FAA needs to hear from AOPA members on approach procedure cancellations

[HPNPilot1200]

Posted on the AOPA website, I found this pretty interesting. The FAA will be cancelling quite a few approaches around the US, and many of which are not older NDB approaches.

FAA needs to hear from AOPA members on approach procedure cancellations

The FAA is proposing to cancel some 270 instrument approach procedures that it considers underused or redundant. If you don't agree about one of those procedures, you need to write the FAA before May 31.
The FAA says the number of available instrument approaches has nearly doubled in the last decade, primarily because of the addition of GPS and GPS-WAAS procedures. The money to chart and maintain all of those approaches has not increased significantly.
"We want to help the FAA reduce costs, but not at the expense of things pilots need to safely use the National Airspace System," said Andy Cebula, AOPA executive vice president of government affairs. "Local knowledge is important. Only you know for sure if the approach the FAA thinks is unneeded still serves a useful purpose. So tell the FAA and AOPA, and we'll help fight to keep it if you need it."
Many of the procedures that the FAA wants to cancel are based on NDBs, which AOPA members have generally viewed as the last choice for IFR access to an airport. However, in this action the FAA isn't proposing to decommission the NDBs themselves, just some of the approach procedures. More information is available online.
(May 11)

 

[Michael]

the only way aviation is going to move forward, is to remove the old ways. Take away the NDB and maybe people will buy GPS equipment. Safer in my opinion.

 

[EdFred]

I'm with Michael on this.

 

[gismo]

First I've gotta say it would be a lot easier to consider this if there was a companion list of the retained approaches at each corresponding airport, or at least something showing what approach the FAA feels is redundant with the one being cancelled. I did find one or two in a casual comparison where the approach being removed is the only approach to a particular runway or the only such approach other than an NDB approach. An example is KPVD in Wisconsin where they are proposing to eliminate the VOR/DME or GPS 25 approach. The only remaining approach to this runway is the NDB 25 which doesn't have a GPS overlay. It makes no sense to me to remove an approach that uses more modern navaids (VOR/DME) which will remain since they are part of the airway network especially when that approach has a GPS overlay when they are leaving a NDB approach with no overlay that's based on a dedicated and obsolete navaid.

What I'd really like to see is some concrete assurance that they won't delete any approach that is the only procedure to a runway or that is the only alternative to NDB on that runway unless they first create a substitute GPS approach.

 

[gismo]

OK, I've looked all over the AOPA website and the links to the FAA list and letter but cannot find any suggested means of expressing an opinion to the FAA on this issue. Any ideas? I doubt that my posting here will accomplish anything useful to that end.

 

[EdFred]

Is it possible a "____ or GPS" approach will just be re-issued a GPS stand alone?

 

[Everskyward]

OK, I've looked all over the AOPA website and the links to the FAA list and letter but cannot find any suggested means of expressing an opinion to the FAA on this issue. Any ideas? I doubt that my posting here will accomplish anything useful to that end.

Here's the section from the AOPA newsletter with the address at the end.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]YOUR FEEDBACK NEEDED ON APPROACH CANCELLATIONS
The FAA is proposing to cancel some 270 instrument approach procedures that it considers underused or redundant. If you don't agree about one of those procedures, you need to write the FAA (postmarked by May 31). The FAA says the number of available instrument approaches has nearly doubled in the last decade, primarily because of the addition of GPS and GPS-WAAS procedures. The money to chart and maintain all of those approaches has not increased significantly. "We want to help the FAA reduce costs, but not at the expense of things pilots need to safely use the National Airspace System," said Andy Cebula, AOPA executive vice president of government affairs. "Local knowledge is important. Only you know for sure if the approach the FAA thinks is unneeded still serves a useful purpose. So tell the FAA and AOPA, and we'll help fight to keep it if you need it." Download the list of approaches. Letters should be sent to: National Flight Procedures Group, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125.[/FONT]

 

[gismo]

Here's the section from the AOPA newsletter with the address at the end.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Letters should be sent to: National Flight Procedures Group, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125.[/FONT]

I was hoping for an email address or website to post on. I don't even know if I can still write a real letter anymore.

 

[grattonja]

Is it possible a "____ or GPS" approach will just be re-issued a GPS stand alone?

I'm wondering about this also. I thought, a year or so ago, that they were only getting rid of underutilized NDB approaches. I don't see a point in getting rid of "VOR or GPS X" approaches. Unless they are looking to start decommissioning some of those VORs (which there has certainly been discussion of).

Jim G

 

[Ed Guthrie]

My sympathy for the FAA's budget woes would ratchet a notch greater if they FAA would take responsibility for GPS database subcription updates (IOW--available free via faa.gov, etc.). What we have now is a transfer of costs between the FAA and the users (FAA discontinues approaches to save money, user is forced to purchase equipment and pay annual fee to third party in order to use new approaches) without a commensurate reduction in FAA taxation.

IOW, for example, the FAA wishes to drop the Chapel Hill/Horace Williams VOR/DME RNAV RWY 9 approach which is the only approach available to that runway without a database subcription fee.

BTW, I flew that approach ~3 weeks ago. Given that I had to correct the controller 3 times before she cleared me for the correct approach (she kept clearing me for the GPS RNAV 9 approach), I can readily understand how the FAA statistics would show that approach as "under utilized".

 

[gismo]

I'm wondering about this also. I thought, a year or so ago, that they were only getting rid of underutilized NDB approaches. I don't see a point in getting rid of "VOR or GPS X" approaches. Unless they are looking to start decommissioning some of those VORs (which there has certainly been discussion of).

Jim G

Given that the impetus seems to be a reduction in the number of approaches and pages in the books, replacing a VOR or GPS with a GPS wouldn't go very far towards the goal.

 

[markb5900]

Replacing a VOR with a GPS = several thousand dollars now to get into some of these airports. Almost every plane has a VOR in it, how many have a IFR approach cert. gps???

 

[mdreger]

Originally Posted by AOPA
FAA needs to hear from AOPA members on approach procedure cancellations

This should work. Look how the FAA sat up and took notice when only 20K of us commented against the DC ADIZ.

the only way aviation is going to move forward, is to remove the old ways. Take away the NDB and maybe people will buy GPS equipment.

Could've said this about MLS approaches a few years ago.
We all were supposed to have installed Mode S transponders by now as well.

I'm with Ed on this. No reason why the FAA couldn't enforce a standard protocol for all IFR GPS's so that all of them read the same information the same way. That way, if I buy an AJAX IFR certified GPS this year, I will be able to use it for the next several years without fear that updates won't be available after AJAX goes out of business this fall, or simply decides not to support my particular model any more.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I did find one or two in a casual comparison where the approach being removed is the only approach to a particular runway or the only such approach other than an NDB approach. An example is KPVD in Wisconsin where they are proposing to eliminate the VOR/DME or GPS 25 approach. The only remaining approach to this runway is the NDB 25 which doesn't have a GPS overlay. It makes no sense to me to remove an approach that uses more modern navaids (VOR/DME) which will remain since they are part of the airway network especially when that approach has a GPS overlay when they are leaving a NDB approach with no overlay that's based on a dedicated and obsolete navaid.

Lance,

I looked at the other approaches at Platteville (KPVB - KPVD is in RI) and I think I know what their thinking is.

The VOR/DME RNAV or GPS 25 approach (note that it's not just VOR/DME) has straight-in mins of 1600-1 (the lowest mins on the plate). However, the GPS 33 approach has *circling* mins of 1500-1.

Without looking at all of them I can't be sure they're not really screwing some people up. They seem to be focusing on NDB and VOR/DME RNAV approaches. I'm sure Ed G is not happy, but who else on here uses VOR/DME RNAV? There aren't a whole lot of them left compared to GPS. (We had a rental here with a KNS 80 but it's being sold.)

Here's what we should do... Everyone look at the airports in your state (or others you use regularly), analyze each airport (what approaches remain? Would the lowest minimums go up? What equipment would be excluded?) and report back here so we have a better idea what the deal is.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Lance,

I looked at the other approaches at Platteville (KPVB - KPVD is in RI) and I think I know what their thinking is.

The VOR/DME RNAV or GPS 25 approach (note that it's not just VOR/DME) has straight-in mins of 1600-1 (the lowest mins on the plate). However, the GPS 33 approach has *circling* mins of 1500-1.

Without looking at all of them I can't be sure they're not really screwing some people up. They seem to be focusing on NDB and VOR/DME RNAV approaches. I'm sure Ed G is not happy, but who else on here uses VOR/DME RNAV? There aren't a whole lot of them left compared to GPS. (We had a rental here with a KNS 80 but it's being sold.)

Here's what we should do... Everyone look at the airports in your state (or others you use regularly), analyze each airport (what approaches remain? Would the lowest minimums go up? What equipment would be excluded?) and report back here so we have a better idea what the deal is.

Here's the report for Connecticut:

KDXR:
- VOR/DME RNAV 8 approach to be cancelled
-Minimums on the approach: 1320' (863') Straight-in
-There is already a GPS 8 approach that brings you down to 1260' (803') Straight-in
-Cancellation of this approach would mean the CMK VOR approach would not need to be used for any non-precision approach to runway 8 (Excluding the VOR/GPS-A)

- VOR/DME RNAV or GPS 26 approach to be cancelled
-Minimums on the approach: 1320' (863') Straight-in
-There is no other approach to runway 26 at Danbury (DXR)
-Cancellation of this approach would mean runway 26 would not be authorized to land under IFR unless you circled from the VOR/GPS-A or LOC or GPS-8 (opposite direction)
-Also note that circling south of runway 8-26 is not authorized (due to terrain)

KSNC:
- VOR/DME RNAV or GPS 17 approach to be cancelled
-Minimums on the approach: 980' (564') Straight-in, with local altimeter setting
-No other IAPs to runway 17 at Chester (SNC)

- VOR/DME RNAV or GPS 35 approach to be cancelled
-Minimums on the approach: 840' (424') Straight-in, with local altimeter setting
-No other IAPs to runway 35 at Chester (SNC)

The elimination of these two approaches at SNC would be that no IAPs would be available for the airport besides a VOR-GPS-A approach that brings you to 860' (444').

Putting those technicalities aside, the only real objection I have with the IAP cancellations in CT is the VOR/DME RNAV or GPS 26 because it is the only IAP to runway 26 at DXR. It is a frequently used practice approach when approaching from the east and is a very nice approach to have. I'm sad to see it go.

I look forward to seeing everyone elses posts regarding this issue.

Jason

 

[jdwatson]

I would presume those on the list with a "C" designation would be useless to raise concern for, only those in pending status. Correct ?

 

[HPNPilot1200]

I would presume those on the list with a "C" designation would be useless to raise concern for, only those in pending status. Correct ?

Not necessarily... Although the "C" means completed, those approaches will likely not be cancelled until the proposed cancellation date listed right of that column.

It is still worth discussing, regardless if the FAA has or hasn't made their final decision. Plus, it's fun and interesting!

 

[Everskyward]

I'm sure Ed G is not happy, but who else on here uses VOR/DME RNAV?

I was going to ask that question... until I read Ed G's post. As far as I can remember I have never done a VOR/DME RNAV approach.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Here's what we should do... Everyone look at the airports in your state (or others you use regularly), analyze each airport (what approaches remain? Would the lowest minimums go up? What equipment would be excluded?) and report back here so we have a better idea what the deal is.

OK, here's the deal in Wisconsin:

KMFI - Marshfield Municipal Airport
Cancelled approach: NDB 34
Remaining approaches: SDF 34, NDB or GPS 4, NDB 16, GPS 16
Analysis: Straight-in and circling mins are 1720-1. SDF 34 straight in is 1640-1/2; SDF 34 circling is 1700-1.
Who is affected: Pretty much nobody except my sadistic NDB-loving CFII.

KPVB - Platteville Municipal Airport
Cancelled approach: VOR/DME RNAV or GPS 25
Remaining approaches: NDB 25, GPS 33
Analysis: The GPS 33 circling minimums are 100 feet lower (same vis) as the VOR/DME RNAV or GPS 25 straight-in minimums. Thus, GPS users can get to runway 25 in lower weather with the remaining GPS approach.
Who is affected: IFR approach GPS aircraft are unaffected. VOR/DME RNAV users who have an ADF will have minimums 100 feet higher. VOR/DME RNAV users who do not have a GPS or an ADF are SOL.

KRPD - Rice Lake Regional - Carl's Field
Cancelled approach: NDB 1
Remaining approaches: ILS 1, GPS 1, VOR 1, VOR/DME 19, GPS 19
Analysis: Straight-in mins 1680-3/4, circling 1680-1. There's a freakin' ILS here people: 1301-1/2. For the glideslope-challenged, 1620-1/2 or the VOR approach. Note that the VOR approach requires DME to get lower mins than the NDB, otherwise it's 1740-1. Oh, and if all that weren't enough, the GPS approach to this runway is a WAAS approach, 1390-1/2 for those lucky enough to be so equipped.
Who is affected: Technophobes. For this to hurt you, you must have a plane with a single VOR without localizer/glideslope receivers or DME. Everyone else is flying the ILS or the spiffy new GPS-WAAS approach, both with MUCH lower mins than the cancelled approach. My CFII's response: "But what if the great purple Kaflurglefloggel lays an egg in your cowl and it eats all of your instruments except the needle, ball, airspeed, and ADF? How are you going to get on the ground before the Kaflurgleflogette eats you too?"

KSUE - Door County Cherryland
Cancelled approach: NDB 2
Remaining approaches: SDF 2, GPS 2, GPS 10, GPS 20, GPS 28
Analysis: This is a GPS lover's field! But, the SDF 2's minimums (straight and circling) beat the NDB 2's by 100 feet; those with approach-certified GPS can do 120 feet better still on the straight-in.
Who is affected: Again, pretty much nobody. CFII's response: "Mph, chefleegze!" (translation: "Mmm, cherries!")

 

[SCCutler]

Wow. No more NDB-A to NASA Shuttle; how will they ever land that beast now?

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Wow. No more NDB-A to NASA Shuttle; how will they ever land that beast now?

They'll have to fly it manually. Oh no!!! Manually!!! (See the end of this thread if you don't get it)