TDZE replaced with RWY on Jeppesen.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What have Jeppesen replace the TDZE with runway elevation in the new charts?
In the U.S. the FAA changed from TDZ elevation to threshold elevation a couple of years ago. But, it shows up slowly as procedures are revised by the FAA.
I don't know whether any other country has done the same.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like everywhere... Or everywhere I fly to... Which is India, UAE, Singapore and Thailand...
Don't know why they'd change it.......
Don't know why they'd change it.......
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
underfire:
True.
I wouldn't agree with that.
For all these years, until about two years ago, straight-in minimums in TERPs were predicated on the TDZ elevation, the highest elevation in the first 3,000 feet of the runway.
Hard to have TCH without threshold elevation...
TCH is the foundation of the procedures.
For all these years, until about two years ago, straight-in minimums in TERPs were predicated on the TDZ elevation, the highest elevation in the first 3,000 feet of the runway.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I say that because the TCH is the point where the Approach and Missed lines intersect.
Note that RWY is NOT the threshold per FAA stds, it is the edge of pavement.
Anything coded has used TCH, and unfortunately runway endpoint, not elevation at the threshold.
Dont agree, the TCH runway elevation in any FAA database has always been the edge of pavement. One had to check the highest elevation in the first 3000, just to make sure you wouldnt keep floating down the runway (like the orginal PSP design!)
Think about that, a runway 3000' long, at a 2 percent slope, would be 60 feet higher at one end. You would base the TCH on that? (most ac land well before 3000 feet past TCH)
Note that RWY is NOT the threshold per FAA stds, it is the edge of pavement.
Anything coded has used TCH, and unfortunately runway endpoint, not elevation at the threshold.
For all these years, until about two years ago, straight-in minimums in TERPs were predicated on the TDZ elevation, the highest elevation in the first 3,000 feet of the runway.
Think about that, a runway 3000' long, at a 2 percent slope, would be 60 feet higher at one end. You would base the TCH on that? (most ac land well before 3000 feet past TCH)
Last edited by underfire; 5th Mar 2014 at 07:00.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
underfire:
You aren't conversant with TERPs criteria, at least with respect to TDZ vs. HATh usage.
Look it up in FAA Order 8260.3B (TERPS)
Dont agree, the TCH runway elevation in any FAA database has always been the edge of pavement. One had to check the highest elevation in the first 3000, just to make sure you wouldnt keep floating down the runway (like the orginal PSP design!)
Look it up in FAA Order 8260.3B (TERPS)
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
underfire:
That is an illustration of obstacle clearance criteria, not how minimums are computed. Also, FAAO 8260.52 no longer exists; incorporated into FAAO 8260.58 over one year ago. In any case calculation of MDA or DA is still in FAAO 8260.3B, Chapter 3.
I know exactly what TARGETS uses. (8260.52)
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no, that is exactly how the elevation of LTP, the foundation of the origin of GPA is calculated.
8260.52 has a good illustration of the calc of LTP, but 8260.58 dose it the same exact way.
From 8260.58
OCS origin is BASED on LTP, but LTP calc is the foundation of virtually all of the calcs.
Please tell me you are not actively designing procedures...
8260.52 has a good illustration of the calc of LTP, but 8260.58 dose it the same exact way.
From 8260.58
OCS origin is BASED on LTP, but LTP calc is the foundation of virtually all of the calcs.
Please tell me you are not actively designing procedures...
Last edited by underfire; 7th Mar 2014 at 03:09.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
underfire:
Nonetheless, that derived value is then subject to all the criteria, conditions, and limitations of 8260.3B, Chapter 3, "Takeoff and Landing Minimums."
Nonetheless, that derived value is then subject to all the criteria, conditions, and limitations of 8260.3B, Chapter 3, "Takeoff and Landing Minimums."
