I am training for IR (ground school stage). The hold on the missed for this approach is at 5400 ft. https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/2211/pdf/10225RA.PDF Given that there are no obstacles nearby, there is good radar coverage, and re-entry to the approach is nearby at 3200 ft (YAYUB), why did the approach designers make the hold so high? In my mind, one would be burning extra fuel unnecessarily, at a time when fuel reserves may be running thin. It seems more reasonable to climb to 2000-3200 (at most).
More than likely, it is for radio coverage. You probably can’t get a good signal down low, and they require you to be up higher for radio, or possibly radar coverage.
When designing the missed approach, could Chinook B MOA (ceiling 5,000) be a factor? @aterpster thoughts?
The missed approach is not over until the aircraft reaches either an initial approach segment or the enroute environment. This missed approach procedure ends in the enroute environment at WATTR where the MEA is 5,400 feet.
my guess is it's likely because they want you very clear of the high terrain just to the south if/when you decide to re-try the approach. From WAITR, you have a course and altitude published with plenty of time (6.9miles) to descend back to the IAF at or above 3200'. From there it's a simple parallel entry course reversal in lieu of procedure turn. Fly 267 for one minute, then course reverse to the right to re-intercept 087 back to the IAF and shoot it down to circling mins. Looks like a fun approach and nice and safe 1000' mins that is almost puts you straight in. I love flying circling approaches.
You might be surprised how many "why is this on the approach plate" questions can be answered by looking at the enroute chart for context. Since IFR minimum fuel requirements are based on flying for 45 minutes after going to your alternate, yes, the decision-making that led to having low fuel for the missed at your original destination definitely sucks .
It’s an RNAV Approach. WATTR is on T268. That’s enroute environment. Seems T268 MEA’s could suffice. Food for thought.
The holding course is on V496, not T268. Don't ask me why, because I don't know. Possibly the approach pre-dates the T-route.
Because this is an RNAV IAP, the airway appropriate to WATTR is T-268, which has an MEA of 3,000. I happen to have all the forms for this procedure, which I obtained last summer through a FOIA request. I did this because a good friend of mine was digging into the lack of straight-in minimums for a friend of his who is based at 0S9. Straight-in was denied because the flight procedures team didn't want them. Why, I don't know. Below is the data record. I have highlighted the reason for the significant increase to 5,400. I don't know what SA-746 means. Perhaps Russ does. "AT" means air traffic and "AS" means airspace.
Getting back to this, 2-8-9 says MOCA or MEA. The MOCA on V495 is 4300. The reference to 17-7 would now be 16-7. 8260.3E is current and has no Chapter 17. I didn’t compare in detail for content changes. Here’s the latest Radio Fix and Holding Data Record for WATTR I could find. Maybe the guy who built the Approach just went with that and put no further effort into it. @RussR ??. What’s going on here? Is there something in 8260.58B that can clarify things? I scanned through at could find anything. Could a new Hold be added to the 8260-2 without requiring Flight Check?
Ok. So T268 is in the picture now. I'm wondering how difficult it would be the establish a Hold, say West of WATTR on T268, left turns. It could have an altitude much lower than 5400. Do you know if a Flight Check would be required? Or could they just TERP it out and do it?
The hold could be as low as 2,000 feet. Because reception isn't an issue I don't know whether a flight inspection would be required. And, there could be other reasons that aren't documented. EDIT: The climb in hold evaluation would increase the holding altitude above my assumption of 2,000 feet. Climb in hold assumes a jet at 310 knots, which is absurd for an A/B only airport. But, that's the criteria.
@aterpster , @luvflyin , @dmspilot , etc. - Just got back from a trip and looked into this a bit. To answer the question why is the hold at 5400 for the enroute structure and not the lower T268? If you look at the 8260-3 for the procedure available ion the IFP Gateway, or direct link here: https://www.faa.gov/aero_docs/acifp...BE90D4A4104738-0S9-NDBR/WA_0S9_RGA_ORIG-A.pdf, you can see that the Original procedure was published on 8/22/2013, shown in the "superseded" date block: Since then there have been two abbreviated amendments, Orig-A and Orig-B, but you can't do things like change holding patterns or lower altitudes on an abbreviated amendment. So the design from 2013 still stays. If I was a betting man, I'd say that T268 didn't yet exist in 2013, but I don't know that 100% for certain. So the holding altitude and direction were based on V495. If the airport users would like the FAA to evaluate lowering the holding altitude based on T268, there is an email link on the IFP Gateway for just this purpose.
Do you know if they did decide to establish a lower hold, would it require Flight Check. Or could it be done with a map study?
I felt like going on a mission tonight... Per FAAO 8260.19I, 8-7-1.b.(15) on page 8-87: SA - secondary area (also X/Y surfaces, transition areas). Enter the adjustment amount for all codes except SI and HAA. And, I am no less confused than I was when I started this process!
