Approach for discussion

G

grattonja

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
944
Location
Pennsylvania
Display Name
Display name:
saratoga driver
This is the second approach that I have offered, with all of us having wrung out the approach at ASE last week.

Here I am suggesting the ILS or LoC/DME 32 at BUF. So, shall we "shuffle off to Buffalo"? That has got to get me some negative feedback, I suppose, but I could not resist ;)

Hopefully, my link will work. http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0503/00065ILD32.pdf

http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0503/00065ILD32.pdf

If the link does not work I will try attaching, which made management work last time. Anyway...

I made a couple of quick notes on a few things.

What is up with the LODIY hold? Why is it there? It is not part of the missed approach, as that is WELLA. I have seen other approaches with a second holding pattern shown. Two guesses as to why it is there. First, maybe it is published on the L chart and is a parking lot when traffic backs up for this approach? Second, is it an alternate missed procedure that can be assigned when things at WELLA get backed up? In any event, why is this hold marked the same as a missed hold? That seems to make it confusing.

The missed path. What is up with the two obstructions that basically seem to define the printed arc line of the missed approach path? They make me nervous just looking at them.

Lastly, why is YOLUC an IAF and an IF? Obviously it is an IAF for the procedure turn, but what is it an IF for? I had to look up IF on the chart. Intermediate Fix. What is that? It seems to me that YOLUC is the next point "down the road" when you arrive from GEE VOR. Is that why it is an IF?

Same questions as last time. The above, plus anything else you can think of. Anyone flown this puppy either in actual or a sim?

Enjoy

Jim G

Well, this time the link didn't work but the attachment did. Oh well...
 
Last edited:
Hawk:

http:// not http:/ - two initial slashes are important.
 
Good article on this. The IAF and IF are co-located:


Neat Article indeed. It does help to explain the Intermediate portion of the approach. Why chart it as an IF though? We have all seen GPS approaches where the two arms of the "T" are IAFs and the middle part of the "T" is also an IAF, and that is usually just charted as an IAF. Why, I wonder, chart this one as an IF?

Jim G
 
grattonja said:
Good article on this. The IAF and IF are co-located:


Neat Article indeed. It does help to explain the Intermediate portion of the approach. Why chart it as an IF though? We have all seen GPS approaches where the two arms of the "T" are IAFs and the middle part of the "T" is also an IAF, and that is usually just charted as an IAF. Why, I wonder, chart this one as an IF?

Jim G
Click to expand...

It may be that you aren't used to seeing IFs--there really aren't a whole lot of them. If you fly from GEE, then GEE is your IAF and YOLUC is your IF. If you fly from DKK, though, you are only on a transition until you arrive at YOLUC, which is your IAF; after establishing youself on the localizer when you pass YOLUC again, the fix is now your IF. In every case JIMUM is the FAF.
 
Amazing the subtle differences between how Jepp Depicts this approach and NOS. Look at the note about 60% of thwe way down: "Procedure not authroized for arrivals at GEE VOR on airway radials 263 clockwise to 314 degrees." I see it on the Jepp, and only after looking for it carefuly did I see it on the NOS.

LODIY is indeed a parking lot. All Three precision approaches, ILS 5, 23, and 32 miss and go to Wella. So does the NDB 23. On a bad day in Buffalo, they will be stacked at Wella.
 
Score another point for Jepp. This is why I pay extra.
 
I am not always a huge fan of the Jepp charts, but I like this particular one. I like the fact that the missed is in it's own little box set aside. One of the things that I do not like about this approach is that the other holding pattern is marked like a missed pattern. I could see myself making that mistake in the clouds. The Jepp chart would make that mistake a lot harder to make.

Bruce, you said the hold at LODIY is a parking lot. Are you saying that ATC stacks them up there while clearing each in turn for the approach? This is what it sounds like, and it makes sense. That also would provide a sensible reason to put the hold on the chart. I guess that then begs the question of why it is modeled the same as a missed holding pattern. Edit. Or do they stack them up there on the missed? I re-read your post and that seems more like what you are suggesting. That then makes even more sense when the hold is labeled like a missed hold.

Jim G
 
Last edited:
What is the purpose of KATEC intersection?

--Kath
 
Also, why isn't ADF required, since the fix around which the MSA is defined is an NDB. It seems to me I've had conversations like this about the fact that if the MSA is defined around something, you are required to be able to identify it?

--Kath
 
wangmyers said:
Score another point for Jepp. This is why I pay extra.
Click to expand...

YUCK! I hate Jepp approach plates. And the low enroutes. Yuck.
 
kath said:
What is the purpose of KATEC intersection?

--Kath
Click to expand...


I assume that KATEC is guidance. I.E. "You're almost at the localizer and YOLUC, sit up and pay attention, pilot." It doesn't define anything that I can see of any use on the PT hold.

Good question. Anyone with a more educated answer?

Jim G
 
kath said:
Also, why isn't ADF required, since the fix around which the MSA is defined is an NDB. It seems to me I've had conversations like this about the fact that if the MSA is defined around something, you are required to be able to identify it?

--Kath
Click to expand...


Another good question. It does nothing except define the MSA circle. You would have to have the ADF and DME for it, to be of any use in defining that circle. It seems to me that using BUF would make more sense for the MSA circle, as it is arguably better centered and is part of the approach (well, part of the missed anyway).

Why would you use this fix? You do need ADF for the approach so why use a fix that you, theoretically, cannot identify?

Jim G
 
kath said:
What is the purpose of KATEC intersection?

--Kath
Click to expand...
Without an L chart, I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that it is there for reference, perhaps on an airway. For sure, KATEC is also on the 279 RAD off of GEE. Now, you remember if you are coming from GEE, YOLUC will be your IF because there is NoPT, so the hold doesn't apply. KATEC will serve as a heads up that you will reach your IF in two miles.
 
grattonja said:
Why would you use this fix? You do need ADF for the approach so why use a fix that you, theoretically, cannot identify?

Jim G
Click to expand...
I think you meant to say that you do not need the ADF for the approach.
 
Kath: You do not need the the ADF. There is no fix that requires an ADF to indentify, and fly this approach. The LOM on the ILS 5 is merely a charting center, and is advisory for the safety zone of 25 nm at the altitudes described. This falls into the category....when the "sh__ hits the fan info" for the aviator.... :)
 
grattonja said:
Another good question. It does nothing except define the MSA circle. You would have to have the ADF and DME for it, to be of any use in defining that circle. It seems to me that using BUF would make more sense for the MSA circle, as it is arguably better centered and is part of the approach (well, part of the missed anyway).

Why would you use this fix? You do need ADF for the approach so why use a fix that you, theoretically, cannot identify?

Jim G
Click to expand...
One of these days I'm going to figure out how to use this quote feature. Anyway, the VOR is a no go because it is very heavily restricted and not totally identifiable throughout the MSA area. The NDB however, is. I always like going to KBUF. The folks at Pryor are top notch.
 
Fast n' Furious said:
One of these days I'm going to figure out how to use this quote feature. Anyway, the VOR is a no go because it is very heavily restricted and not totally identifiable throughout the MSA area. The NDB however, is. I always like going to KBUF. The folks at Pryor are top notch.
Click to expand...


That makes sense. You need to have something identifiable for the MSA distance. I figured they had a good reason. I do not get the sense that the FAA uses NDBs for much these days unless they have to.

Jim G
 
grattonja said:
That makes sense. You need to have something identifiable for the MSA distance. I figured they had a good reason. I do not get the sense that the FAA uses NDBs for much these days unless they have to.

Jim G
Click to expand...

They get used when it's the only way to get the job done. It's getting harder and harder to use them though as for many applications the primary user has no ability to point at an NDB. Lots of airliners and many GA airplanes aren't even equipped with an ADF receiver. It's a big problem especially when you start looking to come up with an alternate missed approach holding fix because you need to get positive guidence from something. We're running out of things to point to.
 
Fast n' Furious said:
They get used when it's the only way to get the job done. It's getting harder and harder to use them though as for many applications the primary user has no ability to point at an NDB. Lots of airliners and many GA airplanes aren't even equipped with an ADF receiver. It's a big problem especially when you start looking to come up with an alternate missed approach holding fix because you need to get positive guidence from something. We're running out of things to point to.
Click to expand...


The skyhawk that I took my IR ride in has the multifunction display, and the ADF is not standard with that equipment package. So no ADF. The skyhawk that I did most of my IR training in has an ADF, but it won't pick up squat.

Both have a KLN 94 IFR GPS, and that seems to be the direction we are going in. Not to start a "discussion" about ADF, but I continue to be torn on the use/retirement of NDBs. On the one hand, they are basic and somewhat crude and many folks won't do NDB approaches. OTOH, they are basic and simple, don't cost as much as some other navaids, and are usually still there working when the chips are down for other navaids.

Jim G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top