![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On VOR/DME-B @ 69V, there is a comment that says PT is not authorized when
arriving northbound on V208. Then on the bottom of the chart it says "Procedure Turn NA". Why bother printing the first statement, when PT is clearly not authorized for any transitions? Is this a left-over from a old chart when PT might have been authorized except for the V208 transition? Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Read it again. Not PT...the whole procedure is not authorized when arriving
northbound on V208. "Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message . 145... On VOR/DME-B @ 69V, there is a comment that says PT is not authorized when arriving northbound on V208. Then on the bottom of the chart it says "Procedure Turn NA". Why bother printing the first statement, when PT is clearly not authorized for any transitions? Is this a left-over from a old chart when PT might have been authorized except for the V208 transition? Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks. I had misread that one.
"Brad Zeigler" wrote in : Read it again. Not PT...the whole procedure is not authorized when arriving northbound on V208. "Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message . 145... On VOR/DME-B @ 69V, there is a comment that says PT is not authorized when arriving northbound on V208. Then on the bottom of the chart it says "Procedure Turn NA". Why bother printing the first statement, when PT is clearly not authorized for any transitions? Is this a left-over from a old chart when PT might have been authorized except for the V208 transition? Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Andrew Sarangan wrote: On VOR/DME-B @ 69V, there is a comment that says PT is not authorized when arriving northbound on V208. No, read it more carefully. It says "Procedure not authorized". I don't have an en-route chart of the area, but presumably there are other airways which get you to CARBON, and you've got to arrive on one of those, or from ARBIH. My reading of the chart also says that if you miss, you can't try again directly out of the missed hold; you need to get clearance back to (for example) ARBIH and start again from there. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roy Smith wrote in
: In article , Andrew Sarangan wrote: On VOR/DME-B @ 69V, there is a comment that says PT is not authorized when arriving northbound on V208. No, read it more carefully. It says "Procedure not authorized". I don't have an en-route chart of the area, but presumably there are other airways which get you to CARBON, and you've got to arrive on one of those, or from ARBIH. My reading of the chart also says that if you miss, you can't try again directly out of the missed hold; you need to get clearance back to (for example) ARBIH and start again from there. Where are you seeing that? The missed hold is at CARBON, which is an IAF. Since you are clearly not arriving from V208 (which happens to be along R- 164), why can't you start the approach from CARBON? Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Andrew Sarangan wrote: My reading of the chart also says that if you miss, you can't try again directly out of the missed hold; you need to get clearance back to (for example) ARBIH and start again from there. Where are you seeing that? The missed hold is at CARBON, which is an IAF. Since you are clearly not arriving from V208 (which happens to be along R- 164), why can't you start the approach from CARBON? Well, I'm not really sure about this, but here's my thinking... The only reason I can think of to disallow arrivals along V208 is because there isn't enough protected airspace north of CARBON to allow the course reversal that would be required. Seems to me the same would be true if you're inbound to CARBON in the hold. On the other hand, if you've got room to make the outbound turn, I guess you should have room to just make a right turn to heading 220 or so after crossing CARBON inbound and intercept the 195 radial outbound. You are certainly correct that there's nothing on the plate that explicitly says that, but that's my guess. I suppose the way it would really work is that you call ATC from the hold and ask for clearance for another approach. They'll either clear you for the approach directly from the hold, or give you something that takes you to ARBIH or somewhere else to begin the approach from. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPS approach question | Matt Whiting | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | November 1st 04 10:51 PM |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
where to ask question about approach? | J Haggerty | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | August 17th 04 06:30 AM |
Established on the approach - Checkride question | endre | Instrument Flight Rules | 59 | October 6th 03 04:36 PM |
IR checkride story! | Guy Elden Jr. | Instrument Flight Rules | 16 | August 1st 03 09:03 PM |