Approach Question

[Thomas Borchert]

Vor-Dme,

> First off, please tell me if this is the right forum for newer-minted IR
> pilots to discuss approach questions?

Absolutely. Welcome!

>
> If so, have a look at this one :
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0808/00382G22.PDF
> GPS22, KSCH. I believe there is an error in the hold in lieu of PT, which
> cannot be both "1-min" AND "4NM, but perhaps there is a good reason why
> it is charted this way.

Weird, that "4 nm".

> My real question though concerns the IAF waypoints. Why are OTOLE and
> GALWA charted as fixes or reporting points, and not as GPS waypoints?

Hmm. My guess would be that they are regular intersections also defined by
non-GPS navaids. One would need an enroute chart to see that.

>If
> entering using OTOLE as IAF, is one required to fly the hold in lieu of?

I would say yes, since it doesn't say "NoPT" for OTOLE.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[BillJ]

VOR-DME wrote:
> Greetings,
> First off, please tell me if this is the right forum for newer-minted IR
> pilots to discuss approach questions?
>
> If so, have a look at this one :
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0808/00382G22.PDF
> GPS22, KSCH. I believe there is an error in the hold in lieu of PT, which
> cannot be both "1-min" AND "4NM, but perhaps there is a good reason why
> it is charted this way.
>
> My real question though concerns the IAF waypoints. Why are OTOLE and
> GALWA charted as fixes or reporting points, and not as GPS waypoints? If
> entering using OTOLE as IAF, is one required to fly the hold in lieu of?
>
Why are OTOLE and
GALWA charted as fixes or reporting points

They are both intersections, i.e. fixes.

[BillJ]

VOR-DME wrote:
> Greetings,
> First off, please tell me if this is the right forum for newer-minted IR
> pilots to discuss approach questions?
>
> If so, have a look at this one :
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0808/00382G22.PDF
> GPS22, KSCH. I believe there is an error in the hold in lieu of PT, which
> cannot be both "1-min" AND "4NM, but perhaps there is a good reason why
> it is charted this way.
>
> My real question though concerns the IAF waypoints. Why are OTOLE and
> GALWA charted as fixes or reporting points, and not as GPS waypoints? If
> entering using OTOLE as IAF, is one required to fly the hold in lieu of?
>
Why are OTOLE and
GALWA charted as fixes or reporting points

They are both intersections, i.e. fixes.

You don't hold at OTOLE if being vectored, or if cleared for straight in
approach.

[Thomas Borchert]

Vor-Dme,

> PT or NoPT?
>

Well, where on the chart does it say "NoPT" for that case?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Aug 24, 5:36 pm, VOR-DME > wrote:
> In article >, says...
>
>
>
> >Why are OTOLE and
> >GALWA charted as fixes or reporting points
>
> >They are both intersections, i.e. fixes.
>
> Yes, they are, and they both show on the en-route chart.
> Dumb of me not to have seen that.
>
>
>
> >You don't hold at OTOLE if being vectored, or if cleared for straight in
> >approach.
>
> As with any approach, if being vectored, it's NoPT.
> But what if "Cleared for the GPS22, cross OTOLE at or above 2400. . ."
> PT or NoPT?

ITOLE IAF would require you to fly the PT. I don't see a no-PT for
that segment anywhere on the chart.

[Mike[_22_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Vor-Dme,
>
>> First off, please tell me if this is the right forum for newer-minted IR
>> pilots to discuss approach questions?
>
> Absolutely. Welcome!
>
>>
>> If so, have a look at this one :
>> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0808/00382G22.PDF
>> GPS22, KSCH. I believe there is an error in the hold in lieu of PT, which
>> cannot be both "1-min" AND "4NM, but perhaps there is a good reason why
>> it is charted this way.
>
> Weird, that "4 nm".

The only thing I can make out of it is perhaps it's saying by 4nm of OTOLE
you should start your turn even if it's less than a minute.

[VOR-DME]

Greetings,
First off, please tell me if this is the right forum for newer-minted IR
pilots to discuss approach questions?

If so, have a look at this one :
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0808/00382G22.PDF
GPS22, KSCH. I believe there is an error in the hold in lieu of PT, which
cannot be both "1-min" AND "4NM, but perhaps there is a good reason why
it is charted this way.

My real question though concerns the IAF waypoints. Why are OTOLE and
GALWA charted as fixes or reporting points, and not as GPS waypoints? If
entering using OTOLE as IAF, is one required to fly the hold in lieu of?

[VOR-DME]

In article >, says...

>>
>Why are OTOLE and
>GALWA charted as fixes or reporting points
>
>They are both intersections, i.e. fixes.


Yes, they are, and they both show on the en-route chart.
Dumb of me not to have seen that.


>
>You don't hold at OTOLE if being vectored, or if cleared for straight in
>approach.


As with any approach, if being vectored, it's NoPT.
But what if "Cleared for the GPS22, cross OTOLE at or above 2400. . ."
PT or NoPT?

[Sam Spade]

VOR-DME wrote:
> Greetings,
> First off, please tell me if this is the right forum for newer-minted IR
> pilots to discuss approach questions?
>
> If so, have a look at this one :
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0808/00382G22.PDF
> GPS22, KSCH. I believe there is an error in the hold in lieu of PT, which
> cannot be both "1-min" AND "4NM, but perhaps there is a good reason why
> it is charted this way.
>
> My real question though concerns the IAF waypoints. Why are OTOLE and
> GALWA charted as fixes or reporting points, and not as GPS waypoints? If
> entering using OTOLE as IAF, is one required to fly the hold in lieu of?
>

The 1 minute is a NACO charting error. The Jeppesen chart doesn't show
that.

The Jeppesen chart shows OTOLE as a flyby waypoint and GALWA as a
flyover waypoint. Thus, more NACO charting issues.

The course-reversal (hold-in-lieu "HIL") is mandatory unless you arrive
via an NoPT route. This particular hold violates critera because HILs
haven't been permitted at GPS FAFs for perhaps 7 years now. They can
cause box sequencing problems.

This approach should have been changed during an FAA biannual review but
they are way behind their policy requirements.

[David Kazdan]

And perhaps they were drinking "decent" wines while preparing the chart,
rather than worrying about "descent" angles.

David


Sam Spade wrote:
> VOR-DME wrote:
>> Greetings,
>> First off, please tell me if this is the right forum for newer-minted
>> IR pilots to discuss approach questions?
>> If so, have a look at this one :
>> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0808/00382G22.PDF
>> GPS22, KSCH. I believe there is an error in the hold in lieu of PT,
>> which cannot be both "1-min" AND "4NM, but perhaps there is a good
>> reason why it is charted this way.
>> My real question though concerns the IAF waypoints. Why are OTOLE and
>> GALWA charted as fixes or reporting points, and not as GPS waypoints?
>> If entering using OTOLE as IAF, is one required to fly the hold in
>> lieu of?
>
> The 1 minute is a NACO charting error. The Jeppesen chart doesn't show
> that.
>
> The Jeppesen chart shows OTOLE as a flyby waypoint and GALWA as a
> flyover waypoint. Thus, more NACO charting issues.
>
> The course-reversal (hold-in-lieu "HIL") is mandatory unless you arrive
> via an NoPT route. This particular hold violates critera because HILs
> haven't been permitted at GPS FAFs for perhaps 7 years now. They can
> cause box sequencing problems.
>
> This approach should have been changed during an FAA biannual review but
> they are way behind their policy requirements.

[Sam Spade]

David Kazdan wrote:
> And perhaps they were drinking "decent" wines while preparing the chart,
> rather than worrying about "descent" angles.
>
> David
????

[Gino Marchetti]

Sam Spade > wrote in
:

> David Kazdan wrote:
>> And perhaps they were drinking "decent" wines while preparing the
>> chart, rather than worrying about "descent" angles.
>>
>> David
> ????

"VGSI and decent angles not coincident" had spelling error on the chart.

[Sam Spade]

Gino Marchetti wrote:
> Sam Spade > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>David Kazdan wrote:
>>
>>>And perhaps they were drinking "decent" wines while preparing the
>>>chart, rather than worrying about "descent" angles.
>>>
>>> David
>>
>>????
>
>
> "VGSI and decent angles not coincident" had spelling error on the chart.

Maaybe they have very loose morals?

;-)

[J. Baker]

If you don't mind my taking a stab at this. I've been working as a Terminal Procedures Specialist, contractor, for the FAA for the last couple of years. While not an expert, or even close, I may have some insights that others may not.


Vor-Dme,


If so, have a look at this one :
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0808/00382G22.PDF
GPS22, KSCH. I believe there is an error in the hold in lieu of PT, which
cannot be both "1-min" AND "4NM, but perhaps there is a good reason why
it is charted this way.

Notice that this is a GPS and not an RNAV (GPS) procedure. In the early days of building these procedures rules and criteria were, well, mixed. You'd see VOR or GPS approaches, GPS overlays of existing approaches, etc. The criteria now is miles only for RNAV procedures.


My real question though concerns the IAF waypoints. Why are OTOLE and
GALWA charted as fixes or reporting points, and not as GPS waypoints? [/i][/color]

The way a fix is charted depends upon it's make up. These were probably existing fixes made up of ground based navaid radials/bearings/courses. A fix will only be charted as a WP if the procedure is an RNAV type. As I mentioned before, this is a mix and match procedure build.


If
entering using OTOLE as IAF, is one required to fly the hold in lieu of?[/i][/color]


Yes. The HIL is required whenever thre is no specific NoPT directive. OTOLE is on a NNW -SSE airway. Since there isn't a proper INTERMEDIATE you must fly the HIL where, upon turning to the inbound course toward OTOLE, that is considered the IF, thence to the FAF. We don't do this anymore.


VGSI and decent angles not coincident" had spelling error on the chart.

Yup...a typo. Our QA has gotten a lot better as has the automation in procedure production. Over four sets of eyes look at each procedure before it ever gets to flight check.


The Jeppesen chart shows OTOLE as a flyby waypoint and GALWA as a
flyover waypoint. Thus, more NACO charting issues

Not so. Jeppesen has their own set of rules. GALWA is a FO fix. You must fly over it to hold else the obstacle evaluation area would mean nothing. OTOLE is a FO fix as well but since it's on an airway and existed prior to GPS inception, it gets charted as a fix. Take alook at AIRNAV and the AIRSPACE FIXES section...has all the fix make-up data there.




Jim Baker

[Sam Spade]

Jeppesen may have its own set of rules, so to speak, but since they
distribute the RNAV database, their view is the one that counts.

Every one of those "fixes" is flown as a waypoint by anyone using a 129
or 245/146 navigator.

Nearly every missed approach waypoint charted is a FO waypoint. This
one is a very early design and is non-compliant because the HIL is at
the FAF. It should have been redesigned years ago, but you know that
biannual reviews are a farce.

J. Baker wrote:
> If you don't mind my taking a stab at this. I've been working as a
> Terminal Procedures Specialist, contractor, for the FAA for the last
> couple of years. While not an expert, or even close, I may have some
> insights that others may not.
>
>
> Thomas Borchert;655278 Wrote:
>
>>Vor-Dme,
>>-
>>
>>If so, have a look at this one :
>>http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0808/00382G22.PDF
>>GPS22, KSCH. I believe there is an error in the hold in lieu of PT,
>>which
>>cannot be both "1-min" AND "4NM, but perhaps there is a good reason
>>why
>>it is charted this way. -
>>
>>Notice that this is a GPS and not an RNAV (GPS) procedure. In the early
>>days of building these procedures rules and criteria were, well, mixed.
>>You'd see VOR or GPS approaches, GPS overlays of existing approaches,
>>etc. The criteria now is miles only for RNAV procedures.
>>
>>
>>My real question though concerns the IAF waypoints. Why are OTOLE and
>>
>>GALWA charted as fixes or reporting points, and not as GPS waypoints?
>>
>>
>>The way a fix is charted depends upon it's make up. These were probably
>>existing fixes made up of ground based navaid radials/bearings/courses.
>>A fix will only be charted as a WP if the procedure is an RNAV type. As
>>I mentioned before, this is a mix and match procedure build.
>>
>>
>>If
>>entering using OTOLE as IAF, is one required to fly the hold in lieu
>>of?
>>
>>
>>Yes. The HIL is required whenever thre is no specific NoPT directive.
>>OTOLE is on a NNW -SSE airway. Since there isn't a proper INTERMEDIATE
>>you must fly the HIL where, upon turning to the inbound course toward
>>OTOLE, that is considered the IF, thence to the FAF. We don't do this
>>anymore.
>>
>>
>>VGSI and decent angles not coincident" had spelling error on the
>>chart.
>>
>>Yup...a typo. Our QA has gotten a lot better as has the automation in
>>procedure production. Over four sets of eyes look at each procedure
>>before it ever gets to flight check.
>>
>>
>>The Jeppesen chart shows OTOLE as a flyby waypoint and GALWA as a
>>flyover waypoint. Thus, more NACO charting issues
>>
>>Not so. Jeppesen has their own set of rules. GALWA is a FO fix. You
>>must fly over it to hold else the obstacle evaluation area would mean
>>nothing. OTOLE is a FO fix as well but since it's on an airway and
>>existed prior to GPS inception, it gets charted as a fix. Take alook at
>>AIRNAV and the AIRSPACE FIXES section...has all the fix make-up data
>>there.
>>
>>
>>[/i][/color]
>
>
> Jim Baker
>
>
>
> [/i][/color]

[Sam Spade]

Sam Spade wrote:
> Jeppesen may have its own set of rules, so to speak, but since they
> distribute the RNAV database, their view is the one that counts.
>
> Every one of those "fixes" is flown as a waypoint by anyone using a 129
> or 245/146 navigator.
>
> Nearly every missed approach waypoint charted is a FO waypoint. This
> one is a very early design and is non-compliant because the HIL is at
> the FAF. It should have been redesigned years ago, but you know that
> biannual reviews are a farce.

I meant to say missed approach holding waypomt. The MAP itself is a FO.