Approach Plate Drafting question

P

PPC1052

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Messages
5,398
Display Name
Display name:
PPC
This is a question born our of my own lack of experience, and I am sure there is a good reason for why the FAA does what it does. But what is the point of having separate standards for whether to list required equipment in the plan view vs. the note view? AIM 5-4-5(b) states that when radar or other equipment is required on portions of the procedure outside of the final approach segment, including the missed approach, required equipment will be listed in the notes box. Whereas equipment necessary to enter the route from the en route environment is listed on the plan view. This seems to create some redundancy and confusion.

For example, see:
http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1605/06878ILD20.PDF
Here we are told two times that DME is necessary. Wouldn't just once suffice?

Alternatively, see:
http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1605/05733L21.PDF
Here, DME required appears only in the notes box, and could easily be missed. Not that I am saying it's ok to skip the notes box. But the notice of required equipment not as conspicuous there as it is in the plan view. Why not just always list required equipment in the plan view?
 
Those are questions to pose to Flight Standards Service. A well-crafted letter to the head man will get routed to the correct manager:


John S Duncan, Director
Flight Standards Service, AFS-1
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591
 
aterpster said:
Those are questions to pose to Flight Standards Service. A well-crafted letter to the head man will get routed to the correct manager:


John S Duncan, Director
Flight Standards Service, AFS-1
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20591
Click to expand...
Damn! And here I was thinking you'd come in with the answer (really, not snarky).

I've also found an email (also well-crafted) to the flight procedures branch, 9-AMC-Aerochart@faa.gov, gets a fairly quick response to chart questions. They will typically forward the email to the appropriate person for an answer, so you don't have to figure that out for yourself.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Damn! And here I was thinking you'd come in with the answer (really, not snarky).

I've also found an email (also well-crafted) to the flight procedures branch, 9-AMC-Aerochart@faa.gov, gets a fairly quick response to chart questions. They will typically forward the email to the appropriate person for an answer, so you don't have to figure that out for yourself.
Click to expand...

Lol. I started to post my speculations on why but decided to wait and see if more knowledgeable answers came.
 
luvflyin said:
Lol. I started to post my speculations on why but decided to wait and see if more knowledgeable answers came.
Click to expand...
As long as we don't have a solid answer, why not speculate a bit.

Mine is simple. It's just informational, so we are aware which segment requires what.

I have seen discussions where pilots have argued that one of them is waivable under certain circumstances. IOW, if the note is in the Plan View (needed to get to the approach from en route), radar vectors can substitute whether is says so or not. Or, if it's a Note Box note, it might be for the missed and all you need are alternate missed instructions. But I have never seen anything formal supporting that position and the existence of "DME OR RADAR REQUIRED" would seem to negate that point of view.

@PPC1052 is not the first to raise this question and pointing out potential for confusion. And the FAA has been considering revising it. Check out this October 2013 record from the FAA Instrument Procedures Group Charting Forum and its recommendation to put all required equipment notes in a single location.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Mine is simple. It's just informational, so we are aware which segment requires what.
Click to expand...

That was the only conclusion that I could come to. But I think that is a poor reason as the method of communication is not very intuitive, which is an important consideration for writing safety critical documents, such as approach plates. I had to go digging to really figure out what the various notes meant. It would be better just to explicitly state which portion of the approach any particular required equipment on the plate is for. Or not. If it's required equipment, it's required. End of story.
 
Last edited:
@RussR is employed by one of the charting divisions of the FAA. Hopefully he can assist with some insight.
 
Havent read that link yet but will and haven't reread the AIM or Chartusers guide yet. My recollection of it was that RADAR REQUIRED in the Planview meant that it was required to get established on the final approah course because there were no feeder or terminal routes to get you there. This is the first time I remember seeing DME REQUIRED in the Planview. DME required in the Note Box meant it was required to identify fixes that didnt have another means of doing so such as cross radials, marker beacons, ndb's etc. That would pretty much make it mandatory. The ILS or LOC/DME RWY 20 approach definitely requires one or the other to identify fixes, TWITY, JOGIS and the Missed Approach Point. It sounds like what is being said is that things that happen on the final approach segment should be warned about in the Planview in big ya can't miss it letters so it dont take you by surprise later if you dont like to prebrief approaches. DME required is in the Note box. I don't see anywhere on that approach where DME would be needed outside of the final approach segement except the missed approach fix. Exactly what the latest guidlines the "chart builders" are supposed to go by I dunno. I'm guessing it goes something like this. DME is needed to identify BEVEE. Radar or DME is needed to identify TWITY and the MAP. If thats all true then I guess DME required does belong in the Note box also because the Planview says OR. In other words you could say "I aint got DME but they have Radar and I'm in Radar contact and it says dme OR radar so I'm good to go, they'll call TWITY for me." Combining the approaches on one plate is just to damn tedious in this case. Maybe the LOC/DME should just have its own Plate, should be cheap and easy, its already been Terp'd and flight checked. The ILS should be an ILS/DME with LOC only minimums. Already Terp'd and flight checked, should be easy

Why the LOC RWY 21 is a LOC where DME is required instead of a LOC/DME I havent a clue.
 
Last edited:
For someone bored to tears I refer you to Chapter 8 of FAA Order 8260.19G. If you can separate the wheat from the chaff please pass it on. o_O
 
midlifeflyer said:
Why do you need DME on the final approach segment? Looks like MUBDE is identifiable as the intersection of the LOC and the VHP R042.
Click to expand...
The angle of intersection of the LOC and the VHP R-042 is too acute. IMO the VHP R-042 shouldn't be shown on the chart.
 
roncachamp said:
The angle of intersection of the LOC and the VHP R-042 is too acute. IMO the VHP R-042 shouldn't be shown on the chart.
Click to expand...

Yeah. And how about the Terminal Route from VHP to FAXAG. Your VOR could be within tolerance and you could never get there.
 
aterpster said:
For someone bored to tears I refer you to Chapter 8 of FAA Order 8260.19G. If you can separate the wheat from the chaff please pass it on. o_O
Click to expand...

I've started. No promise I'll ever finish. I'll compare it against the parts in the E version quoted in the 2013 Charting Forum history midlifeflyer posted above. The example approaches in that letter bring up the same issues as the approaches PPC1052 started this thread with. So far I've found that my recollection that Planview notes were about what is needed to get established on the approach course was incomplete. It's what is need for procedure entry which sometimes also requires identifying a fix as well as the approach course. The approaches mentioned in that letter haven't changed so my guess is that the chart note requirements haven't changed in the 8260.19 either since then.

The ironic thing about this is that the requirement for the note that apples to the most critical phase of flight, the missed approach, is the one that appears in little lower case letters, buried in amongst of other notes. Sometimes there are a lot of them. RNP .3 stuff, remote altimeter DH and MDA stuff, helicopter stuff etc.
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah. And how about the Terminal Route from VHP to FAXAG. Your VOR could be within tolerance and you could never get there.
Click to expand...

Fix tolerance for entering a HILPT is looser than the tolerance for a FAF. If your VOR was in tolerance you would enter the holding pattern well within protected airspace. Once in the pattern you are required to use the localizer and the VHP 14.6 DME to fly the pattern.
 
aterpster said:
Fix tolerance for entering a HILPT is looser than the tolerance for a FAF. If your VOR was in tolerance you would enter the holding pattern well within protected airspace. Once in the pattern you are required to use the localizer and the VHP 14.6 DME to fly the pattern.
Click to expand...

Oops. I read it wrong. It is a 10 degree cut. No terrain out there, I wonder if that narrow cut is why it's a HILPT instead of a PT.
 
No changes in 8260.19 on Chart notes pertinent here. There are some about RNAV/GPS.
 
OK. Got it.

Tom recommends an action group be formed to address the issue

Kel, Val, Tom, Ted and Mark discuss the issues.
Mark suggests a workgroup be formed and Tom provides a sign-up sheet for an EquipmentRequirements Notes sub-group.
Status: Group will report at next meeting

John briefs, Tom refers, Kel says, Rich says, Ted brings up, Rick acknowledges.
The group did not meet but there is still interest.
Status: work toward scheduling a meeting and report at next meeting

Mike briefs, Ted states, Mike asks, Group likes, Tom and Val consult to facilitate, Ted recommends.
Status: Group will formalize and work on draft.

Mike briefs, Ted says, Tom advises, Rick needs, Brad questions, Val says, Mike says, Tom requests
Status: Participants to review and input to Mike and Tom.

Is any one in charge? Did they kill the Warden or just lock him in the basement before they took over? How do you determine the IQ of a comittee? Divide the IQ of the least intelligent member by the number of members on the comittee.

Yeah, I know, harsh and rude. But there are some problems with this system. Hopefully it hasn't reached critical mass and some solutions might be found someday.
 
luvflyin said:
OK. Got it.

Tom recommends an action group be formed to address the issue

Kel, Val, Tom, Ted and Mark discuss the issues.
Mark suggests a workgroup be formed and Tom provides a sign-up sheet for an EquipmentRequirements Notes sub-group.
Status: Group will report at next meeting

John briefs, Tom refers, Kel says, Rich says, Ted brings up, Rick acknowledges.
The group did not meet but there is still interest.
Status: work toward scheduling a meeting and report at next meeting

Mike briefs, Ted states, Mike asks, Group likes, Tom and Val consult to facilitate, Ted recommends.
Status: Group will formalize and work on draft.

Mike briefs, Ted says, Tom advises, Rick needs, Brad questions, Val says, Mike says, Tom requests
Status: Participants to review and input to Mike and Tom.

Is any one in charge? Did they kill the Warden or just lock him in the basement before they took over? How do you determine the IQ of a comittee? Divide the IQ of the least intelligent member by the number of members on the comittee.

Yeah, I know, harsh and rude. But there are some problems with this system. Hopefully it hasn't reached critical mass and some solutions might be found someday.
Click to expand...

It took 23 years before the ACF to finally get the cold temp correction issue accomplished.

When you go to one of these meetings there is more discussion than reflected in those informal minutes. Also, you can't get ****ed because protocol frowns on it. I'm glad that is part of my life experience history. Besides, I hate airliners. :eek:
 
luvflyin said:
Oops. I read it wrong. It is a 10 degree cut. No terrain out there, I wonder if that narrow cut is why it's a HILPT instead of a PT.
Click to expand...
This approach was revised dramatically relatively recently. It used to have an LOM with a procedure turn for the IAF. There was a feeder rout from VHP that was similarly acute. The LOM was decommissioned. (Here is my prior thread on the old version of the approach: http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/losing-my-lom-finding-my-faf.89704/#post-2001563 But the link now takes you to the new plate, not the old one.) I haven't flown since the revision, so I don't know if the marker beacon still works. But since the LOM is out, they had to devise a new entry.
 
Last edited:
PPC1052 said:
This approach was revised dramatically relatively recently. It used to have an LOM with a procedure turn for the IAF. There was a feeder rout from VHP that was similarly acute. The LOM was decommissioned. (There's a thread out there on that somewhere.) I haven't flown since the revision, so I don't know if the marker beacon still works. But since the LOM is out, they had to devise a new entry.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't surprise me that the PT was replaced with the HILPT because FAXAG covered a lot of space when it became an intersection. If you're VOR was off 4 degrees counter clockwise it would be pretty far out there and adding a "remain within 10 miles would be way out there.
 
aterpster said:
It took 23 years before the ACF to finally get the cold temp correction issue accomplished.

When you go to one of these meetings there is more discussion than reflected in those informal minutes. Also, you can't get ****ed because protocol frowns on it. I'm glad that is part of my life experience history. Besides, I hate airliners. :eek:
Click to expand...

LOL. Hate airliners eh. No peanuts for you. When did that ACF come about? It wouldn't have happened to coincide with METARS and alphabet soup airspace would've it?
 
luvflyin said:
Wouldn't surprise me that the PT was replaced with the HILPT because FAXAG covered a lot of space when it became an intersection. If you're VOR was off 4 degrees counter clockwise it would be pretty far out there and adding a "remain within 10 miles would be way out there.
Click to expand...
FAXAG is not an intersection.
 
roncachamp said:
FAXAG is not an intersection.
Click to expand...

The more I look at that approach the more I get confused. Let's start at VHP. Looks like a feeder route out the 041 radial which will get you to FAXAG in 14.6 miles. Then there is this thin radial line advertised as the 035 radial that continues on through the localizer with a little arrow at the end. Out northeast of FAXAG is another thin line that is on the localizer advertising 031 (the reciprocal of the approach course) with a little arrow at the end. 2 thin radial lines crossing each other with little arrows at the end seem to fit the description of an intersection per the Planview legend. ANTTI and MUDBE both look like intersections to me also.
Is VHP to FAXAG the 041 or the 035? I'm pretty sure it's the 041. But then look at MUDBE. Is the difference between the angles from VHP to FAXAG and MUDBE really only one degree? Or is it 7 as the thin radial lines imply?
 
luvflyin said:
LOL. Hate airliners eh. No peanuts for you. When did that ACF come about? It wouldn't have happened to coincide with METARS and alphabet soup airspace would've it?
Click to expand...

ALPA pushed it big-time. The Administrator finally signed out an order establishing the ACF in 1992. Not as formal as an Advisory Committee but it has lasted longer than most of tem.

The alphabet airspace was unrelated to the ACF. That was an FAA commitment to harmonize with ICAO. Unlike sequence reports to METARs I agree with the airspace change.
 
luvflyin said:
The more I look at that approach the more I get confused. Let's start at VHP. Looks like a feeder route out the 041 radial which will get you to FAXAG in 14.6 miles. Then there is this thin radial line advertised as the 035 radial that continues on through the localizer with a little arrow at the end. Out northeast of FAXAG is another thin line that is on the localizer advertising 031 (the reciprocal of the approach course) with a little arrow at the end. 2 thin radial lines crossing each other with little arrows at the end seem to fit the description of an intersection per the Planview legend. ANTTI and MUDBE both look like intersections to me also.
Is VHP to FAXAG the 041 or the 035? I'm pretty sure it's the 041. But then look at MUDBE. Is the difference between the angles from VHP to FAXAG and MUDBE really only one degree? Or is it 7 as the thin radial lines imply?
Click to expand...
Neither MUDBE nor FAXAG are intersections. They are RNAV waypoints and LOC/DME fixes. I have the 8260-2 forms but this board (so far as I can determine) doesn't permit upload attachments. Also, the Jeppesen chart has quite a bit less confusion and more clarity. But, I can't upload it either. The VHP 042 radial appears on both the FAA and Jepp charts, which is an error. The composition of the VHP 042 radial and the I-EYE localizer has a huge fix displacement error, far more than permitted by TERPs for a FAF intersection. My FAA contact agrees, and is trying to find out why the responsible department did that.
 
luvflyin said:
The more I look at that approach the more I get confused. Let's start at VHP. Looks like a feeder route out the 041 radial which will get you to FAXAG in 14.6 miles. Then there is this thin radial line advertised as the 035 radial that continues on through the localizer with a little arrow at the end. Out northeast of FAXAG is another thin line that is on the localizer advertising 031 (the reciprocal of the approach course) with a little arrow at the end. 2 thin radial lines crossing each other with little arrows at the end seem to fit the description of an intersection per the Planview legend. ANTTI and MUDBE both look like intersections to me also.
Is VHP to FAXAG the 041 or the 035? I'm pretty sure it's the 041. But then look at MUDBE. Is the difference between the angles from VHP to FAXAG and MUDBE really only one degree? Or is it 7 as the thin radial lines imply?
Click to expand...

The point I was trying to make is the intersection of the VHP radial and the EYE localizer does not establish a navigational fix at FAXAG. The divergence angle is too small; minimum divergence angle for a reporting point is thirty degrees, holding at an intersection requires a minimum divergence angle of 45 degrees. In addition, a feeder route cannot dead end on a localizer. A positive fix at that point is required; an LOM, DME fix, or the intersection of another VOR radial or an NDB bearing. The reason for that is the possibility of false localizer courses.

You point out some pretty interesting things about this approach as published, interesting in a rather bizarre way. FAA Order JO 7350.9E LOCATION IDENTIFIERS gives only latitude and longitude for FAXAG. For fixes based on traditional NAVAIDs the types, distances, and courses are normally shown along with the coordinates.

There used to be an LOM on this approach, AIRPA, it was close to where MUBDE is now. The feeder route ran from VHP to AIRPA, the track was the VHP R-041 and the distance was 8.9 miles. The feeder route now goes to FAXAG and it's 5.7 miles longer than the old route but the VHP radial defining the route didn't change. Or perhaps it did, perhaps the new feeder route is actually defined by the VHP R-035 and the R-041 shown on the chart is an error, left over from the old approach.

The routes from JELLS and ANTTI are feeder routes but require GPS, there's no facility creating a signal from them that establishes an intersection at FAXAG. The R-042 at MUBDE shouldn't be on the plate as it's not used for anything, it's just distracting clutter.
 
aterpster said:
Neither MUDBE nor FAXAG are intersections. They are RNAV waypoints and LOC/DME fixes. I have the 8260-2 forms but this board (so far as I can determine) doesn't permit upload attachments. Also, the Jeppesen chart has quite a bit less confusion and more clarity. But, I can't upload it either. The VHP 042 radial appears on both the FAA and Jepp charts, which is an error. The composition of the VHP 042 radial and the I-EYE localizer has a huge fix displacement error, far more than permitted by TERPs for a FAF intersection. My FAA contact agrees, and is trying to find out why the responsible department did that.
Click to expand...

Oh but it do. Select "Reply" in the message you're responding to and the box that appears should show "Upload a File" in the lower right corner. I just used it to upload a scan of the old IAP mentioned in my previous message.
KEYE LOC RWY 21 1998.jpg
 
OK. Think I got the pic here. Makes all the sense that those aren't really intersections. The 8260's are correct. The problem is with the plate publishing. I'm glad to hear that someone inside is working on it.
 
luvflyin said:
OK. Think I got the pic here. Makes all the sense that those aren't really intersections. The 8260's are correct. The problem is with the plate publishing. I'm glad to hear that someone inside is working on it.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • FAXAG.pdf
    3.3 KB · Views: 7
  • MUBDE.pdf
    2.6 KB · Views: 7
  • KEYE Jepp.pdf
    94.1 KB · Views: 11
The Jep chart is less misleading. I don't have a Jep legend. If MUDBE was an intersection, I know it can't be because it don't pass TERPS, but IF it was, is that what it would look like? A faint thin line with the radial depicted and an arrow at the end?
 
luvflyin said:
The Jep chart is less misleading. I don't have a Jep legend. If MUDBE was an intersection, I know it can't be because it don't pass TERPS, but IF it was, is that what it would look like? A faint thin line with the radial depicted and an arrow at the end?
Click to expand...
See attached.
 

Attachments

  • KEMT VOR or GPS-A.pdf
    98.5 KB · Views: 8
looks like the chart drawers took VHP's MAG BRG info from Fix Make Up Facilities on the Fix data Record to heart and made an intersection out of it even though the only thing needed from VHP was the distance to establish the DME fix. Is there anything on the Form whatever it is, the Approach worksheet, that specifies it is not an intersection? And why is it not a LOC/DME approach. If it is a LOC that requires DME doesn't that by default make it a LOC/DME approach?
 
AggieMike88 said:
@RussR is employed by one of the charting divisions of the FAA. Hopefully he can assist with some insight.
Click to expand...

Who, where and what are the "charting divisions of the FAA?" Are IAP's built at a local, regional or national level? Are they approved at a local, regional or national level? Are they within the FAA or contracted out?
 
PPC1052 said:
That was the only conclusion that I could come to. But I think that is a poor reason as the method of communication is not very intuitive, which is an important consideration for writing safety critical documents, such as approach plates. I had to go digging to really figure out what the various notes meant. It would be better just to explicitly state which portion of the approach any particular required equipment on the plate is for. Or not. If it's required equipment, it's required. End of story.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I think the Note Box being just informational is not it. Things like you need to raise the minimums when the altimeter source is remote and therefore less accurate is pretty important stuff.
 
luvflyin said:
Who, where and what are the "charting divisions of the FAA?" Are IAP's built at a local, regional or national level? Are they approved at a local, regional or national level? Are they within the FAA or contracted out?
Click to expand...
Most procedures you would use in light airplane flying are designed by the FAA. Many years ago they were designed at the various regional offices. Then their designed moved to the field flight inspection offices. Then, perhaps 15 years or so the function was centralized in OKC. Since then that function has reorganized several times. It is currently Aeronautical Information Services. The OKC designers supposedly take direction from three area Regional Airspace and Procedures Team (RAPTs) The country is divided into three service areas, Western, Central, and Eastern. There is a RAPT for each service area. The RAPTs serve the FAA regions in which they are located. RAPTs meet for each region once a month to review proposed instrument flight procedures (IFPs), which they usually approve but sometimes disapprove.

Throughout all of this, and over the years, Flight Standards Service owns the IFPs that are regulatory. SIDs and STARs are not regulatory and are owned by the Air Traffic Organization. If there is a dispute about the design of a regulatory IFP after its design is approved by the RAPT and put out for coordination by the design AIS office in OKC it goes back to the RAPT to consider the coordination objections. If they cannot be resolved there, then the dispute goes to Flight Standards that has the final say.

Additionally, there are three private entities that design IFPs for a fee. This is usually limited to a few RNP AR IAPs. One airline designs its own RNP AR IAPs in house. Those are "specials," thus not regulations under Part 97. Lots of politics on that one.
 
luvflyin said:
Who, where and what are the "charting divisions of the FAA?" Are IAP's built at a local, regional or national level? Are they approved at a local, regional or national level? Are they within the FAA or contracted out?
Click to expand...
Start here https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/

If you send an inquiry to the email address on that page it will usually get routed to the right folks to answer a question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top