Flying Full Approach W/out PT

H

Hawkeye0914

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
4
Display Name
Display name:
James
Hello, I just took a look at the LOC BC RWY 2L at KSNA, and I am a little stumped on it. None of the feeder routes provide a great interception, and there is no procedure turn on the approach. Does anyone know what the correct way to fly the whole approach would be? I ask because there is no RADAR REQUIRED note, nor is there a published segment to do a course reversal if headed outbound on the localizer course.
 
Last edited:
seems like there should be a hold at MINOE or be a Radar procedure only
 
That's a good question. I wonder if it's "You're over the water, so terrain avoidance isn't an issue. PT as necessary in either direction to get established inbound."? Though that seems a little odd to me.

Hopefully someone who has flown this approach chimes in with how they've done it.
 
That's good to hear, I was beginning to think I was missing something on it.
 
mjburian said:
That's a good question. I wonder if it's "You're over the water, so terrain avoidance isn't an issue. PT as necessary in either direction to get established inbound."? Though that seems a little odd to me.

Hopefully someone who has flown this approach chimes in with how they've done it.
Click to expand...

Many a PT over the water in that area....a look at the FAA data could help determine if something got left off in error.
 
Minoe is a waypoint along the V25 airway. Your flight plan, if this is the expected procedure, would likely include V25 to Minoe. From 10 miles one should be able to intercept that backcourse without a full opposite deflection especially if you are approaching from the south.

Also note V25's MEA is 3000 ft. Coincidentally the exact same altitude you are supposed to be at (or above) on the approach plate.

There isn't a need for a feeder route because the approach shares a waypoint with an airway. The purpose of a feeder route is to transition you from the airway to the approach which isn't necessary here.

To add even more, what you are calling "feeder routes" aren't feeder routes at all. You are not supposed to fly from El Toro, LAX, or Seal Beach. El Toro and LAX are just Radials. Seal Beach is on there because that is your missed approach. Feeder routes are a thicker black line.

So this approach is available (without a PT or Radar Vectors) for those trotting on V25
 
Last edited:
And no PT is required off V25 because the turn to join the approach at the MINOE IAF is under 120 degrees. They could also clear an Advanced RNAV aircraft direct MINOE as an IF and then straight in as long as the arrival course at MINOE is within 90 degrees of the course out of MINOE. And, of course, vectors to final is also an option, although as with the "direct MINOE" clearance, radar would be required to clear you that way.
 
taters said:
Im betting a call to Jepp leads to a NOTAM ...had a similar problem a few years ago at Portland ME....mistakes happen, Jepp told me at any given moment 5% of all charts have errors.
Click to expand...

Mistakes do happen, but I don't see any in this procedure. The IAF is on an airway and the approach can be commenced from any direction on the airway. Since there is at least one way to fly the approach without using radar, it is not required, although I bet the majority of aircraft are vectored to the final approach course to fly the procedure. DME is also not required because all the intersections may be identified with a cross radial and a timing table is provided to determine the MAP location.
 
John Collins said:
Mistakes do happen, but I don't see any in this procedure. The IAF is on an airway and the approach can be commenced from any direction on the airway.
Click to expand...
However, there was a HPILPT, and now there isn't -- and it doesn't smell right without it. So, I think a query is in order.
 
Ron Levy said:
However, there was a HPILPT, and now there isn't -- and it doesn't smell right without it. So, I think a query is in order.
Click to expand...

John is correct.

When the IAF is part of the en route structure there is no requirement for feeder routes. (The OP misunderstands that there are no feeder routes on this IAP. VOR intersection fix radials are not necessarily feeder routes-Chart Reading 101.)

This would be a "RADAR REQUIRED" approach except policy limits those wherever possible, and especially at an airport with a part-time tower and part-time Class C airspace.

The former HILPT is something SoCal simply did not want, if for nothing else, to limit the practice approaches at this airport.
 
Hawkeye0914 said:
Hello, I just took a look at the LOC BC RWY 2L at KSNA, and I am a little stumped on it. None of the feeder routes provide a great interception, and there is no procedure turn on the approach. Does anyone know what the correct way to fly the whole approach would be? I ask because there is no RADAR REQUIRED note, nor is there a published segment to do a course reversal if headed outbound on the localizer course.
Click to expand...

What feeder routes? There aren't any.
'
 
taters said:
Im betting a call to Jepp leads to a NOTAM ...had a similar problem a few years ago at Portland ME....mistakes happen, Jepp told me at any given moment 5% of all charts have errors.
Click to expand...

Jeppesen can't issue NOTAMs. Only the FAA can. Jeppesen can, and does, correct their charts when they have made an error. There are no errors on this procedure, and both the Jepp and FAA charts are correct.

Following is the legal source. If the FAA had wanted a HILPT it would be entered on line 2. The entry they have instead makes it clear there is no HILPT.
KSNA%20LOC%20BC%202L-1_zps8igbgarx.jpg
 
John Collins said:
The IAF is on an airway and the approach can be commenced from any direction on the airway.
Click to expand...

Yet, on the RNAV Rwy 2L with the identical structure as the LOC BC, I am prohibited from entering from the NW on V-25. Classic case of the FAA tinkering with RNAV criteria that moves the system backwards.
 
aterpster said:
Jeppesen can't issue NOTAMs. Only the FAA can.
Click to expand...

correct but you can go through them...I have done it on 2 occasions for errors I have spotted on charts...both resulted in NOTAMS being published by the FAA....Jepp has a QA team that meets regularly and they work close with the FAA on this stuff.
 
aterpster said:
Yet, on the RNAV Rwy 2L with the identical structure as the LOC BC, I am prohibited from entering from the NW on V-25. Classic case of the FAA tinkering with RNAV criteria that moves the system backwards.
Click to expand...

Probably something to do with RNP. On GPS it's going to be in terminal mode there, 1 mile. How wide is full localizer needle deflection out there??
 
luvflyin said:
Probably something to do with RNP. On GPS it's going to be in terminal mode there, 1 mile. How wide is full localizer needle deflection out there??
Click to expand...

Great deduction - makes sense.
 
luvflyin said:
Probably something to do with RNP. On GPS it's going to be in terminal mode there, 1 mile. How wide is full localizer needle deflection out there??
Click to expand...

Nope. Someone at the FAA decided that RNAV systems won't sequence properly if the course change is greater than 90 degrees. It worked fine for years before that with course changes of up to 120 degrees.
 
aterpster said:
Nope. Someone at the FAA decided that RNAV systems won't sequence properly if the course change is greater than 90 degrees. It worked fine for years before that with course changes of up to 120 degrees.
Click to expand...

If they don't sequence properly, that wouldn't be good. I'm really new to GPS, getting back into flying after many years off and was raised on dials and needles. I'm thinking that 90 degree thing is probably from that T shaped approach thing that doesn't seem to have caught on all that well. What little GPS work I!ve done so far, things seem to sequence just fine with steep course changes
 
aterpster said:
The former HILPT is something SoCal simply did not want, if for nothing else, to limit the practice approaches at this airport.
Click to expand...
Clearly you asked someone to get that answer, so I think you must have thought a query was justified. However, since you already have that answer and have shared it, there's no need for another query at this point.
 
Ron Levy said:
Clearly you asked someone to get that answer, so I think you must have thought a query was justified. However, since you already have that answer and have shared it, there's no need for another query at this point.
Click to expand...

Not a query as such. My job in retirement is to look at every approach when it comes up for coordination (well, except for the major airline airports). Because KSNA is in my backyard, I pay particular attention to it. The coordination copies, as you surely know, provide reasons for changes. It didn't take much reading between the lines on this one.

Occasionally, I save the complete coordination package. I didn't do that for this one.

I know a lot of history about SoCal and KSNA.
 
Ron Levy said:
Clearly you asked someone to get that answer, so I think you must have thought a query was justified. However, since you already have that answer and have shared it, there's no need for another query at this point.
Click to expand...

On reflection, I will get a copy of the coordination 8260-5 as soon as my resources will permit. :yes:
 
Hawkeye0914 said:
Hello, I just took a look at the LOC BC RWY 2L at KSNA, and I am a little stumped on it. None of the feeder routes provide a great interception, and there is no procedure turn on the approach. Does anyone know what the correct way to fly the whole approach would be? I ask because there is no RADAR REQUIRED note, nor is there a published segment to do a course reversal if headed outbound on the localizer course.
Click to expand...

There are no feeder routes on this approach. None are required because the IAF, MINOE is on V25. There is no RADAR REQUIRED note because the procedure can be flown by pilot nav.
 
roncachamp said:
There are no feeder routes on this approach. None are required because the IAF, MINOE is on V25. There is no RADAR REQUIRED note because the procedure can be flown by pilot nav.
Click to expand...

Reading the thread first helps avoid redundant answers.
 
Wish those change explanations were available to the public. Would answer a lot of sheer curiosity questions about a lot of approaches.
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah, it would be nice if they retained a history of the coordination pages. Maybe no ones ever asked for it before.
Click to expand...

They were asked that exact question a couple of years ago quite directly, by a major alphabet group. Answer, "No way, we don't have the server capacity. Download those of interest to you during coordination and store them on your computer."
 
aterpster said:
Jeppesen can't issue NOTAMs. Only the FAA can. Jeppesen can, and does, correct their charts when they have made an error. There are no errors on this procedure, and both the Jepp and FAA charts are correct.

Following is the legal source. If the FAA had wanted a HILPT it would be entered on line 2. The entry they have instead makes it clear there is no HILPT.
KSNA%20LOC%20BC%202L-1_zps8igbgarx.jpg
Click to expand...

The notes section of the legal source shows "NA when control tower is closed." That note isn't anywhere on the published plate. Would hate to find that out when you arrive to shoot the approach after the CT closes! #alternates #havefuel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top