Something missing on the missed?

[Dan]

OK, am I missing something or is there something missing on this missed
approach procedure at Petaluma? What do you do when you get to the
VOR? Hover?

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0603/06838G29.PDF


-Dan

[Jose]

> What do you do when you get to the
> VOR? Hover?

Didn't you see the note in the upper left corner: "Magic required"?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

The Jepp version is the same. I presume the expectation is that you
will negotiate with ATC to establish a new plan before you get to PYE,
or if you're NORDO, you'll make up a new plan of your own or proceed to
your alternate (assuming O69 was not already your alternate.)

3500 at PYE is high enough for you to go north or south on V25-27 or
north on V301, so if you were NORDO you could transition back to the
enroute chart and go somewhere else without bumping anything. The MORA,
however, is higher, so even though you're /G, I'd stick to the airways
until higher.

-- dave j

Dan wrote:
> OK, am I missing something or is there something missing on this missed
> approach procedure at Petaluma? What do you do when you get to the
> VOR? Hover?
>
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0603/06838G29.PDF
>
>
> -Dan

[Jim Macklin]

hold and request further clearance.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Dan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| OK, am I missing something or is there something missing
on this missed
| approach procedure at Petaluma? What do you do when you
get to the
| VOR? Hover?
|
| http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0603/06838G29.PDF
|
|
| -Dan
|

[A Lieberman]

On 8 Apr 2006 10:33:24 -0700, Dan wrote:

> OK, am I missing something or is there something missing on this missed
> approach procedure at Petaluma? What do you do when you get to the
> VOR? Hover?
>
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0603/06838G29.PDF

Since you know the problem AND as long as I am not NORDO, I'd be putting an
annotation on the procedure to question ATC "What are the missed
procedures" on my IFR briefing portion of my initial approach into the
airport.

Maybe a call to the local airport (or one nearby) will have the answer?

Allen

[Sam Spade]

Dan wrote:
> OK, am I missing something or is there something missing on this missed
> approach procedure at Petaluma? What do you do when you get to the
> VOR? Hover?
>
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0603/06838G29.PDF
>
>
> -Dan
>
The end of a missed approach must support holding or en route flight.
The design is at the option of the controlling ATC facility.

[Kobra]

Not that it's any excuse, but how much do you want to bet that no aircraft
that has ever gone missed at this airport has ever even gotten halfway to
the holding fix before being vectored back to the IAF.

Kobra


"Dan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> OK, am I missing something or is there something missing on this missed
> approach procedure at Petaluma? What do you do when you get to the
> VOR? Hover?
>
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0603/06838G29.PDF
>
>
> -Dan
>

[Dan Wegman]

Maybe NACO made a mistake. It happens. Does anyone have a Jepp for
comparison? Missed procedure is probably missing the words "and hold." To
report chart errors:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/reportingerrors


"Kobra" > wrote in message
. ..
> Not that it's any excuse, but how much do you want to bet that no aircraft
> that has ever gone missed at this airport has ever even gotten halfway to
> the holding fix before being vectored back to the IAF.
>
> Kobra
>
>
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> OK, am I missing something or is there something missing on this missed
>> approach procedure at Petaluma? What do you do when you get to the
>> VOR? Hover?
>>
>> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0603/06838G29.PDF
>>
>>
>> -Dan
>>
>
>

[JPH]

Dan Wegman wrote:
> Maybe NACO made a mistake. It happens. Does anyone have a Jepp for
> comparison? Missed procedure is probably missing the words "and hold." To
> report chart errors:
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/reportingerrors

>>"Dan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>>>OK, am I missing something or is there something missing on this missed
>>>approach procedure at Petaluma? What do you do when you get to the
>>>VOR? Hover?
>>>
>>>http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0603/06838G29.PDF
>>>
>>>
>>> -Dan
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Although it looks odd and most procedures have a holding pattern, the
procedures design regulation doesn't require it (TERPs paragraph 270).
The missed approach procedure only has to specify an altitude and a
clearance limit. The altitude specified in the missed approach must be
sufficient to allow enroute flight or holding. If you still have radio
contact with approach, then you're expected to relay your intentions to
them. If you don't have radio contact, just do what you would do if you
were NORDO.

John

[Sam Spade]

Dan Wegman wrote:
> Maybe NACO made a mistake. It happens. Does anyone have a Jepp for
> comparison? Missed procedure is probably missing the words "and hold." To
> report chart errors:
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/reportingerrors
>
Jepp is the same. It is not a mistake.

There are lots of missed approaches without holding patterns.

KPOC ILS 26

KEMT both VOR IAPs

[[email protected]]

I see this alot in SoCal. Areas with tons of 24 hr Radar coverage.
You go missed, turn to the VOR and Call.,

[[email protected]]

I've seen this before in SoCal -- esp with lots of Radar coverage - 24
hrs a day. You go missed - turn to the VOR and call.

[Sam Spade]

wrote:
> I see this alot in SoCal. Areas with tons of 24 hr Radar coverage.
> You go missed, turn to the VOR and Call.,
>
Actually, in the KEMT example there is no radar coverage until you leave
2,000 to 2,500. Because of the altitude cap at ADAMM they may not see
you until approaching ADAMM. Then again, it's still a long ways to PDZ
and you will never, ever hold there.

[[email protected]]

True - but EMT is towered

[Sam Spade]

wrote:
> True - but EMT is towered
>
What's a tower have to do with whether the missed approach has a holding
pattern?

[[email protected]]

Sorry - did not mean to relay that - I meant that there's radar
coverage - maybe limited coverage in the tower - but still radar, so
when you go missed, even if you are restricted in climb as you are at
EMT in the missed, you're talking to the tower 1st, who can vector you
if needed. So, no pre-designated hold is needed on the chart.

That's how I interpret it.!

[Dane Spearing]

Just because an airport has a tower doesn't mean it had radar coverage.
An an example, SAF (Santa Fe, NM) is a Class D towered airport with
a number of instrument approaches and....no radar.

-- Dane

In article . com>,
> wrote:
>Sorry - did not mean to relay that - I meant that there's radar
>coverage - maybe limited coverage in the tower - but still radar, so
>when you go missed, even if you are restricted in climb as you are at
>EMT in the missed, you're talking to the tower 1st, who can vector you
>if needed. So, no pre-designated hold is needed on the chart.
>
>That's how I interpret it.!

[Sam Spade]

wrote:
> Sorry - did not mean to relay that - I meant that there's radar
> coverage - maybe limited coverage in the tower - but still radar, so
> when you go missed, even if you are restricted in climb as you are at
> EMT in the missed, you're talking to the tower 1st, who can vector you
> if needed. So, no pre-designated hold is needed on the chart.
>
> That's how I interpret it.!
>

That is not how it works. I don't know whether El Monte tower has a
tower radar display (Brite D, or whatever it's called). But, if they do
it would be from the same radar site used by SoCal Approach Control for
that area (on Ontario Airport). So, the same distance/line-of-sight
limitations would apply; i.e. the tower wouldn't have radar on anyone
much below 2,500.

Even if radar coverage were good, I don't believe a VFR tower can
provide any type of radar vector to an IFR aircraft.

[Mark Hansen]

On 04/13/06 08:07, Sam Spade wrote:
> wrote:
>> Sorry - did not mean to relay that - I meant that there's radar
>> coverage - maybe limited coverage in the tower - but still radar, so
>> when you go missed, even if you are restricted in climb as you are at
>> EMT in the missed, you're talking to the tower 1st, who can vector you
>> if needed. So, no pre-designated hold is needed on the chart.
>>
>> That's how I interpret it.!
>>
>
> That is not how it works. I don't know whether El Monte tower has a
> tower radar display (Brite D, or whatever it's called). But, if they do
> it would be from the same radar site used by SoCal Approach Control for
> that area (on Ontario Airport). So, the same distance/line-of-sight
> limitations would apply; i.e. the tower wouldn't have radar on anyone
> much below 2,500.
>
> Even if radar coverage were good, I don't believe a VFR tower can
> provide any type of radar vector to an IFR aircraft.

Sorry ... what's a VFR Tower?

[Newps]

>>
>> Even if radar coverage were good, I don't believe a VFR tower can
>> provide any type of radar vector to an IFR aircraft.

It depends on what the approach control and the tower have worked out
between themselves. They certainly may do a limited amount of
vectoring, usually with the departures.


>
>
> Sorry ... what's a VFR Tower?

Any tower that isn't at the main airport for class B or C.

[[email protected]]

Geez! I can see why its hard to post here. I live in SoCal. Did IFR
missed approaches in EMT for my IFR ticket! Did the exact missed
approach proceedure mentioned!

Didnt mean to confuse anyone! Just relaying what really is true from
1st hand, actual experince with approaches with no charted hold, in
SoCal Airspace. I thought that was important - you know, like a Pirep!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sorry ... what's a VFR Tower?
>

A tower where IFR services are provided by the overlying TRACON or Center.

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Sorry ... what's a VFR Tower?
>
> Any tower that isn't at the main airport for class B or C.

What (if any) is the distinction?

(I'm thinking of the Phoenix area that has six or seven towers within the
Phoenix Class B)


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>> Sorry ... what's a VFR Tower?
>>
>
> Any tower that isn't at the main airport for class B or C.
>

Hmmm......., Duluth Tower isn't the main airport for Class B or C airspace.
Neither are Rockford, Muskegon, or Waterloo Towers. Are these examples of
VFR Towers?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>>>
>>> Sorry ... what's a VFR Tower?
>>>
>>
>> Any tower that isn't at the main airport for class B or C.
>>
>
> What (if any) is the distinction?
>
> (I'm thinking of the Phoenix area that has six or seven towers within the
> Phoenix Class B)
>

He's wrong, again. It's best to ignore him. VFR Tower is just another term
for Nonapproach Control Tower.


From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:
NONAPPROACH CONTROL TOWER- Authorizes aircraft to land or takeoff at the
airport controlled by the tower or to transit the Class D airspace. The
primary function of a nonapproach control tower is the sequencing of
aircraft in the traffic pattern and on the landing area. Nonapproach control
towers also separate aircraft operating under instrument flight rules
clearances from approach controls and centers. They provide ground control
services to aircraft, vehicles, personnel, and equipment on the airport
movement area.

[Mark Hansen]

On 04/13/06 09:18, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Sorry ... what's a VFR Tower?
>>
>
> A tower where IFR services are provided by the overlying TRACON or Center.
>
>

So what are these IFR services? When I'm flying an IAP to my local Class D
airport, I get handed-off to the tower controller, who stays with me through
the rest of the approach, clearing me to land (if I get that far), separating
me from VFR traffic using radar, etc.. Are these not IFR services?

Thanks for any clarification ... I'm just fuzzy on the distinction ;-)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> So what are these IFR services? When I'm flying an IAP to my local Class D
> airport, I get handed-off to the tower controller, who stays with me
> through
> the rest of the approach, clearing me to land (if I get that far),
> separating
> me from VFR traffic using radar, etc.. Are these not IFR services?
>

No, they're not. Runway separation is provided to all aircraft at towered
fields and there is no separation provided to VFR aircraft in Class D
airspace, unless there is also a TRSA. If there is a TRSA it's not a VFR
Tower. What is your local Class D?

[Sam Spade]

wrote:

> Geez! I can see why its hard to post here. I live in SoCal. Did IFR
> missed approaches in EMT for my IFR ticket! Did the exact missed
> approach proceedure mentioned!
>
> Didnt mean to confuse anyone! Just relaying what really is true from
> 1st hand, actual experince with approaches with no charted hold, in
> SoCal Airspace. I thought that was important - you know, like a Pirep!
>
Don't feel bad. These discussions often takeoff into the nuances of the
system.

No one doubts you did missed approaches at El Monte. But, I seriously
doubt the tower did anything other than give you a SoCal frequency to
contact.

[Sam Spade]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Sorry ... what's a VFR Tower?
>>
>>Any tower that isn't at the main airport for class B or C.
>
>
> What (if any) is the distinction?
>
> (I'm thinking of the Phoenix area that has six or seven towers within the
> Phoenix Class B)
>
>
There is only one Class B airport in the PHX Class B area.

[Mark Hansen]

On 04/13/06 10:34, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> So what are these IFR services? When I'm flying an IAP to my local Class D
>> airport, I get handed-off to the tower controller, who stays with me
>> through
>> the rest of the approach, clearing me to land (if I get that far),
>> separating
>> me from VFR traffic using radar, etc.. Are these not IFR services?
>>
>
> No, they're not. Runway separation is provided to all aircraft at towered
> fields and there is no separation provided to VFR aircraft in Class D
> airspace, unless there is also a TRSA. If there is a TRSA it's not a VFR
> Tower. What is your local Class D?

The airport I'm speaking about is Sacramento Executive (KSAC) (it is not
a TRSA). I didn't say separation of VFR traffic; I said separation between
me (IFR) and other VFR traffic.

So I can see what you're talking about, can you provide some examples of
IFR services provided by a Class C tower (say, Sacramento Intl, for example)
that are not provided by the Class D tower (KSAC, in this case)?

Again, I'm just trying to understand what make this Class D a VFR tower.

Thanks,

[Newps]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Sorry ... what's a VFR Tower?
>>
>>Any tower that isn't at the main airport for class B or C.
>
>
> What (if any) is the distinction?

Who provides the approach control service? There are a few painfully
slow approach control facilities such as Bismarck and Fargo that are the
exception to the rule but essentially it is the B's and C's.


>
> (I'm thinking of the Phoenix area that has six or seven towers within the
> Phoenix Class B)

They are all VFR as they are class D. Most if not all have a DBRITE in
the tower and they may have letters of agreement with PHX to accept and
release IFR aircraft automatically. That would be transparent to you.

[Newps]

Mark Hansen wrote:


>
>
> The airport I'm speaking about is Sacramento Executive (KSAC) (it is not
> a TRSA). I didn't say separation of VFR traffic; I said separation between
> me (IFR) and other VFR traffic.

That's a class D also. There is no separation between you and VFR
traffic. You'll get traffic advisories but that's it.


>
> can you provide some examples of
> IFR services provided by a Class C tower (say, Sacramento Intl, for
> example)
> that are not provided by the Class D tower

The services will be essentially the same, by the tower. You may notice
delays in getting released IFR, that would be your clue that they do not
have automatic releases with SMF.



>
> Again, I'm just trying to understand what make this Class D a VFR tower.

It's VFR because it's a class D and is within SMF's airspace, run by Norcal.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>
> The airport I'm speaking about is Sacramento Executive (KSAC) (it is not
> a TRSA). I didn't say separation of VFR traffic; I said separation between
> me (IFR) and other VFR traffic.
>

I didn't say separation of VFR traffic either, I said there is no separation
provided to VFR aircraft in Class D airspace. That means no separation is
provided between an IFR aircraft and a VFR aircraft.


>
> So I can see what you're talking about, can you provide some examples of
> IFR services provided by a Class C tower (say, Sacramento Intl, for
> example) that are not provided by the Class D tower (KSAC, in this case)?
>

Sure, in Class C airspace VFR aircraft are separated from IFR aircraft. But
that's not the issue, we're talking about VFR towers, or nonapproach control
towers, versus towers with an approach control.


>
> Again, I'm just trying to understand what make this Class D a VFR tower.
>

Basically, it's the lack of authority or responsibility for airborne
separation between IFR and SVFR aircraft. Think of the VFR tower as owning
the runways and the overlying approach control or center owning the
airspace.

In practice, many VFR towers are delegated some responsibility for
separation; such as authority to approve SVFR operations below a specified
altitude or the initial separation of successive IFR departures. This may
be done in letters of agreement between the facilities or on an individual
basis.