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?

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 ]

indicates reaching 1400 before turning.

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

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?

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,

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

: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:

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.

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?

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.

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!!

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. :)

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.

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 :)

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

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

Just looked this up in Aerads, and the wording is lsightly different:
I'll let you carry on with the interesting discussion! :p

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.

....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!

411A, I think you have missed the point.

In the absence of ATC instructions to the contrary (previously) how would you fly a missed approach following a communications failure?

The original query is very sound and professional - if there is something on an approach chart which appears ambiguous then it behoves any professional pilot to check it out!

Well then, fireflybob, in the situation you mention, one should fly the published missed approach. That is precisely why it is published, to give the pilot guideance in the event landing is not possible.
ATC's responsibility is to separate aircraft. This is NOT the pilots job.
Have been to Faro many times and would certainly not describe it as a "death trap".
Lets get real about these things, and give the ATC guys a break.
Besides, the last time I was there, the radar worked really well.

411A, you have definitely missed the point.

Never been to Faro, but now I'm curious what the local AIP says about it. Who's going to look it up for everyone?

411a Please state, at what altitudes, and where on it,and in listed sequence, you would change these altitudes, on this published plate.

.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was the ILS up and running too 411A? :p

[ 15 October 2001: Message edited by: Bally Heck ]

No Bally Heck, VOR/DME approaches only as I recall, with a visual nearly every time. Very friendly folks.

And scanscanscan, precisely what is says, climb to 1400 on the radial, then continue to climb to 3000 to the fix. 'Tis NOT rocket science. The Apollo program ended years ago. :rolleyes:

411a Thank you, however as the fix is on the concerned radial what is the reason and significence of the mention of 1400ft.

Bally - I don't know the answer. I expect that Jepps form part of your ops manual and you are entitled to ask them - they should have the original from which the translation came. It would not be the first time a mistake had been made in translation by a chart provider. As said above, the only real reference is the AIP for Portugal, but you could start at Jeppesen

Thanks BOAC
I emailed the Portuguese AIP people last night. Interested to see if I get an answer.

This is the quote from the first post:

"Climb on R-289 to 1400' then proceed to the VFA10 holding climbing to 3000' and contact Faro APP."

A subsequent reply says the 25 nm MSA is 1400 ft, which for my response, I will asssume to be correct.

I have never been to Faro, but would read the procedure to mean get to 1400 ft (MSA) on R 289, THEN track to VFA10 on climb to 3000 ft.

i.e. THE CLIMB IS CONTINUOUS from the Missed Approach Point until reaching 3000 ft.

IMHO, too much is being read into this procedure. I have seen similar wording for the MA for other airports in Europe/Middle East.

I use military charts frequently. These charts say: "MISSED APPROACH Climb on VFA R-289 to 3000. When passing 1400 proceed to VFA 10 Holding. Contact approach control."

It seems simple enough.

Bally - Your questions and concerns are valid. Good question, good discussion.

If I might be permitted to stick my oar in. The only copy of the Faro plates I can lay my hands on are the Jeppesen ones produced for Microsoft flight sim and I'm assuming that you are talking about plate 13-2 VOR/DME 28.

Firstly the West hold has a MHA of 3000' so I can see your problem with regard to the goaround BUT the only conflict will come from another goaround NOT an arcraft making an approach as there is a remark on the plate that says "Alt procdure - Leave the VOR not below 4000' etc etc" (It is beyond compehension that anyone would hold at VFA west at 3000' and then climb to 4000' to start the approach.

With regard to your point about the 1400' point and the next way point being on the same radial - they might not be!
Assuming I make an approach to the MDA of 460' I will reach that point just after the NDB. My company SOP is to immediately fly the missed approach if nothing is seen (ie not to fly level to the MAP). We will easily pass 1400' before we even get to the VOR so we will be going from the inbound radial of 281 direct to VFA west climbing to 3000' which will keep us nicely under the aircraft that is commencing its approach at 4000' overhead the VOR and never have to intercept the 289 radial.

Flap40
edited for spelling!

[ 22 October 2001: Message edited by: Flap40 ]

I've never been to Faro, or seen any approach charts for the place. But I am an instrument procedure designer so maybe I can add a few relevant comments.

To take issue with a few points raised back on page 1, the procedure designer works in consultation with ATC for ALL procedures in controlled airspace. The designer does not have to account for aircraft separation as this is ATC's job. That's why we consult with the ATCOs so much.

We can also have approaches to each end of a runway and have the Missed Approach for one going toward the FAF for the approach serving the opposite end of the runway. This is precisely because we consult with ATC and logic dictates that, when weather warrants use of a particular runway, ALL TRAFFIC will be directed to the relevant approach by ATC.

Designers have enough problems ensuring terrain clearance and containment within controlled airspace. We also have to ensure the missed approach has adequate length in which to climb to whatever altitude is needed, at 152FT/NM - the well-known 2.5% gradient. Note that we DON'T CARE about the one-engine inoperative case. That is something between your company SOPs and your regulating authority.

Okay, now, if the 25 MSA is 1400FT, is this just in one sector or all around the navaid? If it's in one sector, is the 10DME holding pattern in that same sector? The reason I ask this is that, if terrain is not at issue, then holding at 3,000 or even 4,000 FT for that matter, is either an ATC or airspace containment issue.

If you don't know the way to interpret the chart, your first line of enquiry is to your company's Safety rep (however you refer to the person in charge of operational safety issues in your organisation). Or your C+T folks, or your Fleet Captain or Chief Pilot.

Finally, yes, as someone else has already stated, Jeppesen really does make the occasional error. Seeking clarification from them is a good move, but that really is best done by your company's Chief Pilot or Fleet Captain, etc. My experience of them is that they DO check their information with the regulating authority and, if they are wrong, they'll fix it PDQ.

Hope this has helped to un-muddy the waters a bit.

No reply from the Portuguese so far. Check 6, your chart seems to have unambiguous wording.

The point becoming clear from this discussion is that after several days of discussion, it is still not clear which is the correct procedure based on the Jepps (and Aerad) wording. How is a crew supposed to brief themselves on the correct procedure in a few seconds. Jeppesens do not seem to have consistent standard wording on all their charts.

A point I brought up a couple of months ago on this forum (which was moved to questions) was the departure charts for certain aerodromes where the go around climb gradients are in the narrative, but the stop height is located elswhere and less obviously on the chart. I am sure many of you have seen this and how easy it would be to miss.

It would be nice if safety related procedures were made clear, unambiguous and easy to understand.

I fly to Faro often and always understood it as a continuous climb! as far as I can see there is no restrictions at 1400'; I will try to check on the Portuguese AIP!

And another thing.......
What exactly is a "holding"?

I know what a holding point, holding pattern etc is.

But a Holding??

Surely this is not ICAO nomenclature. :confused:

Gee I wonder how I can possibly make myself any clearer? Okay, let's try the blunt approach...

As a line pilot, it's not up to you to interpret the chart when you have a problem with it. That's the job of your Fleet Captain, Flight Captain, Line Captain, Safety Captain (or as applicable to your particular company), or your C+T folks.

If they have the same problem then they can sort it out pretty quickly, directly with Jepps. They do, after all, have an up-to-date AIP for every country for which they provide procedures.

I don't find the Jeppesen ambiguous. It's worded as almost every other chart that specifies a continuous climb - i.e. climbing!

If you were to stop your climb it would have been specified with then climb.

You may be correct Cosmo. But then why even bother mentioning 1400'. If you are correct then this part is completely and utterly superfluous. It shouldn't be there.

Unless you go around from above 1400', you have no choice but to pass through 1400' on the way to 3000'.

Unless I am mistaking there is nothing that prevents you from maneuvering after passing 1400 feet.

How about this:
"Climb to 1400 feet on R289, then maneuver as you please (if you prefer a teardrop rather than a parallel) to go to the VFA10 holding while climbing to 3000 feet".