Answer on CEF ILS RWY 23 questions

In a previous article, (G Farris) said:
After all this haggling and confusion, I'll bet Paul is flying to BAF!!

You got that right.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
char *p="char *p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){print f(p,34,p,34);}

On 14 Oct 2004 08:50:42 -0700,
(Michael) wrote:

since 900 is a safe altitude at any point
after BELCH.


It really isn't. There is a 923' obstacle to the left of course near
BLECH. Can a plane descend that fast? It sure could but may be
fairly unlikely. It still stands that there is a portion of the
approach that does not provide adequate obstacle clearance with all
certainty.

Don't mean to get in the middle of your exchange, but thought it worth
noting.

z

zatatime wrote:

On 14 Oct 2004 08:50:42 -0700,
(Michael) wrote:

since 900 is a safe altitude at any point
after BELCH.

It really isn't. There is a 923' obstacle to the left of course near
BLECH. Can a plane descend that fast? It sure could but may be
fairly unlikely. It still stands that there is a portion of the
approach that does not provide adequate obstacle clearance with all
certainty.

Don't mean to get in the middle of your exchange, but thought it worth
noting.

They may have applied TERPs Paragraph 289 to that one; which is a 7:1
slope over an obstacle that is within 1 mile of the earliest point the FAF
can be received.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:27:03 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

The first plate won't have the 1160
restriction, but will instead allow you to descend to the MDA after BELCH,
and the second will have a step down fix.


Hey...Thanks again for the info. This should help alleviate confusion
for all except Category E aircraft (aside from the pucker factor
regarding the 923' obstacle after BELCH). I'm wondering why they
don't just put in another cross radial from Chester to indicate
passage of the obstacle and clearance down to 900'. Both DME and
non-DME aircraft could then utilize the same approach. What might
restrict this is VOR inaccuracies, I'm not sure what criteria needs to
be met for that, but Chester is only about 20 miles away and it seems
like it could work.

Thanks again for the follow up, thanks to John for getting involved,
and good luck to Tim in solving this problem.

z

Thanks to Paul especially, for bringing it up in the first place, then
sticking it out, raising everyone's level of awareness.

May he have a safe and UNCOMPLICATED flight in and out of that world capital
of colleges and prep schools, and continue to share his IFR questions with all
of us.

There will be some beautiful scenery to see along that flight!

G Faris

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:20:00 +0000 (UTC), (G
Farris) wrote:

Thanks to Paul especially, for bringing it up in the first place, then
sticking it out, raising everyone's level of awareness.

May he have a safe and UNCOMPLICATED flight in and out of that world capital
of colleges and prep schools, and continue to share his IFR questions with all
of us.

There will be some beautiful scenery to see along that flight!

G Faris


Here, Here.

And may he still be able to afford flying after the bills arrive for
sophmore year.

z

wrote
It is an error in the design of the procedure. I have no way of knowing I can
"bust" the 2.5 DME altitude unless there is a procedural data note to tell me
that. Some Air Force guy's response on this forum hardly fills that bill!

But it does tell us what the intent of the procedure was.

A charting error occurs when NACO or Jeppesen does not correctly chart what is on
the source 8260-3 or -5. That is not the case here.

By that definition, I concur.

This is what the 8260.19C has to say about it,

(2) Where radar is the only method for procedure entry from the en route
environment, enter the following: "Chart planview note: RADAR REQUIRED."

The fact you can find a procedure that doesn't comply with that requirement only
speaks to the fact the feds do make mistakes.

Is that the ONLY time the note is added? I've seen an awful lot of
approaches where one could easily navigate to the IAF from the enroute
enviroment that were "RADAR REQUIRED" and I doubt they were all
errors. They tended to be approaches where an error on the part of
the pilot would cause him to penetrate airspace - in the case of the
VOR-B at LVJ, the airspace in question is the Class B surface area at
HOU, but I've seen it done for restricted areas as well.

Michael

Michael wrote:


Is that the ONLY time the note is added? I've seen an awful lot of
approaches where one could easily navigate to the IAF from the enroute
enviroment that were "RADAR REQUIRED" and I doubt they were all
errors. They tended to be approaches where an error on the part of
the pilot would cause him to penetrate airspace - in the case of the
VOR-B at LVJ, the airspace in question is the Class B surface area at
HOU, but I've seen it done for restricted areas as well.

Michael

I gave you the policy. If you find them otherwise, then they don't follow the policy.
The FAA often doesn't follow its own policies. The place that designs IAPs is suppose
to be standardized but it isn't because the training is spotty as well as the quality
control.

ATC requires radar to do a lot of things, but it doesn't appear on charts that are
capable of being flown without radar.

In a previous article, said:
ATC requires radar to do a lot of things, but it doesn't appear on charts
that are capable of being flown without radar.

But in this case, you can't fly the missed approach without radar, so
wouldn't that be the reason for "RADAR REQUIRED"?

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Everywhere I go I'm asked if I think the university stifles writers. My
opinion is that they don't stifle enough of them. There's many a bestseller
that could have been prevented by a good teacher. -- Flannery O'Connor

wrote
I gave you the policy. If you find them otherwise, then they don't follow the policy.

Do you have a cite for the policy - preferably on the web? There has
been much discussion at the flight school about how an approach gets
that designation.

The FAA often doesn't follow its own policies.

You think?

Michael