How are you supposed to go from the hold to the IF in an approach like this?
I’ve always found that the “self position until you are 90 degrees” and incredibly bad procedure, and if indeed if it’s the right one, the system seems incredibly dumb / probably dangerous
That kind of procedure would not be found in TERPS.
Noe wrote:
How are you supposed to go from the hold to the IF in an approach like this?
The TAA cake slice extends to 265°, so you would ensure that you were above the TAA of 2800’, head about 315° to intercept 285° into UVNOP, turn at UVNOP to the IF
I’ve always found that the “self position until you are 90 degrees” and incredibly bad procedure, and if indeed if it’s the right one, the system seems incredibly dumb / probably dangerous
It’s not great, but I think “incredibly dumb / probably dangerous” is rather over-egging the pudding.
Timothy wrote:
The TAA cake slice extends to 265°, so you would ensure that you were above the TAA of 2800’, head about 315° to intercept 285° into UVNOP, turn at UVNOP to the IF
This procedure seems to me unusual in that the “centre” of the arrival sectors is the IF (BJ09I) and not the IAFs! So you could fly direct to BJ09I, then make a 180 and intercept the final approach course.
Airborne_Again wrote:
This procedure seems to me unusual in that the “centre” of the arrival sectors is the IF (BJ09I) and not the IAFs!
I would describe that as the norm, rather than the exception.
Airborne_Again wrote:
So you could fly direct to BJ09I, then make a 180 and intercept the final approach course.
I would say not because you cannot turn more than 100° at the IF.
Timothy, yes maybe a bit strong. But shouldn’t a good procedure allow you to fly direct from any point of the hold / missed approach directly to an IAF
Noe wrote:
directly to an IF
There is only one IF. I am thinking you mean IAF, in which case I agree.
Thanks, corrected. By dangerous, I mean that designing a procedure that does not allow a direct to an IAF following a go around (or form the hold) might cause unnecessary stress / confusion to someone who likely is under high workload already
Timothy wrote:
rather over-egging the pudding
For someone whose native tongue is not English, there is frequently a benefit from reading Timothy’s posts that is beyond that about aviation wisdom.
Conversely, what I have always admired the English speaking world for, is the how they gladly put up with how the rest of the world abuse and torture their language, not least on aviation VHF frequencies, but also in documents like NOTAMs and translated manuals.
The Germans are also quite relaxed about that, while the French have many other virtues.
Pardon the drift, I’ll be back on track right away.
Idioms are fun to use, and the feedback I’ve had is that many find them fun to read, but with the majority audience being non-UK, I normally live-link them to a suitable explanation. Urban Dictionary is good for that but it is best checked before using the link since it can be excessively vulgar 
