Greetings

 

This maybe a basic question, but…..

 

YSCH (Coffs Harbour, Australia) VOR or NDB plate. The plate indicates to fly over the VOR/NDB at 3100 flying 193, fly for 3 minutes, then turn to 001 descending to the runway.

 

001 degrees places you way off track for the center line of the runway.

 

Can someone explain why this is the case.

 

I must be missing something rather fundamental in the use of this plate.

 

I have attached a copy of the plate for reference. Thank you, Iain

Hi,

 

I can't see any of your attachments but I did check AIS website under YCFS (Coffs Harbour) and there are only VOR and RNAV approaches published for runways 03 and 21. My understanding is that the VOR 03 approach indicates to fly over CFS VOR at 3500 or above heading 186 then turn right heading 025 descending to MDA.

 

Are the approach plates you're using up to date especially if they use the YSCH code? Or perhaps the ones on the AIS site are out of date? I've included the link below.

 

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/dap/CFSVO04-130.pdf

Hi Michael

 

The plate I am using is completely different to the plate you have created a link to.

 

My plate is a Jeppesen platwe (April 2004) so it seems it has been updated since.

 

The new plate makes far more sense.

 

For some reason I am having issues uploading the plate. I'll try again Thank you, Iain

 

 

Your plate doesn't load. I am getting "permission denied".

No idea - sorry. I can open the pdf on this computer...

 

My issue was that I was using an out of date Jeppeson chart, Iain

Hi Michael

 

The plate I am using is completely different to the plate you have created a link to.

 

My plate is a Jeppesen platwe (April 2004) so it seems it has been updated since.

 

The new plate makes far more sense.

 

For some reason I am having issues uploading the plate. I'll try again Thank you, Iain

 

 

 

No worries

 

Wow! Yeah that is a weird-looking approach. They must have improved the airport a bit since then.

 

Have to say I haven't yet flown to YCFS in the NGX. I know Virgin do scheduled flights from YSSY but to me that seems a bit short of a trip for an NG.

Yes Mike it is an odd approach - even if it is dated!

 

The updated chart you attached works far better

 

I bought recently on e-bay the two-volume Jeppesson approach charts for Australia ($20.00). Most of the charts are 2004, but some have been updated. At the price, it was a good deal.

 

Thanks, Iain

Why would you pay for Australian charts when you can get them for free on Airservices?

Why would you pay for Australian charts when you can get them for free on Airservices?

 

Because the bundle included all charts, leather binders, low and high jetway maps and a bunch of other things. Most of the charts are just fine and have 2012 dates on them. Coffs and a few other smaller airports are the older 2004 charts. For $20.00 it was easier to have all the charts at hand rather than download, print, cut and store them myself. Iain

Can someone explain why this is the case.

 

Because VOR is located offset of extednded runway centerline. Why have you started this topic again?

 

http://forum.avsim.n...ect-proceedure/

 

 

EDIT: I have checked your charts and noticed that htey are for speed categories A & B. But 737 is C & D. So this chart is designed for slower airplanes.

Edited September 6, 201213 yr by rsvit

Because VOR is located offset of extednded runway centerline. Why have you started this topic again?

 

http://forum.avsim.n...ect-proceedure/

 

 

EDIT: I have checked your charts and noticed that htey are for speed categories A & B. But 737 is C & D. So this chart is designed for slower airplanes.

 

I have not started the question again - although others have brought the subject up.

 

My query asked about the NDB approach to Coffs Harbour with the chart I was using - nothing else.

 

I realize the NDB is offset. I thought the approach odd for Coffs Harbour and queried the "plate" Yes you are correct with CAT A/B but it still didn't explain the reason for such an odd approach course. The new plate has rectified this completely.

 

Thank you to everyone who responded, Iain

No problem.

Here are new charts.

http://www.airservic...CFSVO04-130.pdf

 

Go to country AIP website is the simpliest way to get fresh charts. http://www.airservic...ocChartsTOC.htm

No problem.

Here are new charts.

http://www.airservic...CFSVO04-130.pdf

 

Go to country AIP website is the simpliest way to get fresh charts. http://www.airservic...ocChartsTOC.htm

 

One step ahead of you my friend....

 

I actually should have checked air services for a new chart before posting. But it's educational for others readers as well. Cheers, Iain

Hello,

 

notice in bottom right of your old chart how it says "No circling west of airport beyound 1NM....". Looking at the chart, I am 90% sure this is due to noise abaitment.

 

My best guess is. that the procedure looked the way it looked for the same reason - to keep inbound planes over the sea. Outbound planes are much higher even if over land, so there is less noise.

 

Now, as to why it was changed since, I can not say, but here are my guesses:

-Originally, this procedure is for A,B category. I suppose it is possible C and D categories had a different, straight-in approach, which was not included in your set for any number of reasons.

-Average noiseprint of the types flying into Coffs since the procedure was designed was in all probability greatly reduced. Authorities might have decided that it was no longer needed to route the flgihts out over the sea.

-In years around 2004, number of passengers served rised by a large margin at Coffs, while number of movements fell. This suggests, that bigger aircraft were introduced. Generally, bigger airplanes have higher approach speeds, this is especially noticeable when stepping from large turboprops to small jets. Supposing that similar procedure was available for jets, it might have been found, that even over weather minima, faster jets are having more problems with final alignment, and are going missed more times, thus prompting procedure redesign.

interesting Fabo - thanks for writing, Iain