Commonly missed interview questions....

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a good one for ya: What makes a VOR-A(B or C) or a GPS-A (B or C) designated with the letter after them?

[/ QUOTE ]

It means there are that many circling only approaches at that particular airport (so if up to C, it has 3).

Look at MSO, it has 4 of them, one VOR/DME or GPS-A, VOR/DME or GPS-B, VOR-C, and GPS-D.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't heard it put quite like that but I would refute that. All of the designations do also mean that there are only Circle to Land minimums.

And the only other reason that they would make it designated as such is if the Final Approach segment as a greater than 400'/NM descent. TERPS only allow for 3.77 degree descents for straight in approaches.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ophir, where did you find that reference? The 3.77 degree one.

Thanks
 
That is in the TERPS. You can reference 8260.3. That is where all the instrument rules come from. Keep in mind that is for a precision approach.
 
Nice. I've never been able to put a number with that "high descent gradient" thing. A circling approach (-A, -B, ect..) that is within a 30 degree alignment with the runway is still a still called a circle because you may not be able to descend fast enough to land straight in....though, there is nothing wrong with it if you do. At least in part 91 flying....
 
The approach to Bradley that AA's had the accident on is a good example, where the decent gradient past the ridge exceeded that, so the local charting folks "fixed" that by deleting the VDP and ignoring the trees on that ridge. Put them on a NPA calculating the VDP the way we all are taught, except on this one, if you leave MDA at the calculated (not charted) point, it would put you in the trees. Couple that with the local low pressure across the ridge from the venturi effect (likely resulting in over 100' altimeter error, probably more that night), and you have an MD80 hitting some trees. Many blamed the AA Qfe procedures in use at the time, but that really was not a player on this one.

Separately, on aircraft speed, more info can be found in the AIM under speed adjustments. It is paragraph 4-4-11 in my Jepp subscription, page US-292.
 
[ QUOTE ]
That is in the TERPS. You can reference 8260.3. That is where all the instrument rules come from. Keep in mind that is for a precision approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone have a link? I searched the FAA site and found stuff on TERPS, but nothing that tells me about the rules.

Thanks
 
You have to search around a lot and you will find bits and pieces of it all over the place. Do a search on "FAA Order 8260.3" and you will get a lot. Many of those documents are the newer digital stuff though. Finding the old stuff is challenging. One copy i found was dated 1976 but reprinted in 99.

I still want to know more about this RNO approach. Why the super high mins?

What does it mean when there is no maltese cross on an approach? Should I look at this and know what I am missing?
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is in the TERPS. You can reference 8260.3. That is where all the instrument rules come from. Keep in mind that is for a precision approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone have a link? I searched the FAA site and found stuff on TERPS, but nothing that tells me about the rules.

Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

Ask and ye shall receive

Terps
 
[ QUOTE ]
You have to search around a lot and you will find bits and pieces of it all over the place. Do a search on "FAA Order 8260.3" and you will get a lot. Many of those documents are the newer digital stuff though. Finding the old stuff is challenging. One copy i found was dated 1976 but reprinted in 99.

I still want to know more about this RNO approach. Why the super high mins?

What does it mean when there is no maltese cross on an approach? Should I look at this and know what I am missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

When no maltese cross on the approach, means the approach doesn't have seperate localizer minimums when the Glide Slope goes out.

As for the high minimums on the approach at RNO, must have to do the mountains. They must obstruct a section of the approach that makes going missed much harder. Who knows?
confused.gif
Look at most of the approaches into airports near mountains, their minimums are usually pretty high. Aspen comes to mind, along with Missoula.
 
Cool, thanks for that added info. But what about the absence of a maltese cross on a non-precision IAP? Haven't I seen that too?

I think the mins in RNO are due to obstructions on the final sequence. The one thing that makes me suspicous is the "*7200 when authorized by ATC".

Maybe it is the mountains but I fly in the mountains all the time and I can't recall an ILS with as high of mins. (If you want a LOC with high mins look at Eagle, CO) 3600' HAT, if I remember correctly. I lived in Telluride for the past 13 years and now fly out of SLC; It seems to me that the RNO approach has more to do with the approach rather than the missed.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Cool, thanks for that added info. But what about the absence of a maltese cross on a non-precision IAP? Haven't I seen that too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Means you can descend down to the MDA at anytime you want want once within the protected area and established inbound, ie. within 10 NM of an NDB or VOR.
 
I pulled out both plates and compared the ILS 16R (11-1) and the LOC -2 Rwy 16R(11-2). A small note on the ILS says if the glide slope goes out you must use the LOC approach so I think that would explain the missing maltese cross on the the ILS. The mins are incresed to 5700 MDA [LOC] up from 5512 MDA [ILS} but the visability drops from 4 miles [ILS] to RVR 60 or 1 1/4 CAT A & B. on the LOC-2. Dude im confused why would the vis drop on a non prec. but increase on the prec.? The decent angle is only 3.10 degrees on the ILS. The FAF is Dicey on the LOC off the DME. I can see why Skywest likes to use the approach now.
banghead.gif


On the missing cross on a non prec. KSGU has two approaches like that. The MAP is crossing over the VOR but the"m" is still labed over the VOR

On the label of approaches with A B or C etc I found in the Jepp binder that
" The use of an alphabetical suffix indicates a procedure does not meet criteria for straight in landing minimums (e. g. VOR-A, VOR-B, LOC(Back Crs) etc...)"

I don't remember where the 30 degrees comes from just stuck in my head

Fetch im such a putz monday nite im staring at approach plates not hanging with my wife and kid after being gone for three days I better go
 
[ QUOTE ]
I pulled out both plates and compared the ILS 16R (11-1) and the LOC -2 Rwy 16R(11-2). A small note on the ILS says if the glide slope goes out you must use the LOC approach so I think that would explain the missing maltese cross on the the ILS.

[/ QUOTE ]

The missing maltese on the ILS 16R is due to the fact this approach doesn't have minimums for a non precision approach if the glideslope fails.
 
[ QUOTE ]

On the missing cross on a non prec. KSGU has two approaches like that. The MAP is crossing over the VOR but the"m" is still labed over the VOR



[/ QUOTE ]

Otherwise known as a terminal approach, or one where the navaid used is itself the MAP.
 
Stupid IFR n00b question here, but on the KSGU VOR-C approach, I read the plate as being cleared to 6200 once past the VORTAC outbound , then to the MDA (4700) once on the final approach course inbound--that is, after completion of the procedure turn, correct?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Stupid IFR n00b question here, but on the KSGU VOR-C approach, I read the plate as being cleared to 6200 once past the VORTAC outbound , then to the MDA (4700) once on the final approach course inbound--that is, after completion of the procedure turn, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

The altitude that ATC tells you to fly will be the flown until cleared for the approach. Higher altitudes would be used if there is someone else on the approach, planes holding over the VOR, etc. Once cleared, you can descend to 6200 only if you are established outbound. Once established inbound (10 degrees) and within 10 NM of the VOR, you can go to 4700.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it is the mountains but I fly in the mountains all the time and I can't recall an ILS with as high of mins. (If you want a LOC with high mins look at Eagle, CO) 3600' HAT, if I remember correctly. I lived in Telluride for the past 13 years and now fly out of SLC; It seems to me that the RNO approach has more to do with the approach rather than the missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ophir,

I figured out (well at least I think I did) why there are such high minimums to these mountain airports.

The initial segment of an approach can't have obstructions enter the primary area that starts at the depicted altitude on the IAP and extends to 1000 feet below it. The primary segment is 4 miles wide on each side plus a secondary area that is 2 miles wide on each side (total of 12 miles). The secondary area starts at the depicted altitude on the IAP and extends 500 feet below.

The intermediate segment is the same as above but only has 500 feet of procted area below both the primary and secondary areas.

Since most of these approaches require pilots to fly over high terrain to get lined up on final at such a high altitude, it isn't possible to have a final approach segment with a descent gradient below 3.77 degrees. That is why they have to land under VFR.

Hope this makes sense.
 
{hijack thread}
Iruppert, I didn't know it was physically possible to pull hot chicks up at Grand Forks
confused.gif
.

I was enrolled to go there like 4 years ago and backed out at the last second because even the girls
in their brochures were scaring me (not really true but...). Well done my man, i've been meaning to mention your avatar for awhile......
rawk.gif
Go Sioux!
{unhijack thread}
 
[ QUOTE ]
{hijack thread}
Hey Iruppert, I didn't know it was physically possible to pull hot chicks up at Grand Forks
confused.gif
.

I was enrolled to go there like 4 years ago and backed out at the last second because even the girls
in their brochures were scaring me (not really true but...). Well done my man, i've been meaning to mention your avatar for awhile......
rawk.gif
Go Sioux!
{unhijack thread}

[/ QUOTE ]

She hates that pic too! I need to load a couple more pics that are much better.

She is definitely a looker.

About the rest of the school, there are hotties all over. You just have to know where to find them.
 
[ QUOTE ]

About the rest of the school, there are hotties all over. You just have to know where to find them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who would've thought. Man when I was visiting they must have put the A-squad in hiding, or maybe UND just got better recruiters??
grin.gif



But really now back to the great IFR/Terps disscusion
 
lruppert, I found some more info on this. Have you seen the new 2004 Instrument Procedures Handbook by the FAA? It is amazing at explaining this stuff.

So regarding visibility required for an approach, they list some of the criteria necessary when calcing this: HAT for straight-in, HAT for circling, lighting system, type of approach, etc. But here is a great one:

The penatration of the 34:1 and 20:1 surfaces. (between 200ft-10,000ft outward from runway

"If there is a penetration of the 34:1 surface, the publish visibility can be no lower than 3/4SM. If there is penatration of the 20:1 surface, the published visibility can be no lower than 1SM with a note prohibiting approaches to the affected runway at night. [Yet] Circling may be permitted at night if the penetrating obstacles are marked and lighted."

This still doesn't hit on why exactly you would only be able to have 1100-4 in RNO, but it is getting closer.

Who's good at trig and can caculate the rise over run with a 63 TCH and a 3.10 degree glide slope?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top