Going Missed - ILS 35R at KAPA

Clark1961 said:
Good point on apply the notam. It says hold. We aren't supposed to interpret that to mean "we're done with the description, go back to the plate now to understand the hold".
Click to expand...
I really don't think we want to go to a place where the missed approach "description" becomes a paragraph long. Ya have the approach chart there. You prebrief the approach before you begin it. You already know what the missed approach procedure is before you commence the approach. You've seen the picture of the holding pattern. The instruction to "hold" when you get there is just that, "hold." The "holding instructions" are clearly depicted on the Approach Chart.
Clark1961 said:
Which chart? Neither the low level chart nor the TAC has a hold at HOHUM.
The plate has a hold at HOHUM. Perhaps that is how your post should be interpreted?
Click to expand...
They are "Approach Charts." Plate is slang
 
luvflyin said:
I really don't think we want to go to a place where the missed approach "description" becomes a paragraph long. Ya have the approach chart there. You prebrief the approach before you begin it. You already know what the missed approach procedure is before you commence the approach. You've seen the picture of the holding pattern. The instruction to "hold" when you get there is just that, "hold." The "holding instructions" are clearly depicted on the Approach Chart.

They are "Approach Charts." Plate is slang
Click to expand...
You are interpreting the notam one way. There are other valid ways to apply the notam.
 
Clark1961 said:
Good point on apply the notam. It says hold. We aren't supposed to interpret that to mean "we're done with the description, go back to the plate now to understand the hold".
Click to expand...

Clark1961 said:
You are interpreting the notam one way. There are other valid ways to apply the notam.
Click to expand...

So your "valid application" is indeed, there is no hold at all?

Or perhaps you have an FAA reference that if told to hold at a fix with no other instructions, one is automatically to assume whatever course they arrive on is the inbound course? There may be one, but I haven't heard of it.
 
In a practical sense, you wouldn't be concerned about the missed approach NOTAM unless you were planning to do the approach, in which case you would have the approach plate. This NOTAM has been around for a while, and I always interpreted it to mean that 9000 had been changed to 9200 and everything else was the same. However, after reading this thread, I can see the holding instructions can be interpreted in a different way. What Clark says makes sense, and what Mark says also makes sense.
 
What's irksome to me about this case is that an abbreviated amendment would have triggered a new chart (plate is what I have dinner on) within about 45 days, or so. Also, "Amendment 10A" tends to get a pilot's attention during those 45 days. And, this NOTAM violated policy. It is a temporary NOTAM, and the time limit for those is 224 days. This one goes well beyond that, because the next amendment is scheduled for Feb 01, 2018.

The 224 day limit came about because some "temporary" NOTAMS were in the system for up to 10 years.
 
aterpster said:
What's irksome to me about this case is that an abbreviated amendment would have triggered a new chart (plate is what I have dinner on) within about 45 days, or so. Also, "Amendment 10A" tends to get a pilot's attention during those 45 days. And, this NOTAM violated policy. It is a temporary NOTAM, and the time limit for those is 224 days. This one goes well beyond that, because the next amendment is scheduled for Feb 01, 2018.

The 224 day limit came about because some "temporary" NOTAMS were in the system for up to 10 years.
Click to expand...

224 seems somewhat ridiculous even at that number, to me... just as a general comment. That's a long time when the world has generally gone digital for distribution of the things. Understand it's likely more a limitation of how fast things can be re-worked, but 2/3 of a year to replace "9000" with "9200", essentially? Kinda silly.
 
denverpilot said:
224 seems somewhat ridiculous even at that number, to me... just as a general comment. That's a long time when the world has generally gone digital for distribution of the things. Understand it's likely more a limitation of how fast things can be re-worked, but 2/3 of a year to replace "9000" with "9200", essentially? Kinda silly.
Click to expand...
Kinda silly? It took them more than 10 years to admit they don't want people going to FQF...
 
Clark1961 said:
Kinda silly? It took them more than 10 years to admit they don't want people going to FQF...
Click to expand...

Did I ever tell you I actually did it? LOL. VMC IFR flight, controller clears me to APA back when the transition route was still on the plate. We had removed the ADF by then...

Only way to legally navigate to his clearance limit.

He notices about five minutes later and asks where I'm going...

I say I'm /A (the DME hadn't failed yet) and it's the only way I can navigate to Centennial.

Blue sky and no airliners bearing down on me, and someone got a lesson in looking at equipment types that day... hahaha.

"Turn left heading XXX, vectors to Centennial, expect the Visual 17 Left approach."

:)

I honestly hadn't learned to remind the controllers that non /G aircraft still exist, and that the iPad suggests a heading of XXX if they'd like to give me a vector, at that point. I wasn't TRYING to be an ass, but the chart is the chart, and the clearance was clear, and there was no other way to legally get from "here" to "there" without going to FQF first.

LOL. That guy probably hates bugsmasher pilots to this day. I've learned how to handhold the controllers now. :)
 
denverpilot said:
224 seems somewhat ridiculous even at that number, to me... just as a general comment. That's a long time when the world has generally gone digital for distribution of the things. Understand it's likely more a limitation of how fast things can be re-worked, but 2/3 of a year to replace "9000" with "9200", essentially? Kinda silly.
Click to expand...
Had it been issued as an abbreviated amendment, we wouldn't be having this conversation. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top