Going Missed - ILS 35R at KAPA

[SkyHog]

In the attached plate for the IRS 35R at KAPA, I'm trying to work through the missed approach and hold...I think I got it, but can someone fact check me on it?

Going missed, you climb to 7400ft, then a climbing right turn to 9000ft and a heading of 160, until intercepting the 197 radial out of FQF. Because this takes you right to the hold point, HOHUM, you would do a direct entry into the hold, making left turns with the first turn occurring immediately after crossing HOHUM.

Is that right?

If so - how the hell do you get back onto the approach without going onto the unprotected side of the hold?

 

[luvflyin]

In the attached plate for the IRS 35R at KAPA, I'm trying to work through the missed approach and hold...I think I got it, but can someone fact check me on it?

Going missed, you climb to 7400ft, then a climbing right turn to 9000ft and a heading of 160, until intercepting the 197 radial out of FQF. Because this takes you right to the hold point, HOHUM, you would do a direct entry into the hold, making left turns with the first turn occurring immediately after crossing HOHUM.

Is that right?

If so - how the hell do you get back onto the approach without going onto the unprotected side of the hold?

You get back onto the Approach by being vectored to final. Radar is required to do that approach.

 

[denverpilot]

You get back onto the Approach by being vectored to final. Radar is required to do that approach.

Yep, HOHUM is just to get you away from DEN traffic. Stack you above anyone else on the approach then peel you off the stack and vector you to final again.

That plate is a never-ending disaster but settled down in 2015. Expect another revision soon, because CASSE is truly decommissioned now (it's depicted in grey) and it is still the MSA circle center. (Cute.)

There used to be a radial off of FQF to CASSE that was a transition route from the enroute system, gone. It came and went over a couple of years. The Radar and DME requirements got slapped on it, and the transition route disappeared for good. Now we have FIRPI and JIDOG.

Note also that HOHUM is problematic without that DME distance (or GPS equivalent) off of FQF. It's also on the enroute low chart, but notice that the crossing radial is unusable from COS -- that's because of terrain blocking of the VOR signal. You're far enough away from BJC it won't be very accurate as a cross-radial either, but at least it'll work if you badly needed it.

 

[aterpster]

FDC 7/8939 - IAP CENTENNIAL, Denver, CO.
ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 35R, AMDT 10...
CHANGE MISSED APPROACH TO READ: CLIMB TO 7400 THEN CLIMBING RIGHT
TURN TO 9200 ON HEADING 160 AND FQF R-197 TO HOHUM INT/BJC R-146.80
AND HOLD. 23 MAR 13:40 2017 UNTIL 02 NOV 13:40 2017 ESTIMATED. CREATED: 23 MAR
13:41 2017

 

[luvflyin]

It doesn't look like FQF's DME is down. Any idea why they want it the HOHUM Intersection instead of the HOHUM DME Fix?

 

[denverpilot]

It doesn't look like FQF's DME is down. Any idea why they want it the HOHUM Intersection instead of the HOHUM DME Fix?

HOHUM can be identified by either the cross radial OR the DME distance published on the plate. There's no difference. You just wouldn't know the DME if you were only looking at the enroute chart.

The whole local area is a crap-show now for a NORDO /U airplane, for sure. (Think electrical failure and one of the many handhelds that can do VOR nav, but aren't GPSes.)

Prior to the decommissioning of CASSE and if you still had an ADF, you'd just fly to CASSE and turn outbound and compete the approach.

Ironically your best bet if you were to go NORDO now in an airplane that was /U or /A with all of these "Radar required" approaches around here now, and you need to land soonish in real IMC weather, is to head for FTG, probably right where the DEN folks don't want you to go. Because FTG is the only place left with approaches that you can actually navigate to without a GPS. Legally anyway.

Frankly in an emergency like that, if the iPad looks like it's sane, I'm headed for FIRPI, intercepting the localizer, and landing APA anyway. But there's no "airway system" left around here other than published transition routes off of FQF to go to FTG.

This silliness is one of the major reasons why we need to go spend $10,000 on a GPS. But we knew that was coming when we de-installed the dead ADF years ago. Could see the writing on the wall that the DEN airspace was going "VOR navigation unfriendly" quite some time ago.

 

[spiderweb]

Yep. RADAR does it. And a good GPS is much better than not having it.

 

[murphey]

I'm going to be forced to go back to the Real World Job to install a GPS, if I ever get around to finishing the IFR. I'm waiting for Nate to get his CFII.

 

[luvflyin]

HOHUM can be identified by either the cross radial OR the DME distance published on the plate. There's no difference. You just wouldn't know the DME if you were only looking at the enroute chart.

The whole local area is a crap-show now for a NORDO /U airplane, for sure. (Think electrical failure and one of the many handhelds that can do VOR nav, but aren't GPSes.)

Prior to the decommissioning of CASSE and if you still had an ADF, you'd just fly to CASSE and turn outbound and compete the approach.

Ironically your best bet if you were to go NORDO now in an airplane that was /U or /A with all of these "Radar required" approaches around here now, and you need to land soonish in real IMC weather, is to head for FTG, probably right where the DEN folks don't want you to go. Because FTG is the only place left with approaches that you can actually navigate to without a GPS. Legally anyway.

Frankly in an emergency like that, if the iPad looks like it's sane, I'm headed for FIRPI, intercepting the localizer, and landing APA anyway. But there's no "airway system" left around here other than published transition routes off of FQF to go to FTG.

This silliness is one of the major reasons why we need to go spend $10,000 on a GPS. But we knew that was coming when we de-installed the dead ADF years ago. Could see the writing on the wall that the DEN airspace was going "VOR navigation unfriendly" quite some time ago.

Yeah. But the Missed Approach Procedure on the GOV chart identifies HOHUM as a DME fix. There is no reference there on the GOV chart to it being an intersection. The Jepp chart does call it an Intersection from BJC/FQF and DME fix from FQF. The NOTAM changing the Missed Approach Procedure calls it just an Intersection. Oh well, the Saga of charting and the changes Du Jour and who is going to have the last word on how it should be done continues.

Going Nordo there after Missing is a classic case of AIM 6-4-1 a. "roll your own." I think I'd get slow, like back to approach speed to reduce the radius of turns. When I hit HOHUM I'd start the left turn to the outbound leg but continue turning to about 330 or so, give or take depending on the winds, get on the Localizer and GTFD. Get the ____ Down.

 

[denverpilot]

Yeah. But the Missed Approach Procedure on the GOV chart identifies HOHUM as a DME fix. There is no reference there on the GOV chart to it being an intersection. The Jepp chart does call it an Intersection from BJC/FQF and DME fix from FQF. The NOTAM changing the Missed Approach Procedure calls it just an Intersection. Oh well, the Saga of charting and the changes Du Jour and who is going to have the last word on how it should be done continues.

Going Nordo there after Missing is a classic case of AIM 6-4-1 a. "roll your own." I think I'd get slow, like back to approach speed to reduce the radius of turns. When I hit HOHUM I'd start the left turn to the outbound leg but continue turning to about 330 or so, give or take depending on the winds, get on the Localizer and GTFD. Get the ____ Down.

Ahh I see what you're saying. No depiction of it being an intersection on the plate. Right.

I do believe the "/" in HOHUM/FQF 22.5 DME is a hint that there's two ways to define that point in space, but they don't show you how the radial off of BJC works to find it.

I wouldn't have any problem identifying it off of the cross-radial from BJC if I needed to, but I see what you're saying.

Would be interesting to know the charting intent though. Also interesting that Jepp charts it differently.

Totally agree on the NORDO thing and getting on the dang ground. I was just sharing how the "airway *system*" (my emphasis) is slowly being destroyed by designers who don't think anymore at ALL about getting yourself somewhere in a /U airplane anymore.

I just find it interesting that they've been pulling the transition routes off of FQF for the last few years to get rid of the chance of airplanes going that close to DEN traffic, but left them on the plates for only one airport, FTG... which will put you square in the gunsights of airlines landing north at DEN in our typical bad weather scenarios around here. Snow out of the north. Check six! LOL.

 

[Clark1961]

Never mind the discussion about HOHUM, the notam puts one in a standard hold and the plate uses left turns. Somebody needs to be slapped hard. Or did I miss something?

 

[denverpilot]

Never mind the discussion about HOHUM, the notam puts one in a standard hold and the plate uses left turns. Somebody needs to be slapped hard. Or did I miss something?

Or they really want you west of final now. Hmm. Cute. I doubt it.

Of course then you'd probably want a left turn in the NOTAM to start the missed. And we know they don't want practice approaches doing that over the parallel.

I always get this distinct feeling from whoever is designing APA stuff that they really don't think anyone ever goes NORDO. Every time they change it, I go step through that scenario and it just gets worse and worse.

Unless you have an IFR GPS and WAAS, that is.

I probably have the email address to reach the charting folks again, and I'm tempted to ask your question but I bet the next NOTAM will just get even worse. LOL.

I get a kick out of the 210 knot speed limit charted at FIRPI. You're already under the Bravo ring, so it should be 200, right?

 

[luvflyin]

Never mind the discussion about HOHUM, the notam puts one in a standard hold and the plate uses left turns. Somebody needs to be slapped hard. Or did I miss something?

Don't know for sure. It looks like maybe specifying left turns is not the norm, like it relies on you seeing the pattern on the plate to know. Heres another one with left turns. ILS or LOC RWY 2 at KGPI. Left turns at the MA fix, KILLY, but the procedure just says Hold.

 

[Clark1961]

Or they really want you west of final now. Hmm. Cute. I doubt it.

Of course then you'd probably want a left turn in the NOTAM to start the missed. And we know they don't want practice approaches doing that over the parallel.

I always get this distinct feeling from whoever is designing APA stuff that they really don't think anyone ever goes NORDO. Every time they change it, I go step through that scenario and it just gets worse and worse.

Unless you have an IFR GPS and WAAS, that is.

I probably have the email address to reach the charting folks again, and I'm tempted to ask your question but I bet the next NOTAM will just get even worse. LOL.

I get a kick out of the 210 knot speed limit charted at FIRPI. You're already under the Bravo ring, so it should be 200, right?

At 9200, it'll be in the Bravo mostly. What a mess.

 

[Clark1961]

Don't know for sure. It looks like maybe specifying left turns is not the norm, like it relies on you seeing the pattern on the plate to know. Heres another one with left turns. ILS or LOC RWY 2 at KGPI. Left turns at the MA fix, KILLY, but the procedure just says Hold.

The notam amends the procedure...except when it doesn't? Why spell out the climbs, turns, and intersection and quit there? It must have been 5:00 and they couldn't finish the notam.

 

[luvflyin]

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................I get a kick out of the 210 knot speed limit charted at FIRPI. You're already under the Bravo ring, so it should be 200, right?

You could be in the Bravo there, not beneath it, so 91.117 (c) doesn't necessarily apply.

 

[Clark1961]

The approach should just be notam'd "No NORDO" and everything will be fine.

 

[pburger]

Clark -- The original missed approach instructions on the plate end in "hold", not "hold, left turns". I think it is implied to hold as depicted. It is depicted, after all.

 

[denverpilot]

You could be in the Bravo there, not beneath it, so 91.117 (c) doesn't necessarily apply.

9000 is the base of the Bravo at FIRPI. So yeah, you're in it momentarily but not for long at 250!

I think it's there just as a hint to the jets to slow up before FIRPI if the controller is vectoring them down to 9000 from above and they clip the Bravo edge. Otherwise it makes no sense. They'd know they had to be at 200 before going under the edge. It's literally a "point in space" legal speed and then you're busting the speed limit under the Bravo.

(I think we've had that discussion as to whether or not controllers are legally allowed to issue a faster speed than 200 *under* the Bravo and the consensus was no...)

Realistically what we really hear is most vectors to that approach lead to a reasonable intercept somewhere just outside JIDOG at 8000 anyway. I don't get the point of a 210 speed restriction at FIRPI when as soon as you start descending you're over the 200 limit.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Is that right?

If so - how the hell do you get back onto the approach without going onto the unprotected side of the hold?

Yes that's right.

You get back to the approach with radar vectors. There are a number of missed approach holds like this. Some aren't even near the extended final approach course. The purpose of the missed is to get you safely out of the way. It's not necessarily to set you up to do the approach again from there.

 

[luvflyin]

9000 is the base of the Bravo at FIRPI. So yeah, you're in it momentarily but not for long at 250!

I think it's there just as a hint to the jets to slow up before FIRPI if the controller is vectoring them down to 9000 from above and they clip the Bravo edge. Otherwise it makes no sense. They'd know they had to be at 200 before going under the edge. It's literally a "point in space" legal speed and then you're busting the speed limit under the Bravo.

(I think we've had that discussion as to whether or not controllers are legally allowed to issue a faster speed than 200 *under* the Bravo and the consensus was no...)

Realistically what we really hear is most vectors to that approach lead to a reasonable intercept somewhere just outside JIDOG at 8000 anyway. I don't get the point of a 210 speed restriction at FIRPI when as soon as you start descending you're over the 200 limit.

It's very likely it is about separation from rocks. In fact I'd bet it was. There is some pretty tall terrain out there. Less speed = less space to be protected. The mandatory altitude of 9000 might be about that also. Higher altitude = faster TAS which = faster ground speed which = more space needs to be protected.

EDIT: actually none of this applies here. The speed limit and mandatory altitude are at FIRPI, the IF, not HOHUM the holding fix.

 

[Everskyward]

I think it's there just as a hint to the jets to slow up before FIRPI if the controller is vectoring them down to 9000 from above and they clip the Bravo edge. Otherwise it makes no sense. They'd know they had to be at 200 before going under the edge. It's literally a "point in space" legal speed and then you're busting the speed limit under the Bravo.

FIRPI is the end of the DUNNN arrival. There are speeds all along the arrival, theoretically to keep adequate spacing.

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1708/05715dunnn.pdf#nameddest=(APA)

 

[denverpilot]

It's very likely it is about separation from rocks. In fact I'd bet it was. There is some pretty tall terrain out there. Less speed = less space to be protected. The mandatory altitude of 9000 might be about that also. Higher altitude = faster TAS which = faster ground speed which = more space needs to be protected.

Could be, but then you'd leave off the 210 and want folks to go 200 to help alleviate that.

I see the 210 as a warning to slow up and simultaneously a "gotcha" if you don't look literally 1 second ahead of that on the VFR chart, which a lot of IFR pilots never really do...

It's a great "gotcha" question for an IFR ride too. Not that I've heard of any DPEs using it, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.

"You're now superpilot and someone handed you the keys to the Jet. You're planning the 35R ILS into KAPA. How fast can you be at FIRPI?"

See if the pilot really knows the next step in that game...

The only truly correct answer is, "210 is the limit on the plate, but I need to be at 200 as soon as I descend out of 9000 because it's underneath the Bravo."

Other fun games with that approach would be...

"You're flying back from the mountains on V95 and the last clearance you received was V95 to HOHUM, maintain 17 thousand, expect ILS 35R at Centennial. How and when do you descend?"

And wait for them to say the controller has to give a lower altitude...

"Okay, so they haven't. Where do you need to be asking for one if they forgot about you?"

And they figure that out... and the notice that a descent at 250 knots from STAMY to HOHUM is 2000 ft/min. ("Hey, is this thing I'm flying pressurized?" Even slowed to 200 knots for 21 miles from 17K to 9000 is 1600 feet per minute. The passengers aren't going to like this much if we've been sucking O2 in an unpressurized cabin...)

"And as you call them there to ask for lower, you realize you've lost Comm with Denver. What next?"

There's all sorts of places you can do this sort of thing, of course, but this approach can be fun as a scenario generator.

Clark's catch on the NOTAM is a fun one too. That one will trip up nearly everyone. I believe it needs to say "as published" if they want you to turn left (or just say left turns).

With that NOTAM in place, your favorite "smart" GPS is going to try to prompt you to fly that with left turns if you don't get it out of the missed mode, too. And you might get suckered into it by comparing the published to the text of the NOTAM, because the only other difference is a 200' higher altitude. I bet lots of folks would choose to fly the magenta line. Punch OBS and CDI and go where no man has gone since the NOTAM was issued, once you reach the hold.

Someone sharp would say they'd ask Denver if they minded if they flew left turns at HOHUM vs what the NOTAM says, and Denver would likely be quite confused by the request. Because I think Clark's right. The NOTAM writer screwed that one up.

 

[luvflyin]

Could be, but then you'd leave off the 210 and want folks to go 200 to help alleviate that.

I see the 210 as a warning to slow up and simultaneously a "gotcha" if you don't look literally 1 second ahead of that on the VFR chart, which a lot of IFR pilots never really do...

It's a great "gotcha" question for an IFR ride too. Not that I've heard of any DPEs using it, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.

"You're now superpilot and someone handed you the keys to the Jet. You're planning the 35R ILS into KAPA. How fast can you be at FIRPI?"

See if the pilot really knows the next step in that game...

The only truly correct answer is, "210 is the limit on the plate, but I need to be at 200 as soon as I descend out of 9000 because it's underneath the Bravo."

Other fun games with that approach would be...

"You're flying back from the mountains on V95 and the last clearance you received was V95 to HOHUM, maintain 17 thousand, expect ILS 35R at Centennial. How and when do you descend?"

And wait for them to say the controller has to give a lower altitude...

"Okay, so they haven't. Where do you need to be asking for one if they forgot about you?"

And they figure that out... and the notice that a descent at 250 knots from STAMY to HOHUM is 2000 ft/min. ("Hey, is this thing I'm flying pressurized?" Even slowed to 200 knots for 21 miles from 17K to 9000 is 1600 feet per minute. The passengers aren't going to like this much if we've been sucking O2 in an unpressurized cabin...)

"And as you call them there to ask for lower, you realize you've lost Comm with Denver. What next?"

There's all sorts of places you can do this sort of thing, of course, but this approach can be fun as a scenario generator.

Clark's catch on the NOTAM is a fun one too. That one will trip up nearly everyone. I believe it needs to say "as published" if they want you to turn left (or just say left turns).

With that NOTAM in place, your favorite "smart" GPS is going to try to prompt you to fly that with left turns if you don't get it out of the missed mode, too. And you might get suckered into it by comparing the published to the text of the NOTAM, because the only other difference is a 200' higher altitude. I bet lots of folks would choose to fly the magenta line. Punch OBS and CDI and go where no man has gone since the NOTAM was issued, once you reach the hold.

Someone sharp would say they'd ask Denver if they minded if they flew left turns at HOHUM vs what the NOTAM says, and Denver would likely be quite confused by the request. Because I think Clark's right. The NOTAM writer screwed that one up.

Yeah. My whole rant about holding pattern airspace to be protected wasn't pertinent anyway. That's HOHUM. The speed limit and mandatory altitude are at FIRPI, the IF.

 

[denverpilot]

Yeah. My whole rant about holding pattern airspace to be protected wasn't pertinent anyway. That's HOHUM. The speed limit and mandatory altitude are at FIRPI, the IF.

FIRPI is just barely inside the Bravo. As soon as you descend out of 9000, you're now UNDER the Bravo and the speed restriction there is 200 knots.

That's my problem with the 210 marking there. It serves no purpose unless they keep you at 9000 and don't let you descend after FIRPI for a bit. Six miles or so.

You need to be at 200 the second you start down from FIRPI. Better be ready to play if you're going to bomb across FIRPI at 210 and then wait to slow to 200 before pointing the nose down when the controller clears you to 8000 and the approach and you're now descending for JIDOG. 'Cause that's what they usually do.

Of course most folks are grabbing a handful of throttle back in that scenario to get to their approach speed anyway... but it's a pretty silly marking in general. Yeah, you have 6.4 miles and can do it. The second you descend below 9000 you're limited by the "under the Bravo shelf" speed. That's the gotcha.

If they clear you for the ILS at FIRPI and you're doing 210, you must slow before descending. If they do what they often do, and simultaneously give a new altitude of 8000 and cleared for the ILS, same deal. Have to bleed off 10 knots before descending. Not a big deal, but silly.

It's just a planning thing, but I bet jets that are doing 210 at FIRPI bust the 200 limit reconfiguring between FIRPI and JIDOG all the time. Because they aren't thinking where they are in relation to the Bravo shelf.

If you get "Maintain 210 knots, cleared direct FIRPI, then cleared for the ILS 35R approach at Centennial", most folks aren't going to notice they need to be at 200 knots as soon as they descend beyond FIRPI.

They're going to slow anyway to their approach speed, so it takes care of itself, but it's a silly thing to chart. (Other than terrain restrictions. I get that.)

But, with the approach being Radar Required, it makes no sense at all. You're not getting to FIRPI on your own.

Lost Comm at FIRPI? Oh goodie, I can do 210 for any portion of that 6 miles until I start down? Nobody would be planning that.

Because you aren't getting to FIRPI without being vectored there...

And the only way you're going to FIRPI on your own is if you're NORDO and exercising emergency authority to fly that approach.

Thus, the 210 marking is silly.

 

[denverpilot]

FIRPI is the end of the DUNNN arrival. There are speeds all along the arrival, theoretically to keep adequate spacing.

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1708/05715dunnn.pdf#nameddest=(APA)

I had a feeling that silly speed number charted there was for the end of a SID, but I hadn't dug through all of them to find it.

From XPATH to XBEEE to FIRPI you could bomb along at 240 (with controller approval you could even do 250) for 8 miles, but the instant you're out of 9000 after FIRPI you need to be at 200 under the Bravo shelf. So I assume y'all planned accordingly. Don't see any good reason to plan fly past FIRPI at 210, really.

They probably should have put the 210 restriction at XBEEE and let FIRPI go unlabeled. That's only 3 miles sooner and it would have kept it off of the approach plate at a location where any descent would trigger an automatic 200 anyway.

Do you recall them ever making you you bomb along at 240 past XBEEE? I don't think I've ever heard them give anyone that speed restriction to stay fast there. Decelerating there, you get 3 miles to go from 240 to 210 but you still need to come back 10 more to descend out of FIRPI.

I'll screenshot it and post it for those reading along. Just a sec.

It still makes it look like the 210 restriction at FIRPI is pretty superfluous.

 

[denverpilot]

 

[Everskyward]

I had a feeling that silly speed number charted there was for the end of a SID, but I hadn't dug through all of them to find it.

From XPATH to XBEEE to FIRPI you could bomb along at 240 (with controller approval you could even do 250) for 8 miles, but the instant you're out of 9000 after FIRPI you need to be at 200 under the Bravo shelf. So I assume y'all planned accordingly. Don't see any good reason to plan fly past FIRPI at 210, really.

They probably should have put the 210 restriction at XBEEE and let FIRPI go unlabeled. That's only 3 miles sooner and it would have kept it off of the approach plate at a location where any descent would trigger an automatic 200 anyway.

Do you recall them ever making you you bomb along at 240 past XBEEE? I don't think I've ever heard them give anyone that speed restriction to stay fast there. Decelerating there, you get 3 miles to go from 240 to 210 but you still need to come back 10 more to descend out of FIRPI.

I'll screenshot it and post it for those reading along. Just a sec.

It still makes it look like the 210 restriction at FIRPI is pretty superfluous.

I don't recall being assigned a higher speed after XBEEE, but they often deleted the speed restrictions when there was no traffic ahead. I would say that most jets would need to slow down to meet the speed restrictions rather than having to speed up. It's true that you would technically need to slow to 200 if descending after FIRPI, but if cleared for the approach after FIRPI you would wait to intercept the GS which isn't for a while. Also ATC is not going to notice 10 knots fast...

We did the whole arrival and approach a number of times the way it was designed, usually when it was actual IMC. I can see that it requires a lot less talking from the controller. They would say, "Descend via the DUUUN2 arrival," then at some point, "Cleared for the approach at FIRPI".

 

[denverpilot]

I don't recall being assigned a higher speed after XBEEE, but they often deleted the speed restrictions when there was no traffic ahead. I would say that most jets would need to slow down to meet the speed restrictions rather than having to speed up. It's true that you would technically need to slow to 200 if descending after FIRPI, but if cleared for the approach after FIRPI you would wait to intercept the GS which isn't for a while. Also ATC is not going to notice 10 knots fast...

We did the whole arrival and approach a number of times the way it was designed, usually when it was actual IMC. I can see that it requires a lot less talking from the controller. They would say, "Descend via the DUUUN2 arrival," then at some point, "Cleared for the approach at FIRPI".

Yup, I see why they like it, too. It gets you completely out of their hair for the most part.

I'm pretty sure you nailed it with "ATC is not going to notice 10 knots fast" for the whole 210 at FIRPI thing...

But it sure does make for some fun fodder to pick on students with, if they forget the 200 knot restriction underneath the Bravo shelf...

 

[denverpilot]

I still like @Clark1961 's catch better though. I'm sure if I read that NOTAM in a hurry, I'd have just turned left.

All of the approaches I was flying before I went out of currency (again, damn it. I need to stay on top of that) were the RNAV stuff at APA.

Which is what set me on the path of wanting to upgrade my airplane.

 

[pburger]

What are you talking about Nate?

The original MISSED APPROACH language on the chart reads:
"Climb to 7400 then climbing right turn to 9000 on heading 160° and FQF R-197 to HOHUM/FQF 22.5 DME and hold." It says nothing about the direction of the turns. The PLATE depicts the holding pattern with left turns.

The NOTAM says to "CHANGE MISSED APPROACH TO READ: CLIMB TO 7400 THEN CLIMBING RIGHT TURN TO 9200 ON HEADING 160 AND FQF R-197 TO HOHUM INT/BJC R-146.80 AND HOLD."

The differences are changing 9000 to 9200 and supplying the cross radial to define HOHUM instead of DME from FQF.

The NOTAM changes the TEXT of the missed approach instructions on the CHART. The PLATE still depicts the holding pattern with the direction of the turns, which are to the LEFT.

I am just going off of the NOTAM posted in this thread. Is there another NOTAM that states the holding pattern direction has changed? If so, then nevermind. If not, then what am I missing?

FDC 7/8939 - IAP CENTENNIAL, Denver, CO.
ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 35R, AMDT 10...
CHANGE MISSED APPROACH TO READ: CLIMB TO 7400 THEN CLIMBING RIGHT
TURN TO 9200 ON HEADING 160 AND FQF R-197 TO HOHUM INT/BJC R-146.80
AND HOLD. 23 MAR 13:40 2017 UNTIL 02 NOV 13:40 2017 ESTIMATED. CREATED: 23 MAR
13:41 2017

 

[Everskyward]

What are you talking about Nate?

The original MISSED APPROACH language on the chart reads:
"Climb to 7400 then climbing right turn to 9000 on heading 160° and FQF R-197 to HOHUM/FQF 22.5 DME and hold." It says nothing about the direction of the turns. The PLATE depicts the holding pattern with left turns.

The NOTAM says to "CHANGE MISSED APPROACH TO READ: CLIMB TO 7400 THEN CLIMBING RIGHT TURN TO 9200 ON HEADING 160 AND FQF R-197 TO HOHUM INT/BJC R-146.80 AND HOLD."

The differences are changing 9000 to 9200 and supplying the cross radial to define HOHUM instead of DME from FQF.

The NOTAM changes the TEXT of the missed approach instructions on the CHART. The PLATE still depicts the holding pattern with the direction of the turns, which are to the LEFT.

I am just going off of the NOTAM posted in this thread. Is there another NOTAM that states the holding pattern direction has changed? If so, then nevermind. If not, then what am I missing?

Holds are generally right turns unless stated, so the instructions in the NOTAM are sort of ambiguous. If they wanted you to hold in the published holding pattern they should have written, "hold as published" at HOHUM.

 

[aterpster]

Holds are generally right turns unless stated, so the instructions in the NOTAM are sort of ambiguous. If they wanted you to hold in the published holding pattern they should have written, "hold as published" at HOHUM.

You're reading too much into the NOTAM. It has not affected the graphical portrayal of the missed approach holding pattern on the chart. Attached is the FAA source document used by the chart makers:

 

[Clark1961]

You're reading too much into the NOTAM. It has not affected the graphical portrayal of the missed approach holding pattern on the chart. Attached is the FAA source document used by the chart makers:

That's very nice and all....how many folks have the source document available when reading the notam?

Several items listed in the notam haven't been changed but are written anyway. Why not write three more words and ensure clarity?

 

[aterpster]

That's very nice and all....how many folks have the source document available when reading the notam?

Several items listed in the notam haven't been changed but are written anyway. Why not write three more words and ensure clarity?

Pilots aren't expected to have the source. I provided the source to show that the holding pattern wasn't affected. The pilot is supposed to apply, not interpret. The NOTAM applies only to the missed approach text. As to how it is worded I can't speak for AIS. But, you can sure ask/challenge them using the link beside this procedure at the IFP Gateway.

 

[Clark1961]

Pilots aren't expected to have the source. I provided the source to show that the holding pattern wasn't affected. The pilot is supposed to apply, not interpret. The NOTAM applies only to the missed approach text. As to how it is worded I can't speak for AIS. But, you can sure ask/challenge them using the link beside this procedure at the IFP Gateway.

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".

 

[spiderweb]

What a mess.

Also a great argument to stubborn old-timers who insist that GPS makes you a wuss.

 

[aterpster]

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".

That's what I would call applying the chart.

 

[Clark1961]

That's what I would call applying the chart.

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?

 

[midlifeflyer]

You're reading too much into the NOTAM. It has not affected the graphical portrayal of the missed approach holding pattern on the chart. Attached is the FAA source document used by the chart makers:

Even without the source document, it's pretty clear some are reading too much into the NOTAM by disregarding the charted hold.

Actually, those arguing it's suddenly right turns aren't reading enough into it. After all, if you are going to disregard the charted hold's direction of turns, why not disregard the charted hold altogether? If the NOTAM means "hold at HOHUM but disregard the charted hold," then there are no holding instructions at all. Exactly, what other than the charted hold says to hold northeast of HOHUM on the 017° radial? Why not get to HOHUM and hold southwest on the R197? Or pick south on the R170 and set yourself up for the approach? Or anywhere else you choose, so long as the inbound course takes you back to HOHUM?