IFR "Fix Minimums" Question: KIPJ

[midlifeflyer]

33 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

Mark, I suppose that if I loaded and activated the LOC-23 approach in my GTN 750 the GATEQ fix would be depicted and upon crossing it I could step down to the 400 AGL MDA. 

But if I have neither DME or GPS aboard I cannot identify GATEQ (=IPJ 3.0 DME) and I cannot go below 600 AGL. I can step down at JIVOM and CISBU identified either by the BZM radial crossing or ATC using their radar. Correct? 

Let's keep in mind there are two flavors of the LOC-23, the Z and the Y. The Y is GPS REQUIRED*. So no GPS on board means you can't use the Y approach at all and will have to use the Z approach. 

On the Z approach, yes, you'd be able to use radar or the crossing radials for identifying JIVOM and CISBU. I'm no TERPS pro but as I recall, there are some limitations for using crossing radials, which is probably the reason why GATEQ isn't shown as identified by a BZM radial.

[Bob_Belville]

Mark, I carried Jepp charts for many years and liked them better than the the NOAA which I guess is about what I have now in the e-charts from Garmin. My Jepp binders are at the airport along with the legends so I'm guessing based on 25 plus years ago.

I speculate that the reason there's no crossing BZM radial for GATEQ is that the terrain and distance from BZM makes it likely that at 600' AGL the VOR signal will flag. And that you'll also be below CLT Approach (or Atlanta Center) radar.

But as stated by someone, GPS REQ applies to the whole approach because of the Missed Approach holding fix. I think most folks would use the RNAV (GPS) approach. Even the ILS seems to require GPS!

[midlifeflyer]

14 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

Mark, I carried Jepp charts for many years and liked them better than the the NOAA which I guess is about what I have now in the e-charts from Garmin. My Jepp binders are at the airport along with the legends so I'm guessing based on 25 plus years ago.

I speculate that the reason there's no crossing BZM radial for GATEQ is that the terrain and distance from BZM makes it likely that at 600' AGL the VOR signal will flag. And that you'll also be below CLT Approach (or Atlanta Center) radar.

But as stated by someone, GPS REQ applies to the whole approach because of the Missed Approach holding fix. I think most folks would use the RNAV (GPS) approach. Even the ILS seems to require GPS!

You are probably correct in your speculation. There are usually multiple TERPS (and a few non-TERPS) issues that go into approach design.

And yes, the entire ILS/LOC Y approach is GPS REQUIRED. Technically, if you read AIM 5-4-5.a(3)(b) and the equivalent on other FAA publications, REQUIRED on the plan view means needed to get from the en route environment to the procedure. "Required" in different places on the approach chart mean different reasons for the need. But the bottom line is, unless the "required" is limited in some way, the most restrictive applies. There's actually a move afoot in the FAA Charting Office to remove the difference as unnecessarily confusing given the bottom line.

BTW, there's a lot of this going around - the division of a single approach into Y and Z flavors. And, just like the ones at KIPJ, one is typically a GPS REQUIRED with a TAA of some sort to take advantage of GPS functionality, while one is not. 

You'll find that in the Jepp charts just as in the FAA charts – same information, slightly different presentation.

 

[Bob_Belville]

1 minute ago, midlifeflyer said:

 

You'll find that in the Jepp charts just as in the FAA charts – same information, slightly different presentation.

 

Agree. I thought the Jepps presented that info in a less ambiguous, more intuitive form. Of course I flew a couple thousand hours for 10+ years using Jepps so I knew right where to look on their plates.  

[midlifeflyer]

4 hours ago, Bob_Belville said:

Agree. I thought the Jepps presented that info in a less ambiguous, more intuitive form. Of course I flew a couple thousand hours for 10+ years using Jepps so I knew right where to look on their plates.  

It's funny. I haven't seen a Jepp vs FAA chart argument in a long time. Maybe not since the earliest days of EFBs. In the GA world, at least for those flying only domestically, I'd guess 80 of those who preferred Jepp have moved to FAA charts as a result of their free incorporation into EFBs. The briefing strip also made a big difference to a lot of folks.

Arguably the Jepp are still a bit easier to read, but I think even most of that is the result of "what I am used to is the best" just like the argument over the "best" EFB. 

Might be interesting the see the Jepp version of the 23 Y and Z approaches for comparison. (BTW, I don't see any ambiguity in the FAA chart). 

[Bob_Belville]

45 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

It's funny. I haven't seen a Jepp vs FAA chart argument in a long time. Maybe not since the earliest days of EFBs. In the GA world, at least for those flying only domestically, I'd guess 80 of those who preferred Jepp have moved to FAA charts as a result of their free incorporation into EFBs. The briefing strip also made a big difference to a lot of folks.

Arguably the Jepp are still a bit easier to read, but I think even most of that is the result of "what I am used to is the best" just like the argument over the "best" EFB. 

Might be interesting the see the Jepp version of the 23 Y and Z approaches for comparison. (BTW, I don't see any ambiguity in the FAA chart). 

I don't have a current Jepp plate. These are 5 years old. The GPS looks more like the current LOC chart. The older LOC 23 did not require GPS but it did include an NDB, apparently now decommissioned, so ADF was required. I suppose GPS could be used for IZN NDB.

[Marauder]

6 hours ago, Bob_Belville said:

I don't have a current Jepp plate. These are 5 years old. The GPS looks more like the current LOC chart. The older LOC 23 did not require GPS but it did include an NDB, apparently now decommissioned, so ADF was required. I suppose GPS could be used for IZN NDB.

I forgot how much I liked the paper Jepps. I see they offer Jepps on Garmin Pilot. Just not sure I like them to the tune of $99 per year.

[Bob_Belville]

Just now, Marauder said:

I forgot how much I liked the paper Jepps. I see they offer Jepps on Garmin Pilot. Just not sure I like them to the tune of $99 per year.

Yeah, I could get them on the 750 as well. I still like them better and if I was flying more and doing more hard IFR I'd spring for the extra cost. The info may be the same but Jepps really highlights the keys stuff with large, bold type and logical grouping of the mins.  

My younger daughter, now 43 and a clerk for a Georgia Court of Appeals Judge, looked forward to making $5 every 14 days filing updates into 6 - 2" leather binders. That was 30+ years ago. 

[midlifeflyer]

Since Jepp has been brought up, here's the Jepp version of the ILS/LOC Y approach we've been discussing. 

 

 

[Bob_Belville]

4 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

Since Jepp has been brought up, here's the Jepp version of the ILS/LOC Y approach we've been discussing. 

KipjIlsYpng

Mark, I do think that's a better presentation. 

Jeff, does the Jepp version make it clearer? You'd wind up on a LOC approach if the GL was out on the ILS. If you have DME or GPS and can identify GATEQ you can use the lower MDA. 

[midlifeflyer]

6 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

Mark, I do think that's a better presentation. 

 

Assuming equal understanding of both formats, I honestly don't see a difference other than one is Colgate and the other Crest. They both tell me the exact same thing - the LOC-only approach has a stepdown at GATEQ with higher minimums if you can't identify it. 

[Marauder]

39 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

Assuming equal understanding of both formats, I honestly don't see a difference other than one is Colgate and the other Crest. They both tell me the exact same thing - the LOC-only approach has a stepdown at GATEQ with higher minimums if you can't identify it. 

I think this is true just like other things in life, there are toothpaste choices because people like one thing over another. What I liked about the Jepp was the briefing strip. When I first started flying IFR I was on the NOAA's and then made the switch to Jepps. I stayed with them for years until I went with the EFB and switched back to the NOAA's (if that is what they are still calling them these days).

I find the same thing with EFBs. I can't stand FlyQ & WingX. I can tolerate ForeFlight but find that Garmin Pilot works best for me.

[Jeff_S]

My whole point, really, was that since GPS is required for this approach, having a separate set of minimums if you can identify GATEQ seems redundant. If you don't have GPS, you're not supposed to fly the approach anyway!  But perhaps I have oversimplified things...I've been known to do that. And I've enjoyed the discussion.

I do think the Jepp charts make it a bit clearer, BTW.

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, Jeff_S said:

My whole point, really, was that since GPS is required for this approach, having a separate set of minimums if you can identify GATEQ seems redundant. If you don't have GPS, you're not supposed to fly the approach anyway!  But perhaps I have oversimplified things...I've been known to do that. And I've enjoyed the discussion.

I do think the Jepp charts make it a bit clearer, BTW.

You are right. There is definitely a partial redundancy, practically speaking. I say "partial" for two reasons.

1. You still need GATEQ. Even if not a conditional MDA, it would still be a step-down for the LOC-only approach.

2. (And I am not at all certain of this), I am wondering whether it is possible to meet the GPS requirement for the TAAt and the missed approach without being able to identify GATEQ?  For example, let's say you have an enroute/terminal certified GPS - no approach certification. Would the ability to identify the TAA and the MAHF be considered a "Terminal" operation, while identifying GATEQ is an "Approach" operation? One thing that suggests this possibility is that, for the TAA and the MAHF, even an approach-certified GPS would be in Terminal mode.

BTW, I really enjoyed this one too. And I even have a great example approach to use when I give an IPC! :evil grin"

[Marauder]

Just now, midlifeflyer said:

You are right. There is definitely a partial redundancy, practically speaking. I say "partial" for two reasons.

1. You still need GATEQ. Even if not a conditional MDA, it would still be a step-down for the LOC-only approach.

2. (And I am not at all certain of this), I am wondering whether it is possible to meet the GPS requirement for the TAAt and the missed approach without being able to identify GATEQ?  For example, let's say you have an enroute/terminal certified GPS - no approach certification. Would the ability to identify the TAA and the MAHF be considered a "Terminal" operation, while identifying GATEQ is an "Approach" operation? One thing that suggests this possibility is that, for the TAA and the MAHF, even an approach-certified GPS would be in Terminal mode.

BTW, I really enjoyed this one too. And I even have a great example approach to use when I give an IPC! :evil grin"

Note to self. Do not do IPCs in and around KTTA and KRDU. Evil lurks there. 

[Danb]

"GIYEP".I mean yep

[Bob - S50]

First.  I believe they put GATEQ in there because I believe some GPS units do not display any fixes between the FAF and MAP.  They could still fly the missed approach but might have to use DME to identify GATEQ or use the higher minimums.

Second.  I've read some misleading information so here is my take on minimums.  If I'm wrong, please correct me:

A.  The FAF is CISBU (something else was identified as the FAF earlier in the thread).  You can identify CISBU by cross tuning, DME, radar, or GPS.

B.  For the ILS, you don't care about GATEQ.  Follow the GS to 1149 with the local altimeter setting or 1212 (63' increase from the remarks section) if you are using the CLT altimeter setting.  You also don't care about the VDP because that only applies to non-precision approaches.

C.  If you are flying the LOC approach and you can identify GATEQ either by DME or GPS, and you are using the local altimeter, you must cross GATEQ at or above 1460 and use minimums of 1280.  If you are using the CLT altimeter, you must cross GATEQ at or above 1540 (as noted by the * as well as by adding the 80' required in the remarks section) and use minimums of 1360 (80' increase).

D.  If you cannot identify GATEQ but are using the local altimeter you must use minimums of 1460 (same as the GATEQ crossing altitude).  Using the CLT altimeter, you must use minimums of 1540 (80' increase).

Did I miss anything?

Bob

[midlifeflyer]

Correct on all points, @Bob - S50