Jepp vs NOS at PRB

On Tue, 4 May 2004 19:58:29 -0700, "Doug Campbell"
wrote:

The Jepp
chart shows the procedure turn (when starting at the VOR, not the arc)
starting
at 6 DME from the VOR, while the NOS chart shows it starting outside the 10
DME arc. Anyone know which is "right" or if it even matters

I don't have the Jepp chart in front of me, but I'd bet that, not only
is Ron correct, but the bunch of you may be misinterpreting the Jepp
chart also.

Looking at the NACO chart
(http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0404/00858VDGB.PDF) and starting from the
VOR, the full approach procedure it shows is to fly a course of 133°
at 5000 msl to ISLSIC (3 DME), the IAF (the only IAF on the chart that
requires a procedure turn. Note that the VOR is =not= an IAF).

Once crossing ILSIC, you may descend to 3600' and begin the procedure
turn - just keep it within 10 NM of ILSIC.

Once PT inbound, if you are more than 6 DME away from the VOR, you may
only continue your descent to 2400' until you reach the 6 DME point
(CFIVO) after which you may continue down to 2000' until ILSIC (the
FAF)

(Ron or other Jepp users, is this what the Jepp chart for the
procedure shows?)

On Wed, 05 May 2004 11:22:16 GMT, Mark Kolber
wrote:

(Ron or other Jepp users, is this what the Jepp chart for the
procedure shows?)

My Jepp service only covers the East so I can't comment on that approach
per Jepp.

But from the way the OP described it, it sounds as if they are making a
fairly common mistake of assuming that the location of the PT symbol on the
plan view has something to do with where you have to start the turn.

If it were one of those "fly as charted" type PT's, it would be a different
story.

I'm surprised that the DE didn't know better.


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

I'm surprised that the DE didn't know better.

I'm not. Exactly what resources exist which could relieve him of this
misconception once he has acquired it? Zippo.

Greg Esres wrote:
I'm surprised that the DE didn't know better.

I'm not. Exactly what resources exist which could relieve him of this
misconception once he has acquired it? Zippo.

As I read the post, the examiner just told him to do what was published on the
chart. There's nothing to indicate what the examiner did or did not know.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

On Wed, 05 May 2004 12:01:46 -0400, Dave Butler
wrote:

Greg Esres wrote:
I'm surprised that the DE didn't know better.

I'm not. Exactly what resources exist which could relieve him of this
misconception once he has acquired it? Zippo.

As I read the post, the examiner just told him to do what was published on the
chart. There's nothing to indicate what the examiner did or did not know.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly.

I read the post differently, Dave.

It seemed to me that the OP was asking the DE about whether Jepp or NACO
was "correct" in view of the difference in the way the PT was charted on
the Plan View. And the DE responded that probably the NACO chart was
correct.

Although I don't have the Jepp chart at hand, it seems to me that both
charts are likely correct, with the PT charted in a different place on the
plan view.

The DE saying that the NACO chart was probably correct means he either
didn't understand the question, or was agreeing that the difference in
location of the PT on the plan view was meaningful.




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

Although I don't have the Jepp chart at hand, it seems to me that both
charts are likely correct, with the PT charted in a different place on the
plan view.

I just posted it on at.binaries.pictures.aviation

On Wed, 05 May 2004 10:06:44 -0700, wrote:






Although I don't have the Jepp chart at hand, it seems to me that both
charts are likely correct, with the PT charted in a different place on the
plan view.

I just posted it on at.binaries.pictures.aviation

Thank you. That confirms my conclusion that both chart are correct, but
that the OP (and others) are misinterpreting the PT charting.


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

On Wed, 05 May 2004 15:23:07 GMT, Greg Esres wrote:

Exactly what resources exist which could relieve him of this
misconception once he has acquired it?

The AIM, for one.


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

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Wed, 05 May 2004 15:23:07 GMT, Greg Esres wrote:

Exactly what resources exist which could relieve him of this
misconception once he has acquired it?

The AIM, for one.

Where in the AIM? I don't think this issue would be clarified without the
use of common sense (i.e., reading the entire chart in context...profile
and plan views) or a good reading of both the NACO and Jeppesen approach
chart legends.

On Wed, 05 May 2004 10:09:36 -0700, wrote:



Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Wed, 05 May 2004 15:23:07 GMT, Greg Esres wrote:

Exactly what resources exist which could relieve him of this
misconception once he has acquired it?

The AIM, for one.

Where in the AIM? I don't think this issue would be clarified without the
use of common sense (i.e., reading the entire chart in context...profile
and plan views) or a good reading of both the NACO and Jeppesen approach
chart legends.

5-4-8 a.1. ... However, the point at which the turn may be commenced and
the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of the pilot.

These types of issues get discussed in many places from time to time, as
well as in various publications. This very issue was the topic of a long
discussion on another aviation news group a few years ago. It was also a
California approach, but not this one.

Relief of misconceptions does not occur without a willingness to learn,
however.


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