notam man strikes again!

8/12/2019 Notam Man Strikes Again!

1/3

CHART REVIEW

12 IFR Refresher, April 1997

Notam Man Strikes Again!Confusion over an IFR departure procedure was fixed by notam, but could be better resolved by charting.

By Wally Roberts

I RECENTLY REVIEWED AN EX-change of comments between two pi-lots on the Internet IFR Newsgroup.One of the pilots was a Jeppesen chartuser, while the other was an NOS user.The Jepp user was confused about theIFR departure procedure forShenandoah Valley Regional Airport(KSHD), VA (see chart below). He wasconfused about whether the SH LOMclimb-in-hold instructions applied to

both Runways 5 and 23 departures, oronly to Runway 23 departures.

The NOS user responded that theJepp user should follow the semicolons

in the text. TheIFR departureprocedure on theJepp chart doesnthave any semico-lons in the text,but the procedurein the NOS bookdoes (see below).

I was bemusedby the differencein the text for the

identical IFR departure procedure so,in my role as TERPs consultant to theAir Line Pilots Association (ALPA)Charting and Instrument ProceduresCommittee, I obtained a copy of theFAA official source document. The pro-cedure was designed (or underwent ma-jor review) in 1983, and had beenslightly altered in 1986 to reflect newrunway numbers because of changes in

magnetic variation.FAA Form 8260-15

Listed in the box above is the textfrom the source document (FAA Form8260-15) reprinted exactly as it appears,down to the exact punctuation and linebreaks.

Correcting notam

On February 12, 1997, ALPApointed out these discrepancies to the

The IFR departure procedure in theNOS book contains two semicolons inthe text, which are important to properunderstanding of how to correctly fly theprocedure.

(continued on page 15)

REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION JEPPESEN SANDERSON, INC., 1996. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

The text of the IFR departure procedure on the Jepp chartcan be interpreted to mean no climb in the hold is requiredwhen departing Runway 5. The language on the FAA Form8260-15 (above) is ambiguous.

TAKEOFF MINIMUMS:

RWYs 5, 23 STANDARD.

IFR DEPARTURE PROCEDURES:

RWY 5 climbing left turn to SH LOM

RWY 23 climb straight ahead to SH LOM, continue climb in

SH holding pattern, SW, left turn, 045 inbound to 4500'

before proceeding on course.

KSHD IFR departure procedure shown exactly as it appearson the FAA Form 8260-15, which is used by chart designers.


2/3IFR Refresher, April 1997 13

Subscribe toIFR Refreshertoday!Yes, please enter my order for:

1 year of IFR Refresherfor $60 (U.S. and International).

2 years of IFRRfor $110 (U.S. and International).

The back issues Ive listed below, for just $7.50 each,

plus $2.00 shipping and handling per total order. (For a listing of

feature articles in each issue, see other side; cash or check only

for back issue orders.)

$______ Total for items selected above.$______ Shipping & handling (not applicable to subscriptions)$______ Total this order

IFR RefresherGuarantee

If you are not completely satisfied with any item you order from

us, you may cancel or return the item for a cheerful refund.

Name __________________________________________

Address ________________________________________

City ___________________________________________

State __________ Zip ____________________________

Please bill my: MC/Visa_____ American Express_______

Card # ___________________ Exp. Date _____________

Signature _______________________________________

Daytime Phone # (required for MC/V) ________________Mail to IFR Refresher, 75 Holly Hill Lane, Greenwich, CT

06836-2626

INSTRUCTION

You could be, for example, the

only aircraft for miles around

in one part of a controllers

sector, and he could have a

swarm of airplanes in a dis-

tant part of the sector occu-

pying his full attention and

capabilities.

vector, can vary from considerable con-troller diligence in watching you trackyour flight plan, to his complete inat-tention to your data block on his scope.You have no way of knowing thecontrollers state of attention or mind. Youcould be, for example, the only aircraftfor miles around in one part of acontrollers sector, and he could have aswarm of airplanes in a distant part of thesector occupying his full attention andcapabilities. In such case you are, for thetime being, effectively non-radar.

The radar monitor

ATC is required, by policy, to pro-vide some level of radar services inClass A, B, and C airspace. The lowestlevel of this radar service is to provideradar monitoring services. What thisreally means is open to endless conjec-ture. The preceding example of the loneairplane in an isolated part of a sectornot being watched by the controller isstill within the definition of radar-moni-tored services. In addition to Class A,B and C airspace radar monitoring re-

quirements, aircraft flying RNAV ran-dom routing within the United States

Radar Service(continued from page 7)

are required to be radar monitored. Inairspace other than Class A, B, or C,the FAAs policy is to provide radarmonitoring where facilities and circum-stances permit.

You can rest assured radar monitor-ing is quite active in Class B and C ter-minal airspace, but thats it. You donthave the same assurance in any otherairspace, not even Class A. Of course,Class A doesnt mean much to most ofus unless were fortunate to have turbopower of some kind. Plus, there are nohard rocks anywhere in the contiguous48 States Class A airspace.

Another misconception

I recently heard yet another pilotmisconception about radar services.

This pilot believed ATC couldnt termi-nate radar service without the pilotsconcurrence! Apparently this pilot hasnever experienced being in a sectorwhere ATC suddenly experienced a ra-dar failure. Further, he has likely neverflown the lower altitudes of Victor air-ways in the Western mountains wherethe Center sometimes hands you off tothe local FSS frequency for en route orterminal arrival services. Do you knowhow to handle ATC communication enroute and on arrival with the local FSS?

You must remember this

If you remember nothing else fromthis article, at least remember this: there

are three types of radar service termi-nations: (1) the obvious one, where thecontroller states it; (2) the AIM-speci-fied automatic conditions of radar ser-vice termination; and (3) the practicalradar service termination that comes andgoes without your direct knowledge,depending upon controller workload andrelated circumstances.

Wally Roberts is a retired airline cap-tain, former chairman of the ALPATERPs Committee and an active CFII

in San Clemente, CA. Wallys web siteis http://www.terps.com


3/3IFR Refresher, April 1997 15

CHART REVIEW

This conception of a graphic depiction of the SHD IFR departure procedureleaves no confusion about how you should depart safely.

Notam Man(continued from page 12)

FAA National Flight Procedures Office

(NFPO) in Oklahoma City, OK. Totheir credit, the NFPO issued the fol-lowing FDC NOTAM that day (re-printed here precisely as it appeared inthe notam):

!FDC 7/0842 SHD FI/T SHENANDOAHVALLEY REGIONAL, STAUNTON-WAYNESBORO-HARRISONBURG,VA.

DEPARTURE PROC, AMDT 4.... RWY 5, CLIMBING LEFT TURN

DIRECT SH LOM;

RWY 23, CLIMB DIRECT SHLOM;

ALL AIRCRAFT CROSS SHLOM AT OR ABOVE 4500, IF NOT4500 CONTINUE CLIMB IN SHLOM HOLDING PATTERN TO 4500BEFORE PROCEEDING ONCOURSE (HOLD SW, LT, 045 IN-BOUND).

Better solution

The confusion over this IFR depar-ture procedure peaked my interest inlight of my recent article, Graphic IFRDeparture Procedures (FebruaryIFRR). The illustration on the right ismy concept of a graphical presentation

of the KSDH IFR departures proce-dures.

With a graphical charting require-ment in place, not only would the pi-lots be far better served, ambiguitiesamongst chart makers and the FAAsources would more likely be resolvedduring internal production processes,rather than having potentially seriousambiguities (which occurred in theKSHD procedure) passed through to thepilot-users.

The KSHD departures should

have been reviewed by theFAA on its own before this

much time passed.

The KSHD departures should havebeen reviewed by the FAA on its ownbefore this much time passed. The FAAhas severe staffing limitations imposed

by meat-cleavered budgets, working inconcert with a misplaced priority todevelop 500 GPS IAPs per year in theface of insufficient personnel to cover

all other essential procedural develop-ment functions.

Revision in the works

The Jepp chart and the NOS bookfor KSHD will probably have been re-vised to reflect the changed text by thetime you read this.

notam man strikes again!

Documents