Sky Park VOR or GPS-1 question

[Roy Smith]

The VOR or GPS-1 into Sky Park, NY (46N)
http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05462VG1.PDF has a
note saying "Final approach from Saggi Int holding pattern not
authorized. Procedure turn required". What doesn't make sense about
this is that SAGGI is an IAF, and you're allowed to use a holding
pattern as a PT. So, what's the note all about?

It's also not clear why the PT and missed hold are charted on opposite
sides of the approach course. Let's say you flew the approach, missed,
and entered the hold at SAGGI. The weather got a bit better and you
were cleared for another approach. The maneuvering you've had to do is
absurd. The logical thing would be to just continue in the hold until
you were inbound to SAGGI and continue from there. But, no, you've got
to turn around again, intercept the approach course outbound, do a PT,
re-intercept inbound, and then proceed. What's the point?

This seems like the kind of approach I need to bring a student to, just
to see how they handle it.

[Richard Kaplan]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...

>> note saying "Final approach from Saggi Int holding pattern not
> authorized. Procedure turn required". What doesn't make sense about
> this is that SAGGI is an IAF, and you're allowed to use a holding
> pattern as a PT. So, what's the note all about?

That is definitely an interesting approach and an excellent one to use with
students... I'll have to keep it to use in the sim sometime for an emergency
night approach with a flashlight and limited battery life :-)

In this case, you cannot use the published hold as the procedure turn
because the hold is on the opposite side of the final approach course from
the procedure turn; you can do a procedure turn however you want but it must
be flown on the charted side of the final approach course.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:20:49 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:

>The VOR or GPS-1 into Sky Park, NY (46N)
>http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05462VG1.PDF has a
>note saying "Final approach from Saggi Int holding pattern not
>authorized. Procedure turn required". What doesn't make sense about
>this is that SAGGI is an IAF, and you're allowed to use a holding
>pattern as a PT. So, what's the note all about?
>
>It's also not clear why the PT and missed hold are charted on opposite
>sides of the approach course. Let's say you flew the approach, missed,
>and entered the hold at SAGGI. The weather got a bit better and you
>were cleared for another approach. The maneuvering you've had to do is
>absurd. The logical thing would be to just continue in the hold until
>you were inbound to SAGGI and continue from there. But, no, you've got
>to turn around again, intercept the approach course outbound, do a PT,
>re-intercept inbound, and then proceed. What's the point?
>
>This seems like the kind of approach I need to bring a student to, just
>to see how they handle it.

Wild guess mode:

It's clear that the charted holding pattern is for the missed approach (and
not the initial approach). So perhaps there are different required
protected zones for a PT or Hold-in-lieu pattern, and the east side of the
FAC doesn't meet those criteria. Or maybe it has to do with the 5 NM
restriction on doing the PT.

I don't think you would necessarily have to go back to SAGGI either,
depending on where you were in the hold. If I had just started outbound,
and was abeam SAGGI, I'd probably turn right to a 'track' of 235, cross the
FAC and fly for a minute (depending on winds), and then turn left to
reintercept the FAC inbound, descending to 1800' when established on the
FAC.


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

[Bob Gardner]

There is a definite difference in the airspace protected for a holding
pattern vis-a-vis a procedure turn. Dunno why the missed approach hold
couldn't be on the same side as the PT, though, since the PT eats up much
more airspace.

Bob Gardner

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:20:49 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:
>
> >The VOR or GPS-1 into Sky Park, NY (46N)
> >http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05462VG1.PDF has a
> >note saying "Final approach from Saggi Int holding pattern not
> >authorized. Procedure turn required". What doesn't make sense about
> >this is that SAGGI is an IAF, and you're allowed to use a holding
> >pattern as a PT. So, what's the note all about?
> >
> >It's also not clear why the PT and missed hold are charted on opposite
> >sides of the approach course. Let's say you flew the approach, missed,
> >and entered the hold at SAGGI. The weather got a bit better and you
> >were cleared for another approach. The maneuvering you've had to do is
> >absurd. The logical thing would be to just continue in the hold until
> >you were inbound to SAGGI and continue from there. But, no, you've got
> >to turn around again, intercept the approach course outbound, do a PT,
> >re-intercept inbound, and then proceed. What's the point?
> >
> >This seems like the kind of approach I need to bring a student to, just
> >to see how they handle it.
>
> Wild guess mode:
>
> It's clear that the charted holding pattern is for the missed approach
(and
> not the initial approach). So perhaps there are different required
> protected zones for a PT or Hold-in-lieu pattern, and the east side of the
> FAC doesn't meet those criteria. Or maybe it has to do with the 5 NM
> restriction on doing the PT.
>
> I don't think you would necessarily have to go back to SAGGI either,
> depending on where you were in the hold. If I had just started outbound,
> and was abeam SAGGI, I'd probably turn right to a 'track' of 235, cross
the
> FAC and fly for a minute (depending on winds), and then turn left to
> reintercept the FAC inbound, descending to 1800' when established on the
> FAC.
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Tim Auckland]

Another question about this approach (and I've seen similar apparent
ommisions on other approaches):

Why isn't the initial approach segment from PAWLING marked "NoPT"?

To me, it makes no more sense to do a PT when coming in over PAWLING
than it does when coming in over KINGSTON, yet the KINGSTON IAS is
marked "NoPT", and the PAWLING one isn't.

Is this just a charting error, or is there a subtlety that I'm
missing?

TIA for any info.

Tim.

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:20:49 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:

>The VOR or GPS-1 into Sky Park, NY (46N)
>http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05462VG1.PDF has a
>note saying "Final approach from Saggi Int holding pattern not
>authorized. Procedure turn required". What doesn't make sense about
>this is that SAGGI is an IAF, and you're allowed to use a holding
>pattern as a PT. So, what's the note all about?
>
>It's also not clear why the PT and missed hold are charted on opposite
>sides of the approach course. Let's say you flew the approach, missed,
>and entered the hold at SAGGI. The weather got a bit better and you
>were cleared for another approach. The maneuvering you've had to do is
>absurd. The logical thing would be to just continue in the hold until
>you were inbound to SAGGI and continue from there. But, no, you've got
>to turn around again, intercept the approach course outbound, do a PT,
>re-intercept inbound, and then proceed. What's the point?
>
>This seems like the kind of approach I need to bring a student to, just
>to see how they handle it.

[zatatime]

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 19:35:21 GMT, "Richard Kaplan"
> wrote:

>
>"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> note saying "Final approach from Saggi Int holding pattern not
>> authorized. Procedure turn required". What doesn't make sense about
>> this is that SAGGI is an IAF, and you're allowed to use a holding
>> pattern as a PT. So, what's the note all about?
>
>That is definitely an interesting approach and an excellent one to use with
>students... I'll have to keep it to use in the sim sometime for an emergency
>night approach with a flashlight and limited battery life :-)
>
>In this case, you cannot use the published hold as the procedure turn
>because the hold is on the opposite side of the final approach course from
>the procedure turn; you can do a procedure turn however you want but it must
>be flown on the charted side of the final approach course.
>
>
I understand what you are saying, but...

If you are established on the 010 Radial inside of NETER and outside
of SAGGI isn't that sufficient to begin a descent to 1800. I realize
a descent anywhere in the hold is not prudent, but I'm having a hard
time rationalizing flying a whole procedure turn if between NETER and
SAGGI a descent to 1800 is allowed.

Maybe there's a subtlety in your reply I did not pick up on, "you can
do a procedure turn however you want." Would this include briefly
flying through the 010 Radial on the inbound turn of the hold and then
re-establish? This would put you on the right (and correct) side of
the radial.

This is a good one.

Thanks for sharing.

z

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:29:05 -0600, Tim Auckland > wrote:

>Another question about this approach (and I've seen similar apparent
>ommisions on other approaches):
>
>Why isn't the initial approach segment from PAWLING marked "NoPT"?
>
>To me, it makes no more sense to do a PT when coming in over PAWLING
>than it does when coming in over KINGSTON, yet the KINGSTON IAS is
>marked "NoPT", and the PAWLING one isn't.
>
>Is this just a charting error, or is there a subtlety that I'm
>missing?

On my Jepp chart dtd 5/21/2004, the segment from PWL IS marked NoPT. So
probably the NACO chart is incorrect.


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

[[email protected]]

Bob Gardner wrote:

> There is a definite difference in the airspace protected for a holding
> pattern vis-a-vis a procedure turn. Dunno why the missed approach hold
> couldn't be on the same side as the PT, though, since the PT eats up much
> more airspace.

Not in this case. This is one of those little tiny 5-mile PT areas, which they
can design into a CAT A only IAP

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith wrote:

> The VOR or GPS-1 into Sky Park, NY (46N)
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05462VG1.PDF has a
> note saying "Final approach from Saggi Int holding pattern not
> authorized. Procedure turn required". What doesn't make sense about
> this is that SAGGI is an IAF, and you're allowed to use a holding
> pattern as a PT. So, what's the note all about?
>
> It's also not clear why the PT and missed hold are charted on opposite
> sides of the approach course. Let's say you flew the approach, missed,
> and entered the hold at SAGGI. The weather got a bit better and you
> were cleared for another approach. The maneuvering you've had to do is
> absurd. The logical thing would be to just continue in the hold until
> you were inbound to SAGGI and continue from there. But, no, you've got
> to turn around again, intercept the approach course outbound, do a PT,
> re-intercept inbound, and then proceed. What's the point?
>
> This seems like the kind of approach I need to bring a student to, just
> to see how they handle it.

That note was removed from criteria several years ago. Obviously, this is
an old IAP and has not yet undergone the bimillium review. ;-)

[Bob Gardner]

Interesting. I have an old copy of FAAO 7130.3 and couldn't find a word
about five mile holding patterns, so I was kind of transmitting in the blind
(:-). What template is used?

Bob Gardner

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
> > There is a definite difference in the airspace protected for a holding
> > pattern vis-a-vis a procedure turn. Dunno why the missed approach hold
> > couldn't be on the same side as the PT, though, since the PT eats up
much
> > more airspace.
>
> Not in this case. This is one of those little tiny 5-mile PT areas, which
they
> can design into a CAT A only IAP
>

[Bob Gardner]

Well, I managed to screw that up...looking at a holding pattern book to find
PT airspace. Sheesh!!

Bob

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
> > There is a definite difference in the airspace protected for a holding
> > pattern vis-a-vis a procedure turn. Dunno why the missed approach hold
> > couldn't be on the same side as the PT, though, since the PT eats up
much
> > more airspace.
>
> Not in this case. This is one of those little tiny 5-mile PT areas, which
they
> can design into a CAT A only IAP
>

[[email protected]]

Bob Gardner wrote:

> Interesting. I have an old copy of FAAO 7130.3 and couldn't find a word
> about five mile holding patterns, so I was kind of transmitting in the blind
> (:-). What template is used?

Not a 5-mile hold; rather a 5-mile procedure turn. TERPs 234b:

"b. Area. The PT areas are depicted in Figure 5. The normal PT distance is 10
miles. See table 1A. **Decrease this distance to 5 miles where only CAT A
aircraft or helicopters are to be operating**, and increase to 15 miles to
accommodate operational requirement, or as specified in paragraph 234d. No
extension of the PT is permitted without a FAF. When a PT is authorized for use
by approach CAT E aircraft, use a 15-mile PT distance."

[Tim Auckland]

Thanks.

Tim.

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 20:05:29 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
> wrote:

>On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:29:05 -0600, Tim Auckland > wrote:
>
>>Another question about this approach (and I've seen similar apparent
>>ommisions on other approaches):
>>
>>Why isn't the initial approach segment from PAWLING marked "NoPT"?
>>
>>To me, it makes no more sense to do a PT when coming in over PAWLING
>>than it does when coming in over KINGSTON, yet the KINGSTON IAS is
>>marked "NoPT", and the PAWLING one isn't.
>>
>>Is this just a charting error, or is there a subtlety that I'm
>>missing?
>
>On my Jepp chart dtd 5/21/2004, the segment from PWL IS marked NoPT. So
>probably the NACO chart is incorrect.
>
>
>Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[zatatime]

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 22:45:40 GMT, zatatime
> wrote:


>>
>I understand what you are saying, but...
>
>If you are established on the 010 Radial inside of NETER and outside
>of SAGGI isn't that sufficient to begin a descent to 1800. I realize
>a descent anywhere in the hold is not prudent, but I'm having a hard
>time rationalizing flying a whole procedure turn if between NETER and
>SAGGI a descent to 1800 is allowed.
>
>Maybe there's a subtlety in your reply I did not pick up on, "you can
>do a procedure turn however you want." Would this include briefly
>flying through the 010 Radial on the inbound turn of the hold and then
>re-establish? This would put you on the right (and correct) side of
>the radial.
>
>This is a good one.
>
>Thanks for sharing.
>
>z


Nevermind, I printed the plate and studied it. I now understand what
should be done, and it is not what I previously stated.

z

[John Harper]

So here's my swag on this. It looks as though the minimum
altitude on the east side of the final approach course is
2600, and they don't want you descending to 1800
on the east side. 2600 is the altitude inbound from
PWL and the holding altitude, but you are supposed
to cross SAGGI at 1800 on the final. Hence to get
to 1800 you have to fly the PT. Of course in real
life you could safely divebomb from 2600 to 1800
on the final approach course.

Flying as charted from PWL would be entertaining...
intercept the FAC, fly the hold then the PT before
finally crossing SAGGI at 1800.

John

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> The VOR or GPS-1 into Sky Park, NY (46N)
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05462VG1.PDF has a
> note saying "Final approach from Saggi Int holding pattern not
> authorized. Procedure turn required". What doesn't make sense about
> this is that SAGGI is an IAF, and you're allowed to use a holding
> pattern as a PT. So, what's the note all about?
>
> It's also not clear why the PT and missed hold are charted on opposite
> sides of the approach course. Let's say you flew the approach, missed,
> and entered the hold at SAGGI. The weather got a bit better and you
> were cleared for another approach. The maneuvering you've had to do is
> absurd. The logical thing would be to just continue in the hold until
> you were inbound to SAGGI and continue from there. But, no, you've got
> to turn around again, intercept the approach course outbound, do a PT,
> re-intercept inbound, and then proceed. What's the point?
>
> This seems like the kind of approach I need to bring a student to, just
> to see how they handle it.

[Iain Wilson]

I agree - it's the 2600ft holding pattern alt that's the problem.
Maybe the descent from 2600 ft is outside the specs for an approach?

Iain


"John Harper" > wrote in message
news:1086385767.347955@sj-nntpcache-5...
> So here's my swag on this. It looks as though the minimum
> altitude on the east side of the final approach course is
> 2600, and they don't want you descending to 1800
> on the east side. 2600 is the altitude inbound from
> PWL and the holding altitude, but you are supposed
> to cross SAGGI at 1800 on the final. Hence to get
> to 1800 you have to fly the PT. Of course in real
> life you could safely divebomb from 2600 to 1800
> on the final approach course.
>
> Flying as charted from PWL would be entertaining...
> intercept the FAC, fly the hold then the PT before
> finally crossing SAGGI at 1800.
>
> John
>
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The VOR or GPS-1 into Sky Park, NY (46N)
> > http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05462VG1.PDF has a
> > note saying "Final approach from Saggi Int holding pattern not
> > authorized. Procedure turn required". What doesn't make sense about
> > this is that SAGGI is an IAF, and you're allowed to use a holding
> > pattern as a PT. So, what's the note all about?
> >
> > It's also not clear why the PT and missed hold are charted on opposite
> > sides of the approach course. Let's say you flew the approach, missed,
> > and entered the hold at SAGGI. The weather got a bit better and you
> > were cleared for another approach. The maneuvering you've had to do is
> > absurd. The logical thing would be to just continue in the hold until
> > you were inbound to SAGGI and continue from there. But, no, you've got
> > to turn around again, intercept the approach course outbound, do a PT,
> > re-intercept inbound, and then proceed. What's the point?
> >
> > This seems like the kind of approach I need to bring a student to, just
> > to see how they handle it.
>
>

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Iain Wilson" > wrote:

> I agree - it's the 2600ft holding pattern alt that's the problem.
> Maybe the descent from 2600 ft is outside the specs for an approach?

I had thought of that, but the PT outbound altitude is 2600 as well.
And since you are allowed to fly a racetrack for the PT, if it's OK for
the PT, it must be OK for the hold.

[Iain Wilson]

I was thinking about the descent from the FAF where they've specified 1800.
You'd be at 2600 in the hold and this might be outside the specs.

Iain


"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Iain Wilson" > wrote:
>
> > I agree - it's the 2600ft holding pattern alt that's the problem.
> > Maybe the descent from 2600 ft is outside the specs for an approach?
>
> I had thought of that, but the PT outbound altitude is 2600 as well.
> And since you are allowed to fly a racetrack for the PT, if it's OK for
> the PT, it must be OK for the hold.