Notation on approach plate help?

[800man]

Wondering if someone can make sense of a notation on a plate.

It's the new plates, for the VOR DME 09, at gatineau. CYND.

In the upper left it states 3000 from YOW vor to BIPRA, r-085, 11NM

Now, I know that's an operational note, used to indicate different transitions if the graphic would clutter the map.... But...

YOW to BIPRA on the r085 IS the approach! It starts at YOW, BIPRA is the faf, and the mda on the approach is 2400' 1300' then 1200 by BIPRA.

So why this above 3000 note???

Thanks, sorry I have no way of attaching the plate image.

[DanWEC]

Hmm, normally that would read to be in the opposite direction, say if the beacon was over the field, and your incoming heading to the field happened to be in the opposite direction of the approach, so then you were going outbound along the approach path after passing.
The NDB DME 09 is an example of the same notation, outbound.
This one I'm not 100% on however, given you could clearly descend below 3000 on the final course.

I'd take a stab that if you were joining the final path anywhere between the vor and the faf that 3000 would guarantee you obstacle clearance, but isn't that what the MSA is for?

[Sidebar]

3000 from YOW vor to BIPRA, r-085, 11NM

Normally an underlined altitude means a minimum altitude for that portion of the approach. So, not below 3000 until by BIPRA.

[SAR_YQQ]

Procedure turn altitude - since the YOW VOR is off site from Gatineau - if you were driving from YOW to BIPRA as your transition to starting the PT. Once you conduct the racetrack PT, you would be able to descend to the next altitude on the plate (old plate shows cross ETKER at 2400').

[wallypilot]

Procedure turn altitude - since the YOW VOR is off site from Gatineau - if you were driving from YOW to BIPRA as your transition to starting the PT. Once you conduct the racetrack PT, you would be able to descend to the next altitude on the plate (old plate shows cross ETKER at 2400').

Yup. Also, if you are using VNAV constant descent angle, you can stay at 3000 inbound to intercept the pseudo GP. Otherwise descent to 2400 is permitted once established inbound. It is much easier to understand on the Jeppesen plates.

[AOW]

It is not the PT altitude that s/he is asking about, it is the note in the top left corner, indicating 3000 minimum from YOW-BIRPA. This is inbound on the final approach course, so if you are established on that leg, you should be able to descend on the approach. I think what they were trying to do was give you a minimum altitude if you were transitioning to the approach from YOW, but still wanted to do a procedure turn when you reach BIRPA. Can't imagine who would choose to do that, but it is probably a carry over from procedures in mountainous areas where that kind of thing is actually required.

[turbo-prop]

The other interesting note on the plate is that the procedure turn is to the left but then in the vertical path box it says when within 10NM of BIPRA procedure turn is right.

['effin hippie]

Nope. The PT is right of IB track when you are outbound from BIPRA.

Whadda dog's breakfast...

The whole problem is because the IF is not at YOW but at ALSIP. So you need to be at 3000 till past ALSIP, aaaand stay there if you choose to do the full proc. till the PT is complete. Except sector is lower....

My head hurts and NavCan are idiots...seriously. Most of that crap seems like it doesn't need to be there.

Why isn't YOW the IF? Are there traffic considerations? Maybe some idiot on floats taking off under the MC bridge?

[DanWEC]

Seems to me that it's just a redundant notation. No Pt required (and yes, it is a right pt). However the stated pt altitude is 3000, and, if looking at manouvering room, the MSA in the area is 2900.

[photofly]

per TP308, instrument approach protected airspace floors cannot penetrate class F airspace (except in certain cases) so it looks like the PT altitude is governed by CYR537 and CYR538.

I can't find any reference but I think the MSA is governed by terain only, hence it can penetrate the restricted airspace (and in fact that is obviously the case by demonstration.)

That's a plausible explanation for the difference.