Compare these two approaches

I wonder if they are phasing out the -1.

Oh, I think I see the point. It is in the missed instructions. If you don't want to have to hold over the VOR (because it is so far away, over mountains, etc.) you must fly the LDA/DME-2. Then, you can hold on the localizer. But notice that you have to get to 12,000'. If you went to the lower MDA (of the other approach), the concern might be that you couldn't get to 12,000' by the time you got to SHOLE.
 
Last edited:
How about this thinking:
If the vor is unavailable for the hold for some reason, they offer the LDA DME 2. The LDA DME 2 has a higher MDA because its hold brings you closer to the mountains to the east.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
How about this thinking:
If the vor is unavailable for the hold for some reason, they offer the LDA DME 2.
Click to expand...
That's true, but they don't offer those kinds of options at other places so why would they do that here? Besides, there are a couple other approaches too, a VOR/DME off the SWR VOR and the GPS 18 which has even lower minimums.

wangmyers said:
Oh, I think I see the point. It is in the missed instructions. If you don't want to have to hold over the VOR (because it is so far away, over mountains, etc.) you must fly the LDA/DME-2. Then, you can hold on the localizer. But notice that you have to get to 12,000'. If you went to the lower MDA (of the other approach), the concern might be that you couldn't get to 12,000' by the time you got to SHOLE.
Click to expand...
But on the -1 you don't have to get to SHOLE. You angle out (very) slightly over the lake until you pick up the SWR R-102. I guess I can see how the hold being farther away might be a consideration but you're allowed to descend 1,100 feet lower so there's less chance of missing.

Even on the -2 you don't have to get to 12,000 before you get to SHOLE. That would be a pretty steep climb, about 3,600 feet in 5.6 miles, not counting the altitude gained in the turn. You would have to climb in the hold.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
But on the -1 you don't have to get to SHOLE. You angle out (very) slightly over the lake until you pick up the SWR R-102.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that; I said you'd have to get to SHOLE on the -2. I can see where I was unclear. What I was trying to say was that perhaps the reason the MDA is higher on the -2 is that they knew you couldn't get to SHOLE from the lower altitude on the -1, so they decided to allow a hold at SHOLE in the -2 on the condition that the MDA be raised. This guess, of course, could be completely wrong.
Everskyward said:
I guess I can see how the hold being farther away might be a consideration but you're allowed to descend 1,100 feet lower so there's less chance of missing.
Click to expand...
That's true.
Everskyward said:
Even on the -2 you don't have to get to 12,000 before you get to SHOLE. That would be a pretty steep climb, about 3,600 feet in 5.6 miles, not counting the altitude gained in the turn. You would have to climb in the hold.
Click to expand...
Now, this I wonder about. As I understand it, you have to follow the missed's instructions which seem to ask you to be at 12,000 by the holding fix. Around these parts, most holds are much lower, so getting to the proper altitude by the time you get to the holding fix isn't a problem. (There are, of course, also cases of the missed instructions specifying that you should climb in the hold.) If I'm right, I guess you have to take your aircraft's performance into consideraton. IOW, you better be turboed.

Let'sgoflying! said:
How about this thinking:
If the vor is unavailable for the hold for some reason, they offer the LDA DME 2. The LDA DME 2 has a higher MDA because its hold brings you closer to the mountains to the east.
Click to expand...
Oh. I should have read this first. This makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Let'sgoflying! said:
How about this thinking:
If the vor is unavailable for the hold for some reason, they offer the LDA DME 2. The LDA DME 2 has a higher MDA because its hold brings you closer to the mountains to the east.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but the hold for -1 is directly over mountains to the west of the approach and are of equivalent elevation to the mountains east of the -2 hold.

Say you went missed on -2 and held at SHOLE, would they put an aircraft inbound under you while you were in the hold? That could explain the 12000 hold altitude, and I think the higher minimums are there to help you get back to 12000 by SHOLE on the missed.

But then, what do I care in a Skyhawk? I'd need JATO to get in and out of there anyway.:rolleyes:
 
Bill Jennings said:
Maybe, but the hold for -1 is directly over mountains to the west of the approach and are of equivalent elevation to the mountains east of the -2 hold.
Click to expand...

yes but its much further away. Time + ROC = terrain clearance.
 
Bill Jennings said:
I think the higher minimums are there to help you get back to 12000 by SHOLE on the missed.
Click to expand...
I don't think you need to get back up to 12,000' by the time you reach SHOLE. You just need to get there eventually. Unless there is a non-standard missed approach climb gradient specified, and I don't see one on this chart, you only need to be able to climb at 200'/nm. To get back to 12,000' by SHOLE you would need to climb 3,620 feet in 5.6 miles which is 646'/nm, not counting the turn back which I'm not sure how to compute. In any case that's over 3 times the standard climb gradient.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
I don't think you need to get back up to 12,000' by the time you reach SHOLE. You just need to get there eventually. Unless there is a non-standard missed approach climb gradient specified, and I don't see one on this chart, you only need to be able to climb at 200'/nm. To get back to 12,000' by SHOLE you would need to climb 3,620 feet in 5.6 miles which is 646'/nm, not counting the turn back which I'm not sure how to compute. In any case that's over 3 times the standard climb gradient.
Click to expand...
This is the point I think we need clarified. I don't know how to compute it either, but I am thinking you would be flying more like 8 or 9 miles back to SHOLE. Especially here, regardless of the regulations, I would want to be at 12,000 before reaching SHOLE, but that might just be me being overly cautious. I know I couldn't do it in a C172 or even a C182 unless it was turboed.
 
Interesting approaches. Terrain always seems to make approaches interesting.
Can we legally fly these with an IFR GPS for the DME ? :D
 
wangmyers said:
This is the point I think we need clarified. I don't know how to compute it either, but I am thinking you would be flying more like 8 or 9 miles back to SHOLE. Especially here, regardless of the regulations, I would want to be at 12,000 before reaching SHOLE, but that might just be me being overly cautious. I know I couldn't do it in a C172 or even a C182 unless it was turboed.
Click to expand...
The requirement for the missed approach climb gradient is here in the AIM:

5-4-20. Missed Approach​
a. When a landing cannot be accomplished, advise ATC and, upon reaching the missed approach point defined on the approach procedure chart, the pilot must comply with the missed approach instructions for the procedure being used or with an alternate missed approach procedure specified by ATC.​
b. Protected obstacle clearance areas for missed approach are predicated on the assumption that the missed approach is initiated at the decision height (DH) or at the missed approach point and not lower than minimum descent altitude (MDA). A climb of at least 200 feet per nautical mile is required, (except for Copter approaches, where a climb of at least 400 feet per nautical mile is required), unless a higher climb gradient is published on the approach chart. Reasonable buffers are provided for normal maneuvers. However, no consideration is given to an abnormally early turn. Therefore, when an early missed approach is executed, pilots should, unless otherwise cleared by ATC, fly the IAP as specified on the approach plate to the missed approach point at or above the MDA or DH before executing a turning maneuver.​
So even if you think it's going to be 9 miles back to SHOLE with the turn, you would have to climb 402'/nm to arrive there at 12,000' which is much more than 200'/nm. I'm looking at the wording for the missed approach and it doesn't say, "cross SHOLE at 12,000" or anything like that. Besides, when you coming down the approach you can cross SHOLE at 9,500'. In addition, the holding pattern is on the side away from the mountains.

I agree that you wouldn't want to do this in a C-172 or any airplane that won't climb at 200'/nm up to 12,000'.

I just thought it was interesting that there were two variations of an approach like this. I can't recall seeing this anywhere else, at least not in the US.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
I don't think you need to get back up to 12,000' by the time you reach SHOLE. You just need to get there eventually. Unless there is a non-standard missed approach climb gradient specified, and I don't see one on this chart, you only need to be able to climb at 200'/nm. To get back to 12,000' by SHOLE you would need to climb 3,620 feet in 5.6 miles which is 646'/nm, not counting the turn back which I'm not sure how to compute. In any case that's over 3 times the standard climb gradient.
Click to expand...

There are Take-Off minimums of 700'/nm for RWY-18 to 9800' and RWY-36 has 400'/nm to 8300'. That's enough of a hint for me.
 
Maybe the VOR is needed for others procedures often enough to warrant a second approach. Could be traffic into Reno would be affected or.....
 
jdwatson said:
There are Take-Off minimums of 700'/nm for RWY-18 to 9800' and RWY-36 has 400'/nm to 8300'. That's enough of a hint for me.
Click to expand...
But you can't really compare the takeoff gradient to the missed approach gradient because you're starting the takeoff from the ground.

Also, look at this:
SHOLE1 Departure

It requires 300'/nm to 9,000'. SHOLE is about 10 miles away so at 300'/nm you would have climbed about 3,000' AGL or to about 9,300' MSL. Then you climb in the holding pattern to 13,000' if you're not there already.

I did this procedure (SHOLE1.FMG) the other evening with the Space Shuttle takeoff to get above 13,000 without having to climb in the hold. We also opted for the -1 approach and wondered what the purpose was of the -2, which is why I posted the original question.
 
I'm not sure what the "Space Shuttle" takeoff is...

I'm not comparing the takeoff gradient to the missed approach gradient. I take my clues from all information, and when I find takeoff minimums for an airport it's a hint to me to pay attention to why. I'm on the east coast, that makes me a flatlander compared to those mountains. :D
 
jdwatson said:
I take my clues from all information, and when I find takeoff minimums for an airport it's a hint to me to pay attention to why. I'm on the east coast, that makes me a flatlander compared to those mountains. :D
Click to expand...
OK I understand, and that's a good idea! I fly in the mountains quite a bit and am used to looking at all the gradients compared to what the airplane will do at a certain weight, altitude and temperature.

I was just being a little facetious about the Space Shuttle takeoff. I wanted to climb steeply enough to make 13,000' before SHOLE so we wouldn't have to climb in the holding pattern. Lazy, I guess. We actually did it pretty easily. The weather was beautiful, but it was dark which is why we did the approach and departure procedures. It's always a good idea to stick to the IFR procedures at night when there is terrain and you are unfamiliar with the area. :yes:
 
I agree completely ! One of the reasons I fly IFR in VMC most of the time. Getting my IR has added a wonderful dimension to my flying. I absolutely love it.
 
jdwatson said:
Getting my IR has added a wonderful dimension to my flying. I absolutely love it.
Click to expand...

Two weeks and two days, and I'll hopefully be joining you in the system. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top