PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Tech Log (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log-15/)
-   -   Jeppesen Charts (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/10489-jeppesen-charts.html)

Bally Heck 10th Oct 2001 03:34

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?

Diesel8 10th Oct 2001 05:08

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 ]

stator vane 10th Oct 2001 17:55

indicates reaching 1400 before turning.

Bally Heck 10th Oct 2001 22:54

But there is no turn. The VFA 10 fix is on the same 289 radial that the 1400' height restraint is on.

cosmo kramer 11th Oct 2001 00:10

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?

Bally Heck 11th Oct 2001 13:38

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,

ft 12th Oct 2001 14:55

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

Bally Heck 12th Oct 2001 19:49

:confused: 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. :confused:

Canuck_AV8R 12th Oct 2001 21:13

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.

Bally Heck 13th Oct 2001 00:46

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?

NextLeftAndCallGround 13th Oct 2001 02:17

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.

Bally Heck 13th Oct 2001 03:39

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!!

UP2ZSKY 13th Oct 2001 08:38

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. :)

cosmo kramer 13th Oct 2001 11:44

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.

Bally Heck 13th Oct 2001 13:40

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 :)

cosmo kramer 13th Oct 2001 15:15

In that case why 1400 feet and not 2000 feet? Why the need for 1600 seperation? Something is not right in your deduction.

Bally Heck 13th Oct 2001 23:05

Could well be. Damned if I can think of another good explanation though. :confused:

IFollowRoads 14th Oct 2001 21:25

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! :p

fireflybob 14th Oct 2001 22:35

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.

411A 15th Oct 2001 00:42

....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!


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:36.


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