Missed approach procedure...

[[email protected]]

If the missed approach on the IAP says something like:

heading of 270 to 4000
Intercept the XXX VOR R-180
Direct to XXX VOR

What should you do if you get to R-180 before you get to 4000?

Keep climbing on 270 to 4000?

Turn and track the R-180 while climbing?

The IAP has no minimum climb gradient specified.

What minimum climb gradient is assumed if none is specified?

[ArtP]

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:54:41 -0800, wrote:

>If the missed approach on the IAP says something like:
>
>heading of 270 to 4000
>Intercept the XXX VOR R-180
>Direct to XXX VOR
>
>What should you do if you get to R-180 before you get to 4000?
>
> Keep climbing on 270 to 4000?
>
> Turn and track the R-180 while climbing?

Follow the procedure (keep climbing on 270 until 4000 feet then turn
back to intercept the radial. It is possible that unless you are at
4000 you may not want to be on that radial.

>
>The IAP has no minimum climb gradient specified.
>
>What minimum climb gradient is assumed if none is specified?

200 feet per nautical mile.

[Greg Goodknight]

"ArtP" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:54:41 -0800, wrote:
>
> >If the missed approach on the IAP says something like:
> >
> >heading of 270 to 4000
> >Intercept the XXX VOR R-180
> >Direct to XXX VOR
> >
> >What should you do if you get to R-180 before you get to 4000?
> >
> > Keep climbing on 270 to 4000?
> >
> > Turn and track the R-180 while climbing?
>
> Follow the procedure (keep climbing on 270 until 4000 feet then turn
> back to intercept the radial. It is possible that unless you are at
> 4000 you may not want to be on that radial.

I think it far more likely that ATC will expect the pilot to remain on the
specified course and if an obstruction was a problem there would be a
minimum gradient specified or a minimum crossing.

I would interpret the above missed instruction as "climb and maintain 4000,
maintain heading of 270 to intercept the 180 radial inbound..." without a
second thought.

Perhaps an example from "nospam" of an actual plate would be more
instructive.

-Greg



>
> >
> >The IAP has no minimum climb gradient specified.
> >
> >What minimum climb gradient is assumed if none is specified?
>
> 200 feet per nautical mile.

[ArtP]

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 02:01:13 GMT, "Greg Goodknight"
> wrote:


>"ArtP" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:54:41 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >If the missed approach on the IAP says something like:
>> >
>> >heading of 270 to 4000
>> >Intercept the XXX VOR R-180
>> >Direct to XXX VOR
>> >
>> >What should you do if you get to R-180 before you get to 4000?
>> >
>> > Keep climbing on 270 to 4000?
>> >
>> > Turn and track the R-180 while climbing?
>>
>> Follow the procedure (keep climbing on 270 until 4000 feet then turn
>> back to intercept the radial. It is possible that unless you are at
>> 4000 you may not want to be on that radial.
>
>I think it far more likely that ATC will expect the pilot to remain on the
>specified course and if an obstruction was a problem there would be a
>minimum gradient specified or a minimum crossing.

According to the AIM (Instrument Departures) a climb gradient
would only be specified if a climb of greater than 200 feet per
nautical mile were required. Without an indication of a climbing turn
via I would continue on the specified heading until the specified
altitude were reached.

>
>I would interpret the above missed instruction as "climb and maintain 4000,
>maintain heading of 270 to intercept the 180 radial inbound..." without a
>second thought.

Take a look at FQD LOC RWY 1 for an example of a climb then a
climbing turn. Take a look at RWI VOR/DME 22 for an example of a climb
via an intercepted radial (the method you are describing). Take a look
at RDU NDB RWY 5R for another example.

>
>Perhaps an example from "nospam" of an actual plate would be more
>instructive.

I agree.

[Greg Goodknight]

"ArtP" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 02:01:13 GMT, "Greg Goodknight"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >"ArtP" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:54:41 -0800, wrote:
> >>
> >> >If the missed approach on the IAP says something like:
> >> >
> >> >heading of 270 to 4000
> >> >Intercept the XXX VOR R-180
> >> >Direct to XXX VOR
> >> >
> >> >What should you do if you get to R-180 before you get to 4000?
> >> >
> >> > Keep climbing on 270 to 4000?
> >> >
> >> > Turn and track the R-180 while climbing?
> >>
> >> Follow the procedure (keep climbing on 270 until 4000 feet then turn
> >> back to intercept the radial. It is possible that unless you are at
> >> 4000 you may not want to be on that radial.
> >
> >I think it far more likely that ATC will expect the pilot to remain on
the
> >specified course and if an obstruction was a problem there would be a
> >minimum gradient specified or a minimum crossing.
>
> According to the AIM (Instrument Departures) a climb gradient
> would only be specified if a climb of greater than 200 feet per
> nautical mile were required. Without an indication of a climbing turn
> via I would continue on the specified heading until the specified
> altitude were reached.

Perhaps if you found just one missed approach, or any procedure that
specifies passing through a radial and doubling back after a specified
altitude without the benefit of any course guidance; remember, the
hypothetical was just flying a heading until the radial was intercepted. I
can't imagine a course reversal ever being implied in free space.

The hypothetical seemed flawed to me, hence my request for an real example
from "nospam". If I was faced with the actual wording posed and ATC was not
available, I would not be playing FAR Bingo, I'd fly the course specified
and not invent a new one because of a possibility of an implied altitude
problem.

-Greg

>
> >
> >I would interpret the above missed instruction as "climb and maintain
4000,
> >maintain heading of 270 to intercept the 180 radial inbound..." without a
> >second thought.
>
> Take a look at FQD LOC RWY 1 for an example of a climb then a
> climbing turn. Take a look at RWI VOR/DME 22 for an example of a climb
> via an intercepted radial (the method you are describing). Take a look
> at RDU NDB RWY 5R for another example.
>
> >
> >Perhaps an example from "nospam" of an actual plate would be more
> >instructive.
>
> I agree.
>
>

[[email protected]]

>Perhaps an example from "nospam" of an actual plate would be more
>instructive.

Take a look at the ILS to RWY 24 and (K)CRQ

This is where I saw the missed. It is not a good example as the missed
takes you out over the ocean and in fact either way you look at it, it
would be safe.

I'm just trying to understand in the general sense what the rules are.
In reading the recent AOPA magazine it had a sumary of accidents in
CA and one was someone getting a radar vector and assuming that he
could let down to the crossing altitude of the next segment.
He did this at night and it was fatal.

I understand that not understanding the subleties of what the rules
are for flying IFR can also be Fatal so I'm just trying to understand.

Another approach with a similar missed that is unlclear:

KCNO ILS RWY 26R

Missed:
Climb to 1400 then climbing left turn to 4000 direct PDZ and hold.

Looking at the plate missed seems to be about 4 mi from PDZ.
DH is 836 so at 200ft /mi 1400 gets you to 6 mi from PDZ
Assume that the turn gives you another 200 ft thats 1600 and 6 miles
at 200 per nm that gets you to PDZ and 2800.

The missed specifies 4000

So what do you do hold at PDZ and climb to 4000?

Again in this specific case it looks like that would be safe.

[ArtP]

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 20:45:57 -0800, wrote:


>Take a look at the ILS to RWY 24 and (K)CRQ
>
>This is where I saw the missed. It is not a good example as the missed
>takes you out over the ocean and in fact either way you look at it, it
>would be safe.

I would climb to 3000 then I would do the turn. If they wanted you to
turn before you reached 3000 they would have specified a climbing turn
or do what they did below (specify an altitude straight ahead and then
a climbing turn). When they specify a climb altitude before the turn,
you are expected to be at that altitude before you start the turn.

>
>I'm just trying to understand in the general sense what the rules are.
>In reading the recent AOPA magazine it had a sumary of accidents in
>CA and one was someone getting a radar vector and assuming that he
>could let down to the crossing altitude of the next segment.
>He did this at night and it was fatal.
>
>I understand that not understanding the subleties of what the rules
>are for flying IFR can also be Fatal so I'm just trying to understand.
>
>Another approach with a similar missed that is unlclear:
>
>KCNO ILS RWY 26R
>
>Missed:
>Climb to 1400 then climbing left turn to 4000 direct PDZ and hold.
>
>Looking at the plate missed seems to be about 4 mi from PDZ.
>DH is 836 so at 200ft /mi 1400 gets you to 6 mi from PDZ
>Assume that the turn gives you another 200 ft thats 1600 and 6 miles
>at 200 per nm that gets you to PDZ and 2800.
>
>The missed specifies 4000
>
>So what do you do hold at PDZ and climb to 4000?


I would fly 255 until I reached 1400 feet. I would then do a
climbing left turn direct to PDZ. If by the time I got to PDZ I was
not at 4000 I would enter the hold and continue to climb until I
reached 4000.

>
>Again in this specific case it looks like that would be safe.
>
>
>
>

[Greg Goodknight]

> wrote in message
...
> >Perhaps an example from "nospam" of an actual plate would be more
> >instructive.
>
> Take a look at the ILS to RWY 24 and (K)CRQ

Had to look in the old logbook. Haven't flown there since 6/27/1974. Wonder
if it's changed much.

>
> This is where I saw the missed. It is not a good example as the missed
> takes you out over the ocean and in fact either way you look at it, it
> would be safe.

You transcribed the meaning incorrectly. It says "Climb to 3000 via heading
245 and OCN R-145 to OCN VORTAC", which is, in essence, what I said I would
do. It doesn't say climb to 3000 on a heading of 245 and tben intercept. It
gives you a route (heading 245 and OCN R-145 to OCN) and an altitude
(3000')to climb to.


>
> I'm just trying to understand in the general sense what the rules are.
> In reading the recent AOPA magazine it had a sumary of accidents in
> CA and one was someone getting a radar vector and assuming that he
> could let down to the crossing altitude of the next segment.
> He did this at night and it was fatal.
>
> I understand that not understanding the subleties of what the rules
> are for flying IFR can also be Fatal so I'm just trying to understand.
>
> Another approach with a similar missed that is unlclear:
>
> KCNO ILS RWY 26R

Gee, more of my old stomping grounds. I soloed at Chino on 1/16/1974.

>
> Missed:
> Climb to 1400 then climbing left turn to 4000 direct PDZ and hold.

This is also crystal clear and not at all similar. You climb to 1400 and
then continue a climb while turning direct to PDZ. There is no possibility
of overshooting a radial that needs to be intercepted.

>
> Looking at the plate missed seems to be about 4 mi from PDZ.
> DH is 836 so at 200ft /mi 1400 gets you to 6 mi from PDZ
> Assume that the turn gives you another 200 ft thats 1600 and 6 miles
> at 200 per nm that gets you to PDZ and 2800.
>
> The missed specifies 4000

So keep climbing. Don't worry, SoCal Approach will be asking you about your
climb rate, and the initial climb to 1400 seems to be chosen to get you high
enough.

>
> So what do you do hold at PDZ and climb to 4000?

Yep. Next time in your thought experiments, don't fly a C-150 under IFR with
full fuel and extra passengers in the baggage compartment and you'll climb
faster ;)

>
> Again in this specific case it looks like that would be safe.

yep!

cheers
-Greg

[Greg Goodknight]

"ArtP" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 20:45:57 -0800, wrote:
>
>
> >Take a look at the ILS to RWY 24 and (K)CRQ
> >
> >This is where I saw the missed. It is not a good example as the missed
> >takes you out over the ocean and in fact either way you look at it, it
> >would be safe.
>
> I would climb to 3000 then I would do the turn. If they wanted you to
> turn before you reached 3000 they would have specified a climbing turn
> or do what they did below (specify an altitude straight ahead and then
> a climbing turn). When they specify a climb altitude before the turn,
> you are expected to be at that altitude before you start the turn.

Assuming you are in radar contact (and that is a very good bet) if you
followed your own advice you would get a call from ATC asking you what
you're doing. The missed says to climb to 3000' via a specified route
consisting of a heading and a radial to intercept. If you are intercepting a
radial, a turn is implied.

-Greg

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 20:45:57 -0800, wrote:

>>Perhaps an example from "nospam" of an actual plate would be more
>>instructive.
>
>Take a look at the ILS to RWY 24 and (K)CRQ
>
>This is where I saw the missed. It is not a good example as the missed
>takes you out over the ocean and in fact either way you look at it, it
>would be safe.

But it's also clear from the wording what you should do:

"Climb to 3000 via heading 245° *AND* OCN R-145 to OCN VORTAC"

I should say that it's clear to me <g>. Obviously it wasn't clear to you.

However, the sequence is that ATC gives you an altitude to climb to, and
then a route.

You fly 245 until you get to the R-145 and continue to climb on the R-145.

If they had wanted you to remain on the 245° heading until reaching 3000',
the wording would have been something like "Climb to 3000' via heading 245°
*then* via OCN R-145. If turn direction is important, it would be stated.


>
>I'm just trying to understand in the general sense what the rules are.
>In reading the recent AOPA magazine it had a sumary of accidents in
>CA and one was someone getting a radar vector and assuming that he
>could let down to the crossing altitude of the next segment.
>He did this at night and it was fatal.

That's a different issue.

You should ALWAYS be at or above the minimum charted altitude for any route
of flight. (There may be a few rare exceptions).

If you are on an unpublished route or being radar vectored, the pilot
responsibilities include:

"(a) Complies with the minimum altitude for IFR; and

"(b) Maintains the last assigned altitude until established on a segment of
a published route or IAP, at which time published altitudes apply. "

You must BURN that into your head. Commercial airliners used to be
confused about this, too.

ATC has restrictions on what they can do, also, but ATC can make mistakes.

>
>I understand that not understanding the subleties of what the rules
>are for flying IFR can also be Fatal so I'm just trying to understand.
>
>Another approach with a similar missed that is unlclear:
>
>KCNO ILS RWY 26R
>
>Missed:
>Climb to 1400 then climbing left turn to 4000 direct PDZ and hold.
>

Again, just follow the directions in sequence:

1. Climb to 1400' (straight ahead is implied since it is not stated)
2. *THEN* climbing left turn to 4000'

If you are not at 4000' by PDZ, you should climb in the hold.

However, under ordinary circumstances with a minimum ROC and beginning your
missed approach at the MM, you should be pretty close to 4000' at or before
PDZ.

Hope this helps to clarify things.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[[email protected]]

There are no climb gradients on FAA missed approaches for public
procedures except for Burbank, California. They are evaluated for a 40:1
clear surface from (typcially) 250 feet below MDA to not less than 1,000
feet below the final missed approach altitude. Hopefully, you can climb a
lot better than 40:1 (152 feet per n.m.)

If no fix is specified you turn when you reach any specified intermediate
turning altitude. It's protected for the worst climber (152 feet per
mile) to an F-18. If there is a turn fix specified, you keep climbing
(assuming you're out climbing a 40:1 slope) but you don't turn until the
specified fix.

With the KCNO ILS you turn as soon as you get to 1,400 feet assuming you
are past the MAP. If you miss early you don't turn until the MAP but you
can keep climbing towards 4,000 feet. The missed approach hold is shown
in the plan view as right turns on the PDZ 078 radial. If you're a slow
climber and you reach PDZ below 4,000 feet you continue the climb in the
hold to 4,000.

At KCRQ you climb on heading 245 until you intercept the Oceanside 145
radial (325 inbound). Whether you reach 3,000 before or after
intercepting the 145 radial is irrelevant, you intercept the radial at
3,000 level, or climbing to 3,000.

wrote:

> >Perhaps an example from "nospam" of an actual plate would be more
> >instructive.
>
> Take a look at the ILS to RWY 24 and (K)CRQ
>
> This is where I saw the missed. It is not a good example as the missed
> takes you out over the ocean and in fact either way you look at it, it
> would be safe.
>
> I'm just trying to understand in the general sense what the rules are.
> In reading the recent AOPA magazine it had a sumary of accidents in
> CA and one was someone getting a radar vector and assuming that he
> could let down to the crossing altitude of the next segment.
> He did this at night and it was fatal.
>
> I understand that not understanding the subleties of what the rules
> are for flying IFR can also be Fatal so I'm just trying to understand.
>
> Another approach with a similar missed that is unlclear:
>
> KCNO ILS RWY 26R
>
> Missed:
> Climb to 1400 then climbing left turn to 4000 direct PDZ and hold.
>
> Looking at the plate missed seems to be about 4 mi from PDZ.
> DH is 836 so at 200ft /mi 1400 gets you to 6 mi from PDZ
> Assume that the turn gives you another 200 ft thats 1600 and 6 miles
> at 200 per nm that gets you to PDZ and 2800.
>
> The missed specifies 4000
>
> So what do you do hold at PDZ and climb to 4000?
>
> Again in this specific case it looks like that would be safe.

[[email protected]]

ArtP wrote:

> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 20:45:57 -0800, wrote:
>
> >Take a look at the ILS to RWY 24 and (K)CRQ
> >
> >This is where I saw the missed. It is not a good example as the missed
> >takes you out over the ocean and in fact either way you look at it, it
> >would be safe.
>
> I would climb to 3000 then I would do the turn. If they wanted you to
> turn before you reached 3000 they would have specified a climbing turn
> or do what they did below (specify an altitude straight ahead and then
> a climbing turn). When they specify a climb altitude before the turn,
> you are expected to be at that altitude before you start the turn.

That is wrong.

[ArtP]

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 06:17:04 -0800, wrote:

>> I would climb to 3000 then I would do the turn. If they wanted you to
>> turn before you reached 3000 they would have specified a climbing turn
>> or do what they did below (specify an altitude straight ahead and then
>> a climbing turn). When they specify a climb altitude before the turn,
>> you are expected to be at that altitude before you start the turn.
>
>That is wrong.

You are right. I looked at the plate again and the description
disagrees with the little symbols in the profile. The descriptions has
an "and" in it while the symbols show two separate operations. In
other plates (RWI VOR/DME 22) a climb and an interception is shown in
a single symbol rather than two separate ones.

[[email protected]]

>
>You are right. I looked at the plate again and the description
>disagrees with the little symbols in the profile. The descriptions has
>an "and" in it while the symbols show two separate operations. In
>other plates (RWI VOR/DME 22) a climb and an interception is shown in
>a single symbol rather than two separate ones.

That was my confusion,
I was looking at the missed symbols, trying to decide what to do if
you are not at 3000 before the radial.

[Greg Goodknight]

"ArtP" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 06:17:04 -0800, wrote:
>
> >> I would climb to 3000 then I would do the turn. If they wanted you to
> >> turn before you reached 3000 they would have specified a climbing turn
> >> or do what they did below (specify an altitude straight ahead and then
> >> a climbing turn). When they specify a climb altitude before the turn,
> >> you are expected to be at that altitude before you start the turn.
> >
> >That is wrong.
>
> You are right. I looked at the plate again and the description
> disagrees with the little symbols in the profile. The descriptions has
> an "and" in it while the symbols show two separate operations. In
> other plates (RWI VOR/DME 22) a climb and an interception is shown in
> a single symbol rather than two separate ones.

There is no disagreement from my point of view. The first symbol in both
cases gives the altitude to climb to and the initial route. Altitude, route.
I can't think of any missed that has very tricky routes, although MYV ILS 14
is a local approach to me and is the only one that's given me fits in
training since you have two radials to track to define the route to the hold
and the intercept you choose really defines what the needles do. Have fun:
http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthWest/MYV_ir14.pdf

Hint, you want your indicators set so you're inbound on the ILS R-085 (ie
set OBS to 265) and outbound SAC R-329 (ie OBS to 329) to not get confused
;) and remember which one you want to end up on. Note the briefing boxes
really don't ever give you a flyable clearance, they really are meant to be
an aid to briefing. The text properly defines the published missed.

cheers
-Greg
PP ASEL IA

[[email protected]]

ArtP wrote:

> On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 06:17:04 -0800, wrote:
>
> >> I would climb to 3000 then I would do the turn. If they wanted you to
> >> turn before you reached 3000 they would have specified a climbing turn
> >> or do what they did below (specify an altitude straight ahead and then
> >> a climbing turn). When they specify a climb altitude before the turn,
> >> you are expected to be at that altitude before you start the turn.
> >
> >That is wrong.
>
> You are right. I looked at the plate again and the description
> disagrees with the little symbols in the profile. The descriptions has
> an "and" in it while the symbols show two separate operations. In
> other plates (RWI VOR/DME 22) a climb and an interception is shown in
> a single symbol rather than two separate ones.

I've got both the Jepp and NACO charts for these two IAPs in hand. The
problem is that you were sandbagged by incorrect NACO symbology. Jeppesen
has the symbology correct: Jepp shows an arrow to 3000', then in the next
box it says 245 heading, then between that box and the next box the word
"and" flows across, and that next box says OCN 115.3 R-145. NACO, as you
know, leads you down the primrose path.

Having said that, the symbols are subserviant to the written missed approach
text. The text is regulatory; the symbols are not. The chart makers have to
interpret the text to draft the symbology.

Moral to the story: understand the text first and foremost, then reconcile it
with the briefing symbology. If they agree, the symbology is then adequate
to use during the "heat of the battle," in lieu of the text.

[Ryan Ferguson]

"Greg Goodknight" > wrote in message .net>...

> I can't think of any missed that has very tricky routes

Check this one out.

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/NorthWest/SZT_ldA.pdf

The missed approach instructions read:

"MISSED APPROACH: Climb to 8000 to I-RPO 10 DME, then climbing right
turn via SZT bearing 030 degrees to SZT NDB, then via SZT bearing 181
degrees and COE R-359 to COE VOR/DME and hold." (And of course it's a
parallel entry!)

-Ryan

[J Haggerty]

When we build a missed approach procedure, we determine where we want
the missed approach to go. If that route encounters an obstacle, then we
have to create a "climb to" altitude before the turn can be made toward
the obstacle. In that example, it would be "Climb via 270 heading to
2000, then right climbing turn to 4000 direct XXX VOR and hold.

If obstacles weren't a factor, but we had a specific route designed to
avoid obstacles or airspace, then it would read "Climb to 4000 via 270
heading and XXX VOR R-210 to XXX VOR and hold". In this case, you
wouldn't wait until reaching 4000 to turn; you would fly a heading until
the specified radial, turn to that radial, and climb while on the route,
reaching 4000 either while on the heading or on the specified radial,
depending on aircraft performance.

For the example of reaching the missed approach holding pattern before
reaching the specified altitude, you would perform a climb in hold at
the holding fix until reaching the specified altitude or received a
clearance beyond the fix. Incidentally, we evaluate the climb based on
200' per NM, and if that climb doesn't reach the specified altitude by
the time you get to the fix, we're required to develop a "climb in hold"
pattern at the holding fix. This is transparent to the pilot, but
requires the procedure specialist to use a 310 knot holding pattern
template to search for obstacles, instead of the normal GA pattern of
200 or 230 knots. This gives extra obstacle protection during your climb.

wrote:
>>Perhaps an example from "nospam" of an actual plate would be more
>>instructive.
>
>
> Take a look at the ILS to RWY 24 and (K)CRQ
>
> This is where I saw the missed. It is not a good example as the missed
> takes you out over the ocean and in fact either way you look at it, it
> would be safe.
>
> I'm just trying to understand in the general sense what the rules are.
> In reading the recent AOPA magazine it had a sumary of accidents in
> CA and one was someone getting a radar vector and assuming that he
> could let down to the crossing altitude of the next segment.
> He did this at night and it was fatal.
>
> I understand that not understanding the subleties of what the rules
> are for flying IFR can also be Fatal so I'm just trying to understand.
>
> Another approach with a similar missed that is unlclear:
>
> KCNO ILS RWY 26R
>
> Missed:
> Climb to 1400 then climbing left turn to 4000 direct PDZ and hold.
>
> Looking at the plate missed seems to be about 4 mi from PDZ.
> DH is 836 so at 200ft /mi 1400 gets you to 6 mi from PDZ
> Assume that the turn gives you another 200 ft thats 1600 and 6 miles
> at 200 per nm that gets you to PDZ and 2800.
>
> The missed specifies 4000
>
> So what do you do hold at PDZ and climb to 4000?
>
> Again in this specific case it looks like that would be safe.
>
>
>
>
>

[John Clonts]

"Ryan Ferguson" > wrote in message
m...
> "Greg Goodknight" > wrote in message
.net>...
>
> > I can't think of any missed that has very tricky routes
>
> Check this one out.
>
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/NorthWest/SZT_ldA.pdf
>
> The missed approach instructions read:
>
> "MISSED APPROACH: Climb to 8000 to I-RPO 10 DME, then climbing right
> turn via SZT bearing 030 degrees to SZT NDB, then via SZT bearing 181
> degrees and COE R-359 to COE VOR/DME and hold." (And of course it's a
> parallel entry!)
>
> -Ryan

Yes, a very interesting missed approach procedure. And, to tie to the other
part of the thread: if you haven't gotten to 8000 by the time you get to
I-RPO, what should you do? (By my reckoning it takes 403 ft/nm climb to get
there.)

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[[email protected]]

John Clonts wrote:

> "Ryan Ferguson" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Greg Goodknight" > wrote in message
> .net>...
> >
> > > I can't think of any missed that has very tricky routes
> >
> > Check this one out.
> >
> > http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/NorthWest/SZT_ldA.pdf
> >
> > The missed approach instructions read:
> >
> > "MISSED APPROACH: Climb to 8000 to I-RPO 10 DME, then climbing right
> > turn via SZT bearing 030 degrees to SZT NDB, then via SZT bearing 181
> > degrees and COE R-359 to COE VOR/DME and hold." (And of course it's a
> > parallel entry!)
> >
> > -Ryan
>
> Yes, a very interesting missed approach procedure. And, to tie to the other
> part of the thread: if you haven't gotten to 8000 by the time you get to
> I-RPO, what should you do? (By my reckoning it takes 403 ft/nm climb to get
> there.)

You continue the climb in the holding pattern.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
(Ryan Ferguson) wrote:

> "Greg Goodknight" > wrote in message
> .net>...
>
> > I can't think of any missed that has very tricky routes
>
> Check this one out.
>
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/NorthWest/SZT_ldA.pdf
>
> The missed approach instructions read:
>
> "MISSED APPROACH: Climb to 8000 to I-RPO 10 DME, then climbing right
> turn via SZT bearing 030 degrees to SZT NDB, then via SZT bearing 181
> degrees and COE R-359 to COE VOR/DME and hold." (And of course it's a
> parallel entry!)
>
> -Ryan

Wow. What on earth did they have in mind when the wrote that? The
route is bizarre. By the time you reach 8000, you're above the sector
MSA (and 3000 feet above anything shown on the chart). What point is
there in making you turn west to Sandpoe instead of just going direct
Coeur D'Alane?

The other interesting thing is that you've got a 5000 foot climb ahead
of you before you can turn. In some types, it may be hard to make 8000
before I-RPO 10 DME! My 172N POH say it takes 14 miles to climb from
3000 to 8000 in no wind and standard atmosphere (obviously worse in the
summer or with a tailwind). The MAP is 2 DME on the front course, so
you've only got 12 miles.

I'm not even quite sure what "Climb to 8000 to I-RPO 10 DME" requires of
you. What if you reach 10 DME and you're not at 8000 yet? Is it worse
to start the turn before you're high enough or to keep climbing straight
ahead beyond where you're supposed to turn? No clue that I can see from
the procedure plate.

Another interesting thing about this approach is that starting from COE
as an IAF to the MAP and then flying the missed to I-RPO 10 DME then
back to COE looks like about 86 nm. I'll bet that takes a full hour in
a 172. That'll put a crimp in your style if you only planned the
minimum legal IFR fuel reserves.

I suppose this kind of stuff is routine in the mountains, but to a
flatlander like me, it sure looks wild.

[[email protected]]

You guys are getting into the nuances of how Flight Standards and the
National Flight Procedures Office word their missed approach instructions.

There is always room for improvement, but it is also an issue of brevity vs.
impossibly wordy text.

Without looking at the chart at issue, the wording sounds like 8,000 is the
final altitude, and it must not be met at the DME ARC.

As to a 172 doing all this, well Roy, I don't think so.

Roy Smith wrote:

> In article >,
> (Ryan Ferguson) wrote:
>
> > "Greg Goodknight" > wrote in message
> > .net>...
> >
> > > I can't think of any missed that has very tricky routes
> >
> > Check this one out.
> >
> > http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/NorthWest/SZT_ldA.pdf
> >
> > The missed approach instructions read:
> >
> > "MISSED APPROACH: Climb to 8000 to I-RPO 10 DME, then climbing right
> > turn via SZT bearing 030 degrees to SZT NDB, then via SZT bearing 181
> > degrees and COE R-359 to COE VOR/DME and hold." (And of course it's a
> > parallel entry!)
> >
> > -Ryan
>
> Wow. What on earth did they have in mind when the wrote that? The
> route is bizarre. By the time you reach 8000, you're above the sector
> MSA (and 3000 feet above anything shown on the chart). What point is
> there in making you turn west to Sandpoe instead of just going direct
> Coeur D'Alane?
>
> The other interesting thing is that you've got a 5000 foot climb ahead
> of you before you can turn. In some types, it may be hard to make 8000
> before I-RPO 10 DME! My 172N POH say it takes 14 miles to climb from
> 3000 to 8000 in no wind and standard atmosphere (obviously worse in the
> summer or with a tailwind). The MAP is 2 DME on the front course, so
> you've only got 12 miles.
>
> I'm not even quite sure what "Climb to 8000 to I-RPO 10 DME" requires of
> you. What if you reach 10 DME and you're not at 8000 yet? Is it worse
> to start the turn before you're high enough or to keep climbing straight
> ahead beyond where you're supposed to turn? No clue that I can see from
> the procedure plate.
>
> Another interesting thing about this approach is that starting from COE
> as an IAF to the MAP and then flying the missed to I-RPO 10 DME then
> back to COE looks like about 86 nm. I'll bet that takes a full hour in
> a 172. That'll put a crimp in your style if you only planned the
> minimum legal IFR fuel reserves.
>
> I suppose this kind of stuff is routine in the mountains, but to a
> flatlander like me, it sure looks wild.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
wrote:

> > Yes, a very interesting missed approach procedure. And, to tie to the other
> > part of the thread: if you haven't gotten to 8000 by the time you get to
> > I-RPO, what should you do? (By my reckoning it takes 403 ft/nm climb to get
> > there.)
>
> You continue the climb in the holding pattern.

What holding pattern? There is no such pattern shown on the chart.

[Bill Zaleski]

The textual wording of the government missed aproach is wrong,
misleading, and potentially dangerous. Jeppesen has it right. Should
be 210 bearing (to) and 181bearing from SZT. Otherwise, it is a
fairly simple, straightforward missed, although long. 8000' is the
final altitude and need not be reached prior to the 10 DME fix


On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 17:59:16 -0800, wrote:

>You guys are getting into the nuances of how Flight Standards and the
>National Flight Procedures Office word their missed approach instructions.
>
>There is always room for improvement, but it is also an issue of brevity vs.
>impossibly wordy text.
>
>Without looking at the chart at issue, the wording sounds like 8,000 is the
>final altitude, and it must not be met at the DME ARC.
>
>As to a 172 doing all this, well Roy, I don't think so.
>
>Roy Smith wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> (Ryan Ferguson) wrote:
>>
>> > "Greg Goodknight" > wrote in message
>> > .net>...
>> >
>> > > I can't think of any missed that has very tricky routes
>> >
>> > Check this one out.
>> >
>> > http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/NorthWest/SZT_ldA.pdf
>> >
>> > The missed approach instructions read:
>> >
>> > "MISSED APPROACH: Climb to 8000 to I-RPO 10 DME, then climbing right
>> > turn via SZT bearing 030 degrees to SZT NDB, then via SZT bearing 181
>> > degrees and COE R-359 to COE VOR/DME and hold." (And of course it's a
>> > parallel entry!)
>> >
>> > -Ryan
>>
>> Wow. What on earth did they have in mind when the wrote that? The
>> route is bizarre. By the time you reach 8000, you're above the sector
>> MSA (and 3000 feet above anything shown on the chart). What point is
>> there in making you turn west to Sandpoe instead of just going direct
>> Coeur D'Alane?
>>
>> The other interesting thing is that you've got a 5000 foot climb ahead
>> of you before you can turn. In some types, it may be hard to make 8000
>> before I-RPO 10 DME! My 172N POH say it takes 14 miles to climb from
>> 3000 to 8000 in no wind and standard atmosphere (obviously worse in the
>> summer or with a tailwind). The MAP is 2 DME on the front course, so
>> you've only got 12 miles.
>>
>> I'm not even quite sure what "Climb to 8000 to I-RPO 10 DME" requires of
>> you. What if you reach 10 DME and you're not at 8000 yet? Is it worse
>> to start the turn before you're high enough or to keep climbing straight
>> ahead beyond where you're supposed to turn? No clue that I can see from
>> the procedure plate.
>>
>> Another interesting thing about this approach is that starting from COE
>> as an IAF to the MAP and then flying the missed to I-RPO 10 DME then
>> back to COE looks like about 86 nm. I'll bet that takes a full hour in
>> a 172. That'll put a crimp in your style if you only planned the
>> minimum legal IFR fuel reserves.
>>
>> I suppose this kind of stuff is routine in the mountains, but to a
>> flatlander like me, it sure looks wild.

[Barry]

> Wow. What on earth did they have in mind when the wrote that? The
> route is bizarre. By the time you reach 8000, you're above the sector
> MSA (and 3000 feet above anything shown on the chart). What point is
> there in making you turn west to Sandpoe instead of just going direct
> Coeur D'Alane?

This procedure actually seems reasonable to me (except for the error that Bill
pointed out - 030 bearing should be 210). Using 8000 for the missed provides
separation from incoming traffic at 7000. For a climb at 200 ft/nm, the 10
DME ensures you're above 5500 or so before turning. At that point you're
about 44 nm from the VOR, so they use the NDB for navigation until you get
back within the VOR service volume.

Barry

[Ryan Ferguson]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message >...

> Yes, a very interesting missed approach procedure. And, to tie to the other
> part of the thread: if you haven't gotten to 8000 by the time you get to
> I-RPO, what should you do? (By my reckoning it takes 403 ft/nm climb to get
> there.)

Your reckoning is correct. If you're not at 8000 by the time you
reach the I-RPO 10 DME fix, make a climbing right turn and continue
the climb as you head inbound to the NDB on the 030 bearing from the
station. If you're still not at 8000 AFTER passing SZT southbound,
continue the climb as you track out from the NDB. If you still
haven't gotten to 8000 by the time you reach the missed approach
holding point, continue the climb as you hold.

The instructions on this approach account for the possibility of
reaching 8000 at any point during the procedure.

Best,

-Ryan

[[email protected]]

Huh?

Sure is on my KSZT LDA chart? On the 231 radial of the VOR.

Roy Smith wrote:

> In article >,
> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, a very interesting missed approach procedure. And, to tie to the other
> > > part of the thread: if you haven't gotten to 8000 by the time you get to
> > > I-RPO, what should you do? (By my reckoning it takes 403 ft/nm climb to get
> > > there.)
> >
> > You continue the climb in the holding pattern.
>
> What holding pattern? There is no such pattern shown on the chart.

[[email protected]]

Ryan Ferguson wrote:

> "The instructions on this approach account for the possibility of
> reaching 8000 at any point during the procedure.

Well, not exactly. There is no earlist point but there is a 40:1 (or, more practically 200 feet per mile)
minimum limit.

[[email protected]]

Bill Zaleski wrote:

> The textual wording of the government missed aproach is wrong,
> misleading, and potentially dangerous. Jeppesen has it right. Should
> be 210 bearing (to) and 181bearing from SZT. Otherwise, it is a
> fairly simple, straightforward missed, although long. 8000' is the
> final altitude and need not be reached prior to the 10 DME fix
>

I have both charts in front of me and they both show the same misses approach
track in the plan view; and in particular as to the 210 degree bearing inbound to
SZT NDB. Whether it says 210 or 030 for that portion of the track doesn't seem
to me to represent a safety issue for the NACO chart.

But, you see it differently and apparently feel strongly about it. In that case,
the most responsible thing for you to do is to contact the Northwest Mountain
Region's Flight Procedures Office in Seattle and make your safety concerns known.

I presume you mean that someone might keep going NE on the NDB's 030 bearing? If
so, that is contrary to the plan view track and contrary to the context of
getting toCOE VOR, which is way south.

It would be interesting to see the text on the regulatory source document.
Neither chart maker is supposed to deviate from the source. Rather, if *they*
don't like the source they are supposed to complain to the National Flight
Procedures Office and make their case to get the source amended. That is the way
it's *supposed* to work, but it doesn't always work as planned.

My view is that pilots are beginning to rely on the briefing strip symbololy at
the exclusion of everything else on the chart pertaining to the missed approach
procedural track and altitude requirements. That wasn't the plan when the Volpe
briefing strip concept came into use.

[Roy Smith]

wrote:
> > > You continue the climb in the holding pattern.

Roy Smith wrote:
> > What holding pattern? There is no such pattern shown on the chart.

wrote:
> Huh?
>
> Sure is on my KSZT LDA chart? On the 231 radial of the VOR.

I was talking about what if you didn't reach 8000 by I-RPO 10 DME.
There's no hold depicted at that fix.

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith wrote:

> wrote:
> > > > You continue the climb in the holding pattern.
>
> Roy Smith wrote:
> > > What holding pattern? There is no such pattern shown on the chart.
>
> wrote:
> > Huh?
> >
> > Sure is on my KSZT LDA chart? On the 231 radial of the VOR.
>
> I was talking about what if you didn't reach 8000 by I-RPO 10 DME.
> There's no hold depicted at that fix.

You better not hold there.

You're climbing to 8,000 to get there at some point in the missed approach
procedure, not at the I-RPO 10 DME. Note it says "...then climbing right
turn" after the 10 DME.

[Roy Smith]

wrote:
> You're climbing to 8,000 to get there at some point in the missed approach
> procedure, not at the I-RPO 10 DME. Note it says "...then climbing right
> turn" after the 10 DME.

OK, I guess this makes sense. Somehow the wording of the procedure
threw me. I parsed it as (climb to 8000 to I-RPO 10 DME) then (climbing
right turn, etc). I guess if they wanted to make sure you were at 8000
by I-RPO 10 DME they would have said "cross I-RPO 10 DME at 8000".

I never thought about it before, but it now occurs to me that missed
procedures violate the rule about the order in which clearance elements
are given. Normally it's CRAFT (Clearance Limit, Route, Altitude,
Frequency, Transponder). With a missed, it's altitude Altitude, Route.
Clearance Limit.

Put into CRAFT format, the missed would read something like:

Cleared to the COE VOR via I-RPO back course, I-RPO 10 DME, right turn
to intercept the 210 bearing to SZT, SZT 181 bearing and COE 359R, climb
and maintain 8000.

With it worded that way, I never would have thought there was any
altitude crossing restriction at the 10 DME fix. I wonder what
historical event led to the dichotomy?

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith wrote:

> wrote:
> > You're climbing to 8,000 to get there at some point in the missed approach
> > procedure, not at the I-RPO 10 DME. Note it says "...then climbing right
> > turn" after the 10 DME.
>
> OK, I guess this makes sense. Somehow the wording of the procedure
> threw me. I parsed it as (climb to 8000 to I-RPO 10 DME) then (climbing
> right turn, etc). I guess if they wanted to make sure you were at 8000
> by I-RPO 10 DME they would have said "cross I-RPO 10 DME at 8000".
>
> I never thought about it before, but it now occurs to me that missed
> procedures violate the rule about the order in which clearance elements
> are given. Normally it's CRAFT (Clearance Limit, Route, Altitude,
> Frequency, Transponder). With a missed, it's altitude Altitude, Route.
> Clearance Limit.
>
> Put into CRAFT format, the missed would read something like:
>
> Cleared to the COE VOR via I-RPO back course, I-RPO 10 DME, right turn
> to intercept the 210 bearing to SZT, SZT 181 bearing and COE 359R, climb
> and maintain 8000.
>
> With it worded that way, I never would have thought there was any
> altitude crossing restriction at the 10 DME fix. I wonder what
> historical event led to the dichotomy?

As limited as airtime is, there is more "bandwidth" than there is on a chart.
The missed approach text is not an ATC clearance, rather it's a description of a
flight track. ATC protects the airspace automatically as part of your approach
clearance (they can later amend that with a radar vector clearance where they
have radar, or they can sometimes issue an alternate missed approach track,
provided it's on the source for the approach procedure that they have at the
facility).

There are two different government "worlds" at play. You're thinking ATC, but
this charting stuff is Flight Standards, Air Force, Army, industry, NACO, etc.
The consensus for a long time has to been to state the missed approach final
altitude first, and keep the note as short as possible.

[Ryan Ferguson]

wrote in message >...
> Ryan Ferguson wrote:
>
> > "The instructions on this approach account for the possibility of
> > reaching 8000 at any point during the procedure.
>
> Well, not exactly. There is no earlist point but there is a 40:1 (or, more practically 200 feet per mile)
> minimum limit.

Yes, but that is implicit from the fact that this climb gradient
minimum applies to the procedure in question unless otherwise stated.

[[email protected]]

Ryan Ferguson wrote:

> wrote in message >...
> > Ryan Ferguson wrote:
> >
> > > "The instructions on this approach account for the possibility of
> > > reaching 8000 at any point during the procedure.
> >
> > Well, not exactly. There is no earlist point but there is a 40:1 (or, more practically 200 feet per mile)
> > minimum limit.
>
> Yes, but that is implicit from the fact that this climb gradient
> minimum applies to the procedure in question unless otherwise stated.

Picking at nits: Not everyone that works with this stuff agrees that there is a 200' per mile CG requirement
for TERPs missed approach procedures. Historically, the 40:1 has been known as an obstacle identification
surface (OIS). OTOH, with DPs the 40:1 is an initial assessment surface, then a peformance slope is
established.

[Greg Goodknight]

"Barry" > wrote in message
...
> > Wow. What on earth did they have in mind when the wrote that? The
> > route is bizarre. By the time you reach 8000, you're above the sector
> > MSA (and 3000 feet above anything shown on the chart). What point is
> > there in making you turn west to Sandpoe instead of just going direct
> > Coeur D'Alane?
>
> This procedure actually seems reasonable to me (except for the error that
Bill
> pointed out - 030 bearing should be 210). Using 8000 for the missed
provides
> separation from incoming traffic at 7000. For a climb at 200 ft/nm, the
10
> DME ensures you're above 5500 or so before turning. At that point you're
> about 44 nm from the VOR, so they use the NDB for navigation until you get
> back within the VOR service volume.
>
> Barry
>
>

[Bill Zaleski]

The NACO chart textual description of the missed approach procedure is
defective in that the word "bearing", as used in aviation navigation,
defaults to "bearing to". If "bearing from" is necessary, the the
word "from" must be used. Unlike a VOR radial, that can be tracked
inbound or outbound, "SZT bearing 030 to SZT NDB" as stated in the
NACO missed is impossible in ths case, as one would have to be
southwest of the NDB in order to track inbound on the 030 bearing.
Also, the missed should state 181 bearing from, to specify the
outbound track from the NDB. This is proper phraseology, as per the
7110.65

You seem to think that either bearing number, 030 or 210 should make
no difference. A textual description of a missed approach must be
complete in itself and need not be suplemented by additional charting
prior to the published hold.

If you look again at both charts, you will see that Jepessen has it
right and NACO has it wrong. It's not rocket science to figure it
out, but one should not have to dance around improper phraseology to
get it right. The bearing you are flying is the same number as your
heading corrected for wind drift, not the reciprocal as NACO has it.



On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 04:52:28 -0800, wrote:

>
>
>Bill Zaleski wrote:
>
>> The textual wording of the government missed aproach is wrong,
>> misleading, and potentially dangerous. Jeppesen has it right. Should
>> be 210 bearing (to) and 181bearing from SZT. Otherwise, it is a
>> fairly simple, straightforward missed, although long. 8000' is the
>> final altitude and need not be reached prior to the 10 DME fix
>>
>
>I have both charts in front of me and they both show the same misses approach
>track in the plan view; and in particular as to the 210 degree bearing inbound to
>SZT NDB. Whether it says 210 or 030 for that portion of the track doesn't seem
>to me to represent a safety issue for the NACO chart.
>
>But, you see it differently and apparently feel strongly about it. In that case,
>the most responsible thing for you to do is to contact the Northwest Mountain
>Region's Flight Procedures Office in Seattle and make your safety concerns known.
>
>I presume you mean that someone might keep going NE on the NDB's 030 bearing? If
>so, that is contrary to the plan view track and contrary to the context of
>getting toCOE VOR, which is way south.
>
>It would be interesting to see the text on the regulatory source document.
>Neither chart maker is supposed to deviate from the source. Rather, if *they*
>don't like the source they are supposed to complain to the National Flight
>Procedures Office and make their case to get the source amended. That is the way
>it's *supposed* to work, but it doesn't always work as planned.
>
>My view is that pilots are beginning to rely on the briefing strip symbololy at
>the exclusion of everything else on the chart pertaining to the missed approach
>procedural track and altitude requirements. That wasn't the plan when the Volpe
>briefing strip concept came into use.

[[email protected]]

Bill Zaleski wrote:

>
> You seem to think that either bearing number, 030 or 210 should make
> no difference. A textual description of a missed approach must be
> complete in itself and need not be suplemented by additional charting
> prior to the published hold.

I never said there was no difference. What I said is that the context makes it
obvious what the flight track should be. Over the years there has been lots of
changes about how NDB bearings are stated or portrayed, so context is always
important.

>
>
> If you look again at both charts, you will see that Jepessen has it
> right and NACO has it wrong. It's not rocket science to figure it
> out, but one should not have to dance around improper phraseology to
> get it right. The bearing you are flying is the same number as your
> heading corrected for wind drift, not the reciprocal as NACO has it.

No, NACO has it right and Jeppesen has it wrong in the sense that the source (legal)
document states it exactly as NACO states it. Granted, Jeppesen says it better, but
they did that on their own.

The policy that the procedures specialist followed when this procedure was issued
mandated to use bearings from for NDB bearings, whether to or from the facility..
That policy has been changed in Change 3 to Flight Procedures and Airspace (FAAH
8260.19C), to use course-to and bearing-from for NDB facilities.

What galls me is that Jeppesen would change it without coordinating with the FAA
office responsible for this stuff. If they were perfect, that would be different.
But, they are far from it, and without following (or getting source corrected) they
are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. (i.e., procedural anarchy).

[Bill Zaleski]

I understand your reasoning and mostly agree with you. My only
concern is that a missed approach procedure that is given in a textual
format should be able to stand on it's own and should be stated in
phraseology that is "best practice". It should be flyable even
without relying on charting, if worded properly. A bearing is a
magnetic course and represents a number coerrsponding the the flight
path of the aircraft. Perhaps the specialist did transfer the source
document info accurately as it was written, but it is still defective
as to best practice phraseology, and not as easily understandable as
Jepp's rendition. I don't know what the date of Change 3 is, but the
approach is 3 years old now and needs a rewrite. KISS works for me!
Thanks for your input.





On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:59:17 -0800, wrote:

>
>
>Bill Zaleski wrote:
>
>>
>> You seem to think that either bearing number, 030 or 210 should make
>> no difference. A textual description of a missed approach must be
>> complete in itself and need not be suplemented by additional charting
>> prior to the published hold.
>
>I never said there was no difference. What I said is that the context makes it
>obvious what the flight track should be. Over the years there has been lots of
>changes about how NDB bearings are stated or portrayed, so context is always
>important.
>
>>
>>
>> If you look again at both charts, you will see that Jepessen has it
>> right and NACO has it wrong. It's not rocket science to figure it
>> out, but one should not have to dance around improper phraseology to
>> get it right. The bearing you are flying is the same number as your
>> heading corrected for wind drift, not the reciprocal as NACO has it.
>
>No, NACO has it right and Jeppesen has it wrong in the sense that the source (legal)
>document states it exactly as NACO states it. Granted, Jeppesen says it better, but
>they did that on their own.
>
>The policy that the procedures specialist followed when this procedure was issued
>mandated to use bearings from for NDB bearings, whether to or from the facility..
>That policy has been changed in Change 3 to Flight Procedures and Airspace (FAAH
>8260.19C), to use course-to and bearing-from for NDB facilities.
>
>What galls me is that Jeppesen would change it without coordinating with the FAA
>office responsible for this stuff. If they were perfect, that would be different.
>But, they are far from it, and without following (or getting source corrected) they
>are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. (i.e., procedural anarchy).

[[email protected]]

Bill Zaleski wrote:

>
> Jepp's rendition. I don't know what the date of Change 3 is, but the
> approach is 3 years old now and needs a rewrite. KISS works for me!
> Thanks for your input.
>

The date on the current Jepp chart is because of a Jepp format change. I searched some
records. The LDA was placed into service on June 13, 1995. There are then a couple of
amendment dates for the approach procedure, effective in 1995 and 1996. Usually, there
aren't two originals issued, so they must have pulled back the first time.

In any case, the approach hasn't been reworked for at least 7 years, perhaps longer.

They used to get an annual review, but that was changed to binannual several years ago.
And, that is a pencil exercise unless there really is a reason to amend the procedure.
They should catch obsolete language in a review, but don't count on it. ;-)