The hills are further than 5 miles no?:8

I vote for the OP to ask ATC and be done with it:ok:

Full Wings - judging by the raft of opinion here I offer the thought that the wording is 'strange' enough?

Re the 1250', as Cough says, "would *you" expect to be still struggling for 1250' 7nm from g/a?

"would *you* level off at 1250' and head into the hills if you were doing this for real...?"- from your interpretation, yes, you would have at least 'wait' for 1250' (not 'level off'/'heading into the hills') regardless of position! Looking at the charts there is actually nothing to 'bother' you at 1250' well out, past 12nm.

Hmm,

Methinks the OP would only be able to ask a virtual ATC unit... Certainly if the 'Airline' he works for is as linked in the original post!

Security issues at LTAI? Apparently not if you're a pink unicorn.

Schoolgirl, 9, passes through Turkish customs with toy passport identifying her as a UNICORN | Mail Online

Apologies if this is off topic, but it's at least mildly entertaining. (Even if it IS the DM, which probably means it's a load of bullocks. Still, at least they didn't blame it on immigrants...) ;)

I haven't been there but it appears a 750'+ hill at 5 miles. The 4,000' MSA contour on the chart I've got starts at 9nm in the direction of the 330 radial.

There are several reasons why I think it is an unrestricted climb to 2,700': a) because the chart(s) effectively say that, b) you can't set 1250' for a go-around on your average airliner AFDS (MCP/FCU or whatever) and c) because it's much more sensible to do it that way.

LTAI is a place I go within range of on the way to/from the Middle and Far East so I might need to divert there one day. I've seen nothing in our documentation (Navtech) that precludes direct climbs to the final altitude on the missed approaches and that's the way I'd fly it if I had to do it tomorrow...

I have to say, having read the Jeppesen plate several times, I can see nothing there that suggests levelling-off at 1250ft.

- better have a word with Navtech? Make that the 1000' contour at about 12nm?

:uhoh:

Please tell me that all IFR pilots understand the differences...


http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps74137ef2.png

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps35cafd08.png


http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps50ac2239.png



http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps9f79c7cc.png

I won't make excuses for them as they make as many mistakes as anyone else but there is a big difference, as you know, between an elevation contour (as depicted on Jep. chart 10-10) and an MSA envelope, which is what I'm looking at. Both can be correct and still give the information we've extracted...

Missed the 'MSA', sorry! What use is this 4000' 'MSA' contour in a MSA sector of 10,000'?

Say you were coming in from an angle, or were cleared down by ATC, you could check your radial/distance and see whether it made sense, if there wasn't a published vectoring chart or to back it up if there was. Our quadrantal MSA (SSA) is determined by the highest obstacle in the "cheese", which may be up to 30 miles away and 90degs off course. Nice to have a map with this kind of thing on (which is the only good bit on the Navtech charts).

MSA for us = Minimum Safe Altitude, which gives approved vertical clearance within a specified area (envelope). Sector Safe Altitude (SSA) = quadrantal application of same.

Gents, consider this

Two aircraft on approach, minimum separation. Both go missed. The first gets to 5D turns inbound. The second ignores the 1250 condition and blasts up to 2700.

They are now at the same level and pointing roughly at one another.

This is a bad thing.

Tom,

But that issue isn't just confined to this airfield.... Methinks ATC would rapidly change the plan.

No, don't think so. Lets say both aircraft went around because of lost comms. The cause of the lost comms was ATC's doughnut maker exploded and their radio got fried. The aircraft that just lined up and was waiting to take off now just sits there. The first aircraft says "god dammit, can't land cos of plane on the runway and goes around". Second aircraft does the same - this is the reason that if he chooses to go missed from above the 1250 feet he should still continue down ton the 1250.

The 1250 is a definite condition. That's why it's on the immediate actions strip that everyone reads carefully three quarters of the way down the page. Then you do the missed approach instructions in order. 1250 feet. Then turn left. You must not turn left before 5D. Then climb.

It doesn't say "do all these things in any order you want"

Anyway, could be wrong, wa watching the ladies tennis and was a bit distracted.

....and there will in any case be some lateral separation.

The more likely thing is that in the event of a miss, ATC would modify the missed approach restriction if there was no conflicting traffic to climb you immediately to an appropriate hold level but the plate is trying to give a three dimensional corridor that protects us in all phases.

Anyway, not going to turkey, they have got riots and stuff going on there..

BOAC

If you can't quantify the lateral separation, there isn't any. You have no idea at what point on the outbound and inbound legs the two aircraft will be so obviously the lateral separation can't be quantified. Also, what accuracy are you assuming the radial is being flown to? What radial is the aircraft returning to the VOR flying?

And here's a question for you. Lets say you are procedural. What is the required lateral separation? If you fly this plate as it is written you maintain separation. If you want continuous climb, request it. If you can't because the tower man was tipping back on his chair and fell over and banged his head, do what it says on the plate. It isn't ambiguous. Read the immediate action strip and read the briefing strip, in order, and do what it says.

I knew there was a reason teachers used to tell me not to tip back on my chair

- so that makes you a vote for 'Stop at 1250 until 5D' then?

Not a vote, this is not a democracy.

That is what you do, it is written on the plate.

How else is standard separation maintained?

What I would do is fly exactly what is on the plate and request continuous climb to whatever level ATC wanted me to hold at.

What would you do?

I'd also do what was written on the plate, which a continuous climb to 2,700' but not turning until above 1250' AND 5DME outbound. If it were otherwise, it would be written in the manner of the examples Zeffy gave.

1250' at 5 miles in your average jet/turboprop looks like a GPWS warning as ground clearance reduces to around 500', which is one good reason not to be there.

Separation is a bit of a red herring here if you're talking about multiple failures. If it's just the radio on the ground, then we talk to each other in the air:

''where are you XXX? Antalya seems to have gone quiet.''
''I've just gone around, blocked runway, climbing to 2,700 then to the VOR'.''
''OK, I'll go back up to 4,000''...etc.

If someone in the air goes non-radio, then they follow the locally published procedure or do something generic if there isn't one. ATC can hold/vector other traffic while the non-communicating aircraft does its thing. There is TCAS to keep an eye on as well.

If everyone goes incommunicado at the same time, then you've got a problem. If their transponders are still working, then they're not going to hit each other but it'll take a little bit of application to get people in, probably waiting for each to land before starting the procedure. The guys at the top of the stack would probably go somewhere else.

''Standard separation'' is for when things are going, well, standardly. There are places all over the world, North America & Europe for example, where planes in 'free flight' will lose separation relatively rapidly without positive ATC. The prospect doesn't seem to cause high levels of anxiety and this is in airspace where there are relatively few defined levels...