Dreaded Approach Becomes a Yawn

spiderweb

spiderweb

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
9,488
Display Name
Display name:
Ben
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1210/05222VDTZ15.PDF

I had to fly this in a non-GPS airplane back in 2005 when getting ready for my checkride--many times.

Using a G1000, it would be easy--just watch the altitude changes and manage power.

But this leads to a question to which I think I know the answer: How can this approach which was obviously designed only to torture instrument students now be made difficult again? :rofl:
 
Last edited:
spiderweb said:
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1210/05222VDTZ15.PDF

I had to fly this in a non-GPS airplane back in 2005 when getting ready for my checkride--many times.

Using a G1000, it would be easy--just watch the altitude changes and manage power.

But this leads to a question to which I think I know the answer: How can this approach which was obviously designed only to torture instrument students now be made difficult again? :rofl:
Click to expand...

How about, while flying the approach, argue whether or not it is legal to use GPS as primary guidance in lieu of DME inside the FAF. :)
 
That ones not too bad. Take a look at the ILS 13 into Provo UT, PVU

You start at one VOR, intercept an arc from a second VOR to intercept the ILS on a third frequency. The missed procedure follows an outbound radial from the second VOR and a turn to track a radial inbound to the first VOR where you started.
 
BillTIZ said:
That ones not too bad. Take a look at the ILS 13 into Provo UT, PVU

You start at one VOR, intercept an arc from a second VOR to intercept the ILS on a third frequency. The missed procedure follows an outbound radial from the second VOR and a turn to track a radial inbound to the first VOR where you started.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you'd better be on your game. That's a lot of balls to juggle.

Yup. That looks redicilous. Big rocks all around too.

y3ajunaz.jpg
 
spiderweb said:
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1210/05222VDTZ15.PDF

I had to fly this in a non-GPS airplane back in 2005 when getting ready for my checkride--many times.

Using a G1000, it would be easy--just watch the altitude changes and manage power.

But this leads to a question to which I think I know the answer: How can this approach which was obviously designed only to torture instrument students now be made difficult again? :rofl:
Click to expand...

Link is broken. You must have linked to last cycle's charts, which were removed yesterday.

What is the IAP?
 
BillTIZ said:
That ones not too bad. Take a look at the ILS 13 into Provo UT, PVU

You start at one VOR, intercept an arc from a second VOR to intercept the ILS on a third frequency. The missed procedure follows an outbound radial from the second VOR and a turn to track a radial inbound to the first VOR where you started.
Click to expand...

Better be on your A Game. Or better yet have a WAAS panel mount with VORLOCGS.
 
Hey Nate, there's an update you need to download! :)

(Those badges wreak havoc with the OCD in me!)
 
aterpster said:
Link is broken. You must have linked to last cycle's charts, which were removed yesterday.

What is the IAP?
Click to expand...

It's the approach in Maryland where you fly the DME arc as the final approach segment.
 
bbchien said:
...as in primay LATERAL guidance inside the FAF....
Click to expand...

Actually, you should be on the real LOC when the P-FAF becomes the active WP. The G-1000 will do that for you automatically if you are using it properly.

ILS procedures are designed for the localizer to be primary lateral as indicated on the approach chart.
 
aterpster said:
Actually, you should be on the real LOC when the P-FAF becomes the active WP. The G-1000 will do that for you automatically if you are using it properly.

ILS procedures are designed for the localizer to be primary lateral as indicated on the approach chart.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the approach Nate attached? Bruce is referring to the original IAP referenced. I don't think there is a LOC in that one.
 
Sam D said:
It's the approach in Maryland where you fly the DME arc as the final approach segment.
Click to expand...

That's not hard. It is, however, something you don't see often.
 
Sam D said:
Are you referring to the approach Nate attached? Bruce is referring to the original IAP referenced. I don't think there is a LOC in that one.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am referring to Provo.

If the OP is referring to that one and only DME ARC IAP in Maryland, that IAP is a bad example of everything. :eek:
 
Sam D said:
Hey Nate, there's an update you need to download! :)

(Those badges wreak havoc with the OCD in me!)
Click to expand...

I'll bet it's a DTP supplement for which the current version isn't yet on FF's server for download. When you download the one it wants you to, the one you have disappears and the one you just downloaded is marked EXPIRED, and now it wants you to get the one that just disappeared. If you had last cycle's supplement, you just downloaded the one from the cycle before that, and vice-versa. Infinite loop, and an annoying little bug that I assume lots of people have written to them about, so I never bothered to. Not sure why they haven't fixed it though.
 
BTW, as far as I know there aren't any approaches with DME arcs near me (haven't checked DTW though), so I've never been taught how to fly them. I believe I've read that the lead radial (e.g. PVU 302 on the ILS 23) is where you start to turn inbound to intercept the localizer, but does the FFU 360 radial have any function for traffic flying the arc, or is it on the chart only to help in identifying DICOT if you're coming in from JAURN?

It looks like one heck of a tough approach to fly, lots of juggling as Nate said, especially with all the terrain around there. I'd want a terrain DB update before trying that one for sure, or maybe even SVT.
 
aterpster said:
Yes, I am referring to Provo.

If the OP is referring to that one and only DME ARC IAP in Maryland, that IAP is a bad example of everything. :eek:
Click to expand...

I swear it is designed for training (torturing) IFR students, only!
 
spiderweb said:
I swear it is designed for training (torturing) IFR students, only!
Click to expand...

I see a restricted area right off to the east of that airport. Plus, you're near Baltimore. So, that strikes me as a convenient way to...

-Avoid the restricted area
-Avoid Baltimore
-Get a straight-in approach (which might otherwise not be available with other NavAids)

While it is a bit to juggle, I guess I don't see it as being that bad. I'd think it would be less work than a standard DME ARC to intercept an ILS or the like.

Now that one in Provo... that's a good one. I'd be very happy having a moving map GPS for extra situational awareness with all those rocks.
 
aterpster said:
Actually, you should be on the real LOC when the P-FAF becomes the active WP. The G-1000 will do that for you automatically if you are using it properly.

ILS procedures are designed for the localizer to be primary lateral as indicated on the approach chart.
Click to expand...
No LOC on the Martin State approach....VOR/DME 15.
 
Sam D said:
Hey Nate, there's an update you need to download! :)

(Those badges wreak havoc with the OCD in me!)
Click to expand...

Heh. Me too. As soon as the post was finished I went right back into FF and downloaded and then went to go find the other iGadget and do it too. ;) Completely disrupted what I was doing.

(I've had to turn the badge notifications off for things like News sites. I'd have to click on them whenever they were set. Notification Center also has a whole lot of things turned off. Pavlov and his damn dogs...)
 
azure said:
I'll bet it's a DTP supplement for which the current version isn't yet on FF's server for download. When you download the one it wants you to, the one you have disappears and the one you just downloaded is marked EXPIRED, and now it wants you to get the one that just disappeared. If you had last cycle's supplement, you just downloaded the one from the cycle before that, and vice-versa. Infinite loop, and an annoying little bug that I assume lots of people have written to them about, so I never bothered to. Not sure why they haven't fixed it though.
Click to expand...

Just for the record, no. It was an out of cycle airport database update. ;)
 
Oh and for thread assistance... so when the link dies again, this one will work...

agegegez.jpg
 
aterpster said:
Better be on your A Game. Or better yet have a WAAS panel mount with VORLOCGS.
Click to expand...

That would be too easy, do it in a Seneca II, one engine out, under the hood with NO GPS. The old fashioned way.
 
bbchien said:
No LOC on the Martin State approach....VOR/DME 15.
Click to expand...

I had no idea of the IAP when I posted my comment. The OP's link was broken at the time.

Having said that, my comment is still valid and applies to a normal VOR approach as well. Martin State is not a normal approach. It uses en route segment widths to the threshold and, if I recall correctly, intermediate segment ROC in the final segment.

So far as I know, it is the only DME ARC IAP in existence. Having final approach protected airspace of 6 miles each side of centerline at the runway threshold is normally not a productive approach design option.:)
 
spiderweb said:
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1210/05222VDTZ15.PDF

I had to fly this in a non-GPS airplane back in 2005 when getting ready for my checkride--many times.

Using a G1000, it would be easy--just watch the altitude changes and manage power.

But this leads to a question to which I think I know the answer: How can this approach which was obviously designed only to torture instrument students now be made difficult again? :rofl:
Click to expand...

TERPs designers don't think in terms of torturing students. The KMTN VOR DME RWY 15 IAP exists solely as an FAA monument to the provision in FAAO 8260.3B that permits DME ARC IAPs. It is inspectors and examiners who, in turn, latch on to this useless approach to torture instrument students.:rolleyes:

It is, however, a cinch to fly with a VOR RMI. But, very few light airplanes have one of those.

BTW, this approach is not in the G-1000 database, so you would have to manually fly it, albeit with a VOR RMI, but no VNAV.
 
aterpster said:
Martin State is not a normal approach......So far as I know, it is the only DME ARC IAP in existence. Having final approach protected airspace of 6 miles each side of centerline at the runway threshold is normally not a productive approach design option.:)
Click to expand...
That pretty much summarizes it.

I'm hunting for the reference that disallows GPS for lateral guidance within the IAF. This Martin State approach, with no "GPS" in the title, I think has to be flow from ground based navaids. Same thing that makes most ILS's "monitor only" for the gps....which needs switching over to to "loc" for the approach.

1-1-19 n(8) "Do not attempt to fly an approach unless the procedure in the on-board database is current and identified as "GPS" on the approach chart. The navigation database may contain information about non-overlay approach procedures that is intended to be used to enhance position orientation, generally by providing a map, whily flygin these approaches using conventional NAVAIDs. This approach information should not be confused with a GPS overlay approach". (etc. etc. etc.) :no:

So I'd be very interested to see if the G1000 is coded for doing this by DME and VOR or whether the GPS reprogramming allows this to be flown via a GPS datastream. It's a good bet that the original question is moot.
 
Last edited:
azure said:
BTW, as far as I know there aren't any approaches with DME arcs near me (haven't checked DTW though), so I've never been taught how to fly them. I believe I've read that the lead radial (e.g. PVU 302 on the ILS 23) is where you start to turn inbound to intercept the localizer, but does the FFU 360 radial have any function for traffic flying the arc, or is it on the chart only to help in identifying DICOT if you're coming in from JAURN?
Click to expand...

That is what a lead radial is for. The FFU 360 radial is unnecessary for identifying DICOT arriving from JAURN since DME is required to fly the approach. So, identifying DICOT with thr D 14.5 IPVU would be far similar and more precise. My guess about the FFU 360 radial is that it met criteria so the designer included it on the DICOT form. The FAA works that way.

It looks like one heck of a tough approach to fly, lots of juggling as Nate said, especially with all the terrain around there. I'd want a terrain DB update before trying that one for sure, or maybe even SVT.
Click to expand...

It really isn't that difficult although in a non-TAA airplane you need two VOR/LOC receivers (in addition to DME) to make the task manageable.

Flying a DME ARC at light airplane speeds is really quite easy. As you approach JETLI you lead the turn when the PVU DME reads 13.7, or so, and make a 90 degree turn to 043, then keep making small turns to the right, or sometimes to the left if you undershot or have a strong wind, to keep the PVU DME at 14.0. The PTS permits you plus or minus 1 mile on the ARC, and the protected airspace is 4 miles each side of centerline plus a 2 mile secondary each side of those primaries. If you have only one DME the tricky part is changing it from PVU to IPVU and then back to PVU for the missed approach.

BTW, the missed approach for this ILS used to be more complex than it is now.

Finally, some guys have forumulas for leading the turn onto an ARC. It can make it a bit more precise, but isn't really necessary.
 
bbchien said:
That pretty much summarizes it.

I'm hunting for the reference that disallows GPS for lateral guidance within the IAF. This Martin State approach, with no "GPS" in the title, I think has to be flow from ground based navaids. Same thing that makes most ILS's "monitor only" for the gps....which needs switching over to to "loc" for the approach.

1-1-19 n(8) "Do not attempt to fly an approach unless the procedure in the on-board database is current and identified as "GPS" on the approach chart. The navigation database may contain information about non-overlay approach procedures that is intended to be used to enhance position orientation, generally by providing a map, whily flygin these approaches using conventional NAVAIDs. This approach information should not be confused with a GPS overlay approach". (etc. etc. etc.) :no:

So I'd be very interested to see if the G1000 is coded for doing this by DME and VOR or whether the GPS reprogramming allows this to be flown via a GPS datastream. It's a good bet that the original question is moot.
Click to expand...

The approach is not in the G-1000 database but you do have an RMI to make it even easier to fly. I doubt the approach meets ARINC coding specs.

As to when you need to go from LNAV to VOR for a VOR IAP or LOC for an ILS or LOC approach, the navigation assumptions the gurus put together in TERPs presume switching at the IF. The Garmins do just that unless there is an intermediate stepdown fix or two. Then, it switches passing the last stepdown, which is technically incorrect. (It actually switches when the FAF becomes the active waypoint.) The engineers who designed the FMS coding concepts for ground-based IAPs didn't always take into account the TERPs requirements. A good example is the KFNT on-airport VOR Rwy 27 approach that begins the missed approach 6/10 of a mile too early, thus the turn is too early. I've asked around on that one and have, thus far, hit a stonewall.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I see a restricted area right off to the east of that airport. Plus, you're near Baltimore. So, that strikes me as a convenient way to...

-Avoid the restricted area
-Avoid Baltimore
-Get a straight-in approach (which might otherwise not be available with other NavAids)

While it is a bit to juggle, I guess I don't see it as being that bad. I'd think it would be less work than a standard DME ARC to intercept an ILS or the like.
Click to expand...

KMTN also has a LOC 15 and RNAV 15 with conventional length finals.
 
Wallops Island has a similar approach. That one is amusing in that the missed approach procedure is to just make a U-turn and fly back out to the arc to the the IAF and hold.
 
denverpilot said:
e7umedu3.jpg
Click to expand...

Another useless IAP. The criteria not only requires 500 feet of ROC in a 12 mile wide final approach segment, straight-in cannot be lower than circling, not that makes a difference.
 
aterpster said:
Another useless IAP. The criteria not only requires 500 feet of ROC in a 12 mile wide final approach segment, straight-in cannot be lower than circling, not that makes a difference.
Click to expand...

Ah, but that further strengthens my suspicion that useless IAPs were designed to torture students!
 
Now, Wallops Island's built on a swamp, and there's no place big enough to stomp- and if you do, you'll sink up to your neck.
 
spiderweb said:
You could still get an IP or CFI-IA demand you fly it, if only in a sim! :wink2:
Click to expand...

If they understood the criteria and the serious limitations of a DME ARC IAP, they should be putting the time to something far more productive.
 
aterpster said:
If they understood the criteria and the serious limitations of a DME ARC IAP, they should be putting the time to something far more productive.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that would be less fun for them. We all recognize the devilish grin of a CFI-IA who has just pushed his student just a wee beyond his workload capacities! (I get that same smile with my students!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top