What's wrong with this approach?

OTLK VFR

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jul 22, 2011
Messages
14
Location
Maryland Eastern Shore
Display Name

Display name:
UIFlyGuy
Can anyone find anything weird with this approach? If you can find it, does anyone know the reasoning behind it? I'm sure the answer lies in the TERPs manual, but since I don't have one in a book collection...
 
I'll take Minimum Safe Altitude for $1,000 Alex.
 
So having the circling mins lower than the straight in for CAT A bothers you? I'll call the branch lead in the AM. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
The Jepp version shows 480' (460') - 1 for CAT A and B circling minimums with Cambridge altimeter setting so it looks like its a typo on the NACO procedure.

It also lists CANNU as 4.0NM to the NDB, not 3.9. But that's pretty close.
 
So having the circling mins lower than the straight in for CAT A bothers you? I'll call the branch lead in the AM. Thanks.

I was actually just looking for insight into a question I had about something I found unusual, but I guess your smartass response way equally as helpful.
.
.
.
.
.
Thought it might be a typo, but didn't know if someone else had a better explanation.
 
Is that near oxford? or rock hall

I'm not instrument rated but I did spend 5 hours today studying for the written... guessing its a typo as well
 
Why is CUNNU there?
It's a "computer navigation fix" or CNF, inserted to provide a second point (along with the end of the runway) so a GPS can draw a straight line and sort out when to do the procedure turn. If you're flying it as an NDB approach, CUNNU has no purpose or effect.
 
I was actually just looking for insight into a question I had about something I found unusual, but I guess your smartass response way equally as helpful.
.
.
.
.
.
Thought it might be a typo, but didn't know if someone else had a better explanation.

Probably not the best thing to say to the guy from the FAA who probably actually DOES have the branch lead's phone number readily available. Just saying...
 
thought i recognized the rivers near my favorite restaurant... the crab claw at st. michaels
 
The Jepp version shows 480' (460') - 1 for CAT A and B circling minimums with Cambridge altimeter setting so it looks like its a typo on the NACO procedure.

It also lists CANNU as 4.0NM to the NDB, not 3.9. But that's pretty close.

That brings up another question. I always assumed Jepp just copied and reformatted the NACO procedures. Did they figure out the typo on their own or do they get the procedure from an independent source?
 
That brings up another question. I always assumed Jepp just copied and reformatted the NACO procedures. Did they figure out the typo on their own or do they get the procedure from an independent source?

I think both NACO and Jepp build their charts from Part 97 directly, not one taking from the other.
 
Probably not the best thing to say to the guy from the FAA who probably actually DOES have the branch lead's phone number readily available. Just saying...

+1...

Although, he really IS here to help.
 
Last edited:
Yup it's a typo. NOTAM previously published to account for new controlling obstacle on final. Sorry if it came across smartassish but the get out of jail smiley face went in the reply title not the message.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
 
For the non-IR pilot, the real answer got lost in the humor.
 
That brings up another question. I always assumed Jepp just copied and reformatted the NACO procedures. Did they figure out the typo on their own or do they get the procedure from an independent source?

They use the same source documents generated by the procedure developer. Jeppesen has much better quality control and gets it right more often than AeroNav. Jeppesen doesn't look at the AeroNav chart.
 
For the non-IR pilot, the real answer got lost in the humor.

Explanation for the non-IR pilot:

Look at the table in the lower right. There's a typo in the numbers in the first two rows under column A. Here's how you can tell: The approach can either be done "straight in" to runway 34 (that's the S-34) or by entering a pattern once you get close to the airport (that's the CIRCLING, which doesn't necessarily mean actually flying in a circle). Normally a straight-in approach is safer, so it should be allowed when the ceiling is lower than for the circling, or it could be the same, but it should not be higher. However, it appears the other way around for this approach plate: the allowable ceiling of 480 MSL for straight-in is higher than the 460 for circling. So at least one of those numbers must be wrong.

Column A is for typical small planes that can fly slowly on approaches, while column D is typically for faster planes. For column D they got it right, with a lower allowable ceiling height of 480 for the straight-in and a higher one of 580 for the circling.

Hope that helped.
 
Last edited:
Jeppesen has much better quality control and gets it right more often than AeroNav.

While I would tend to believe you, I believe this one needs a wikipedia-style...

"[citation needed]"

Can that be proven with QA numbers from FAA or some credible source, other than Jepp or AeroNav tooting their own respective horns? When they goof a chart, does FAA track how many, and publish their number of goofs in an audit somewhere?

Just curious.
 
Explanation for the non-IR pilot:

Look at the table in the lower right. There's a typo in the numbers in the first two rows under column A. Here's how you can tell: The approach can either be done "straight in" to runway 34 (that's the S-34) or by entering a pattern once you get close to the airport (that's the CIRCLING, which doesn't necessarily mean actually flying in a circle). Normally a straight-in approach is safer, so it should be allowed when the ceiling is lower than for the circling, or it could be the same, but it should not be higher. However, it appears the other way around for this approach plate: the allowable ceiling of 480 MSL for straight-in is higher than the 460 for circling. So at least one of those numbers must be wrong.

Column A is for typical small planes that can fly slowly on approaches, while column D is typically for faster planes. For column D they got it right, with a lower allowable ceiling height of 480 for the straight-in and a higher one of 580 for the circling.

Hope that helped.
Yes. Thank you.
Longer response deleted by iPad crash:mad:
 
While I would tend to believe you, I believe this one needs a wikipedia-style...

"[citation needed]"

Can that be proven with QA numbers from FAA or some credible source, other than Jepp or AeroNav tooting their own respective horns? When they goof a chart, does FAA track how many, and publish their number of goofs in an audit somewhere?

Just curious.

No data, just my opinion based on many years of comparing both when an anomaly is noted. In fact, for me, it is SOP when something looks out of place on an AeroNav chart to look at how the same procedure is depicted in the Jeppesen chart. For the most part, I prefer the charting provided by Jeppesen, but am a user of the AeroNav products because of cost. Over the years, the AeroNav have gotten better, but they are still inferior to Jeppesen (this is also not a fact but an opinion).
 
Back
Top