Maximum PT entry altitude Notation

[[email protected]]

Can anyone explain the reason for the note "maximum procedure turn
entry altitude 6000 feet" on the ILS or LOC RWY 20 at KALW, Walla Wala
Regl, WA? Is this a TERPs thing? Other approaches the same?

Here's the link, I think

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e290/dpullan/KALWils20.gif

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
wrote:

> Can anyone explain the reason for the note "maximum procedure turn
> entry altitude 6000 feet" on the ILS or LOC RWY 20 at KALW, Walla Wala
> Regl, WA? Is this a TERPs thing? Other approaches the same?
>
> Here's the link, I think
>
> http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e290/dpullan/KALWils20.gif

My guess is that if you enter the PT above 6000, you can't make it down to
the runway without exceeding some TERPS-mandated maximum descent profile.

If you flew the PT as a teardrop entry, 1 minute outbound, roughly 1 minute
to turn around, 1 minute inbound, that's 2700 feet to lose in 3 minutes, or
900 ft/minute. Pretty steep.

[John R. Copeland]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message ...
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> Can anyone explain the reason for the note "maximum procedure turn
>> entry altitude 6000 feet" on the ILS or LOC RWY 20 at KALW, Walla Wala
>> Regl, WA? Is this a TERPs thing? Other approaches the same?
>>
>> Here's the link, I think
>>
>> http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e290/dpullan/KALWils20.gif
>
> My guess is that if you enter the PT above 6000, you can't make it down to
> the runway without exceeding some TERPS-mandated maximum descent profile.
>
> If you flew the PT as a teardrop entry, 1 minute outbound, roughly 1 minute
> to turn around, 1 minute inbound, that's 2700 feet to lose in 3 minutes, or
> 900 ft/minute. Pretty steep.

Yet, no similar note accompanies the NDB RWY 20 approach.

[Everett M. Greene[_2_]]

Roy Smith > writes:
> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone explain the reason for the note "maximum procedure turn
> > entry altitude 6000 feet" on the ILS or LOC RWY 20 at KALW, Walla Wala
> > Regl, WA? Is this a TERPs thing? Other approaches the same?
> >
> > Here's the link, I think
> >
> > http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e290/dpullan/KALWils20.gif
>
> My guess is that if you enter the PT above 6000, you can't make it down to
> the runway without exceeding some TERPS-mandated maximum descent profile.
>
> If you flew the PT as a teardrop entry, 1 minute outbound, roughly 1 minute
> to turn around, 1 minute inbound, that's 2700 feet to lose in 3 minutes, or
> 900 ft/minute. Pretty steep.

Is there anything that says you can't make more than one
lap around the loop?

Are there enroute altitudes in the area that would lead
to being quite high when nearing the approach area?

Is there a reception problem with the navaid(s) defining
the pattern?

[Sam Spade]

wrote:
> Can anyone explain the reason for the note "maximum procedure turn
> entry altitude 6000 feet" on the ILS or LOC RWY 20 at KALW, Walla Wala
> Regl, WA? Is this a TERPs thing? Other approaches the same?
>
> Here's the link, I think
>
> http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e290/dpullan/KALWils20.gif

There is no provision in TERPS for such a restriction. It appears to be
a misapplication of criteria.

[[email protected]]

As a follow up, looking at the low level enroute, there is no
restricted or otherwise airspace that may have affected the altitude.

Secondly, there are a few other airports in WA with similar 6000 max
altitude for the PT. RLD Richland is one, so is OLM Olympia.

In fact the RLD PT descends you to 1900 feet for a total descent of
4100 feet, so it doesn't seem to be a TERPS descent gradient
limitation for ALW.

Of note, all the 6000 foot max notations are on very recently amended
approaches, so they appear to be recent additions. I'm only guessing
it's some new TERPS criteria, possible to limit the TAS and help keep
the pilot within the 10 nm PT distance.

Roy, I've appreciated reading your responses over the years. Am I
right to think you've been contributing for 15+ years?

Dave

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 21:58:04 -0500, in rec.aviation.ifr you wrote:

>In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> Can anyone explain the reason for the note "maximum procedure turn
>> entry altitude 6000 feet" on the ILS or LOC RWY 20 at KALW, Walla Wala
>> Regl, WA? Is this a TERPs thing? Other approaches the same?
>>
>> Here's the link, I think
>>
>> http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e290/dpullan/KALWils20.gif
>
>My guess is that if you enter the PT above 6000, you can't make it down to
>the runway without exceeding some TERPS-mandated maximum descent profile.
>
>If you flew the PT as a teardrop entry, 1 minute outbound, roughly 1 minute
>to turn around, 1 minute inbound, that's 2700 feet to lose in 3 minutes, or
>900 ft/minute. Pretty steep.
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 21:58:04 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

>In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> Can anyone explain the reason for the note "maximum procedure turn
>> entry altitude 6000 feet" on the ILS or LOC RWY 20 at KALW, Walla Wala
>> Regl, WA? Is this a TERPs thing? Other approaches the same?
>>
>> Here's the link, I think
>>
>> http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e290/dpullan/KALWils20.gif
>
>My guess is that if you enter the PT above 6000, you can't make it down to
>the runway without exceeding some TERPS-mandated maximum descent profile.
>
>If you flew the PT as a teardrop entry, 1 minute outbound, roughly 1 minute
>to turn around, 1 minute inbound, that's 2700 feet to lose in 3 minutes, or
>900 ft/minute. Pretty steep.

[Roy Smith]

wrote:
> Roy, I've appreciated reading your responses over the years. Am I
> right to think you've been contributing for 15+ years?

I don't know about 15 years, but it has been a while.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:37:07 GMT, wrote:

>As a follow up, looking at the low level enroute, there is no
>restricted or otherwise airspace that may have affected the altitude.
>
>Secondly, there are a few other airports in WA with similar 6000 max
>altitude for the PT. RLD Richland is one, so is OLM Olympia.
>
>In fact the RLD PT descends you to 1900 feet for a total descent of
>4100 feet, so it doesn't seem to be a TERPS descent gradient
>limitation for ALW.
>
>Of note, all the 6000 foot max notations are on very recently amended
>approaches, so they appear to be recent additions. I'm only guessing
>it's some new TERPS criteria, possible to limit the TAS and help keep
>the pilot within the 10 nm PT distance.

They don't do a descent in PTs? Best I can do is 800 fpm so take 500
as a standard that lets me do 1000 feet each time I go around. It
keeps the speed normal and the distances normal.

I've never see any max notations. Used to be out here in the the flat
lands you might get a PT descent, or get stacked up and move your way
down the stack.



Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Sam Spade]

wrote:
> As a follow up, looking at the low level enroute, there is no
> restricted or otherwise airspace that may have affected the altitude.
>
> Secondly, there are a few other airports in WA with similar 6000 max
> altitude for the PT. RLD Richland is one, so is OLM Olympia.
>
> In fact the RLD PT descends you to 1900 feet for a total descent of
> 4100 feet, so it doesn't seem to be a TERPS descent gradient
> limitation for ALW.
>
> Of note, all the 6000 foot max notations are on very recently amended
> approaches, so they appear to be recent additions. I'm only guessing
> it's some new TERPS criteria, possible to limit the TAS and help keep
> the pilot within the 10 nm PT distance.
>

There is no TERPS provision for such a restriction. It's another
example of the TERPS design folks at the FAA inventing their own policy
rather than following Flight Standards guidance.

[[email protected]]

>>limitation for ALW.
>>
>>Of note, all the 6000 foot max notations are on very recently amended
>>approaches, so they appear to be recent additions. I'm only guessing
>>it's some new TERPS criteria, possible to limit the TAS and help keep
>>the pilot within the 10 nm PT distance.
>
>They don't do a descent in PTs? Best I can do is 800 fpm so take 500
>as a standard that lets me do 1000 feet each time I go around. It
>keeps the speed normal and the distances normal.
>
Roger, by limit the TAS, I meant that for the same IAS, the TAS will
be higher at higher altitudes. And so easier for the pilot to exit
the PT distance

[PilotWeb.org]

It is difficult to state the exact reason why, but we can offer the
following factors...

1. Airspace
2. Traffic interference with ARTCC or terminal radar patterns
3. Navaid reception


Visit our website for more information, forums, job listing, and to
post your profile and resume.

http://www.pilotweb.org/

[Sam Spade]

PilotWeb.org wrote:

> It is difficult to state the exact reason why, but we can offer the
> following factors...
>
> 1. Airspace
> 2. Traffic interference with ARTCC or terminal radar patterns
> 3. Navaid reception
>

It comes closest to No. 1. It is a new brain child of some feds.

There are three procedure turn template sizes.

1. sea level to 6,000.

2. above 6,000 to 10,000

3. above 10,000.

The determinant altitude is the higher of the highest feeder altitude or
the PT completion altitude, whichever is higher.

At all three subject locations choice 1 is applicable. But, some
procedure folks are now suddenly worried about someone being "too" high
for choice 1.

It is currently being debated.

[Sam Spade]

Everett M. Greene wrote:

> Roy Smith > writes:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Can anyone explain the reason for the note "maximum procedure turn
>>>entry altitude 6000 feet" on the ILS or LOC RWY 20 at KALW, Walla Wala
>>>Regl, WA? Is this a TERPs thing? Other approaches the same?

The PT completion altitude is permitted to be as much as 2,000 feet
above the inbound altitude. That maximum is not close to being reached
at RDL, OLM, or ALW.

Several years ago TERPS was amended to have three pattern sizes for
procedure turns from the former one pattern (speaking only of 10-mile
turns).

In Change 18 of TERPS the former single pattern became the new "small"
pattern for minimum possible altitude to 6,000. The new, midsize
pattern was introduced to handle 6,000 to 10,000, and the large size
pattern was introduced to handle above 10,000.

The selection process was the highest feeder route altitude or procedure
turn completion altitude, whichever is higher.

This worked fine until someone in the FAA decided that pilots are stupid
and might come barreling in at 17,000 feet or so. So, enters the cap.

There was no coordination with industry groups, nada.

Now, the pot is being stirred.

They were getting ready to do it at HQM (VOR Runway 6) but that has been
objected to in coordination and is now on hold.

http://www.avn.faa.gov/folderdetail.asp?key=2005101414747401001-HQM&replace=1