2 Questions on approaches

bluesky74656

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
746
Location
Brecksville, OH
Display Name

Display name:
Todd Kooser
Came up with two questions last night while doing some IFR work to which I didn't get good answers.

The first is on the VOR-A into 2G1.
zeru9a7a.jpg


How can you identify the FAF without DME?

Secondly, the SKY VOR recently went off the air. We tried to do the GPS overlay of a VOR-A approach off it, but ATC said they couldn't authorize it. If a VOR-A approach is unavailable due to the VOR being decommissioned, does that remove the overlaid GPS approach as well?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
How can you identify the FAF without DME?
You use GPS. No GPS or DME? No approach -- see the "DME Required" note and AIM Section 1-1-19/Table 1-1-6.
Secondly, the SKY VOR recently went off the air. We tried to do the GPS overlay of a VOR-A approach off it, but ATC said they couldn't authorize it. If a VOR-A approach is unavailable due to the VOR being decommissioned, does that remove the overlaid GPS approach as well?
No -- if they only issue was SKY VOR being OTS, ATC was wrong, and they were legal to clear you for the GPS version as long as you had an IFR approach GPS.
 
Came up with two questions last night while doing some IFR work to which I didn't get good answers.

The first is on the VOR-A into 2G1.

How can you identify the FAF without DME?

Without DME would require GPS. Such a fix should not be a FAF on a VOR approach.

Secondly, the SKY VOR recently went off the air. We tried to do the GPS overlay of a VOR-A approach off it, but ATC said they couldn't authorize it. If a VOR-A approach is unavailable due to the VOR being decommissioned, does that remove the overlaid GPS approach as well?

What VOR-A approach? If it's a "VOR or GPS-A" approach then it's still available when the VOR is out of service. If it's a "VOR-A" it's not available if the VOR is down.
 
You use GPS. No GPS or DME? No approach -- see the "DME Required" note and AIM Section 1-1-19/Table 1-1-6.
It's amazing how much information one can get from reading the notes on the approach chart.
 
It's amazing how much information one can get from reading the notes on the approach chart.

There's a note that says DME is required and minima with and without DME. It's amazing what garbage comes out of AeroNav.
 
There have been some interesting impacts on approaches with SKY being decommissioned. Here is one I got via email:

The VOR A approach into 5A1 is NOT AUTHORIZED.

The GPS 28 Approach into Norwalk will now be called Radar Required GPS 28, and will be the same with all minimums, EXCEPT the missed approach will be given directly by ATC and could be different for each flight, depending on traffic. Don't expect to hear the words "HOLD AS PUBLISHED" until the new approaches are active, January 2015. The Sandusky VOR will no longer be a hold point for the missed approach.
 
What VOR-A approach? If it's a "VOR or GPS-A" approach then it's still available when the VOR is out of service. If it's a "VOR-A" it's not available if the VOR is down.

Nor is it legal to fly it with a GPS (without a functioning VOR receiver aboard) even if the VOR was operational.

But I see this approach was VOR or GPS-A, technically they should have approved it except apparently there are NOTAMS overriding things.
 
Thanks for pointing out the DME Required note on the chart-- neither my instructor or I picked that out (we didn't actually fly it, we were just looking at some). Normally either it's in the title or it's in big letters on the plan view.

It was the Norfalk (5A1) VOR or GPS-A. The instructor was very inquisitive, he asked us a couple questions about the NDB approach we were flying at PCW. He told us that the SKY VOR was off the air so the VOR-A was unavailable. We told him we would fly the GPS overlay, but he came back a few minutes later and said that there were no authorized instrument approach procedures into Norwalk.

Wait a minute. I actually just found this:
!FDC 4/5435 5A1 IAP NORWALK-HURON COUNTY, NORWALK, OH.
GPS RWY 28, ORIG-A...
RADAR REQUIRED.
1406121423-1412121423EST

!FDC 4/5356 5A1 IAP NORWALK-HURON COUNTY, NORWALK, OH.
VOR OR GPS A, AMDT 5B...
PROCEDURE NA.
1406121423-1412121423EST

Ron, you were looking at the wrong of the two approaches I mentioned.
 
Last edited:
From whom? I just checked, and there is no FDC NOTAM making this approach NA.

https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/PilotW...eveLocId=2G1&actionType=notamRetrievalByICAOs

As such, even with the SKY VOR/DME decommissioned, it should be flyable with an approach GPS. I'd suggest contacting the QA office at the Cleveland TRACON to obtain a better explanation.

From an instructor. 5A1. Different area airport. I was just pointing out the cascading effects of SKY being decommissioned. Sorry to be confusing.

https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/PilotW...eveLocId=5A1&actionType=notamRetrievalByICAOs
 
Instructors are likely the greatest source of misinformation in aviation.

Read the rest of my post. Ron and I were talking about two different airports. I agree that instructors say wrong things, but I have to defend his honor :)
 
Ron, you were looking at the wrong of the two approaches I mentioned.
I was looking at approach graphic you put up in the original post. Didn't realize you were later talking about a different one. I agree that the one for 5A1 is covered by the FDC NOTAM you mentioned making the entire approach NA. However, in the absence of a similar FDC NOTAM on the approach for 2G1, that VOR or GPS-A approach should remain usable for IFR approach GPS aircraft. Again, I suggest contacting Cleveland TRACON QA shop to discuss it further.
 
The example at 2G1 in the OP should clearly be labeled VOR/DME or GPS-A. The "DME Required" in the notes box refers to the missed approach (source: the AIM and 8260.19F) and is also in error, as the missed approach in no way requires DME.

Identifying the FAF requires DME (or GPS), so DME should be in the chart title.

The "DME minimums" should not exist since any aircraft able to identify the FAF would also by necessity be able to identify the stepdown fix - so every aircraft would be able to get the lower minimums. Nor should it have a timing table.

Did TOMTA used to be made up on an intersection from another VOR? That's the only way this approach makes sense.
 
The example at 2G1 in the OP should clearly be labeled VOR/DME or GPS-A. The "DME Required" in the notes box refers to the missed approach (source: the AIM and 8260.19F) and is also in error, as the missed approach in no way requires DME.

Identifying the FAF requires DME (or GPS), so DME should be in the chart title.

The "DME minimums" should not exist since any aircraft able to identify the FAF would also by necessity be able to identify the stepdown fix - so every aircraft would be able to get the lower minimums. Nor should it have a timing table.

Did TOMTA used to be made up on an intersection from another VOR? That's the only way this approach makes sense.

I thought about that when this thread began but dismissed it because the "Orig-B" suggested only minor changes had been made to the approach since it was created. Losing a VOR that determined the FAF felt like a pretty big change, one that would warrant an amendment number. Your question prompted me to take a look.

TOMTA was formerly an intersection defined by the 127° radial of Lost Nation VOR-DME. LNN VOR-DME is no longer with us. The changes made due to the loss of the VOR don't make any sense. The "DME required" note is wrong, DME is not needed for the missed approach procedure. A timing table from a FAF that requires DME to determine doesn't make any sense. Lower DME minimums on an approach that requires DME for every post-IAF fix don't make any sense. For this to remain a VOR approach, not become a VOR/DME approach, would require moving the FAF back to Chardon and increasing the non-DME minimums to 2400.
 

Attachments

  • 2G1 VOR or GPS-A Orig.jpg
    2G1 VOR or GPS-A Orig.jpg
    318.1 KB · Views: 22
hmmm... it pays to know the maitre d', I guess. When I tried, it flat out told me the thread was too old to post on. :dunno:

In old threads, there's a check box at the bottom of the thread in the red alert area, that you acknowledge the thread is old but want to post to it anyway.
 
In old threads, there's a check box at the bottom of the thread in the red alert area, that you acknowledge the thread is old but want to post to it anyway.
Yeah, but this one is only 9 years old :D
 
Back
Top