Especially for Fast 'n Furious

wangmyers said:
Why is this a "-E" instead of a "Loc Rwy 15?" Is it because of the missed?

http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060119/SW-1/ase_loc_dme_e.pdf

Thanks!
Well, I'm not Fast 'n Furious but,
I may be wrong, but I seem to remember something about every time something is changed on an approach they rename it with a new letter. Starting with A, B,C, etc....
Take this info with a grain of salt, I have so many things bouncing around in my brain right now I may be way off.
Don
 
Last edited:
wangmyers said:
Why is this a "-E" instead of a "Loc Rwy 15?" Is it because of the missed?

http://download.aopa.org/iap/20060119/SW-1/ase_loc_dme_e.pdf

Thanks!

First, there are no straight in mins so it must have a letter designator rather than a runway designator at the end of the name. Second, I suspect that there were other circling approaches since abandoned that bore the letters A,B, and D.
 
Ben, I'm going to have to do a wholesale edit on my response as I don't have neither the approach build or the waivers in front of me. I'll look tomorrow, promise. Anyway, in general, even when a final approach course in aligned with a runway BUT the decent gradient is excessive (I think this approach qualifies!) it is circling only and the title of the approach and lack of straight in minima reflects that. It could be that the requirements of the missed are driving the high mins but I'd rather give you the definite answer than a swag.
 
Last edited:
lancefisher said:
First, there are no straight in mins so it must have a letter designator rather than a runway designator at the end of the name. Second, I suspect that there were other circling approaches since abandoned that bore the letters A,B, and D.
Lance and DJones: I should have been more complete in my question. I understand the whole concept of having a letter at the end. (I probably would have failed my oral, otherwise.) I am more interested in why there are no straight-in mins here. Dr. Bruce's contention is that it may be because of the missed.
 
Fast n' Furious said:
Ben, I'm going to have to do a wholesale edit on my response as I don't have neither the approach build or the waivers in front of me. I'll look tomorrow, promise. Anyway, in general, even when a final approach course in aligned with a runway BUT the decent gradient is excessive (I think this approach qualifies!) it is circling only and the title of the approach and lack of straight in minima reflects that. It could be that the requirements of the missed are driving the high mins but I'd rather give you the definite answer than a swag.
Thanks! Yep--I know about the general reasoning behind it, but I suspect that like you guess, it is because of the missed.

Also, the circling looks crazy there!
 
I am 100% certain that the circling only mins are a result of the descent gradient between the final approach fix and the missed approach point, Ben. What I am unsure of is whether that MAP has been backed up as far as it has to allow for a missed approach path with no positive guidence (you're on a heading until you join the LOC course) or whether obstacles are being picked up on final that drive the mins way up, or maybe both. There are so many waivers and grandfather clauses to this approach that every time I see a question about it, I cringe.
 
Fast n' Furious said:
I am 100% certain that the circling only mins are a result of the descent gradient between the final approach fix and the missed approach point, Ben. What I am unsure of is whether that MAP has been backed up as far as it has to allow for a missed approach path with no positive guidence (you're on a heading until you join the LOC course) or whether obstacles are being picked up on final that drive the mins way up, or maybe both. There are so many waivers and grandfather clauses to this approach that every time I see a question about it, I cringe.
Thanks, and sorry for the cringe!
 
Back
Top