Calculating VDP

[BSkin]

Just fly a CANPA and be done with it. Never liked dive'n'drive.

It ain't bad when you're divin' and she's driven'!

 

[BSkin]

Sorry, too easy!

 

[mamba20]

Alright, thanks guys. This may be a stupid question but what is CANPA? I feel like keel hauling my CFII!

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Alright, thanks guys. This may be a stupid question but what is CANPA? I feel like keel hauling my CFII!

Contstant Angle Non-Precision Approach

 

[Way2Broke]

CANPA?

Where do you get the information from? A MFD? I've never flown glass.

 

[pgcfii2002]

Okay.....next question.

How do you get rid of an STD?

 

[Americam]

Hate to be "that guy," but the VDP will always be published on the chart. If no VDP is published, a PDP (Planned Descent Point) is what you calculate in leau of a VDP.

They work exactly the same, with the following distinction:

VDP = published
PDP = calculated by pilot

If no VDP is published, I always calculate a PDP: Just a good habit to get into.

 

[A Squared]

1.3 miles from the end of the runway, works fer just about all of them.

Try it you'll see.

Proabaly wouldn't work all that well here:

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0705/06053NDA.PDF

or here:

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0705/06213LDADH.PDF


or here:

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0705/02335N24.PDF

 

[pkober]

Hate to be "that guy," but the VDP will always be published on the chart. If no VDP is published, a PDP (Planned Descent Point) is what you calculate in leau of a VDP.

They work exactly the same, with the following distinction:

VDP = published
PDP = calculated by pilot

If no VDP is published, I always calculate a PDP: Just a good habit to get into.

Not true. A VDP will only be published if there is an obstacle or the TERPster wanted to put one on the chart. He doesn't have to. The current push from the FAA is that VDP will be published, but there are still plenty of charts without them.

A technique I was taugh in USAF UPT in the 90's.

"Gus wears a HAT"

Gus = GS

HAT / GS = distance from runway. Sometimes use 3.0 or some other number.

If I repeated some one, sorry.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

I think you're misreading his post. What he's saying is that the VDP will be published if calculated by the FAA. VDP's are published and PDP's are calculated by the pilot. He's clarifying the fact that pilots tend to use the terms interchangeably.

Clearly, we don't see VDP's appearing on every NP plate, so therefore we can assume that if a VDP exists, it will be published.

I think that is what the poster was refering to, not that a VDP is published on every NP plate.

 

[pkober]

I meant to say that a VDP won't be published if their is an obstacle that would penetrate (great word) the 20 to 1 slope.

The danger is that you don't know why their is not a VDP. Is it because of an obstacle or a lazy TERPster? I guess you can find out the hard way, at night in bad weather, that it was because of a tower.

 

[buckets]

I have NEVER gone around and NEVER will! Just make it work the first time! Fuel is expensive! Don't go-arounds scare passengers? I'd be scared that I'd probably have to do a visual pattern and I don't do those either. I hope some of you are laughing.

 

[freightdogfred]

Last edited by A Squared : 05-23-2007 at 19:33. Reason: edited to clarify what I meant.

Dude, I'm sorry the only job available to you is in that Douglasaurus firetrap..
Those approaches you linked are visuals, if you ain't got the field by that FAF you ain't gonna make it, no matter what VDP you conjure up.

 

[A Squared]

Dude, I'm sorry the only job available to you is in that Douglasaurus firetrap..

Hey, now there's something fresh and new: If you don't have anything intellegent to say, toss out some completely unrelated insults. Wow, nobody on Flightinfo has ever thought of that before. An original thinker and a class act to boot, a real double threat kind of intellect.

Those approaches you linked are visuals,

Well, actually, no, they are not, they're just examples of approaches with high hat's, some of the many approaches where your "Just use 1.3, dude" strategy isn't going to work really well, or at all. I picked a couple with fairly extreme MDA's, thinking you could follow the logic, but I guess I overestimated your capabilities rather badly. I suppose that's my fault for not recognizing that someone who interrupts a discussion of calculating PDPs with "just use 1.3, dude" probably isn't the sharpest crayon in the box. My apologies.

In deference to your limitations, I'll post a couple more approaches, these a little less extreme, in which your "just use 1.3, dude" advice won't work very well.

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0706/01253G14.PDF

hat is 739', which would give a PDP 2.3 NM from the threshold, You'd be about a mile off with "just use 1.3, dude"

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0706/10059R7.PDF

on this one, hat is 861, which would give a 2.7 nm PDP, over twice the distance you'd get with "just use 1.3, dewd"

Here's another:

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0706/09297R13.PDF

Hat on this one is 1005'. PDP would be 3.2, which is a long way off from "just use 1.3, dewd".


These are just a couple that I grabbed from the back of my jepps. I could list dozens here in Alaska with hat's high enough that "just use 1.3, dude", wouldn't work. It's not just Alaska, either. There's hundreds of similar examples in the west, northwest, and the hilly parts of the southeast and northeast. The fact is, unless your flying is restricted to FLorida, or Kansas, or some other really flat state, "just use 1.3, dewd" isn't going to work a significant percentage of the time.

 

[ferlo]

Hit the VNAV button and get back to the newspaper.

 

[freightdogfred]

Hey, now there's something fresh and new: If you don't have anything intellegent to say, toss out some completely unrelated insults. Wow, nobody on Flightinfo has ever thought of that before. An original thinker and a class act to boot, a real double threat kind of intellect.




Well, actually, no, they are not, they're just examples of approaches with high hat's, some of the many approaches where your "Just use 1.3, dude" strategy isn't going to work really well, or at all. I picked a couple with fairly extreme MDA's, thinking you could follow the logic, but I guess I overestimated your capabilities rather badly. I suppose that's my fault for not recognizing that someone who interrupts a discussion of calculating PDPs with "just use 1.3, dude" probably isn't the sharpest crayon in the box. My apologies.

In deference to your limitations, I'll post a couple more approaches, these a little less extreme, in which your "just use 1.3, dude" advice won't work very well.

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0706/01253G14.PDF

hat is 739', which would give a PDP 2.3 NM from the threshold, You'd be about a mile off with "just use 1.3, dude"

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0706/10059R7.PDF

on this one, hat is 861, which would give a 2.7 nm PDP, over twice the distance you'd get with "just use 1.3, dewd"

Here's another:

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0706/09297R13.PDF

Hat on this one is 1005'. PDP would be 3.2, which is a long way off from "just use 1.3, dewd".


These are just a couple that I grabbed from the back of my jepps. I could list dozens here in Alaska with hat's high enough that "just use 1.3, dude", wouldn't work. It's not just Alaska, either. There's hundreds of similar examples in the west, northwest, and the hilly parts of the southeast and northeast. The fact is, unless your flying is restricted to FLorida, or Kansas, or some other really flat state, "just use 1.3, dewd" isn't going to work a significant percentage of the time.

Well, get back in that museum piece you fly, and go shoot some of them. All your approaches have a common thread-They're in Alaska, with mountainous terrain, My original post said it works for most of them, and most of them got HAT's around 400 ft. You spent your evening digging out extreme cases to prove me wrong, so be it. As far as not being "the sharpest crayon in the box", I've flown NDB approaches from Medellin to Mumbai. Do you even know where these cities are?

There's a reason they call them "Non-Precision".

Enjoy your next trip.

 

[A Squared]

All your approaches have a common thread-They're in Alaska, with mountainous terrain, My original post said it works for most of them, and most of them got HAT's around 400 ft.

Uhhh, yeah, they're in Alaska because that's what was handy in my Jepp binder. You could pick up a handful of approach plates for Vermont, or Idaho, or Washington, or North Carolina or a dozen other areas and find plenty more approaches with similarly high hats. In actuality, your original post said "just about all of them" which is a a pretty inane statement.

As far as not being "the sharpest crayon in the box", I've flown NDB approaches from Medellin to Mumbai.

It's a further testament to your level of intelligence that you think this proves something. I know quite a few guys flying international freight, some are fairly smart cookies, however the stupidest pilot I know though has been to those places, or if not, he'd certainly tell you he had, because in addition to being really, really dumb, he's also delusional and a pathalogical liar as well as a career alcoholic. So, if you think that having been to Mumbai and Medellin proves that you're intelligent, you're probably not the sharpest crayon in the box.

 

[freightdogfred]

So, if you think that having been to Mumbai and Medellin proves that you're intelligent, you're probably not the sharpest crayon in the box.

What it proves is I've flown these types of approaches all around the world.

What it proves is yore sorry a$$ is stuck in the Douglas dinosaur cause yer unemployable elsewheres.

Have a nice life.

 

[A Squared]

While your concern for my career is touching, it's a bit misplaced. The topic was calclating PDPs, and how you've been talking out your a$s on the subject. Try to focus, I know it's difficult

 

[Say Again Over]

Relax guys, why are two highly experienced pilots hashing it out over the subject of non-precision approaches, most of us reading this all have a current instrument rating and understand both points of view, geez!

Even though most of us don't know each other here, we could at least have a little bit of respect for each other, ok, rant over. :beer: