While having lunch at a local, non-towered airport, I had the chance to ride a Segway. I know the Segway is not new, but I'd never had the opportunity to try one. With a little instruction from the owner, I was easily able to scoot around, accelerate, stop, and make very short radius turns. The stabilization technology in this thing is waaay cool and you move forward or backward by simply redistributing your weight on your feet. Again, the cost of ownership is beyond my modest means, but I admire the design and construction of the Segway.
Cirrus revealed a mock-up of the single-engine jet they are developing, which is an intriguing design. While I realize that the shape of the tail was driven by the positioning of the jet engine, I have to admit that the first thought that went through my mind was "The prophecies have come true! It has a fork-ed tail!" The second thought that went through my mind was "Given the pressurized hull, I sure hope the doors stay shut on this puppy."
A few pilots I regularly fly with pointed out to me that the July 5, 2007 revision of instrument approach procedures for California contain two new approaches for the Hayward airport. I wasn't yet aware of these new approaches because, for whatever reason, my Jeppesen revisions had not yet arrived. At least three pilots I fly with had received their updates last week, but I just received mine yesterday. The two new approaches are the HWD RNAV (GPS) Y 28L and the HWD RNAV (GPS) Z 28L. The HWD GPS 28L approach will be deleted as of July 5, 2007. If you're wondering why two new approaches and what's up with the Y and the Z included in the name of the approaches, here's the deal.
It used to be that the inclusion of a letter was just for approaches that had no straight-in minima due to the approach course being more than 30˚ out of alignment with any runway or because the descent gradient from the final approach fix to the threshold crossing height exceeded 400 feet per nautical mile (this is usually due to terrain or obstacles close to the airport). In these cases the letter A, B, C, or D was included in the name of an approach and there was no mention of a specific runway in the title, such as the HWD VOR or GPS A approach.
As always, do not use any of these approach representations for actual navigation.
With the advent of RNAV (area navigation), the need arose to create different approaches to the same runway that used the same type of approach guidance. Existing FMS and GPS hardware and their databases needed to be able to distinguish between these different approaches, so the design decision (or was it a kludge?) was made to add a single letter to the approach name, but to start at the end of the alphabet and work backwards. Approach names that include the letter Z generally have the lowest minima (though there are supposedly some old approaches out there that violate this convention).
Before getting into the details, I'll point out that instrument approach procedures into Hayward are problematic from the approach controller's perspective. Hayward arrivals conflict with arrivals into Oakland's runway 29 and controllers have to find creative ways to maintain the required separation. Depending on the time of day, there may be a constant stream of arrivals into Oakland and if you're flying a slower aircraft, you can expect significant delays while Norcal tries to make a slot big enough to fit you in. The same is true for instrument departures - more than once I've sat on the ground at Hayward for 20 minutes or more waiting for my IFR release.
Against that backdrop, consider the soon to be defunct HWD GPS RWY 28L which has a convenient initial approach fix at SUNOL at 3900 feet. If an approach controller has to delay your approach clearance due to traffic into Oakland, there's no defined holding pattern and they'll usually put you in a box pattern over the Livermore Valley, north and west of SUNOL. Note that the distance from JOCPI to SUDGE (the final approach fix) is a modest 5 nautical miles and the minimum descent altitude is a respectable 400 feet AGL. That short distance means that once you are cleared for the approach, you should be out of the way of larger aircraft inbound to Oakland fairly quickly.
The new HWD RNAV (GPS) Y 28L has an initial approach fix at ALEYA, which is a whopping 10 nautical miles from the final approach fix at CASGO. My reading of Order 7110.65R and the Instrument Procedures Handbook both say that any vectors issued for an RNAV approach must be to either an Initial Approach Fix or an Intermediate Fix. There even was an accident a few years back that resulted, in part, from a controller vectoring an aircraft to a fix other than an intermediate approach fix.
If you're flying a slower aircraft, this means you'll either proceed direct to ALEYA on your own navigation or the controller will vector you there. And once you're cleared for the approach, this means you'll spend significantly more time in the way of faster aircraft wanting to get into Oakland. If you're told to hold at ALEYA in bad weather, you're at an altitude and in an area that can be conductive to airframe icing. Oh, and the minimum descent altitude for this approach is actually higher than the old GPS approach.
The RNAV (GPS) Z 28L has most of the same disadvantages, but it offers a 300' AGL minimum descent altitude and only 8.8 miles from the IAF to the final approach fix at SUDGE. In short, while I like RNAV approaches and have observed that LPV approaches are easier for pilots to fly accurately, I'm not sure there's any reason to specifically request either approach. The HWD LOC/DME 28L might be a better choice since gets you down almost as low with less time spent in the cross hairs.
If you decide to request one of these approaches and you find the controllers aren't quite up to speed, be patient and remember that they have to learn these new approaches, too. And if the approach controller mistakenly refers to either of these approaches as a GPS approach, remember that approach name items within parentheses are not to be included in either the request for the approach or in the approach clearance phraseology.
Now I'm off to buy a lottery ticket. Who knows, in the near future I just may be able to afford an iPhone, a Segway, and a Cirrus Jet!
4 comments:
Recon I'd keep the Cirrus Jet if they gave me one ... I thought the V-tail was a tribute to the Bonanza ... 60 years and still going strong ... a tribute to the V-tail even though it never really worked that well in the view of the rear seaters. I do like the engine layout, though, should be easy to inspect/maintain and well protect from ground FOD ... might pose a problem with sheets of ice breaking off the windshield/cabin roof, but a workable design none the less.
Regarding the accident you referenced ... I don't believe we ever emphasize strongly enough that even under vectors and/or when cleared for an approach, terrain avoidance is ultimately in the hands of the pilot. American 965 comes to mind. Years ago when I was in the USAF crew training business at McGuire (were the terrain is no higher thna a pine tree for many miles around) the wing at McChord (where the is significant high terrain) suffered the loss of a C-141 in a CFIT incident which turned out to be a tragic wrong clearance issued, wrong clearance blindly followed type incident. Hearing the news of the loss of a -141 my wife (at the time) asked me, "was it one of ours (McGuire's)"? "It was a McChord aircraft", I replied, "why did you think it would be ours"?
Her response? "Well I know there are mountains around McChord so I figured the local pilots would have been familiar with the mountains."
Simplistic, but irrefutable logic. Carry a sectional and know where the hills are.
Dave,
Yes, my reference was to the V-tail Bonanza, AKA Forked-Tailed Doctor-Killer. A bit of dark humor ...
You bring up a good point regarding terrain clearance, but in the accident I cited, the approach controllers made numerous and egregious mistakes. The NTSB report points out, the poor, low-time instrument pilot quickly reached task saturation in spite of his technically advanced aircraft. Think about it.
One controller vectors you for the wrong approach at the wrong airport, you sort that out and then you're vectored for the correct approach in a manner that doesn't even meet 7110.65R criteria, there's a controller change, the new controller insists on handing you off to the wrong tower frequency, that tower correctly hands you off to the correct tower, and shortly thereafter you're a CFIT statistic.
Just yesterday, with a commercial candidate on a practice RNAV approach, the controller gave us a crossing restriction that was 600' higher than shown on the plate without explanation. This gave us less than three miles to loose 1400'. A minute later, the controller told us to slow to approach speed, apparently without realizing the ridiculous position in which he'd put us.
The pilot I was flying replied "we'll do our best," a much more circumspect reply than I would have given.
Re: "My reading of Order 7110.65R and the Instrument Procedures Handbook both say that any vectors issued for an RNAV approach must be to either an Initial Approach Fix or an Intermediate Fix."
I get vectored to the FAF on the RNAV (GPS) RWY 19R at SNA all the time. In fact, I don't think I've ever flown that approach any other way. I browsed Chapter 5 of the IPH hoping to find the section you were referring to, but came up empty. Can you clarify this a bit more?
Ron,
This stuff is hard to parse, but here are the sections of Order 7110.65R that seem relevant. My reading is that a pilot may be vectored to intercept an intermediate approach segment except for RNAV (GPS) approaches.
For RNAV (GPS) approaches that have an initial approach fix (IF), the pilot must be vectored to the IF at the appropriate altitude and at a specified intercept angle.
The mention of the initial approach fix for an RNAV approach occurs several times in the following excerpts, to which I have added emphasis.
4-8-1(b)(4)(f): The aircraft is on a course that will intercept the intermediate segment at an angle not greater than 90 degrees and is at an altitude that will permit normal descent from the Intermediate Fix to the Final Approach Fix.
Later in this section is the language:
4. Established on a heading or course that will intercept the intermediate segment at the intermediate fix, when an initial approach fix is published, provided the following conditions are met:
(a) The instrument approach procedure is a GPS or RNAV approach.
(b) Radar monitoring is provided to the Intermediate Fix.
(c) The aircraft has filed an Advanced RNAV equipment suffix.
(d) The pilot is advised to expect clearance direct to the Intermediate Fix at least 5 miles from the fix.
(e) The aircraft is assigned an altitude to maintain until the Intermediate Fix.
(f) The aircraft is on a course that will intercept the intermediate segment at an angle not greater than 90 degrees and is at an altitude that will permit normal descent from the Intermediate Fix to the Final Approach Fix.
Note the exception in this section.
5-9-1 Vectors to Final Approach Course.
Except as provided in para 7-4-2, Vectors for Visual Approach, vector arriving aircraft to intercept the final approach course:
a. At least 2 miles outside the approach gate unless one of the following exists:
1. When the reported ceiling is at least 500 feet above the MVA/MIA and the visibility is at least 3 miles (report may be a PIREP if no weather is reported for the airport), aircraft may be vectored to intercept the final approach course closer than 2 miles outside the approach gate but no closer than the approach gate.
2. If specifically requested by the pilot, aircraft may be vectored to intercept the final approach course inside the approach gate but no closer than the final approach fix.
EXCEPTION. Conditions 1 and 2 above do not apply to RNAV aircraft being vectored for a GPS or RNAV approach.
Lastly, the NTSB report I cited said:
FAA Order 7110.65 specified that Standard Instrument Approach Procedures "shall commence at an Initial Approach Fix or an Intermediate Approach Fix if there is not an Initial Approach Fix. Where adequate radar coverage exists, radar facilities may vector aircraft to the final approach course [by assigning] headings that will permit final approach course interception on a track that does not exceed 30 degrees." The order further states that vectors should be issued if required to intercept the final approach course. ECYON was not an IAF. Review of the radar derived ground track revealed that the intercept angle was about 40 degrees.
So if Socal is vectoring to within 3 NM of BONKE at an intercept angle of no more than 30 degrees on the SNA RNAV (GPS) 19R approach instead of vectors to SAGER (the Initial approach Fix), I don't see any wording in 7110.65 that allows it. Perhaps they have a waiver that allows this?
I'm not saying that the vectoring restrictions for RNAV approaches are practical or that they make sense. And if anyone has information to the contrary, I'd like to hear it ..
Post a Comment