 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Gv captain laments the use of a NOTAM at hpn over a period of months to advise that the alternate missed approach procedure should be flown with a climb to 3;000 feet instead of 2;300 feet. He also noted that a holding pattern on the low altitude airways chart at craly can be confused with the haarp hold.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1333258 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201602 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | HPN.Airport |
| State Reference | NY |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Gulfstream V / G500 / G550 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | Cruise |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Captain Pilot Not Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types |
Narrative:
Currently there is a NOTAM for the ILS 16 at hpn for an alternate missed approach. The NOTAM does not specify how to hold at haarp. The approach chart has an easy to overlook depiction of the hold at haarp. The low chart in jepp FD pro shows a hold on the low airway at craly that can be confused for a hold at haarp. When constructing the miss as an alternate flight plan in the FMS; the default hold in the FMS at haarp is almost identical to the hold at craly except using haarp and right [sic] turns instead of the left turns at craly. This situation is a set up for an improper/unexpected hold.my recommendation would be to add verbiage to the NOTAM to specify the hold details or refer to the hold depiction on the approach chart. Also; like the NOTAM going into sfo on the dyamd arrival about the chart altitude being wrong at archi; why isn't the chart changed for these long term situations? Both of these NOTAMS are for months long periods and the applicable charts should be changed to reflect the current procedure rather than rely on NOTAMS for months at a time?
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: GV Captain laments the use of a NOTAM at HPN over a period of months to advise that the alternate missed approach procedure should be flown with a climb to 3;000 feet instead of 2;300 feet. He also noted that a holding pattern on the low altitude airways chart at CRALY can be confused with the HAARP hold.
Narrative: Currently there is a NOTAM for the ILS 16 at HPN for an alternate missed approach. The NOTAM does not specify how to hold at HAARP. The approach chart has an easy to overlook depiction of the hold at HAARP. The low chart in Jepp FD Pro shows a hold on the low airway at CRALY that can be confused for a hold at HAARP. When constructing the miss as an alternate flight plan in the FMS; the default hold in the FMS at HAARP is almost identical to the hold at CRALY except using HAARP and right [sic] turns instead of the left turns at CRALY. This situation is a set up for an improper/unexpected hold.My recommendation would be to add verbiage to the NOTAM to specify the hold details or refer to the hold depiction on the approach chart. Also; like the NOTAM going into SFO on the DYAMD arrival about the chart altitude being wrong at ARCHI; why isn't the chart changed for these long term situations? Both of these NOTAMS are for months long periods and the applicable charts should be changed to reflect the current procedure rather than rely on NOTAMS for months at a time?
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.