MAPt/DA - LOWG
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, hv- that's a bit worrying!
The Jepp chart is indeed a mess to be honest. With the luxury of the armchair I cannot see any reason why you could not fly a steeper profile to hit 1500 at the VOR/MAP - the only 'min' I can see is 2300 at the NDB. I have always viewed the DME/alts as 'advisory'.
The Jepp chart is indeed a mess to be honest. With the luxury of the armchair I cannot see any reason why you could not fly a steeper profile to hit 1500 at the VOR/MAP - the only 'min' I can see is 2300 at the NDB. I have always viewed the DME/alts as 'advisory'.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure how they justified the 322'/nm at 3.03° nor the 3.15°
You would be in for quite a surprise crossing the NDB at 2300...
This procedure would be quite the adventure with a CAT C or CAT D aircraft.
On a side note, many State NPA chart standards use distance to the DA, which is much more useful on the display, rather than time...
Min altitudes..
You would be in for quite a surprise crossing the NDB at 2300...
This procedure would be quite the adventure with a CAT C or CAT D aircraft.
On a side note, many State NPA chart standards use distance to the DA, which is much more useful on the display, rather than time...
Min altitudes..
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anyone going to ask Jepp how 322'/nm is 3.03° ?
it looks like they have segment mins at 3300 and 2300...
and the min chart...oh..never mind...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's actually very nice to see I'm not the only one who doesn't fully understand the chart made by Jeppesen - nevertheless, it wouldn't be good to use such unclear chart, when you are forced to fly the procedure to minimums in IMC (e.g. ILS inop.), so I've contacted Jeppesen and I've yet to get a response.
Of course, but why isn't the procedure then designed or better said - depicted by Jeppesen so that you reach DA (which in this case is also MDA and OCA, as can be seen in AIP chart) at or before MAPt, which is usually the case with CDFA non-precision approaches in European countries? Most of the procedures I've seen and flown are designed so that if you're on "glideslope" during CDFA NPA (according to DME vs. altitued table), you are able to get to the published DA before reaching MAPt. I see little point in publishing procedure where you either can't get to published DA, if you maintain published angle of descent, either you can't maintain the angle if you descend to published DA.
Originally Posted by BOAC
I have always viewed the DME/alts as 'advisory'.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Converting existing procedures to make them look like something else, is always fraught with error.
in the case of the AIP chart you provided, a pure OCH...so your DA would have to be above that to include momentary descent.
in the case of the AIP chart you provided, a pure OCH...so your DA would have to be above that to include momentary descent.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure, your actual DA would have to be higher, but Jeppesen's DA can equal OCH for non-precision approaches:
So basically, since there is no add-on in published DA, it can be the same as OCA, if OCA is higher than system minimum for relevant approach.
According to EU-OPS requirements, all non-precision approaches shall be flown using the continuous descent final approach (CDFA) technique with decision altitude (height), and the missed approach shall be executed when reaching the DA(H) or the missed approach point (MAP), whichever occurs first. The lateral part of the missed approach procedure must be flown via the MAP unless stated otherwise in the procedure. Normally only CDFA minimums are shown. These are identified by the use of a DA(H). Jeppesen does not include an add-on when publishing a DA(H) for a CDFA non-precision approach. Non-CDFA minimums are shown in exceptional cases and identified by an MDA(H).
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyingStone #27 - I fully agree and would be interested in any reply from Jepp.
Anyone - I am not familiar with the Austrian AIC legends, but why is there a little 'plateau' at the NDB, plus a 5.3% grad up to it (which seems to apply ONLY to the straight-in) and nothing shown after it? The chart as published does not look like a CDFA so I guess you would need to 'add' for mum if you were using the AIP OCA/H?
Quite honestly I think the whole Jepp chart as shown is a dog's breakfast!
Anyone - I am not familiar with the Austrian AIC legends, but why is there a little 'plateau' at the NDB, plus a 5.3% grad up to it (which seems to apply ONLY to the straight-in) and nothing shown after it? The chart as published does not look like a CDFA so I guess you would need to 'add' for mum if you were using the AIP OCA/H?
Quite honestly I think the whole Jepp chart as shown is a dog's breakfast!
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyingStone #27 - I fully agree and would be interested in any reply from Jepp.
Anyone - I am not familiar with the Austrian AIC legends, but why is there a little 'plateau' at the NDB, plus a 5.3% grad up to it (which seems to apply ONLY to the straight-in) and nothing shown after it? The chart as published does not look like a CDFA so I guess you would need to 'add' for mum if you were using the AIP OCA/H?
Quite honestly I think the whole Jepp chart as shown is a dog's breakfast!
Anyone - I am not familiar with the Austrian AIC legends, but why is there a little 'plateau' at the NDB, plus a 5.3% grad up to it (which seems to apply ONLY to the straight-in) and nothing shown after it? The chart as published does not look like a CDFA so I guess you would need to 'add' for mum if you were using the AIP OCA/H?
Quite honestly I think the whole Jepp chart as shown is a dog's breakfast!
If you would like to persue it with Jeppesen their email is:
[email protected]
The Frankfurt office handles that region of the world. Their telephone number is: +49 6102 508270
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thought you worked for them? No, I cannot be bothered and I believe FS is 'on the case'. I know what I would do if I had to, but I reckon picking up the Jepp chart before ToD to brief it would have been a challenge.
That LIDO chart makes the Jepp chart look positively amatuerish. But even then, it does not show the real issue: that you'll get to the MAPt before the MDA. The grey-shaded MDA step limit should be below the glidepath/MAPt point, not above. Nice DME/Altitude scale... 
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MD - refer EUOPS and #29.
It seems no-one can get this quite right! A little concerning. Interesting that LIDO publish a true CDFA from 5.1D but no sign of a gradient or GP angle.
It seems no-one can get this quite right! A little concerning. Interesting that LIDO publish a true CDFA from 5.1D but no sign of a gradient or GP angle.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The minimum OCH according to PansOps for CAT C 591, CAT D 689,
so as this chart includes CAT D, the OCH/MDA would be 1089+689= 1778.
The chart is being literal in showing the MDA/OCH, and still using the VOR as the MAPt. REcent charting changes now show both the glide path and the segment minimums, especially when there are multiple entry points.
so as this chart includes CAT D, the OCH/MDA would be 1089+689= 1778.
The chart is being literal in showing the MDA/OCH, and still using the VOR as the MAPt. REcent charting changes now show both the glide path and the segment minimums, especially when there are multiple entry points.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Descent angle on LIDO chart is written above the profile view to the right, below transition altitude and reads 3.14°. Again interesting, it seems that only the AIP chart shows that you are 1500ft when overhead GRZ VOR, LIDO shows 1600ft, the same as Jeppesen. Still no response from Jeppesen though.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlightPathOBN: The table you provided is for circling approaches. Minimal obstacle clearance (MOC) for all aircraft is 246 ft for a non-precision approach with FAF.
OCH = MOC + obstacle height
OCH = MOC + obstacle height
)