Easy question about the Bournemouth NDB/DME 26
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ???
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe - I do have issues with those of you insisting on being within 5 degrees of the outbound leg- have you ever tried overflying and establishing on a new outbound radial and staying within 5 degrees? Until you get at least a few miles out, you can't really establish, so 5 degrees is a bit tall
I get your point but u need to be +- 5 degrees outbound inorder to descend from 3000' to 2030' outbound
I get your point but u need to be +- 5 degrees outbound inorder to descend from 3000' to 2030' outbound
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rainboe
I do have issues with those of you insisting on being within 5 degrees of the outbound leg- have you ever tried overflying and establishing on a new outbound radial and staying within 5 degrees? Until you get at least a few miles out, you can't really establish, so 5 degrees is a bit tall.
Safe flying.
PP
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Brazil
Age: 67
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opinion on laptop tool
Hello! I´m from Brazil and I fly as a B737 for GOL Airlines. I´m also the tecnical advisor for our Technical Vice-President. I wonder if you could help me with some advice about the laptop tool. If not, maybe you could tell me someone who could help me with that issue. My e-mail is: [email protected]. Thanks!
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PP... Perhaps I worded my previous post a bit clumsily but the fact of the matter is that, once beyond the beacon in this particular procedure, I can see nothing at all wrong with descending from 3000 feet to 2300 feet, whether I'm on track or not. I'm simly using the worst case MSA to limit my descent on the outbound leg and, after all, this is higher than the 2030 feet minimum stated in the procedure.
I can use that descent while maneouvring to intercept the outbound track by no later than 6.5 DME. There's some pretty simple pictorial maths that will help me to achieve that and so, once there, I can simply establish a 3-degree descent during the turn to the inbound and I'll be at 4.5 DME at the appropriate limiting altitude. Therefore, I'll be able to continue the descent on track.
I've been a procedure designer for 20 years and have been flying approaches for a lot longer than that. I like to look at all the information on that chart, to help me plan a simple, safe approach that keeps me stablilised on a 3-degree approach as much as possible. When I devise an approach, I take all of that into consideration as well.
Incidentally, in this part of the world, there is no requirement to be established on the outbound track until the DME limit, or expiry of the outbound time limit (if there's no DME limit quoted). The only proviso is that the pilot must be on an intercept heading - i.e. no sustained off-track error that might cause the aircraft to leave the protection area. This was done in recognition of the fact that aircraft can enter the outbound leg of an approach from a 30-degree offset and is unlikely to be able to positively identify the outbound track until beyond the NDB - due to the entry track, perhaps exacerbated by thunderstorms, coastal effect, etc...
Somoes... I'm sorry, what sort of laptop tool are you referring to?
I can use that descent while maneouvring to intercept the outbound track by no later than 6.5 DME. There's some pretty simple pictorial maths that will help me to achieve that and so, once there, I can simply establish a 3-degree descent during the turn to the inbound and I'll be at 4.5 DME at the appropriate limiting altitude. Therefore, I'll be able to continue the descent on track.
I've been a procedure designer for 20 years and have been flying approaches for a lot longer than that. I like to look at all the information on that chart, to help me plan a simple, safe approach that keeps me stablilised on a 3-degree approach as much as possible. When I devise an approach, I take all of that into consideration as well.
Incidentally, in this part of the world, there is no requirement to be established on the outbound track until the DME limit, or expiry of the outbound time limit (if there's no DME limit quoted). The only proviso is that the pilot must be on an intercept heading - i.e. no sustained off-track error that might cause the aircraft to leave the protection area. This was done in recognition of the fact that aircraft can enter the outbound leg of an approach from a 30-degree offset and is unlikely to be able to positively identify the outbound track until beyond the NDB - due to the entry track, perhaps exacerbated by thunderstorms, coastal effect, etc...
Somoes... I'm sorry, what sort of laptop tool are you referring to?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oz I completely agree! It's all in the power of the written word (or lack of!), I am sure over a beer we would have sorted this one much sooner! I completely agree that above MSA you can be where you want until the defined point at the end of the outbound leg, but, and this is for the inexperienced posing questions here, it must be within reason. For instance, I had a training partner during my IR training who went over the beacon once in a hold and never got over it again after 3 holds!!!
It is worth bearing in mind that in a procedural appraoch ATC will be separating traffic from position reports by the traffic, so if not where you are saying you are there could be poblems! Also, for an IR test you would fail due to inability to track, even if you were above MSA and safe!
PP
It is worth bearing in mind that in a procedural appraoch ATC will be separating traffic from position reports by the traffic, so if not where you are saying you are there could be poblems! Also, for an IR test you would fail due to inability to track, even if you were above MSA and safe!PP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Essex
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the above replies.
A question about this business of 5 degrees outbound. For instance, I realise you would fail an IR test, however why do some plates then have different outbound legs for different classes of aircraft? For instance, an example. If you were cat C or D in your B757 you may be tracking outbound say at 65 degrees + 5 degrees = 70 degrees -and your STILL safe; HOWEVER if you were flying your Piper (cat A) you may be tracking 60 degrees outbound ( or whatever the plate said -due to the radius of turn) +5 degrees = 65 degrees. However, if you were tracking 66 degrees outbound you would be illegal and UNSAFE??? So whats different??!!! The only thing is the type of aircraft used.
I'm playing devil's advocate now
but just wondering???!!
A question about this business of 5 degrees outbound. For instance, I realise you would fail an IR test, however why do some plates then have different outbound legs for different classes of aircraft? For instance, an example. If you were cat C or D in your B757 you may be tracking outbound say at 65 degrees + 5 degrees = 70 degrees -and your STILL safe; HOWEVER if you were flying your Piper (cat A) you may be tracking 60 degrees outbound ( or whatever the plate said -due to the radius of turn) +5 degrees = 65 degrees. However, if you were tracking 66 degrees outbound you would be illegal and UNSAFE??? So whats different??!!! The only thing is the type of aircraft used.
I'm playing devil's advocate now
but just wondering???!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why do some plates then have different outbound legs for different classes of aircraft?
PP
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concur PP, I was most assuredly forgetting about the inexperienced folks. As for the bloke who couldn't find the aid after 3 times around the hold... well, at least we know that we won't be sharing the same airspace with him in IFR conditions! 
Doubtless we'd still be able to sort out a few of aviation's ills and furphies over a glass of something alcoholic... I hope to have such an opportunity in London around August, or thereabouts. 
machlimter99, just to clarify the response to your question by PP, you'll notice that, even though initial approach tracks vary, the final approach track is common to all. The splay between the various outbound tracks and the single inbound track is designed to accommodate the radius of turn at the maximum speed for the aircraft category.
It's certainly true to say that, if you are 5-degrees, or more, off track in your Cat. A or B aeroplane, you're still likely to be within the procedure protection area. However, there is a very remote possibility that your slow speed aeroplane might be blown outside the protection area during the base turn, as you are not where you're supposed to be and, therefore, any residual protection is a function of the airspeed used by the higher category aircraft for the same base turn.
This possibility arises because you're in the situation of having to turn through more degrees, which will therefore take longer and, in an adverse wind situation, you will drift further away from the beacon and therefore face the possibility of an excursion beyond the protection area.
The far more likely problem however is one of practicality. The larger turn will take longer to complete and it will therefore take you longer to establish the aircraft within the legal tracking tolerance and, therefore, cannot descend in the final segment so readily. While you're struggling with the intercept, you're getting closer to the beacon (and the missed approach point too, of course).
Each procedure is designed in such a way that it will provide enough time to descend to MDA (indeed to descend to threshold crossing height) in the final segment. You're already using up quite a bit of that time just to join final approach and will therefore be most unlikely to have enough time available to reach MDA in an orderly and safe manner.
All of that having been said, as an examiner, I have failed candidates who can't stay within their tracking tolerances in any segment of an approach. And, yes, I once failed a candidate in the very situation under discussion. My reasoning was that, as he couldn't get the basics right, he didn't deserve the qualification.
Doubtless we'd still be able to sort out a few of aviation's ills and furphies over a glass of something alcoholic... I hope to have such an opportunity in London around August, or thereabouts. machlimter99, just to clarify the response to your question by PP, you'll notice that, even though initial approach tracks vary, the final approach track is common to all. The splay between the various outbound tracks and the single inbound track is designed to accommodate the radius of turn at the maximum speed for the aircraft category.
It's certainly true to say that, if you are 5-degrees, or more, off track in your Cat. A or B aeroplane, you're still likely to be within the procedure protection area. However, there is a very remote possibility that your slow speed aeroplane might be blown outside the protection area during the base turn, as you are not where you're supposed to be and, therefore, any residual protection is a function of the airspeed used by the higher category aircraft for the same base turn.
This possibility arises because you're in the situation of having to turn through more degrees, which will therefore take longer and, in an adverse wind situation, you will drift further away from the beacon and therefore face the possibility of an excursion beyond the protection area.
The far more likely problem however is one of practicality. The larger turn will take longer to complete and it will therefore take you longer to establish the aircraft within the legal tracking tolerance and, therefore, cannot descend in the final segment so readily. While you're struggling with the intercept, you're getting closer to the beacon (and the missed approach point too, of course).
Each procedure is designed in such a way that it will provide enough time to descend to MDA (indeed to descend to threshold crossing height) in the final segment. You're already using up quite a bit of that time just to join final approach and will therefore be most unlikely to have enough time available to reach MDA in an orderly and safe manner.
All of that having been said, as an examiner, I have failed candidates who can't stay within their tracking tolerances in any segment of an approach. And, yes, I once failed a candidate in the very situation under discussion. My reasoning was that, as he couldn't get the basics right, he didn't deserve the qualification.
