#LPV

[MJR Pilot]

I’m sure there’s an easy answer to this, but haven’t been able to find through my quick google searching. I’m looking at the RNAV 23 plate for KCBE and it lists minima for 2 LPV approaches - the first listed as “# LPV” and the second “LPV”. What does the “# LPV” mean? I confess I haven’t seen this before. Any source info would be appreciated as well. Thanks!

 

[luvflyin]

I’m sure there’s an easy answer to this, but haven’t been able to find through my quick google searching. I’m looking at the RNAV 23 plate for KCBE and it lists minima for 2 LPV approaches - the first listed as “# LPV” and the second “LPV”. What does the “# LPV” mean? I confess I haven’t seen this before. Any source info would be appreciated as well. Thanks!

When you see those #'s, you have to go looking elsewhere on the Chart. It's kinda like a Where's Waldo sometimes. This one is up in the Notes Box, last line. It's about to do the #LPV, ya gotta be able to climb faster than the no# LPV.

 

[LesGawlik]

I'm looking at the Jepp chart but my guess is that the second one is with the Winchester Altimeter setting, which gets you down to 1125'@ 1 for A and B. The first one is with local altimeter, and gets you down to 1025' @ 3/4 for A and B. Both sets of minima have non-standard climb gradients on the missed due to terrain.

 

[tsts4]

The FAA IFR Handbook states: "Two sets of minimums required when a climb gradient greater than 200 ft/NM is required." If you look in the notes section on the CBE RNAV 23 plate it states: "# Missed approach requires minimum climb of 424 feet per NM to 1950."

 

[luvflyin]

I'm looking at the Jepp chart but my guess is that the second one is with the Winchester Altimeter setting,

There is an increase Minimums with Winchester note, but it's not referenced to # or * or any other symbol. That's the Gov Chart.

 

[luvflyin]

Jepp does things a little differently.

 

[luvflyin]

I'm looking at the Jepp chart but my guess is that the second one is with the Winchester Altimeter setting, which gets you down to 1125'@ 1 for A and B. The first one is with local altimeter, and gets you down to 1025' @ 3/4 for A and B. Both sets of minima have non-standard climb gradients on the missed due to terrain.

Jepp has 4 'columns' of Straight in Minimums. The first column, with the White 1's in the Black box is for the ya gotta climb fast note at the very bottom.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I’m sure there’s an easy answer to this, but haven’t been able to find through my quick google searching. I’m looking at the RNAV 23 plate for KCBE and it lists minima for 2 LPV approaches - the first listed as “# LPV” and the second “LPV”. What does the “# LPV” mean? I confess I haven’t seen this before. Any source info would be appreciated as well. Thanks!

As @luvflyin pointed out, you have to look elsewhere. That "#" is one of a long series of asterisks/note markers the FAA uses to inform the user there is more information available. In this case, if you look, it's telling you that in order to use those lower Category C and D minimums, you need to be able to be able to climb on the missed at least 424 FPNM to 1950 msl. So basically, it's a "footnote" saying, "look at the notes box."

 

[flyingron]

The #LPV are the special "social media" secondary minimums for Jerry Wagner and the like.

 

[MJR Pilot]

Ah, of course. I typically use Jepp and this was the first time in a while I’ve looked at gov charts. Thanks very much for the quick help!

 

[aterpster]

Jepp does things a little differently.

And, a whole lot clearer. The Silver Springs (FAA) troops got wrapped around their IACC charting specs axle trying to present local and remote altimeter and nominal/increased climb gradient.

 

[midlifeflyer]

And, a whole lot clearer. The Silver Springs (FAA) troops got wrapped around their IACC charting specs axle trying to present local and remote altimeter and nominal/increased climb gradient.

I knew you'd say that. And just as predictably, I'll say there's no substantial difference (although that shrunken Jepp chart's plan view seems awfully cluttered )

 

[aterpster]

I knew you'd say that. And just as predictably, I'll say there's no substantial difference (although that shrunken Jepp chart's plan view seems awfully cluttered )

The OP couldn't find the "#" note buried in the mass of text at the top of the chart. It's abysmal human factors.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The OP couldn't find the "#" note buried in the mass of text at the top of the chart. It's abysmal human factors.

The OP didn't know that (1) the "#" is a link to a note and (2) notes are in the "notes" box. Jepp or FAA, it's all about knowing how to read the chart. I never thought of footnotes as bad human factors (end notes on the other hand... ). I have switched back and forth through the years and use both in teaching. That's probably why I don't see any real difference.

 

[aterpster]

The OP didn't know that (1) the "#" is a link to a note and (2) notes are in the "notes" box. Jepp or FAA, it's all about knowing how to read the chart. I never thought of footnotes as bad human factors (end notes on the other hand... ). I have switched back and forth through the years and use both in teaching. That's probably why I don't see any real difference.

You're bichartreader.

 

[Palmpilot]

San Carlos (SQL) has two versions of the LNAV approach, but they're on separate charts, the RNAV Y and the RNAV Z. The reason is the same: you get a lower MDA if you can meet a higher minimum climb requirement.

 

[aterpster]

San Carlos (SQL) has two versions of the LPV approach, but they're on separate charts, the RNAV Y and the RNAV Z. The reason is the same: you get a lower DA if you can meet a higher minimum climb requirement.

LPV?

 

[luvflyin]

San Carlos (SQL) has two versions of the LPV approach, but they're on separate charts, the RNAV Y and the RNAV Z. The reason is the same: you get a lower DA if you can meet a higher minimum climb requirement.

No. There are 2 RNAV Approaches. Neither has LPV. There is no DA. There is MDA. Seems like they coulda just had one Approach with two lines of LNAV Minimums, one with a # pointing to a Minimum Climb Requirement. But maybe there is a reason not. I dunno. @RussR ??

 

[Palmpilot]

No. There are 2 RNAV Approaches. Neither has LPV. There is no DA. There is MDA.

Oops; corrected!

Seems like they coulda just had one Approach with two lines of LNAV Minimums, one with a # pointing to a Minimum Climb Requirement. But maybe there is a reason not. I dunno. @RussR

The Y version has circling minimums; the Z version does not. Maybe they felt that would make it too complicated or confusing to do it all on one chart.

 

[luvflyin]

Oops; corrected!


The Y version has circling minimums; the Z version does not. Maybe they felt that would make it too complicated or confusing to do it all on one chart.

Could be. But the Approach that started this thread has 5 lines of minimums. To do it at SQL would only be 3.

 

[Palmpilot]

Could be. But the Approach that started this thread has 5 lines of minimums. To do it at SQL would only be 3.

Two of those lines would have to have symbols next to them tying them to a note about the minimum climb gradient. Whether that would be seen as a problem or not, I don't know. The way they did it might make it harder to miss.

 

[sarangan]

The OP didn't know that (1) the "#" is a link to a note and (2) notes are in the "notes" box. Jepp or FAA, it's all about knowing how to read the chart. I never thought of footnotes as bad human factors (end notes on the other hand... ). I have switched back and forth through the years and use both in teaching. That's probably why I don't see any real difference.

The # notation did do the job as intended. It alerted the user. How to interpret the # is a second step. Once one learns it for one case, it becomes natural, just like everything else we do.

 

[luvflyin]

Two of those lines would have to have symbols next to them tying them to a note about the minimum climb gradient. Whether that would be seen as a problem or not, I don't know. The way they did it might make it harder to miss.

There’d be two LNAV lines, one with a #. The Circling line wouldn’t need it. Of course with the two Chart way of doing it, there’s nothing to miss. The two Chart way might be less likely to lead to a boo boo.

 

[texasclouds]

Do you even hashtag ellpeevee, bruh?

 

[Palmpilot]

There’d be two LNAV lines, one with a #. The Circling line wouldn’t need it. Of course with the two Chart way of doing it, there’s nothing to miss. The two Chart way might be less likely to lead to a boo boo.

You're right, I overlooked the fact that the circling minimums being higher is all that would be needed.

 

[aterpster]

You're right, I overlooked the fact that the circling minimums being higher is all that would be needed.

They eliminated duplicative circle-to-land minimums a couple years back.

 

[luvflyin]

They eliminated duplicative circle-to-land minimums a couple years back.

?? Meaning there can't be more than one line of Circling Minimums? How would that apply to the SQL situation? There is only one.

 

[aterpster]

?? Meaning there can't be more than one line of Circling Minimums? How would that apply to the SQL situation? There is only one.

No. They circulated the proposal and let the pilots comment. I saved them at CNO.

 

[aterpster]

No. They circulated the proposal and let the pilots comment. I saved them at CNO.

Edit: At SQL the CTL would probably be the same on both IAPs. So, the charted them with the IAP that made more sense to have CTL.

 

[RussR]

No. There are 2 RNAV Approaches. Neither has LPV. There is no DA. There is MDA. Seems like they coulda just had one Approach with two lines of LNAV Minimums, one with a # pointing to a Minimum Climb Requirement. But maybe there is a reason not. I dunno. @RussR ??

There is no CURRENT reason not to. However, the RNAV (GPS) RWY 30 was split into a Y and a Z version in 2010. 2010 was near the beginning of the whole "Climb Gradient for a lower DA/MDA" idea, and criteria was changing quickly as the rules settled down. I can't remember specifically if we couldn't have two LNAV minimums on the same chart at the time, but it wouldn't surprise me too much as there were a lot of policy letters and emails around that time about the whole CG issue.

Today, though, yes they could be (and should be) combined on the same chart.

Incidentally, check out what's on the FAA's IFP Gateway, Production Plan tab for SQL. The "Z" is being canceled, and (presumably) the two are being combined into one, as there will be no suffix letter on the other one anymore.



I've addressed it before, but it seems like a good time to mention it again - although each procedure is reviewed every two years, they are only reviewed from the standpoint of "is this procedure safe?" Primarily this is an obstacle evaluation, to see if any new obstacles cause a problem. In addition, Flight Inspection flies the procedures regularly for the same reason (and to check other aspects of the airport infrastructure like lighting).But that's it - the current procedure is evaluated/flown, and if it's still safe, it's checked off. There is no attempt to evaluate the procedure to see if it is optimized for the current rules, or current airspace, or maybe it could be better designed today, or anything like that. So existing procedures, as long as they are safe, will stay published under whatever criteria they were originally established under, possibly for decades*. Note that a "minor amendment" where the amendment letter is updated (e.g. from Amdt 1 to 1A or 3C to 3D, etc.) has very limited changes that are allowed, so such an amendment does not allow for major redesigns.

UNLESS there is user or ATC input - THAT is what drives changes to existing procedures. The primary conduit for those changes is through the airport manager to the FAA, but anyone can submit comments through the IFP Gateway.

* A client was asking me just the other day about "why" something on a SID was the way it was - I looked at the chart and at the bottom it had the last amendment date - 1987! Yes, it's been checked every 2 years, found to be safe, nobody is requesting changes, so it stays as-is.

 

[aterpster]

I've addressed it before, but it seems like a good time to mention it again - although each procedure is reviewed every two years, they are only reviewed from the standpoint of "is this procedure safe?" Primarily this is an obstacle evaluation, to see if any new obstacles cause a problem. In addition, Flight Inspection flies the procedures regularly for the same reason (and to check other aspects of the airport infrastructure like lighting).But that's it - the current procedure is evaluated/flown, and if it's still safe, it's checked off. There is no attempt to evaluate the procedure to see if it is optimized for the current rules, or current airspace, or maybe it could be better designed today, or anything like that. So existing procedures, as long as they are safe, will stay published under whatever criteria they were originally established under, possibly for decades*. Note that a "minor amendment" where the amendment letter is updated (e.g. from Amdt 1 to 1A or 3C to 3D, etc.) has very limited changes that are allowed, so such an amendment does not allow for major redesigns.

This is my favorite "E Ticket" RNAV. The original was sometime in 2003. The MEA crossing MORON is 13,500 to a sea level airport. It's mostly flown by turbine airplanes.

 

[luvflyin]

This is my favorite "E Ticket" IAP. The MEA at MORON is 13,500, then descent to a 75' msl airport. It is flown mostly by turbine airplanes. The original was designed in 2003, but the subsequent abbreviated amendments make the original date untraceable.

Howza bout this for some Fix name changes. MORON SHLDR STRPS SLATS FLAPS THREE GREEN RVRSR

 

[luvflyin]

There is no CURRENT reason not to. However, the RNAV (GPS) RWY 30 was split into a Y and a Z version in 2010. 2010 was near the beginning of the whole "Climb Gradient for a lower DA/MDA" idea, and criteria was changing quickly as the rules settled down. I can't remember specifically if we couldn't have two LNAV minimums on the same chart at the time, but it wouldn't surprise me too much as there were a lot of policy letters and emails around that time about the whole CG issue.

Today, though, yes they could be (and should be) combined on the same chart.

Incidentally, check out what's on the FAA's IFP Gateway, Production Plan tab for SQL. The "Z" is being canceled, and (presumably) the two are being combined into one, as there will be no suffix letter on the other one anymore.

View attachment 112122

I've addressed it before, but it seems like a good time to mention it again - although each procedure is reviewed every two years, they are only reviewed from the standpoint of "is this procedure safe?" Primarily this is an obstacle evaluation, to see if any new obstacles cause a problem. In addition, Flight Inspection flies the procedures regularly for the same reason (and to check other aspects of the airport infrastructure like lighting).But that's it - the current procedure is evaluated/flown, and if it's still safe, it's checked off. There is no attempt to evaluate the procedure to see if it is optimized for the current rules, or current airspace, or maybe it could be better designed today, or anything like that. So existing procedures, as long as they are safe, will stay published under whatever criteria they were originally established under, possibly for decades*. Note that a "minor amendment" where the amendment letter is updated (e.g. from Amdt 1 to 1A or 3C to 3D, etc.) has very limited changes that are allowed, so such an amendment does not allow for major redesigns.

UNLESS there is user or ATC input - THAT is what drives changes to existing procedures. The primary conduit for those changes is through the airport manager to the FAA, but anyone can submit comments through the IFP Gateway.

* A client was asking me just the other day about "why" something on a SID was the way it was - I looked at the chart and at the bottom it had the last amendment date - 1987! Yes, it's been checked every 2 years, found to be safe, nobody is requesting changes, so it stays as-is.

Yeah. There was that 'era' awhile back where every time you turned around they was comin' up with some new idea about how things should be charted. I thought a lot of them were a solution in search of a problem. Still do.