Missed Approach Text

luvflyin

luvflyin

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
16,168
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Luvflyin
This Approach doesn’t give the Missed Approach routing in the Missed Approach Procedure Text Box. It just says ‘climb on the RNAV missed approach route.’ You have to go to the Missed Approach Icons in the Profile View to get the routing. It also shows Route in the MISSED APCH FIX box in the Planview. I’ve never seen that before. Has anybody seen another Chart like this?

upload_2022-12-19_5-31-13.png

upload_2022-12-19_5-37-21.png
 
luvflyin said:
This Approach doesn’t give the Missed Approach routing in the Missed Approach Procedure Text Box. It just says ‘climb on the RNAV missed approach route.’ You have to go to the Missed Approach Icons in the Profile View to get the routing. It also shows Route in the MISSED APCH FIX box in the Planview. I’ve never seen that before. Has anybody seen another Chart like this?
Click to expand...
It is in the PV box as set forth in the legend you also post.
 
To me, both the approach and missed approach have the same failing. Without a database GPS, they cannot be flown.

All the nav inbound is defined as waypoints that are not described in a manner that can be used manually. The locations are in another document that has them as latitude and longitude, useless unless input preflight. If you have input them, then flying the missed is a piece of cake, as the waypoint segments even have the required headings outbound.
 
luvflyin said:
Have you seen any other Approaches like this?
Click to expand...
Keep in mind this is an RNP approach even though it is an ILS, which means GPS and approved IFR RNAV and the procedure will be in the database.
 
eman1200 said:
you saying there's no missed approach when there's a missed approach
Click to expand...
Not what I said. Here it is again. "This Approach doesn’t give the Missed Approach routing in the Missed Approach Procedure Text Box. It just says ‘climb on the RNAV missed approach route.’ You have to go to the Missed Approach Icons in the Profile View to get the routing. It also shows Route in the MISSED APCH FIX box in the Planview. I’ve never seen that before. Has anybody seen another Chart like this?"
 
geezer said:
To me, both the approach and missed approach nave the same failing. Without a database GPS, they cannot be flown.
Click to expand...

Well, it says at the top of the notes "DME required. RNP APCH-GPS" so I don't see it as a failing.
 
luvflyin said:
Not what I said. Here it is again. "This Approach doesn’t give the Missed Approach routing in the Missed Approach Procedure Text Box. It just says ‘climb on the RNAV missed approach route.’ You have to go to the Missed Approach Icons in the Profile View to get the routing. It also shows Route in the MISSED APCH FIX box in the Planview. I’ve never seen that before. Has anybody seen another Chart like this?"
Click to expand...

I guess I kinda see what you're saying.
 
aterpster said:
Keep in mind this is an RNP approach even though it is an ILS, which means GPS and approved IFR RNAV and the procedure will be in the database.
Click to expand...
Yup. I'm not saying there is going to be any problem flying it. All the info you need is there. Just wondering about the lack of the full description being in the Missed Approach Text Box. I've never seen that before. Wondering if anyone else has?
 
tsts4 said:
Well, it says at the top of the notes "DME required. RNP APCH-GPS" so I don't see it as a failing.
Click to expand...
I don't see it as a 'failing' either. Just that it's different from any other Approach I've ever seen.
 
geezer said:
To me, both the approach and missed approach have the same failing. Without a database GPS, they cannot be flown.
Click to expand...
That’s one of the major advantages of GPS…to fly routes/procedures that can’t otherwise be flown.
 
MauleSkinner said:
That’s one of the major advantages of GPS…to fly routes/procedures that can’t otherwise be flown.
Click to expand...

Precisely right, they are great advances.

Unfortunately for pilots that fly simpler planes, they are not a practical choice. I have spent the better part of an hour keying in a string of waypoints for a trip that I intended to fly the next day, 900 miles worth. An approach as complex as that one would not be considered with that equipment. I also had to start and run at high idle for 10 minutes to bring the plane's battery back up to full.

Thus, a slightly different from normal depiction of the missed is a minor problem. Carefully reading the whole plate, there seemed no difficulty flying it with the information presented.
 
I think you're just seeing a situation where several fixes on the miss makes a textual description make less sense than just having the pilot refer to the plan view.

For example look at the pair of RNAV approaches to 13R at DFW. The Y has what you're used to seeing - a simple right turn at 3000' to SLOTT, while the Z's complexity has you fly the 'missed approach route' to SLOTT, just like your example at RNO.
 
geezer said:
To me, both the approach and missed approach have the same failing. Without a database GPS, they cannot be flown.
Click to expand...
Why is an approach that requires GPS a "failing" because it can only be flown with GPS? Would you say that an ILS approach is a failing because it requires a localizer?
 
geezer said:
To me, both the approach and missed approach have the same failing. Without a database GPS, they cannot be flown.

All the nav inbound is defined as waypoints that are not described in a manner that can be used manually. The locations are in another document that has them as latitude and longitude, useless unless input preflight. If you have input them, then flying the missed is a piece of cake, as the waypoint segments even have the required headings outbound.
Click to expand...

geezer said:
Unfortunately for pilots that fly simpler planes, they are not a practical choice. I have spent the better part of an hour keying in a string of waypoints for a trip that I intended to fly the next day, 900 miles worth. An approach as complex as that one would not be considered with that equipment. I also had to start and run at high idle for 10 minutes to bring the plane's battery back up to full.

Thus, a slightly different from normal depiction of the missed is a minor problem. Carefully reading the whole plate, there seemed no difficulty flying it with the information presented.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm not understanding you, but you can't fly this approach without being RNAV-RNP certified. You can't just get the Lat/Longs from another document and plug them into your GPS. Even if you took the time to string all the waypoints together, you are still unable to fly this as depicted.

The fact that it's a "Zulu" approach, means there are other ones for that runway. The one you would want without being RNP capable is the ILS Y Rwy 17R. That's the one you want in your simpler plane.

KRNO.png
 
geezer said:
Unfortunately for pilots that fly simpler planes, they are not a practical choice. I have spent the better part of an hour keying in a string of waypoints for a trip that I intended to fly the next day, 900 miles worth. An approach as complex as that one would not be considered with that equipment. I also had to start and run at high idle for 10 minutes to bring the plane's battery back up to full.
Click to expand...
That's why this is an ILZ Z. We are beginning to see traditional ILS approaches split into two. One version uses only ground based navaids. The other GPS is required. It's more options, not less. If you look at KRNO for runway 17R, you will see two versions. You can still fly an ILS into RNO runway 17R without GPS.

And I really don't understand your comment about spending an hour keying in way points. And especially what that has to do with an RNAV requirement.
 
Sluggo63 said:
The fact that it's a "Zulu" approach, means there are other ones for that runway. The one you would want without being RNP capable is the ILS Y Rwy 17R. That's the one you want in your simpler plane.
Click to expand...
Although with a higher DA.
 
midlifeflyer said:
@geezer, here's a simpler example of two ILSes to the same runway one of which requires GPS and one of which does not.
Click to expand...
Same idea, but for a different reason. Your example is to permit TAAs for an ILS. At Reno GPS permits RNAV-1, which permits the use of RNAV missed approach narrower splays, that get through the pass to the south.
 
geezer said:
Precisely right, they are great advances.

Unfortunately for pilots that fly simpler planes, they are not a practical choice. I have spent the better part of an hour keying in a string of waypoints for a trip that I intended to fly the next day, 900 miles worth. An approach as complex as that one would not be considered with that equipment. I also had to start and run at high idle for 10 minutes to bring the plane's battery back up to full.

Thus, a slightly different from normal depiction of the missed is a minor problem. Carefully reading the whole plate, there seemed no difficulty flying it with the information presented.
Click to expand...

I am based in Reno. Realistically you are not going to fly this in a small aircraft as IFR here almost always means ice or thunderstorms. You can fly the X version of this as a traditional ILS… once they open the right runway in a few weeks.
 
DesertNomad said:
I am based in Reno. Realistically you are not going to fly this in a small aircraft as IFR here almost always means ice or thunderstorms. You can fly the X version of this as a traditional ILS… once they open the right runway in a few weeks.
Click to expand...
How do you fly the X version of this as a traditional ILS if you can't fly the missed approach?
 
aterpster said:
Same idea, but for a different reason. Your example is to permit TAAs for an ILS. At Reno GPS permits RNAV-1, which permits the use of RNAV missed approach narrower splays, that get through the pass to the south.
Click to expand...
definitely. An idea usually has multiple applications.
 
kayoh190 said:
I think you're just seeing a situation where several fixes on the miss makes a textual description make less sense than just having the pilot refer to the plan view.

For example look at the pair of RNAV approaches to 13R at DFW. The Y has what you're used to seeing - a simple right turn at 3000' to SLOTT, while the Z's complexity has you fly the 'missed approach route' to SLOTT, just like your example at RNO.
Click to expand...
Ah. There’s one.
 
Answer to the original question:

FAA Order 8260.19i, "Flight Procedures and Airspace," ¶ 8-6-6.d.(11)
Detailed RNAV missed approach instructions may not be required when the missed approach planview of the approach chart is coded in the GPS database.

upload_2022-12-20_9-9-12.png

Basically, it's up to the specialist whether to use detailed instructions or not.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Answer to the original question:

FAA Order 8260.19i, "Flight Procedures and Airspace," ¶ 8-6-6.d.(11)
Detailed RNAV missed approach instructions may not be required when the missed approach planview of the approach chart is coded in the GPS database.

View attachment 113227

Basically, it's up to the specialist whether to use detailed instructions or not.
Click to expand...
Ah Ha! There it is. Thx
 
midlifeflyer said:
definitely. An idea usually has multiple applications.
Click to expand...
What I think is lost on pilots is that conventional ILS missed approach criteria are not used for ILS 17R except for the Y ILS and Y LOC. It's RNAV-1, which requires all the checks and balances by the RNAV avionics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top