Bob Gardner
September 5th 03, 04:24 AM
Their format allows them to depict navaids that would not be visible if the
whole thing was to scale....might have an IAF 20 miles out that would be off
the chart.
Bob Gardner
"Phil Verghese" > wrote in message
.44...
> I don't understand the point of the reference circle on the NACO
> instrument charts. According to the FAA Instrument Flying Handbook:
> "The majority of NACO charts contain a reference or distance circle
> with a 10 NM radius. Normally, approach features within the plan view
> are shown to scale; however, only the data within the reference circle
> is always drawn to scale. The circle is centered on an approach fix
> and has a radius of 10 NM, unless otherwise indicated. When a route
> segment, outside of the circle, is drawn to scale, the symbol [wiggly
> lines] interrupts the segment."
>
> I understand the definition above, but how does the reference circle
> help me at all? I think the charts would be easier to read without the
> reference circle. Almost all charts I've seen are drawn to scale, and
> when they are not the wiggly lines going through a route segment makes
> it clear that something is not to scale. I feel like I'm missing
> something about the reference circle, so please enlighten me.
>
> I started flipping through some charts and noticed a few curious
> things related to the reference circle. I guess the reference circle
> would be less confusing to me if I understood when it would be there
> or not, why it's centered in a certain fix, and why it's sometimes not
> 10 NM.
>
> 1) I could not find any standalone GPS approaches that had a reference
> circle (unless there were enroute facilities that could not be shown
> to scale). I certainly didn't miss the reference circle when it wasn't
> there. Does anyone know of an example of this? I wonder why standalone
> GPS approaches don't have reference circles.
>
> 2) Most of the time the reference circle is centered around the
> procedure turn fix and the same size as the maximum PT size (or
> centered on some other fix if there is no PT for the approach).
> Exceptions:
> a) Arcata, CA (ACV) ILS 32. The PT is w/in 10 NM of KNEES. The
> reference circle is 15 NM centered on the ACV VOR.
> b) Buffalo, WY (BYG) VOR/DME or GPS 30. The PT is w/in 10 NM of
> INJUX. The reference circle is 10 NM centered on MIZNR.
> c) Jackson, WY (JAC) VOR or GPS-A has a 10 NM reference circle and
> the PT requires you to remain within 15 NM.
> d) Hoquiam, WA (HQM) ILS/DME 24 has a 15 NM reference circle and
> the PT requires you to remain within 10 NM.
>
> If I just ignore the reference circle, will I be missing something
> important? I don't see how it helps me interpret the chart or fly the
> approach. I guess Jeppesen agrees with me, since they don't bother with
> a reference circle on their charts.
>
> Phil
> www.pfactor.com
whole thing was to scale....might have an IAF 20 miles out that would be off
the chart.
Bob Gardner
"Phil Verghese" > wrote in message
.44...
> I don't understand the point of the reference circle on the NACO
> instrument charts. According to the FAA Instrument Flying Handbook:
> "The majority of NACO charts contain a reference or distance circle
> with a 10 NM radius. Normally, approach features within the plan view
> are shown to scale; however, only the data within the reference circle
> is always drawn to scale. The circle is centered on an approach fix
> and has a radius of 10 NM, unless otherwise indicated. When a route
> segment, outside of the circle, is drawn to scale, the symbol [wiggly
> lines] interrupts the segment."
>
> I understand the definition above, but how does the reference circle
> help me at all? I think the charts would be easier to read without the
> reference circle. Almost all charts I've seen are drawn to scale, and
> when they are not the wiggly lines going through a route segment makes
> it clear that something is not to scale. I feel like I'm missing
> something about the reference circle, so please enlighten me.
>
> I started flipping through some charts and noticed a few curious
> things related to the reference circle. I guess the reference circle
> would be less confusing to me if I understood when it would be there
> or not, why it's centered in a certain fix, and why it's sometimes not
> 10 NM.
>
> 1) I could not find any standalone GPS approaches that had a reference
> circle (unless there were enroute facilities that could not be shown
> to scale). I certainly didn't miss the reference circle when it wasn't
> there. Does anyone know of an example of this? I wonder why standalone
> GPS approaches don't have reference circles.
>
> 2) Most of the time the reference circle is centered around the
> procedure turn fix and the same size as the maximum PT size (or
> centered on some other fix if there is no PT for the approach).
> Exceptions:
> a) Arcata, CA (ACV) ILS 32. The PT is w/in 10 NM of KNEES. The
> reference circle is 15 NM centered on the ACV VOR.
> b) Buffalo, WY (BYG) VOR/DME or GPS 30. The PT is w/in 10 NM of
> INJUX. The reference circle is 10 NM centered on MIZNR.
> c) Jackson, WY (JAC) VOR or GPS-A has a 10 NM reference circle and
> the PT requires you to remain within 15 NM.
> d) Hoquiam, WA (HQM) ILS/DME 24 has a 15 NM reference circle and
> the PT requires you to remain within 10 NM.
>
> If I just ignore the reference circle, will I be missing something
> important? I don't see how it helps me interpret the chart or fly the
> approach. I guess Jeppesen agrees with me, since they don't bother with
> a reference circle on their charts.
>
> Phil
> www.pfactor.com