real PITA. Assuming that anything being CAT B or above will nowadays have B-RNAV, arriving from the WNW I would personally - in lieu of vectors - ask to self-establish via DIPKA. Avoids the speed/config hazzle - again being a lazy pilot beliving in making it the easiest way - when that also turns out to be the safest way.
Best reagrds to all from
Empty.
Once again - lydsexia slrikes beck :doh:
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Empty Cruise,
sorry, but cannot see why an aircraft flying less than 130 KIAS cannot make a paralllel entry to the racetrack
Because it says "IAS below 130Kt: Entry into racetrack only via holding" on the chart!
As for tracking out to DIPKA, that is not a parallel entry. Parallel entries do not track back along the inbound course.
At Agen, all the arrival routes are from directions that do not require a paralllel entry. The aircraft would have to be arriving from within the large Military area SW of the aerodrome to require a parallel entry.
At Albi, the AFRIC arrival does require a parallel entry. However, for the Locator approach, I would initially join the hold so that the inbound timing could be accurately determined on the racetrack entered via the hold. Note also the minimum altitude when arriving from AFRIC - one needs to loose a bit more height.
No point in rushing an approach especially when weather is on the limits!!
More important is that while you can correctly say that the racetrack altitude is the same as the MSA and you will be terrain safe ot to 25nm, the procedure must still be followed because ATC may be using certain separations from other arriving or departing flights that require you to be on the procedure........At Calais you don't have to go too far to enter the adjacent FIR!!
Regards,
DFC
sorry, but cannot see why an aircraft flying less than 130 KIAS cannot make a paralllel entry to the racetrack
Because it says "IAS below 130Kt: Entry into racetrack only via holding" on the chart!
As for tracking out to DIPKA, that is not a parallel entry. Parallel entries do not track back along the inbound course.
At Agen, all the arrival routes are from directions that do not require a paralllel entry. The aircraft would have to be arriving from within the large Military area SW of the aerodrome to require a parallel entry.
At Albi, the AFRIC arrival does require a parallel entry. However, for the Locator approach, I would initially join the hold so that the inbound timing could be accurately determined on the racetrack entered via the hold. Note also the minimum altitude when arriving from AFRIC - one needs to loose a bit more height.
No point in rushing an approach especially when weather is on the limits!!
More important is that while you can correctly say that the racetrack altitude is the same as the MSA and you will be terrain safe ot to 25nm, the procedure must still be followed because ATC may be using certain separations from other arriving or departing flights that require you to be on the procedure........At Calais you don't have to go too far to enter the adjacent FIR!!
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a picture is worth 1000 words, here's 2000's worth:
Racetrack procedures illustrated 1
Racetrack procedures illustrated 2
Racetrack procedures illustrated 1
Racetrack procedures illustrated 2
ECON cruise, LR cruise...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: MIRSI hold - give or take...
Age: 52
Posts: 568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi DFC,
Sorry, have looked at the LFAC ILS 24 again, and not able to find the note on "IAS below 130Kt: Entry into racetrack only via holding", but then again, my french is not the best
And had absolutely no intention of advocating procedures not approved by ATC. Indeed, the first paragraph in my last post should indicate that I only advocate the exact opposite.
I agree with you on rushing approaches - it has no place in commercial air traffic. All the more reason to design procedures that do not tempt pilots to rush the approach. A simple STAR over 3 or 4 waypoints should be able to get the aircraft to DIPKA on a more or less square downwind/base arrangement.
As for tracking the 063 QDR - well, without an FMC or other duplicate NAV, I would strongly recommend that pilots use track guidance where available. Looking at the design of racetrack primary obstacle clarance areas, it is clear where the margin is, and it is not on the side of the racetrack facing away from the turn. So even though Doc 8168 clearly shows that you should indeed parallel, not track, I would suggest that prudence dictates using the track guidance available, especially since WCA might be an unknown factor. A 1:30 timing will not get you into serious trouble, but a 3:00 timing when doing speeds at the upper end of the allowable range? Again, asset managemant & risk reduction strategies would indicate that using the available track guidance (i.e. tracking QDR 063) is the safer option. It does not give you the same turn advantage, but then again - never rush the approach, so if 1 more turn is required, so be it!
Regarding weather you - with ATC permission - could extend to DIPKA - well, it's not a parallel entry the way Doc 8168 describes it - but from a practical point of wiev, it will offer you the exact same benefits as a parallel entry, only with room to shoot the approach the first time, saving you some hundred kg. of fuel
Best regards from
Empty
Sorry, have looked at the LFAC ILS 24 again, and not able to find the note on "IAS below 130Kt: Entry into racetrack only via holding", but then again, my french is not the best
And had absolutely no intention of advocating procedures not approved by ATC. Indeed, the first paragraph in my last post should indicate that I only advocate the exact opposite.
I agree with you on rushing approaches - it has no place in commercial air traffic. All the more reason to design procedures that do not tempt pilots to rush the approach. A simple STAR over 3 or 4 waypoints should be able to get the aircraft to DIPKA on a more or less square downwind/base arrangement.
As for tracking the 063 QDR - well, without an FMC or other duplicate NAV, I would strongly recommend that pilots use track guidance where available. Looking at the design of racetrack primary obstacle clarance areas, it is clear where the margin is, and it is not on the side of the racetrack facing away from the turn. So even though Doc 8168 clearly shows that you should indeed parallel, not track, I would suggest that prudence dictates using the track guidance available, especially since WCA might be an unknown factor. A 1:30 timing will not get you into serious trouble, but a 3:00 timing when doing speeds at the upper end of the allowable range? Again, asset managemant & risk reduction strategies would indicate that using the available track guidance (i.e. tracking QDR 063) is the safer option. It does not give you the same turn advantage, but then again - never rush the approach, so if 1 more turn is required, so be it!
Regarding weather you - with ATC permission - could extend to DIPKA - well, it's not a parallel entry the way Doc 8168 describes it - but from a practical point of wiev, it will offer you the exact same benefits as a parallel entry, only with room to shoot the approach the first time, saving you some hundred kg. of fuel
Best regards from
Empty
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Empty,
I am using the Jeppesen Chart (11-1) dated 7 Nov 03. It has the statement in the plan view.
As for tracking the 063 QDR - well, without an FMC or other duplicate NAV, I would strongly recommend that pilots use track guidance where available........A 1:30 timing will not get you into serious trouble, but a 3:00 timing when doing speeds at the upper end of the allowable range? Again, asset managemant & risk reduction strategies would indicate that using the available track guidance (i.e. tracking QDR 063) is the safer option.......
It is possible to judge that the aircraft is not diverging from the requirement to parallel the inbound without an FMS...simply use the NDB and DME to orientate oneself. Remember also that drift increases as speed reduces. Thus the faster the airspeed used in the procedure, the less the aircraft will drift due to uncorrected or a not fully corrected crosswind component. (At 120 Kt one has 1 degree of drift for every 2Kt of crosswind......at 180Kt is is 1 degree for every 3Kt!.......quite a change if there is a 20 or 30Kt crosswind!)
DIPKA is a fix used in the arrival from KOK. That is all. It has no relevance in the racetrack procedure. In fact at the maximum speed of 160Kt, an aircraft would be abeam DIPKA in the inbound turn.
Overall I can't see a problem with the procedure. Perhaps with a strong easterly wind one could make hard work but a 60deg intercept should be no problem and since such an approach would end in a ciccle to land, the reduced height loss required makes it easier.
Regards,
DFC
I am using the Jeppesen Chart (11-1) dated 7 Nov 03. It has the statement in the plan view.
As for tracking the 063 QDR - well, without an FMC or other duplicate NAV, I would strongly recommend that pilots use track guidance where available........A 1:30 timing will not get you into serious trouble, but a 3:00 timing when doing speeds at the upper end of the allowable range? Again, asset managemant & risk reduction strategies would indicate that using the available track guidance (i.e. tracking QDR 063) is the safer option.......
It is possible to judge that the aircraft is not diverging from the requirement to parallel the inbound without an FMS...simply use the NDB and DME to orientate oneself. Remember also that drift increases as speed reduces. Thus the faster the airspeed used in the procedure, the less the aircraft will drift due to uncorrected or a not fully corrected crosswind component. (At 120 Kt one has 1 degree of drift for every 2Kt of crosswind......at 180Kt is is 1 degree for every 3Kt!.......quite a change if there is a 20 or 30Kt crosswind!)
DIPKA is a fix used in the arrival from KOK. That is all. It has no relevance in the racetrack procedure. In fact at the maximum speed of 160Kt, an aircraft would be abeam DIPKA in the inbound turn.
Overall I can't see a problem with the procedure. Perhaps with a strong easterly wind one could make hard work but a 60deg intercept should be no problem and since such an approach would end in a ciccle to land, the reduced height loss required makes it easier.
Regards,
DFC
Thread Starter
"IAS below 130Kt: Entry into racetrack only via holding"
It's an interesting interpretation: the French says:
"* Les entrées dans l'hippodrome de 1 min 30 sont protégées"
i.e. Racetrack entries of 1 min 30 s are protected.
I'm not sure how you're supposed to come to grief after 2 minutes at 120 KIAS but not after 1 min 30 s at 160 KIAS.
But anyway, let's assume you're flying a sector 1 entry at 150 kt for 1 min 30. That's 3.75 nm. Thus turning through 243 on the left turn inbound you might be 1.6 miles north of track and if you take a 45 degree intercept you'll intercept the localiser about 0.3 miles after the glideslope intercept point, allowing no time to make the 45 degree right turn back on to the inbound track. So it's almost impossible to fly. Less than 150 kt makes it worse, of course.
Albi L 09, also using a sector 1 join with a 45 degree intercept, allows you to intercept the inbound just 40 seconds before crossing the beacon inbound, where the charted altitude is 950 ft below the turn altitude. Put another way, from intercept you have 1 min 20 s to the threshold 1636 ft below. It's about 500 ft/nm gradient.
It just surprises me that the procedures are designed that way, if I'm correctly interpreting the prohibition on descent until established.
I am using the Jeppesen Chart (11-1) dated 7 Nov 03. It has the statement in the plan view.
"* Les entrées dans l'hippodrome de 1 min 30 sont protégées"
i.e. Racetrack entries of 1 min 30 s are protected.
I'm not sure how you're supposed to come to grief after 2 minutes at 120 KIAS but not after 1 min 30 s at 160 KIAS.
But anyway, let's assume you're flying a sector 1 entry at 150 kt for 1 min 30. That's 3.75 nm. Thus turning through 243 on the left turn inbound you might be 1.6 miles north of track and if you take a 45 degree intercept you'll intercept the localiser about 0.3 miles after the glideslope intercept point, allowing no time to make the 45 degree right turn back on to the inbound track. So it's almost impossible to fly. Less than 150 kt makes it worse, of course.
Albi L 09, also using a sector 1 join with a 45 degree intercept, allows you to intercept the inbound just 40 seconds before crossing the beacon inbound, where the charted altitude is 950 ft below the turn altitude. Put another way, from intercept you have 1 min 20 s to the threshold 1636 ft below. It's about 500 ft/nm gradient.
It just surprises me that the procedures are designed that way, if I'm correctly interpreting the prohibition on descent until established.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pilot-H. Thanks for the illustration "Racetrack Illustrated 1" This confirms that one should intercept the inbound track on completion of the first part of the parallel entry and not merely head toward the aid on any heading. This is what my company teaches in the 737 simulator and is looked for in an instrument rating test. No problem at all at 220 knots.