HI-VOR approach in a 172?

D

drummer4468

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 5, 2020
Messages
305
Display Name
Display name:
drummer4468
Hey all, having a brainfart and looking for a sanity check.

I fly in and out of KBGR all the time and realized have never requested a VOR approach there. The only ones they have published are the HI-VORs (KBGR is shared with an Air National Guard base). I like practicing new/abnormal procedures to break away from the same old ILS and GPS repetition.

Question 1: Here's the brainfart, I feel like I should know this but my google skills are failing me tonight. For the HI approaches, only cat C,D,and E mins are published. Would I be legal to fly this approach at cat A or B speeds? Whether under official IFR or VFR practice(while talking to BGR Approach) if that makes a difference? Sequence permitting of course, I realize these are intended for fast slippery mil jets, though the geometry in the last few segments seems fine for a Skyhawk

Question 2: If I do request this approach, could I ask to be vectored intercept the approach course closer than the last intermediate fix, before the FAF? Plate attached, I'm referring to intercepting between RINTH and CESTI(FAF). Just for the sake of saving time and not climbing so high to drone out a 16+ mile final.

Thanks for any input. I'd rather chance getting digital egg on my face than sound like a moron on freq lol.
 

Attachments

  • 00039HVDT15.PDF
    168.6 KB · Views: 47
Why not just fly it really fast, as a C or D?
 
I do not have the answer to your question, but many times in that situation the mins are based on missed approach speeds and obstacles on the missed.

No clue about A & B cats.
 
ja_user said:
Why not just fly it really fast, as a C or D?
Click to expand...

I suppose I could do that, really shouldn't have any problems slowing it up with 1.5nm to go at mins. A little more challenging than usual, but hey that's what I'm doing it for. I just have to pay more attention as it puts me over flap speed and would change the standard routine of "flaps 10 at FAF" that's been drilled into me.
 
Kritchlow said:
I do not have the answer to your question, but many times in that situation the mins are based on missed approach speeds and obstacles on the missed.

No clue about A & B cats.
Click to expand...

There are no obstacles of concern to my knowledge, but that was another consideration I had. Even if I rip down final at 120+, I'd be going missed at 85. Doesn't seem like an issue to me given no obstacles, but its not a situation i've ever encountered.
 
drummer4468 said:
There are no obstacles of concern to my knowledge, but that was another consideration I had. Even if I rip down final at 120+, I'd be going missed at 85. Doesn't seem like an issue to me given no obstacles, but its not a situation i've ever encountered.
Click to expand...
I really do not know, but perhaps there are obstacles close in???

@aterpster would be the authority on this.
 
drummer4468 said:
Hey all, having a brainfart and looking for a sanity check.

I fly in and out of KBGR all the time and realized have never requested a VOR approach there. The only ones they have published are the HI-VORs (KBGR is shared with an Air National Guard base). I like practicing new/abnormal procedures to break away from the same old ILS and GPS repetition.

Question 1: Here's the brainfart, I feel like I should know this but my google skills are failing me tonight. For the HI approaches, only cat C,D,and E mins are published. Would I be legal to fly this approach at cat A or B speeds? Whether under official IFR or VFR practice(while talking to BGR Approach) if that makes a difference? Sequence permitting of course, I realize these are intended for fast slippery mil jets, though the geometry in the last few segments seems fine for a Skyhawk

Question 2: If I do request this approach, could I ask to be vectored intercept the approach course closer than the last intermediate fix, before the FAF? Plate attached, I'm referring to intercepting between RINTH and CESTI(FAF). Just for the sake of saving time and not climbing so high to drone out a 16+ mile final.

Thanks for any input. I'd rather chance getting digital egg on my face than sound like a moron on freq lol.
Click to expand...
As far as the ABCDE category thing goes, you can fly slower. Ain’t no law agin that. So that’s not a factor in your question. A plane that is like a category D plane still has to comply with D mins, even if they fly it slower. A category B that flies it at C speed however, must use C speeds. Obviously no factor for you.
There is not a Controller rule against vectoring to final that I know off.
 
Last edited:
I think that flying an approach at category A or B speeds when only category C and D minimums are published just means that you don't get the benefit of reduced minimums that you could otherwise get from the lower speeds.
 
luvflyin said:
There is not a Controller rule against vectoring to final that I know off.
Click to expand...

That makes "duh" sense to me now, when you put it like that. I've just always been vectored to final either outside or direct the last fix before FAF.

Palmpilot said:
I think that flying an approach at category A or B speeds when only category C and D minimums are published just means that you don't get the benefit of reduced minimums that you could otherwise get from the lower speeds.
Click to expand...

That's the impression I've always had. I'm totally cool with higher published mins being that it's just a practice approach for fun.
 
ja_user said:
Why not just fly it really fast, as a C or D?
Click to expand...
Using that logic, on an IAP that has A and B only, can a Category C airplane fly it if the pilot doesn't exceed 120 knots, IAS?
 
aterpster said:
Using that logic, on an IAP that has A and B only, can a Category C airplane fly it if the pilot doesn't exceed 120 knots, IAS?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't want to be a passenger (or the pilot!) in either the C172 trying an instrument approach at Category C speeds, nor the ( insert make/model) trying to fly at Category B speeds.

Wooooo! No thanks.
 
Palmpilot said:
I think that flying an approach at category A or B speeds when only category C and D minimums are published just means that you don't get the benefit of reduced minimums that you could otherwise get from the lower speeds.
Click to expand...

The missed approach is straight ahead, so there would be no benefit for lower Cats as far as MDA is concerned. Visibility minimums would be lower for A/B.

Only Cats C-E are published on HI procedures due to policy, there's no Terps reason prohibiting it.
 
I suspect mostly because they never felt that the anybody other than the military fast movers would want to do one. Saved them an hour working up the A/B category minimums.
 
drummer4468 said:
Hey all, having a brainfart and looking for a sanity check.

I fly in and out of KBGR all the time and realized have never requested a VOR approach there. The only ones they have published are the HI-VORs (KBGR is shared with an Air National Guard base). I like practicing new/abnormal procedures to break away from the same old ILS and GPS repetition.

Question 1: Here's the brainfart, I feel like I should know this but my google skills are failing me tonight. For the HI approaches, only cat C,D,and E mins are published. Would I be legal to fly this approach at cat A or B speeds? Whether under official IFR or VFR practice(while talking to BGR Approach) if that makes a difference? Sequence permitting of course, I realize these are intended for fast slippery mil jets, though the geometry in the last few segments seems fine for a Skyhawk

Question 2: If I do request this approach, could I ask to be vectored intercept the approach course closer than the last intermediate fix, before the FAF? Plate attached, I'm referring to intercepting between RINTH and CESTI(FAF). Just for the sake of saving time and not climbing so high to drone out a 16+ mile final.

Thanks for any input. I'd rather chance getting digital egg on my face than sound like a moron on freq lol.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah. Be sure to sound cool when you do it. Like say Tallyho when you have traffic in sight
 
RussR said:
The missed approach is straight ahead, so there would be no benefit for lower Cats as far as MDA is concerned. Visibility minimums would be lower for A/B.

Only Cats C-E are published on HI procedures due to policy, there's no Terps reason prohibiting it.
Click to expand...
KBGR is a joint use airport. I see those Approaches are (USAF) and the others are (FAA). I'm assuming you meant TERPS in the generic sense. But I am wondering. Would the FAA ever be the Approach building authority for one of these? Or even a Low Altitude TACAN Approach
 
Is this a Part 97 approach?
§ 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.
(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United States military aircraft.
Click to expand...
 
aterpster said:
Just guessing. Not Part 97 rather some USAF regulation.
Click to expand...
Would that be the “AL-39 [USAF]” on the government plate and/or the “TERPS MIL [USAF]” on Jepp?

…in which case, @drummer4468 , you can’t fly the approach because it’s not a civilian approach.
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
KBGR is a joint use airport. I see those Approaches are (USAF) and the others are (FAA). I'm assuming you meant TERPS in the generic sense. But I am wondering. Would the FAA ever be the Approach building authority for one of these? Or even a Low Altitude TACAN Approach
Click to expand...

Yes, the FAA has responsibility for some HI procedures (mostly the ones at joint-use fields like BGR). But you're not going to be able to tell by looking at the chart, they will still say "USAF" as they were developed "for" the USAF and charted by NGA for the USAF, not by the FAA - so you'll see the charts look a little different.

For low procedures, though, things are like "normal". For an example of (low) TACAN procedures where the FAA has responsibility, see BLV.

upload_2022-5-26_11-10-28.png


flyingron said:
I suspect mostly because they never felt that the anybody other than the military fast movers would want to do one. Saved them an hour working up the A/B category minimums.
Click to expand...

It's just a policy decision. FAAO 8260.32F, "United States Air Force Terminal Instrument Procedure Service":

upload_2022-5-26_11-11-39.png
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
Would that be the “AL-39 [USAF]” on the government plate and/or the “TERPS MIL [USAF]” on Jepp?

…in which case, @drummer4468 , you can’t fly the approach because it’s not a civilian approach.
Click to expand...
Don't know. What I do know is that a lot of civilian airplanes fly into and out of Edwards AFB. You have to be on a contract to do it. I did it in the early 1960s for JPL. If I were going there today, I could certainly use the ILS to Runway 23 if the weather required it. I couldn't use it if it was marked "Not for Civil Use."
 
aterpster said:
Don't know. What I do know is that a lot of civilian airplanes fly into and out of Edwards AFB. You have to be on a contract to do it. I did it in the early 1960s for JPL. If I were going there today, I could certainly use the ILS to Runway 23 if the weather required it. I couldn't use it if it was marked "Not for Civil Use."
Click to expand...
Ok…”Not for Civil Use” should be the trigger on that.
 
It says they have to create C/D/E category minimums, doesn't say they can't make A/B. But since they don't have to, the didn't.
 
aterpster said:
Don't know. What I do know is that a lot of civilian airplanes fly into and out of Edwards AFB. You have to be on a contract to do it. I did it in the early 1960s for JPL. If I were going there today, I could certainly use the ILS to Runway 23 if the weather required it. I couldn't use it if it was marked "Not for Civil Use."
Click to expand...
I haven't seen Not for Civil Use in a while. It used to be on the TACAN RWY 36 at KNZY, but not anymore. I don't see anything about the Approach that has changed. It's not on the current KEDW Approach either. @RussR , is Not For Civil Use not a thang anymore?
 
luvflyin said:
I haven't seen Not for Civil Use in a while. It used to be on the TACAN RWY 36 at KNZY, but not anymore. I don't see anything about the Approach that has changed. It's not on the current KEDW Approach either. @RussR , is Not For Civil Use not a thang anymore?
Click to expand...
It's still in TERPs:

Military IFPs that deviate from standards because of operational necessity, and in which an equivalent level of safety is not achieved, must be marked “NOT FOR CIVIL USE.”
 
aterpster said:
It's still in TERPs:

Military IFPs that deviate from standards because of operational necessity, and in which an equivalent level of safety is not achieved, must be marked “NOT FOR CIVIL USE.”
Click to expand...
Ok. I guess they musta changed some of the 'numbers' on the NZY one. Looks the same to me. But it's been awhile and I really don't remember what the Minimums were.
 
If you fly a 172 faster you can to use the higher category minimums. You can’t fly a large jet slower and use a/b, if you are a C
 
ja_user said:
If you fly a 172 faster you can to use the higher category minimums. You can’t fly a large jet slower and use a/b, if you are a C
Click to expand...

Interesting. Not true in the USAF. We are Cat E and can fly to Cat D as long as our weight allows it (aka super light/end of sortie).
 
hindsight2020 said:
Interesting. Not true in the USAF. We are Cat E and can fly to Cat D as long as our weight allows it (aka super light/end of sortie).
Click to expand...
I am sure the USAF and FAA have several, if not many, regulatory and policy differences.
 
Call the tower and ask,

1 207 561 2523
https://acukwik.com/Airport-Info/KBGR

doesn’t say you can’t, but man, climbing a 172 to 12k if you were told to
go to that fix, pack a lunch


Here is a interesting one, is that approach in your GNS430/G1000/Aspen database? Doesn’t have to be, but it would be interesting to know.
 
Be sure to climb up to 12,000 and do the full approach starting from the IAF.
 
Jackk said:
Here is a interesting one, is that approach in your GNS430/G1000/Aspen database? Doesn’t have to be, but it would be interesting to know.
Click to expand...
The database in my G1000 trainer software doesn't have it, but that's ten years out of date. It does have a couple of regular VOR approaches which no longer exist, so the H-VOR approaches may not have existed back then.

It does have the TACAN approaches at Moffett (NUQ).
 
Palmpilot said:
The database in my G1000 trainer software doesn't have it, but that's ten years out of date. It does have a couple of regular VOR approaches which no longer exist, so the H-VOR approaches may not have existed back then.

It does have the TACAN approaches at Moffett (NUQ).
Click to expand...

I’ll check Honeywell later this week, you guys got me curious.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Interesting. Not true in the USAF. We are Cat E and can fly to Cat D as long as our weight allows it (aka super light/end of sortie).
Click to expand...
It's been a while for me, but not that long. I'm pretty sure there's some caveats that have to be followed in order to do that (unless they changed it). I seem to remember that it was only for straight-in approaches and you had to limit your speed on the missed approach.
 
Last edited:
Sluggo63 said:
It's been a while for me, but not that long. I'm pretty sure there's some caveats that have to be followed in order to do that (unless they changed it). I seem to remember that it was only for straight-in approaches and you had to limit your speed on the missed approach.
Click to expand...

Yes, the reduction in approach and missed approach speed and is stipulated, I should have clarified that. It's only something we can do after we burn down fuel. Given our short lengths, it's not our biggest limitation in the aggregate (runway requirements are).
 
Jackk said:
Here is a interesting one, is that approach in your GNS430/G1000/Aspen database? Doesn’t have to be, but it would be interesting to know.
Click to expand...
I was using a couple of my club's AATD "simulators" today, which have relatively recent databases installed, and here is what I found:

The one that simulates a G1000 has the HI-ILS Z Rwy 15 at BGR in the database, but not the HI-VOR approaches. That database was current up until a week-and-a-half ago.

The other one simulates a GNS530W. It had neither the HI-VOR approaches nor the HI-ILS. that database expired in January of this year.

Both units are FAA-approved for currency and training, and I'm pretty sure they get the databases from either Jepp or Garmin.

As you mentioned, those approaches are not required to be in the databases, since they are not RNAV/GPS approaches. (However, if they weren't, then the plane would need DME to identify the stepdowns.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top