What's wrong with this approach?
- Thread starter OTLK VFR
- Start date
Jaybird180
Final Approach
I'll take Minimum Safe Altitude for $1,000 Alex.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,486
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
Why is CUNNU there?
TMetzinger
Final Approach
I don't know what you mean... it looks like a normal NDB approach to me.
OTLK VFR
Filing Flight Plan
Take a look at the minimums
Fast n' Furious
Line Up and Wait
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:
HPNPilot1200
En-Route
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.
It also lists CANNU as 4.0NM to the NDB, not 3.9. But that's pretty close.
Pseudo-FAF for the GPS internals. It's of no operational consequence to the pilot.
OTLK VFR
Filing Flight Plan
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.
dell30rb
Final Approach
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
I'm not instrument rated but I did spend 5 hours today studying for the written... guessing its a typo as well
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
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.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Not far.
That's a ways off to the north across the Bay from Martin State.
I've flown this one so many times I think I can fly it in my sleep. God help me if the FAA ever changes it -- my eyes would probably not convince my brain of the change.
Teller1900
En-Route
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...
dell30rb
Final Approach
thought i recognized the rivers near my favorite restaurant... the crab claw at st. michaels
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,774
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
Yup!
- Joined
- May 11, 2010
- Messages
- 20,703
- Location
- Charlotte, NC
- Display Name
Display name:
Snorting his way across the USA
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?
JeffDG
Touchdown! Greaser!
I think both NACO and Jepp build their charts from Part 97 directly, not one taking from the other.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,006
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Last edited:
Fast n' Furious
Line Up and Wait
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
Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
Jaybird180
Final Approach
For the non-IR pilot, the real answer got lost in the humor.
John Collins
En-Route
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.
NoHeat
Final Approach
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:
denverpilot
Tied Down
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.
Jaybird180
Final Approach
John Collins
En-Route
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).