Bad Approach Name

luvflyin

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
15,750
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
Display Name

Display name:
Luvflyin
It's the VOR/DME RWY 31 at KLNS. Shouldn't that be the VOR RWY 31 with 'DME required' in the Equipment Requirements box? Or actually the VOR Z RWY 31 with the note, and the other VOR RWY 31 there being named the VOR Y RWY 31.
 
It's the VOR/DME RWY 31 at KLNS. Shouldn't that be the VOR RWY 31 with 'DME required' in the Equipment Requirements box? Or actually the VOR Z RWY 31 with the note, and the other VOR RWY 31 there being named the VOR Y RWY 31.
Only when a revision is made.
 
I thought of that, but the last date was Amdt 4D 07OCT21. What's the difference between revision and amendment?

Revision is I believe a date the last time the IAP was changed for any reason. Amendment Numbers are individual procedural changes to the IAP and have an effective date of when it actually got into the AIRAC cycle. It's in the CUG.
 
I flew this approach a few weeks ago too. Yeah, QUALE is 3.4 from LRP and I agree - it should use the new format with the equipment required sub-box like newer FAA charts.
 
I flew this approach a few weeks ago too. Yeah, QUALE is 3.4 from LRP and I agree - it should use the new format with the equipment required sub-box like newer FAA charts.
Yeah. Just change the names, add the note. Doesn't need any recalculation of anything or a flight check or anything all that complicated.
 
I flew this approach a few weeks ago too. Yeah, QUALE is 3.4 from LRP and I agree - it should use the new format with the equipment required sub-box like newer FAA charts.

The last amendment (4D) was made via NOTAM. The procedure name cannot be changed via NOTAM. Upon the next amendment (if not by NOTAM), the name should be updated. These names will all gradually get updated as they are amended (except if by NOTAM).

https://www.faa.gov/aero_docs/acifp...E416-LNS-NDBR/P-NOTAM_PA_LNS_VD31_AMDT 4D.pdf

"Why" can't the name be updated via NOTAM? Because the 8260.19I says so. It's just a policy reason.
 
The last amendment (4D) was made via NOTAM. The procedure name cannot be changed via NOTAM. Upon the next amendment (if not by NOTAM), the name should be updated. These names will all gradually get updated as they are amended (except if by NOTAM).

https://www.faa.gov/aero_docs/acifp/NDBR/CB824AAEE34D4876A4ED84173DE7E416-LNS-NDBR/P-NOTAM_PA_LNS_VD31_AMDT 4D.pdf

"Why" can't the name be updated via NOTAM? Because the 8260.19I says so. It's just a policy reason.
Can it be changed via Amendment?
 
Yes, by either a full amendment or by a non-NOTAM abbreviated amendment.
Seems like it would be pretty easy. Shouldn't need any TERPy type studies, flight checks or anything. No changes to minimums or anything. Just push a couple buttons and it, they in this case, and poof, they have a new name and format. At the Chart cycle date of course. Ain't no big deal, ya fly what yer cleared for. But just get the consistency with the new Naming Convention. But I'm probably missing something.
 
It's the VOR/DME RWY 31 at KLNS. Shouldn't that be the VOR RWY 31 with 'DME required' in the Equipment Requirements box? Or actually the VOR Z RWY 31 with the note, and the other VOR RWY 31 there being named the VOR Y RWY 31.

Did you believe you could execute the approach only VOR or only DME?
 
Did you believe you could execute the approach only VOR or only DME?
No. Put GPS aside for a second. The VOR/DME 31 would require both. The VOR 31, just VOR. With GPS, you'd need a VOR to at least monitior the Final Approach Course for both.
 
No. Put GPS aside for a second. The VOR/DME 31 would require both. The VOR 31, just VOR. With GPS, you'd need a VOR to at least monitior the Final Approach Course for both.

Maybe I am just too old schools and it’s too early on a Sunday morning. There is an RNAV 31 approach using the same fixes at LNS date 7 Oct 2021 with lower LPV minimums.

There is a VOR/DME 31 requiring both VOR and DME as the title indicates.

Why would changing the name to VOR 31 with a DME required note be better? The only navigation equipment needed for the approach, the missed, and holds is VOR/DME.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I am just too old schools and it’s too early on a Sunday morning. There is an RNAV 31 approach using the same fixes at LNS date 7 Oct 2021 with lower LPV minimums.

There is a VOR/DME 31 requiring both VOR and DME as the title indicates.

Why would changing the name to VOR 31 with a DME required note be better?
There is also an existing VOR RWY 31 Approach. So changing the VOR/DME RWY 31 to the new format would leave two VOR 31’s. The one that is now the VOR/DME would need the DME required note. The reason to change it is because that’s the way it’s done now. The /DME in the name of the Approach is the old way. Most of the old /DME ones have already been changed.
 
There is also an existing VOR RWY 31 Approach. So changing the VOR/DME RWY 31 to the new format would leave two VOR 31’s. The one that is now the VOR/DME would need the DME required note. The reason to change it is because that’s the way it’s done now. The /DME in the name of the Approach is the old way. Most of the old /DME ones have already been changed.

All the VOR 31 approaches will likely be deleted before the change occurs as will the circling minimums if one survives.
 
Last edited:
Seems like it would be pretty easy. Shouldn't need any TERPy type studies, flight checks or anything. No changes to minimums or anything. Just push a couple buttons and it, they in this case, and poof, they have a new name and format. At the Chart cycle date of course. Ain't no big deal, ya fly what yer cleared for. But just get the consistency with the new Naming Convention. But I'm probably missing something.

Now, I'm not saying it "shouldn't" be this easy. But in practice, it's typically not. My least favorite words from my boss are "here, I got an easy one for you". Ugh. There usually is no such thing.

As I look at the LNS VOR/DME RWY 31, I see several things that should be brought up to current standards.
- Naming convention (change to VOR RWY 31) and addition of the Equipment Requirements Note box to say "DME Required".
-- As previously mentioned, there is already a VOR RWY 31, so one would have to become the VOR Y RWY 31 and one the VOR Z RWY 31 - or, coordinate with users/ATC/etc to see if both are really required.
-- If both are still required, then the other procedure would be checked for the same type of things I'll mention next.
- The "Night Landing: RWY 13, 31 NA" note is no longer current. The current format is "Circling RWY 13, 31 NA at night."
- The "Helicopter visibility" note is no longer current. It should now specify the runway, so in this case should read "RWY 31 helicopter visibility..."
-- I would typically go the next step here and verify if the helicopter note is still needed, or if it should be changed to 3/4 SM, since that note is due to penetrations of the visual segment 20:1 and/or 34:1, and those evaluations changed several years ago.
- I would check the backup altimeter note to make sure the increase still meets criteria.
- The missed approach uses the word "via", which should be changed to "on". Yes, really. No, I don't know why.
- Hold-in-lieu-of-PT's get a maximum holding altitude charted as well.

Note that none of these required any TERPS evaluation (except for the backup altimeter notes, and that's really just a lookup table, not a big deal, and the helicopter note re-evaluation). They could all be accomplished by an abbreviated amendment (making it amendment 4E), and without flight check involvement. There is a whole policy memo on what things have to be flown by flight check and which ones don't. It gets arcane.

Also note, there are two types of amendments, with one subtype.
- Full amendments. These get a new number (Amdt 5) and the procedure must be brought up to current criteria and charting standards. They require Flight Check.
- Abbreviated amendments. These get a new letter (Amdt 4E) and only partial changes are generally made. Many changes CANNOT be done by an abbreviated amendment - such as any change in route, or lowering of minimum altitudes. Those require a full amendment. Often, abbreviated amendments do not require a flight check. Typically these amendments are for notes, or for raising an altitude.
-- Abbreviated amendment via NOTAM. These also get a new letter but the change is not disseminated via the 8260-series forms, but through NOTAM action. There is an even smaller subset of changes that can be made via NOTAM.

Then, there are "non-amendment" changes. These do not get a new amendment number or letter, but do get a new Julian date. These are typically things like AWOS frequency updates, or something on the airport diagram.
 
Last edited:
Now, I'm not saying it "shouldn't" be this easy. But in practice, it's typically not. My least favorite words from my boss are "here, I got an easy one for you". Ugh. There usually is no such thing.

As I look at the LNS VOR/DME RWY 31, I see several things that should be brought up to current standards.
- Naming convention (change to VOR RWY 31) and addition of the Equipment Requirements Note box to say "DME Required".
-- As previously mentioned, there is already a VOR RWY 31, so one would have to become the VOR Y RWY 31 and one the VOR Z RWY 31 - or, coordinate with users/ATC/etc to see if both are really required.
-- If both are still required, then the other procedure would be checked for the same type of things I'll mention next.
- The "Night Landing: RWY 13, 31 NA" note is no longer current. The current format is "Circling RWY 13, 31 NA at night."
- The "Helicopter visibility" note is no longer current. It should now specify the runway, so in this case should read "RWY 31 helicopter visibility..."
-- I would typically go the next step here and verify if the helicopter note is still needed, or if it should be changed to 3/4 SM, since that note is due to penetrations of the visual segment 20:1 and/or 34:1, and those evaluations changed several years ago.
- I would check the backup altimeter note to make sure the increase still meets criteria.
- The missed approach uses the word "via", which should be changed to "on". Yes, really. No, I don't know why.
- Hold-in-lieu-of-PT's not get a maximum holding altitude charted as well.

Note that none of these required any TERPS evaluation (except for the backup altimeter notes, and that's really just a lookup table, not a big deal, and the helicopter note re-evaluation). They could all be accomplished by an abbreviated amendment (making it amendment 4E), and without flight check involvement. There is a whole policy memo on what things have to be flown by flight check and which ones don't. It gets arcane.

Also note, there are two types of amendments, with one subtype.
- Full amendments. These get a new number (Amdt 5) and the procedure must be brought up to current criteria and charting standards. They require Flight Check.
- Abbreviated amendments. These get a new letter (Amdt 4E) and only partial changes are generally made. Many changes CANNOT be done by an abbreviated amendment - such as any change in route, or lowering of minimum altitudes. Those require a full amendment. Often, abbreviated amendments do not require a flight check. Typically these amendments are for notes, or for raising an altitude.
-- Abbreviated amendment via NOTAM. These also get a new letter but the change is not disseminated via the 8260-series forms, but through NOTAM action. There is an even smaller subset of changes that can be made via NOTAM.

Then, there are "non-amendment" changes. These do not get a new amendment number or letter, but do get a new Julian date. These are typically things like AWOS frequency updates, or something on the airport diagram.
Thanks for taking the time. Very informative.
 
Last edited:
Now, I'm not saying it "shouldn't" be this easy. But in practice, it's typically not. My least favorite words from my boss are "here, I got an easy one for you". Ugh. There usually is no such thing.

As I look at the LNS VOR/DME RWY 31, I see several things that should be brought up to current standards.
- Naming convention (change to VOR RWY 31) and addition of the Equipment Requirements Note box to say "DME Required".
-- As previously mentioned, there is already a VOR RWY 31, so one would have to become the VOR Y RWY 31 and one the VOR Z RWY 31 - or, coordinate with users/ATC/etc to see if both are really required.
-- If both are still required, then the other procedure would be checked for the same type of things I'll mention next.
- The "Night Landing: RWY 13, 31 NA" note is no longer current. The current format is "Circling RWY 13, 31 NA at night."
- The "Helicopter visibility" note is no longer current. It should now specify the runway, so in this case should read "RWY 31 helicopter visibility..."
-- I would typically go the next step here and verify if the helicopter note is still needed, or if it should be changed to 3/4 SM, since that note is due to penetrations of the visual segment 20:1 and/or 34:1, and those evaluations changed several years ago.
- I would check the backup altimeter note to make sure the increase still meets criteria.
- The missed approach uses the word "via", which should be changed to "on". Yes, really. No, I don't know why.
- Hold-in-lieu-of-PT's get a maximum holding altitude charted as well.

Note that none of these required any TERPS evaluation (except for the backup altimeter notes, and that's really just a lookup table, not a big deal, and the helicopter note re-evaluation). They could all be accomplished by an abbreviated amendment (making it amendment 4E), and without flight check involvement. There is a whole policy memo on what things have to be flown by flight check and which ones don't. It gets arcane.

Also note, there are two types of amendments, with one subtype.
- Full amendments. These get a new number (Amdt 5) and the procedure must be brought up to current criteria and charting standards. They require Flight Check.
- Abbreviated amendments. These get a new letter (Amdt 4E) and only partial changes are generally made. Many changes CANNOT be done by an abbreviated amendment - such as any change in route, or lowering of minimum altitudes. Those require a full amendment. Often, abbreviated amendments do not require a flight check. Typically these amendments are for notes, or for raising an altitude.
-- Abbreviated amendment via NOTAM. These also get a new letter but the change is not disseminated via the 8260-series forms, but through NOTAM action. There is an even smaller subset of changes that can be made via NOTAM.

Then, there are "non-amendment" changes. These do not get a new amendment number or letter, but do get a new Julian date. These are typically things like AWOS frequency updates, or something on the airport diagram.

You're an excellent information resource, Russ!
 
Back
Top