A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 22nd 06, 02:44 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Gary Drescher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 252
Default why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?

In the NACO plate for ASH ILS 14, the GS intercept altitude (1800') is
labeled "LOC only". How can a GS intercept altitude apply to the LOC
approach and not to the ILS approach? Is this a charting error?

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0610/05036I14.PDF

--Gary


  #2  
Old September 22nd 06, 03:42 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
John R. Copeland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 81
Default why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message ...
In the NACO plate for ASH ILS 14, the GS intercept altitude (1800') is
labeled "LOC only". How can a GS intercept altitude apply to the LOC
approach and not to the ILS approach? Is this a charting error?

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0610/05036I14.PDF

--Gary

Maybe a little ambiguous, instead of a full-blown error.
The note applies to the "1800 ft", not to the glide-slope intercept.

Jeppesen clearly shows 1800 ft to the marker for the LOC approach,
whereas the ILS intercepts the glide path well outside the marker.
Without GS, you won't go below 1800 ft until reaching the marker.

  #3  
Old September 22nd 06, 03:47 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
JPH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?

Gary Drescher wrote:
In the NACO plate for ASH ILS 14, the GS intercept altitude (1800') is
labeled "LOC only". How can a GS intercept altitude apply to the LOC
approach and not to the ILS approach? Is this a charting error?

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0610/05036I14.PDF

--Gary


It appears that someone got carried away with the "LOC ONLY". This
procedure has the same glideslope intercept altitude and LOC FAF
crossing altitude. The LOC ONLY annotation should only be there if the 2
altitudes are not the same. Last FLIP cycle had it the same way, so I'm
sure AVN-110 will check into why it's there and take whatever action is
needed to correct it.

JPH
  #4  
Old September 22nd 06, 04:19 AM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Gary Drescher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 252
Default why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?

"John R. Copeland" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
In the NACO plate for ASH ILS 14, the GS intercept altitude (1800') is
labeled "LOC only". How can a GS intercept altitude apply to the LOC
approach and not to the ILS approach? Is this a charting error?

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0610/05036I14.PDF


Maybe a little ambiguous, instead of a full-blown error.
The note applies to the "1800 ft", not to the glide-slope intercept.


But on the NACO plate, 1800' *is* the glide slope intercept altitude (it's
so designated by the zig-zag arrow from the "1800" to the intercept point).

Jeppesen clearly shows 1800 ft to the marker for the LOC approach,
whereas the ILS intercepts the glide path well outside the marker.
Without GS, you won't go below 1800 ft until reaching the marker.


Right, but if NACO wants to say "LOC only" it should be for a separate
specification of 1800', not for the (sole) one that's designated as the
intercept altitude. For example, in SWF ILS 9, there's a 2100' intercept
altitude, and separately from that there's a minimum altitude of 2100'
specified for the approach segment leading up to the OM; the latter altitude
is marked "LOC only".

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0610/00450I9.PDF

So the SWF chart seems right, but not the ASH chart.

--Gary


  #5  
Old September 22nd 06, 03:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Tim Auckland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:44:28 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

In the NACO plate for ASH ILS 14, the GS intercept altitude (1800') is
labeled "LOC only". How can a GS intercept altitude apply to the LOC
approach and not to the ILS approach? Is this a charting error?

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0610/05036I14.PDF

--Gary


Good question. It'll be interesting to see what others say.

There are a couple of other oddities on this plate which struck me:

a) MUGGY is shown as an IAF, but the plate doesn't show how to locate
it. I'm assuming it's on the relevant low-altitude chart, but is
it common for plates to omit this information?

b) The procedure turn altitude is 1600 ft. above the intercept
altitude. The way I normally fly procedure turns (1-minute legs in a
C172) I'd have to do a substantial dive when procedure turn inbound to
get below the glide slope for intercept. Is this amount of altitude
difference common?

Tim.
  #6  
Old September 22nd 06, 03:57 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Jose[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,632
Default why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?

b) The procedure turn altitude is 1600 ft. above the intercept
altitude. The way I normally fly procedure turns (1-minute legs in a
C172) I'd have to do a substantial dive when procedure turn inbound to
get below the glide slope for intercept. Is this amount of altitude
difference common?


I suppose that depends on terrain and other traffic conditions. I've
seen it before. Remember, you can gou out quite a bit farther before
making the procedure turn, allowing a shallower descent. You need to
remain within 10NM (presumably of the LOM), but that's plenty of
distance to descend from 3400 to zero, picking up the GS from underneath
on the way.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #7  
Old September 22nd 06, 04:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
rps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?


Gary Drescher wrote:
In the NACO plate for ASH ILS 14, the GS intercept altitude (1800') is
labeled "LOC only". How can a GS intercept altitude apply to the LOC
approach and not to the ILS approach? Is this a charting error?

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0610/05036I14.PDF


It's either a charting error or the feds are trying to save ink. The
ILS 31L approach at Boeing Field also has an 1800' glideslope intercept
and localizer-only minimum altitude outside the marker. The NACO plate
for that approach shows two separate 1800' indications. See
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0609/00384I31L.PDF.

  #8  
Old September 22nd 06, 07:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Peter Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:44:28 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

In the NACO plate for ASH ILS 14, the GS intercept altitude (1800') is
labeled "LOC only". How can a GS intercept altitude apply to the LOC
approach and not to the ILS approach? Is this a charting error?

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0610/05036I14.PDF


It's underlined. I believe that this is read as GS intercept at 1800
(lightning bolt and start of descent on profile view), but remain at
or above 1800 until the LOM for the glideslope only.
  #9  
Old September 22nd 06, 08:04 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Mark Hansen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 420
Default why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?

On 09/22/06 11:55, Peter Clark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:44:28 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

In the NACO plate for ASH ILS 14, the GS intercept altitude (1800') is
labeled "LOC only". How can a GS intercept altitude apply to the LOC
approach and not to the ILS approach? Is this a charting error?

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0610/05036I14.PDF


It's underlined. I believe that this is read as GS intercept at 1800
(lightning bolt and start of descent on profile view), but remain at
or above 1800 until the LOM for the glideslope only.


Somethings not right there, Peter. If you remain at or above 1800 MSL
until the LOM, you'll be above the GS. The GS crosses the LOM at 1586 MSL

Perhaps you meant "... remain at 1800 for LOC only"?

.... which is correct, by the way ;-)

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA
  #10  
Old September 22nd 06, 08:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.ifr
Peter Clark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 538
Default why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"?

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 12:04:03 -0700, Mark Hansen
wrote:

On 09/22/06 11:55, Peter Clark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:44:28 -0400, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

In the NACO plate for ASH ILS 14, the GS intercept altitude (1800') is
labeled "LOC only". How can a GS intercept altitude apply to the LOC
approach and not to the ILS approach? Is this a charting error?

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0610/05036I14.PDF


It's underlined. I believe that this is read as GS intercept at 1800
(lightning bolt and start of descent on profile view), but remain at
or above 1800 until the LOM for the glideslope only.


Somethings not right there, Peter. If you remain at or above 1800 MSL
until the LOM, you'll be above the GS. The GS crosses the LOM at 1586 MSL

Perhaps you meant "... remain at 1800 for LOC only"?


Yea, what he said
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Air Force One Had to Intercept Some Inadvertent Flyers / How? Rick Umali Piloting 29 February 15th 06 05:40 AM
Parachute fails to save SR-22 Capt.Doug Piloting 72 February 10th 05 06:14 AM
Pressure Altitude and Terminology Icebound Piloting 0 November 27th 04 10:14 PM
GPS Altitude with WAAS Phil Verghese Instrument Flight Rules 42 October 5th 03 12:39 AM
GPS Altitude with WAAS Phil Verghese Piloting 38 October 5th 03 12:39 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.