Why two alttitudes on missed approach

G

Getonit

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
499
Display Name
Display name:
Mark
the missed approach instructions at OFP GPS 34 have instructions to climb to 700 then climb to 2000, with no instructions between them. Why not just make it climb to 2000 in one instruction? Just something I noticed while flying in there yesterday
 
I don't have the chart handy perhaps you could post it. Perhaps there is a floor of some sort from another facility, airport, MOA etc that they need to stay under. But can't say for sure without the chart. LOL I probably could not say for sure with the chart.
 
Because that 5 degree change to 345 could be a tree. So you're flying 340 to 700ft then you can make your turn to 345 to get to coate
 
It's just like other dual instructions on a missed. The "climb to 700" is a straight ahead climb on the extension of the final approach. The second "then climb to 2000 direct COATI..." is a climb to a specific fix.

It's exactly the same as "climb to 700, then climbing left turn to 2000 via [a specific radial]" on the LOC 34. The second part of the instruction names a fix that happens to be straight ahead.

Adam: http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1610/05965R34.PDF
 
midlifeflyer said:
It's just like other dual instructions on a missed. The "climb to 700" is a straight ahead climb on the extension of the final approach. The second "then climb to 2000 direct COATI..." is a climb to a specific fix.

It's exactly the same as "climb to 700, then climbing left turn to 2000 via [a specific radial]" on the LOC 34. The second part of the instruction names a fix that happens to be straight ahead.

Adam: http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1610/05965R34.PDF
Click to expand...

Thanks Mark, Chart helps. OP, the Intersection is COATT not COATI but sure is easy to confuse the spelling. Looks like COATT is ever so slightly offset from runway heading.
 
The MAP to COATT appears to be about 330. The chart says DWEED to the runway is 339. You can actually see it on the sectional if you draw a line from the airport to COATT (it's charted). Oddly enough, it seems like you're more likely going to hit something if you stay on the runway heading than if you turn to COATT immediately but of course it's hard to tell by google maps. There may be a cell tower or one of those monster flag poles off the side of I-95 there.
 
flyingron said:
The MAP to COATT appears to be about 330. The chart says DWEED to the runway is 339. You can actually see it on the sectional if you draw a line from the airport to COATT (it's charted). Oddly enough, it seems like you're more likely going to hit something if you stay on the runway heading than if you turn to COATT immediately but of course it's hard to tell by google maps. There may be a cell tower or one of those monster flag poles off the side of I-95 there.
Click to expand...
The protected airspace is wider than that. The criteria won't permit a course change below 400 feet above airport elevation. It seems silly in this case because the course change is small.

There are three missed approach areas that had to be evaluated. The LPV missed approach is the most critical.
 
OP, I think it's a very good question and illustrates the difference between the graphic and the text versions.
In the (very terse) graphic version, it does seem odd to break that climb into two parts, unless you understand that "direct X" is implied to the next graphic. So as bottom line, the lessons are that it's good to read the text in addition to the graphic version, and that any climb in the graphic has an implicit heading either based on the previous or next frame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top