Alpha_Floor wrote:
Do you happen to know a template where I can draw my own DIY approach plate?
What I did was import the pdf of an actual Jepp plate from JeppView into the Corel Designer CAD program (which I had anyway). The objects in the pdf were imported as objects in the CAD file. Then I erased everything except the “template” parts and drew my own plate.
Alpha_Floor wrote:
Why wouldn’t it be wise? I want to make it more legible, easily understandble, have it in the same format as the Jepp plates so that it fits my kneepad etc.
I have two DYI plates which are formatted exactly like Jepp plates. I did this for the reason you mention – but I’m constantly feeling uneasy about it. Mainly that someone would get hold of them and believe they are actual Jepp plates, even though my name are on them and not Jeppesen and I’ve put a large warning text on the plates about the approach being unofficial.
arj1 wrote:
Is it wise? Currently its obvious that it is a DIY plate…
Why wouldn’t it be wise? I want to make it more legible, easily understandble, have it in the same format as the Jepp plates so that it fits my kneepad etc.
It’s obvious that it’s a DIY in any case. I’m not going to photo-shop any logos or put any effective dates, airac cycles etc. :)
Alpha_Floor wrote:
Do you happen to know a template where I can draw my own DIY approach plate?I have hand-written it on a piece of paper but it would be cool if one could create professional looking DIY plates.
Is it wise? Currently its obvious that it is a DIY plate…
Airborne_Again wrote:
There is no restriction on descending below the MSA in instrument conditions for the purpose of landing. I have written a short article about it.
Do you happen to know a template where I can draw my own DIY approach plate?
I have hand-written it on a piece of paper but it would be cool if one could create professional looking DIY plates.
Graham wrote:
Ah ok yes – ideally you want a period of level flight for intercepting the FAT. Not always a rule though – I have seen plates which warn ATC may vector you without this.
This quote from PANS-OPS vol ii could be useful:
3.3.2 Length. The intermediate segment consists of two components — a turning component abeam the IF followed by a straight component immediately before the FAF. The length of the turning component is the minimum stabilization distance for the turn angle at the IF and can be determined from the tables in Chapter 1. The length of the straight component is variable but shall not be less than 3.7 km (2.0 NM) allowing the aircraft to be stabilized prior to the FAF.
The relevant table is:
Ah ok yes – ideally you want a period of level flight for intercepting the FAT. Not always a rule though – I have seen plates which warn ATC may vector you without this.
Graham wrote:
If you turned a bit earlier you could make those angles a little less sharp and reduce the overshoot. The problem with your short leg after the first turn at 12D DTY is that it’s too short (with such tight angles) that one can’t re-establish following the overshoot.
Yes, that turn in the sim was flown at 120 GS, and I calculated the turn for 100 GS (more like SEP speeds), therefore the overshoot. I need to simulate this in the actual aircraft I’ll be using.
It’s a continuous turn from DTY 12D onto the final approach track. The idea is to reach the IF at the same time I level the wings, on the 268 QDM, with 2 NM to go until the FAF.
You’re right that DTY is not required at all! I will play a bit with this creating IAFs at 90 degrees and 5 NM, just like other RNP approaches. Using DTY is just to practice VOR tracking. I’m also referencing the FAF to DTY as a cross-check of position comparing GPS and radioaids.
Graham wrote:
I’d put a waypoint on the DTY 126 radial directly due north of your FAF. Then make these two waypoints (that one and the FAF) fly-by rather than fly-over.
You mean the IF rather than the FAF? If I fly-by the FAF I’d have to intercept both the final approach track and the glide path simultaneously, which is not ideal. I’d rather reach the FAF on the correct QDM ready to start the descent, like so:
The distances from IAF to IF, and from IF to FAF are both 3.0 NM. Published RNP approaches use 5.0 NM but that seems excessive here for a Cat A.
I’m going to go and try this one in the sim! :)
Is it necessary to go out to 12D from DTY?
If you turned a bit earlier you could make those angles a little less sharp and reduce the overshoot. The problem with your short leg after the first turn at 12D DTY is that it’s too short (with such tight angles) that one can’t re-establish following the overshoot.
I’d put a waypoint on the DTY 126 radial directly due north of your FAF. Then make these two waypoints (that one and the FAF) fly-by rather than fly-over.
Of course using DTY as an IAF is not really necessary, since this is a home-brewed GPS approach, but perhaps desired for the exercise you’re conducting? For practical use I can’t see any particular reason not to have an ordinary T-shaped approach with north and south arrival options as well as straight in from the east and no involvement of DTY…
Cat A & B have the same MOC for obstacles but they differ in visibility & circle minimas (even with same AoB or DH)
But maybe none of this matters with 600ft agl & 4.5km vis as Cat A & B & C can fly while Cat D can’t 
