Jepp vs NOS at PRB

[Doug Campbell]

I was training with Jepp charts, and my partner (safety pilot) had NOS, and
we
were attempting the VOR DME (GPS) B approach into Paso Robles. The Jepp
chart shows the procedure turn (when starting at the VOR, not the arc)
starting
at 6 DME from the VOR, while the NOS chart shows it starting outside the 10
DME arc. Anyone know which is "right" or if it even matters? My instructor
didn't
know, and the DE for my checkride today (passed, by the way) said the NOS
was
probably "right" since it was much newer than the Jepp plate. But which is
ATC
expecting me to fly? DE said "fly what YOUR chart says (Jepp), but I'd like
a
more defendable answer.

Screwed it up anyway, as we talked about both the A and B VOR approaches,
and
I ended up with the A approach on the clip, but got cleared for B, so had to
recover
after the fact. Man, will I EVER stop making dumb mistakes?

TIA, Doug

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 4 May 2004 19:58:29 -0700, "Doug Campbell"
> wrote:

>I was training with Jepp charts, and my partner (safety pilot) had NOS, and
>we
>were attempting the VOR DME (GPS) B approach into Paso Robles. The Jepp
>chart shows the procedure turn (when starting at the VOR, not the arc)
>starting
>at 6 DME from the VOR, while the NOS chart shows it starting outside the 10
>DME arc. Anyone know which is "right" or if it even matters? My instructor
>didn't
>know, and the DE for my checkride today (passed, by the way) said the NOS
>was
>probably "right" since it was much newer than the Jepp plate. But which is
>ATC
>expecting me to fly? DE said "fly what YOUR chart says (Jepp), but I'd like
>a
>more defendable answer.
>
>Screwed it up anyway, as we talked about both the A and B VOR approaches,
>and
>I ended up with the A approach on the clip, but got cleared for B, so had to
>recover
>after the fact. Man, will I EVER stop making dumb mistakes?
>
>TIA, Doug
>

Well, I hate to say this, and I may be wrong (being a Jepp chart user), but
I think you, your instructor and the DE are all misinterpreting the NACO
chart.

Nowhere on the chart does it say to start the PT outside the 10 DME. As a
matter of fact, given the plan view restriction to remain within 10 miles
(of ILSIC), if you did not start the PT until the PRB 10 DME, you would
only have 3 miles in which to complete the PT!

The PT barb is shown where it's shown for charting convenience. But where
you start the turn is up to you, and you can start it any place after
ILSIC.

=================================
AIM 5-4-8 a.1. On U.S. Government charts, a barbed arrow indicates the
direction or side of the outbound course on which the procedure turn is
made. Headings are provided for course reversal using the 45 degree type
procedure turn.

**However, the point at which the turn may be commenced and the type and
rate of turn is left to the discretion of the pilot.**
==================================

(Emphasis mine)

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

[Mark Kolber]

On Tue, 4 May 2004 19:58:29 -0700, "Doug Campbell"
> wrote:

>The Jepp
>chart shows the procedure turn (when starting at the VOR, not the arc)
>starting
>at 6 DME from the VOR, while the NOS chart shows it starting outside the 10
>DME arc. Anyone know which is "right" or if it even matters

I don't have the Jepp chart in front of me, but I'd bet that, not only
is Ron correct, but the bunch of you may be misinterpreting the Jepp
chart also.

Looking at the NACO chart
(http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0404/00858VDGB.PDF) and starting from the
VOR, the full approach procedure it shows is to fly a course of 133°
at 5000 msl to ISLSIC (3 DME), the IAF (the only IAF on the chart that
requires a procedure turn. Note that the VOR is =not= an IAF).

Once crossing ILSIC, you may descend to 3600' and begin the procedure
turn - just keep it within 10 NM of ILSIC.

Once PT inbound, if you are more than 6 DME away from the VOR, you may
only continue your descent to 2400' until you reach the 6 DME point
(CFIVO) after which you may continue down to 2000' until ILSIC (the
FAF)

(Ron or other Jepp users, is this what the Jepp chart for the
procedure shows?)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 05 May 2004 11:22:16 GMT, Mark Kolber
> wrote:

>(Ron or other Jepp users, is this what the Jepp chart for the
>procedure shows?)

My Jepp service only covers the East so I can't comment on that approach
per Jepp.

But from the way the OP described it, it sounds as if they are making a
fairly common mistake of assuming that the location of the PT symbol on the
plan view has something to do with where you have to start the turn.

If it were one of those "fly as charted" type PT's, it would be a different
story.

I'm surprised that the DE didn't know better.


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

[Stan Prevost]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 4 May 2004 19:58:29 -0700, "Doug Campbell"
> > wrote:
>
>
> Well, I hate to say this, and I may be wrong (being a Jepp chart user),
but
> I think you, your instructor and the DE are all misinterpreting the NACO
> chart.
>
> Nowhere on the chart does it say to start the PT outside the 10 DME. As a
> matter of fact, given the plan view restriction to remain within 10 miles
> (of ILSIC), if you did not start the PT until the PRB 10 DME, you would
> only have 3 miles in which to complete the PT!
>
> The PT barb is shown where it's shown for charting convenience. But where
> you start the turn is up to you, and you can start it any place after
> ILSIC.
>

What you say is true, of course, Ron, but one does have to keep in mind that
the 3600 ft altitude restriction applies until PT completion and then 1600
ft must be lost getting back to ILSIC. That will take some distance, over 3
nm in a 90 kt spam can at 750 ft/min descent, so not beginning the PT until
past 6 DME (CFIVO) would be a good idea.

Stan

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 5 May 2004 08:18:48 -0500, "Stan Prevost" >
wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 4 May 2004 19:58:29 -0700, "Doug Campbell"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well, I hate to say this, and I may be wrong (being a Jepp chart user),
>but
>> I think you, your instructor and the DE are all misinterpreting the NACO
>> chart.
>>
>> Nowhere on the chart does it say to start the PT outside the 10 DME. As a
>> matter of fact, given the plan view restriction to remain within 10 miles
>> (of ILSIC), if you did not start the PT until the PRB 10 DME, you would
>> only have 3 miles in which to complete the PT!
>>
>> The PT barb is shown where it's shown for charting convenience. But where
>> you start the turn is up to you, and you can start it any place after
>> ILSIC.
>>
>
>What you say is true, of course, Ron, but one does have to keep in mind that
>the 3600 ft altitude restriction applies until PT completion and then 1600
>ft must be lost getting back to ILSIC. That will take some distance, over 3
>nm in a 90 kt spam can at 750 ft/min descent, so not beginning the PT until
>past 6 DME (CFIVO) would be a good idea.
>
>Stan
>

You're correct, and that gets into another issue of how best to fly that
approach. At 3NM and 90K GS one would need to descend 800 fpm. I'd
probably perform a teardrop PT on this approach, and go out far enough to
have a comfortable descent rate, given the winds.


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

[Greg Esres]

<<I'm surprised that the DE didn't know better.>>

I'm not. Exactly what resources exist which could relieve him of this
misconception once he has acquired it? Zippo.

[Dave Butler]

Greg Esres wrote:
> <<I'm surprised that the DE didn't know better.>>
>
> I'm not. Exactly what resources exist which could relieve him of this
> misconception once he has acquired it? Zippo.

As I read the post, the examiner just told him to do what was published on the
chart. There's nothing to indicate what the examiner did or did not know.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 05 May 2004 12:01:46 -0400, Dave Butler >
wrote:

>Greg Esres wrote:
>> <<I'm surprised that the DE didn't know better.>>
>>
>> I'm not. Exactly what resources exist which could relieve him of this
>> misconception once he has acquired it? Zippo.
>
>As I read the post, the examiner just told him to do what was published on the
>chart. There's nothing to indicate what the examiner did or did not know.
>
>Dave
>Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

I read the post differently, Dave.

It seemed to me that the OP was asking the DE about whether Jepp or NACO
was "correct" in view of the difference in the way the PT was charted on
the Plan View. And the DE responded that probably the NACO chart was
correct.

Although I don't have the Jepp chart at hand, it seems to me that both
charts are likely correct, with the PT charted in a different place on the
plan view.

The DE saying that the NACO chart was probably correct means he either
didn't understand the question, or was agreeing that the difference in
location of the PT on the plan view was meaningful.




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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 05 May 2004 15:23:07 GMT, Greg Esres > wrote:

>Exactly what resources exist which could relieve him of this
>misconception once he has acquired it?

The AIM, for one.


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

[[email protected]]

Doug Campbell wrote:

> I was training with Jepp charts, and my partner (safety pilot) had NOS, and
> we
> were attempting the VOR DME (GPS) B approach into Paso Robles. The Jepp
> chart shows the procedure turn (when starting at the VOR, not the arc)

You guys need some chart instruction. Look at the profile view of the NOS
chart. The descending thick black line marked 133 degrees starts at ILSIC.
(PRB 133/3 DME). That is the procedure turn fix, without ambiguity.

[[email protected]]

>
>
> What you say is true, of course, Ron, but one does have to keep in mind that
> the 3600 ft altitude restriction applies until PT completion and then 1600
> ft must be lost getting back to ILSIC. That will take some distance, over 3
> nm in a 90 kt spam can at 750 ft/min descent, so not beginning the PT until
> past 6 DME (CFIVO) would be a good idea.
>
> Stan

This IAP also has a stepdown fix within the procedure turn area (CIFVO).
Criteria permits those as far out as 4 miles from the PT fix, based on the
presumption that no one will roll out of the procedure turn less than 4 miles
from the PT fix inbound.

[[email protected]]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Wed, 05 May 2004 11:22:16 GMT, Mark Kolber
> > wrote:
>
> >(Ron or other Jepp users, is this what the Jepp chart for the
> >procedure shows?)
>
> My Jepp service only covers the East so I can't comment on that approach
> per Jepp.
>

The Jepp chart is no different than the NACO chart. Without referring to the
profile view, it becomes ambiguous to determine the PT fix. Jeppesen doesn't
have ILSIC for the PT fix, only PRB R-138/ 3.0 DME. Still quite clear.

This is an example of how too many folks don't read IAP charts properly. Most
of the time, the PT fix is clear from the plan view, but not always. Charting
convention places the burden for clarity of the course reversal in the profile
view.

>
>
> I'm surprised that the DE didn't know better.

Alas, I am not.

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<I'm surprised that the DE didn't know better.>>
>
> I'm not. Exactly what resources exist which could relieve him of this
> misconception once he has acquired it? Zippo.

Now, that is insight!!!

[Martin Kosina]

> Nowhere on the chart does it say to start the PT outside the 10 DME. As a
> matter of fact, given the plan view restriction to remain within 10 miles
> (of ILSIC), if you did not start the PT until the PRB 10 DME, you would
> only have 3 miles in which to complete the PT!

That's the way I read it, the important thing is to stay within 10nm
of the IAF (ILSIC). I think technically, you could even start your PT
there, but waiting until CFIVO gives you more time to get settled
inbound and descend, otherwise you'd have shed ~1500' in couple miles.
That's probably why the Jepp chart recommends the 6 DME.

On the other hand, waiting until 10DME can put you out of the
protected airspace even in a Skyhawk if the wind is blowing out of the
west. Note that beyond 10nm the minimum safe altitude for that sector
is then 5000', not the 3600' you may have descended to outbound on the
PT. In fact, there is a 3622' obstacle in the general area you could
end up in if you really extended the PT, looks like.

I agree this looks a little confusing at a glance, they could have
drawn the barb inside the arc, IMHO.

Am I reading this right ?

Martin

[[email protected]]

>
>
> Although I don't have the Jepp chart at hand, it seems to me that both
> charts are likely correct, with the PT charted in a different place on the
> plan view.

I just posted it on at.binaries.pictures.aviation

[[email protected]]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Wed, 05 May 2004 15:23:07 GMT, Greg Esres > wrote:
>
> >Exactly what resources exist which could relieve him of this
> >misconception once he has acquired it?
>
> The AIM, for one.

Where in the AIM? I don't think this issue would be clarified without the
use of common sense (i.e., reading the entire chart in context...profile
and plan views) or a good reading of both the NACO and Jeppesen approach
chart legends.

[[email protected]]

Martin Kosina wrote:That's the way I read it, the important thing is to stay
within 10nm

> of the IAF (ILSIC). I think technically, you could even start your PT
> there....

Think of it as the course reversal fix or the course reversal IAF. It helps
keep it sorted out over the long haul.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 05 May 2004 10:09:36 -0700, wrote:

>
>
>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 05 May 2004 15:23:07 GMT, Greg Esres > wrote:
>>
>> >Exactly what resources exist which could relieve him of this
>> >misconception once he has acquired it?
>>
>> The AIM, for one.
>
>Where in the AIM? I don't think this issue would be clarified without the
>use of common sense (i.e., reading the entire chart in context...profile
>and plan views) or a good reading of both the NACO and Jeppesen approach
>chart legends.

5-4-8 a.1. ... However, the point at which the turn may be commenced and
the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of the pilot.

These types of issues get discussed in many places from time to time, as
well as in various publications. This very issue was the topic of a long
discussion on another aviation news group a few years ago. It was also a
California approach, but not this one.

Relief of misconceptions does not occur without a willingness to learn,
however.


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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 05 May 2004 10:06:44 -0700, wrote:

>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Although I don't have the Jepp chart at hand, it seems to me that both
>> charts are likely correct, with the PT charted in a different place on the
>> plan view.
>
>I just posted it on at.binaries.pictures.aviation

Thank you. That confirms my conclusion that both chart are correct, but
that the OP (and others) are misinterpreting the PT charting.


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

[Roy Smith]

wrote:
> Charting convention places the burden for clarity of the course
> reversal in the profile view.


Frank,

I'm not saying you're wrong (in fact, what you say makes a lot of
sense), but is there some reference you could give to that? It's not
anything I've ever seen in any of the standard reference materials.

On that note, I remember once flying the MGJ ILS-3 for practice
(http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05264I3.pdf). Shame
on me, I hadn't really briefed the approach, and just winged it. I flew
the procedure turn a minute outside of the LOM and ended up AFU.

It's kind of tricky. The first trick is that the PT doesn't start at
the LOM, but at DIYAD. The second trick is that there's a stepdown at
NISSN inbound from the PT, so you really need to be outside of NISSN
before you start the PT, not just outside of DIYAD. The third trick is
that DIYAD and NISSN are both defined by DME, but from different sources
(neither of which is the ILS).

There's a note on the profile view saying "Remain within 10 NM", but I'm
not 100% sure from *where*. I'm reasonably sure it means 10 NM from
DIYAD, but given NISSN, I'm not quite certain about that.

Lastly, it beats the hell out of me why anybody would care that DIYAD is
13.5 DME from HUO. Given the crossing angles, I could see that being on
the localizer and 20.8 DME from SAX is a good way to identify NISSN, but
being on the localizer and being 13.5 DME from HUO is pretty worthless
as a way to identify DIYAD. GPS is wonderful :-)

This is a great approach for training purposes. It's a confusing mess
for flying for real. But it does serve to show a student why briefing
an approach before you actually get to the IAF is a good idea :-)

[Greg Esres]

<< 5-4-8 a.1. ... However, the point at which the turn may be
commenced and the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of
the pilot.>>

That just begs the question. If the person is under the impression
that the PT can't begin until some irrelevant fix in the planview,
then all the AIM tells him is that once he reaches that fix, THEN he
can begin the PT whenver and however he wants.

A person who has a misconception is likely to interpret anything he
sees or hears in light of his misconception. Unless there is
*specific*, authoritative information to root out the initial error,
getting him to change his mind will be difficult.

The only reason that the error of this present belief was instantly
obvious to me was that I had read a number of articles (Wally Roberts)
and publications (TERPS, etc) describing how the PT protected areas
are constructed.

[Stan Prevost]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Doug Campbell wrote:
>
> > I was training with Jepp charts, and my partner (safety pilot) had NOS,
and
> > we
> > were attempting the VOR DME (GPS) B approach into Paso Robles. The Jepp
> > chart shows the procedure turn (when starting at the VOR, not the arc)
>
> You guys need some chart instruction. Look at the profile view of the NOS
> chart. The descending thick black line marked 133 degrees starts at
ILSIC.
> (PRB 133/3 DME). That is the procedure turn fix, without ambiguity.
>


I'm wondering if the NACO chart shows the barb at EXUPY as a *recommended*
PT commencement point, because one can initiate a nice three degree
stabilized descent from there.

Stan

[Teacherjh]

>>
The third trick is
that DIYAD and NISSN are both defined
by DME, but from different sources
(neither of which is the ILS).
<<

Consider the position of HUO (which is the source of the DME for DIYAD). It
makes no sense to me. The DME distance will not be changing much as you travel
a long way along the FAC. Like you, I don't understand why they didn't use
SAX for both.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 05 May 2004 20:45:04 GMT, Greg Esres > wrote:

><< 5-4-8 a.1. ... However, the point at which the turn may be
>commenced and the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of
>the pilot.>>
>
>That just begs the question. If the person is under the impression
>that the PT can't begin until some irrelevant fix in the planview,
>then all the AIM tells him is that once he reaches that fix, THEN he
>can begin the PT whenver and however he wants.
>
>A person who has a misconception is likely to interpret anything he
>sees or hears in light of his misconception. Unless there is
>*specific*, authoritative information to root out the initial error,
>getting him to change his mind will be difficult.
>
>The only reason that the error of this present belief was instantly
>obvious to me was that I had read a number of articles (Wally Roberts)
>and publications (TERPS, etc) describing how the PT protected areas
>are constructed.

Well, if a person is unwilling to read and learn, then nothing will
change his mind.


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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 05 May 2004 16:28:44 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:

Roy,


>On that note, I remember once flying the MGJ ILS-3 for practice
>(http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05264I3.pdf). Shame
>on me, I hadn't really briefed the approach, and just winged it. I flew
>the procedure turn a minute outside of the LOM and ended up AFU.
>
>It's kind of tricky. The first trick is that the PT doesn't start at
>the LOM, but at DIYAD.

That's interesting. Fortunately I have my Jepp charts which show them in
different places. But on the NACO chart you reference, to me they look
like they're in the same spot :-).

>The second trick is that there's a stepdown at
>NISSN inbound from the PT, so you really need to be outside of NISSN
>before you start the PT, not just outside of DIYAD.

I disagree. You only need to become established inbound far enough from
DIYAD so that you can descend from 3000' to 1800' at a comfortable rate of
descent. The presence of the stepdown only tells you what altitude to
maintain if you are outside of that stepdown fix. It does NOT tell you you
can't start the PT at DIYAD or finish it inside of NISSN.


>The third trick is
>that DIYAD and NISSN are both defined by DME, but from different sources
>(neither of which is the ILS).
>
>There's a note on the profile view saying "Remain within 10 NM", but I'm
>not 100% sure from *where*. I'm reasonably sure it means 10 NM from
>DIYAD, but given NISSN, I'm not quite certain about that.


It's 10 NM from DIYAD. (And it is stated so explicitly on the Jepp chart).

>
>Lastly, it beats the hell out of me why anybody would care that DIYAD is
>13.5 DME from HUO. Given the crossing angles, I could see that being on
>the localizer and 20.8 DME from SAX is a good way to identify NISSN, but
>being on the localizer and being 13.5 DME from HUO is pretty worthless
>as a way to identify DIYAD. GPS is wonderful :-)

Diyad is also on the LOC.


>
>This is a great approach for training purposes. It's a confusing mess
>for flying for real. But it does serve to show a student why briefing
>an approach before you actually get to the IAF is a good idea :-)

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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 5 May 2004 16:55:57 -0500, "Stan Prevost" >
wrote:

>I'm wondering if the NACO chart shows the barb at EXUPY as a *recommended*
>PT commencement point, because one can initiate a nice three degree
>stabilized descent from there.

According to what others have written in the past, it is there only for
charting convenience. In other words, whoever designed the chart thought
things would look less cluttered that way.


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

[Teacherjh]

>>
>Lastly, it beats the hell out of me why anybody would care that DIYAD is
>13.5 DME from HUO. Given the crossing angles, I could see that being on
>the localizer and 20.8 DME from SAX is a good way to identify NISSN, but
>being on the localizer and being 13.5 DME from HUO is pretty worthless
>as a way to identify DIYAD. GPS is wonderful :-)

Diyad is also on the LOC.
<<

Yes, it is. And the best information from the localizer is "left or right of
course", which translates roughly into "too far East, too far West". To
augment this and get an actual location, you need something whose best
information is "too far North, too far South. DME from SAX does this (since
SAX is roughly South). DME from the LOC (if it's available) is even better.
However, DME from HUO (which is to the West) is going to tell you "too far
West, too far East".

But you already know this from the localizer.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 05 May 2004 22:34:39 GMT, (Teacherjh) wrote:

>>>
>>Lastly, it beats the hell out of me why anybody would care that DIYAD is
>>13.5 DME from HUO. Given the crossing angles, I could see that being on
>>the localizer and 20.8 DME from SAX is a good way to identify NISSN, but
>>being on the localizer and being 13.5 DME from HUO is pretty worthless
>>as a way to identify DIYAD. GPS is wonderful :-)
>
>Diyad is also on the LOC.
><<
>
>Yes, it is. And the best information from the localizer is "left or right of
>course", which translates roughly into "too far East, too far West". To
>augment this and get an actual location, you need something whose best
>information is "too far North, too far South. DME from SAX does this (since
>SAX is roughly South). DME from the LOC (if it's available) is even better.
>However, DME from HUO (which is to the West) is going to tell you "too far
>West, too far East".
>
>But you already know this from the localizer.
>
>Jose

According to my interpretation of the Jepp chart, DIYAD is formed by the
intersection of the HUO 094R and the LOC; or by the 13.5DME point on the
HUO 094R


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

[Stan Prevost]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 5 May 2004 16:55:57 -0500, "Stan Prevost" >
> wrote:
>
> >I'm wondering if the NACO chart shows the barb at EXUPY as a
*recommended*
> >PT commencement point, because one can initiate a nice three degree
> >stabilized descent from there.
>
> According to what others have written in the past, it is there only for
> charting convenience. In other words, whoever designed the chart thought
> things would look less cluttered that way.
>

Yes, it could have been purely for that reason. However, it seems that the
PT barb could have easily been shown inside 10 DME without clutter. And it
is interesting that EXUPY is the point at which a three degree descent would
begin to the VOR, and that invites speculation as to coincidence or intent.
One could do worse than choosing EXUPY as a point for initiating the PT.
Coming in from IAF KIKII, one would begin descent from 3600 at EXUPY, and a
stabilized 3 degree descent could be made all the way to the airport from
there, and it seems possible that the charting person chose to show the PT
barb outside EXUPY, on the 3600 ft segment, as a suggestion to the pilot as
to where to execute the PT. Since s/he has the discretion.....

Stan

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:

> According to my interpretation of the Jepp chart, DIYAD is formed by the
> intersection of the HUO 094R and the LOC; or by the 13.5DME point on the
> HUO 094R

Yes. I get the same from reading the NOS chart, so at least we're both
on the same page.

But, what I don't understand is what value it is knowing that DIYAD is
13.5 DME from HUO. The only real reason DIYAD exists is to specify a
fixed distance out on the localizer course, and HUO DME doesn't help you
do that.

[Teacherjh]

>>
According to my interpretation of the Jepp chart, DIYAD is formed by the
intersection of the HUO 094R and the LOC; or by the 13.5DME point on the
HUO 094R
<<

Yes, that is true. And the DME distance might be useful to someone coming in
from HUO. However, the DME (and not the radial) is charted in the plan view.
If they are going to go through the trouble (and clutter) of putting the DME
there, I'd rather see the radial. Especially since the same VOR (different
radial) is used to identify NISSN.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 5 May 2004 18:15:44 -0500, "Stan Prevost" >
wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 5 May 2004 16:55:57 -0500, "Stan Prevost" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm wondering if the NACO chart shows the barb at EXUPY as a
>*recommended*
>> >PT commencement point, because one can initiate a nice three degree
>> >stabilized descent from there.
>>
>> According to what others have written in the past, it is there only for
>> charting convenience. In other words, whoever designed the chart thought
>> things would look less cluttered that way.
>>
>
>Yes, it could have been purely for that reason. However, it seems that the
>PT barb could have easily been shown inside 10 DME without clutter. And it
>is interesting that EXUPY is the point at which a three degree descent would
>begin to the VOR, and that invites speculation as to coincidence or intent.
>One could do worse than choosing EXUPY as a point for initiating the PT.
>Coming in from IAF KIKII, one would begin descent from 3600 at EXUPY, and a
>stabilized 3 degree descent could be made all the way to the airport from
>there, and it seems possible that the charting person chose to show the PT
>barb outside EXUPY, on the 3600 ft segment, as a suggestion to the pilot as
>to where to execute the PT. Since s/he has the discretion.....
>
>Stan
>
>

I don't use NACO charts so that's why I ask these questions:

Do you have any documentation to indicate that the location of barb
placement on a NACO chart is determined by this method?

Is it a standard for NACO charts that the barb is placed at the 3° descent
point?


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

[[email protected]]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Wed, 05 May 2004 10:09:36 -0700, wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
> >Where in the AIM? I don't think this issue would be clarified without the
> >use of common sense (i.e., reading the entire chart in context...profile
> >and plan views) or a good reading of both the NACO and Jeppesen approach
> >chart legends.
>
> 5-4-8 a.1. ... However, the point at which the turn may be commenced and
> the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of the pilot.

I fail to see where that AIM language helps me read the chart if I am otherwise
of limited clues. ;-)

[[email protected]]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> Well, if a person is unwilling to read and learn, then nothing will
> change his mind.
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Well stated. Nonetheless, use of both the plan and profile views of an IAP
is probably best enhanced by some ground school in the chart legends for
both NACO and Jepp.

Alas, some feds assume all this stuff is self-evident. And, the PRB is a
great example of where you really do need to understand what the chart is
conveying.

[[email protected]]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Wed, 5 May 2004 16:55:57 -0500, "Stan Prevost" >
> wrote:
>
> >I'm wondering if the NACO chart shows the barb at EXUPY as a *recommended*
> >PT commencement point, because one can initiate a nice three degree
> >stabilized descent from there.
>
> According to what others have written in the past, it is there only for
> charting convenience. In other words, whoever designed the chart thought
> things would look less cluttered that way.
>

The barb is charting convention. The procedure turn limited and side of course
is regulatory.

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith wrote:

> wrote:
> > Charting convention places the burden for clarity of the course
> > reversal in the profile view.
>
> Frank,
>
> I'm not saying you're wrong (in fact, what you say makes a lot of
> sense), but is there some reference you could give to that? It's not
> anything I've ever seen in any of the standard reference materials.

The NACO chart legend implies it, but I suspect it is only spelled out in
the IACC specs. (Inter-agency Cartographic Commission, or something like
that, specifications.) Often, the feds miss spelling out this stuff to the
users, because it makes sense to all of them sitting around a table for
their closed meetings.~

>
>
> On that note, I remember once flying the MGJ ILS-3 for practice
> (http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05264I3.pdf). Shame
> on me, I hadn't really briefed the approach, and just winged it. I flew
> the procedure turn a minute outside of the LOM and ended up AFU.
>
> It's kind of tricky. The first trick is that the PT doesn't start at
> the LOM, but at DIYAD. The second trick is that there's a stepdown at
> NISSN inbound from the PT, so you really need to be outside of NISSN
> before you start the PT, not just outside of DIYAD. The third trick is
> that DIYAD and NISSN are both defined by DME, but from different sources
> (neither of which is the ILS).
>
> There's a note on the profile view saying "Remain within 10 NM", but I'm
> not 100% sure from *where*. I'm reasonably sure it means 10 NM from
> DIYAD, but given NISSN, I'm not quite certain about that.

The descending thick black line begins at DIYAD, so that is the fix upon
which the PT is predicated. If you feel this is inadequately explained, a
well crafted letter to the NACO charting folks in Silver Springs, MD would
be helpful. In my many years of flying it seemed obvious to me, but gee, I
can't cite a public reference.

>
>
> Lastly, it beats the hell out of me why anybody would care that DIYAD is
> 13.5 DME from HUO. Given the crossing angles, I could see that being on
> the localizer and 20.8 DME from SAX is a good way to identify NISSN, but
> being on the localizer and being 13.5 DME from HUO is pretty worthless
> as a way to identify DIYAD. GPS is wonderful :-)

The 13.5 DME is there for arrival from HUO to the LOC. The fact it's
charted in the profile view is a mistake in the manner in which the data
were entered into the system. Keep in mind, you're dealing with the same
FAA here who has all but thrown the towel in on WAAS on one hand, yet on the
other hand is going to make it work, "damn it!" ...and so forth.

>
>
> This is a great approach for training purposes. It's a confusing mess
> for flying for real. But it does serve to show a student why briefing
> an approach before you actually get to the IAF is a good idea :-)

[Stan Prevost]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 5 May 2004 18:15:44 -0500, "Stan Prevost" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> I don't use NACO charts so that's why I ask these questions:
>
> Do you have any documentation to indicate that the location of barb
> placement on a NACO chart is determined by this method?
>
> Is it a standard for NACO charts that the barb is placed at the 3° descent
> point?
>
>

I didn't mean to imply that either is standard procedure, and I'm quite sure
neither is. I was just speculating that, given the combination of factors
in this approach, the particular chart designer may have acted within the
scope of his charting discretion to chart the PT barb at a logical point,
even though the exact placement has no regulatory meaning.

Stan

[Greg Esres]

<<Well, if a person is unwilling to read and learn, then nothing will
change his mind.>>

I think that's a bit unfair. Whether a person was taught correctly or
incorrectly is a matter of chance; when someone later seeks to change
his mind, what authoritative evidence is available?

Many people want to learn, but they aren't sure whom to trust. In the
end, most are persuaded by the highest status individual with a firm
opinion.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 5 May 2004 22:18:13 -0500, "Stan Prevost" >
wrote:

>I didn't mean to imply that either is standard procedure, and I'm quite sure
>neither is. I was just speculating that, given the combination of factors
>in this approach, the particular chart designer may have acted within the
>scope of his charting discretion to chart the PT barb at a logical point,
>even though the exact placement has no regulatory meaning.
>
>Stan

Fair enough.

In that case, my interpretation would be that it is there only by chance.


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

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<Well, if a person is unwilling to read and learn, then nothing will
> change his mind.>>
>
> I think that's a bit unfair. Whether a person was taught correctly or
> incorrectly is a matter of chance; when someone later seeks to change
> his mind, what authoritative evidence is available?
>
> Many people want to learn, but they aren't sure whom to trust. In the
> end, most are persuaded by the highest status individual with a firm
> opinion.

No doubt about, especially in aviation, where there is no systematic
hierarcy of academic protocols and credentials.

[[email protected]]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Wed, 5 May 2004 22:18:13 -0500, "Stan Prevost" >
> wrote:
>
> >I didn't mean to imply that either is standard procedure, and I'm quite sure
> >neither is. I was just speculating that, given the combination of factors
> >in this approach, the particular chart designer may have acted within the
> >scope of his charting discretion to chart the PT barb at a logical point,
> >even though the exact placement has no regulatory meaning.
> >
> >Stan
>
> Fair enough.
>
> In that case, my interpretation would be that it is there only by chance.
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

The Interagency Air Cartographic Committee's manual states under plan-view
specifications::

"The procedure turn shall be shown by a barb symbol as indicated on the
appenices. The barb shall be a half arrowhead .10" long and .05" wide positioned
on the maneuvering side. Inbound and outbound 45 degree off-course bearing
values (a directional arrow with the inbound value only) shall be shown on either
side of the procedure turn barb in solid color. The chart legend describing this
feature shall indicate that the use of these values is not mandatory."

[Greg Esres]

<<no systematic hierarcy of academic protocols and credentials.>>

Wouldn't it be nice if there were? A "graduate" program for those
foolish enough to want to be career CFI's. I'd like to go to
something like TERPS school; while the real deal might be overkill,
maybe slight modification could produce highly qualified -II's.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Greg Esres > wrote:

> <<no systematic hierarcy of academic protocols and credentials.>>
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if there were?

In a sense, there is. If you get enough students to pass checkrides,
you become a "Master CFI". Of course, it doesn't actually prove that
you know anything more than how to prep students for checkrides :-)

> I'd like to go to
> something like TERPS school; while the real deal might be overkill,
> maybe slight modification could produce highly qualified -II's.

Anybody can download the TERPS manual and read it. Not quite the same
as attending a training class, but you get a whole lot more than you'd
find in the AIM.

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith wrote:

>
> Anybody can download the TERPS manual and read it. Not quite the same
> as attending a training class, but you get a whole lot more than you'd
> find in the AIM.

The TERPs book is more like an Advanced Cooking book than an Advanced
Driver's Manual. Without a lot of cooking classes and on the job work,
the TERPs Manual (and now about 6, or so, related handbooks) leave much to
be misunderstood.

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<no systematic hierarcy of academic protocols and credentials.>>
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if there were? A "graduate" program for those
> foolish enough to want to be career CFI's. I'd like to go to
> something like TERPS school; while the real deal might be overkill,
> maybe slight modification could produce highly qualified -II's.

The parts are fragmented. Procedure concepts and designs need to be
melded with aircraft performance and ATC procedures. So far as I know,
no one person or entity in the FAA has a global perspective on it all.
The air traffic procedures designers are mostly clueless as to TERPs and
the TERPs criteria designers, some of which are very good at what they
do, don't have a really good feeling for the nuances of ATC.

As an example, last August, air traffic management put out an order that
modified a section in the ATC handbook that was supposed to solve a
long-standing issue brought up before ATPAC 3 years ago concerning
clearances direct-to the intermediate waypoint of RNAV IAPs. But, the
order was very poorly written and without consulting the TERPs designers
in Flight Standards. The order was supposed to have been incorporated
formally into the "P" release of 7110.65 on February 19th. Instead, it
dropped dead without any further explanation.

[Greg Esres]

<<In a sense, there is. If you get enough students to pass
checkrides, you become a "Master CFI". >>

A meaningless, political designation, IMO. That's a NAFI program and
there are some other requirements to it, as I recall. Sorta like a
Boy Scout merit badge. ;-)

<<Anybody can download the TERPS manual and read it. Not quite the
same as attending a training class, but you get a whole lot more than
you'd find in the AIM.>>

I acquired a copy as an instrument student and I use it regularly.
Useful, but it would take an expert to be able to say how the criteria
are applied in the real world.

[Greg Esres]

<<The parts are fragmented. Procedure concepts and designs need to be
melded with aircraft performance and ATC procedures. >>

Yes! There might well be a market for such training. An online
training course might find a larger market, though. But it would have
to be tough and thorough, not a "fluff" course.

The fact that all this is fragmented is something in particular that
an instrument pilot needs to hear. It would explain a lot of
inconsistencies.