View Single Post
  #14  
Old August 29th 08, 03:31 AM
J. Baker J. Baker is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by AviationBanter: Aug 2008
Posts: 2
Default

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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Borchert View Post
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

Last edited by J. Baker : August 29th 08 at 03:32 AM. Reason: typo