Approach Question

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.

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

David
????

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.

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?

;-)