Is this a good setup and execution for this approach? (KDUA VOR/DME RWY35)

[peerlesscowboy]

"URH direct NANDE, cleared for the VOR/DME 17 approach, maintain 2500 until established inbound, report inbound on the procedure turn?"...........

It appears that URH is not on an airway so yes, I agree. You should be able to be cleared --D-> URH --D-> NANDE cross NANDE at or above 2500 cleared for the VOR/DME 17 approach.
By the same token you should be able to be cleared --D-> URH --D-> HANOM cross HANOM at or above 2500 cleared for the VOR/DME 35 approach.
No charted feeder routes required because URH isn't an airway fix.

 

[AggieMike88]

HANOM isn't charted to be identified that way

PPC; That was what I was attempting to say.

 

[Clark1961]

I am with you.

sorry, the phrasing just struck me a humorous this morning

These IAP religious wars are entertaining and informative. I got into one with my IA DPE and ended up pointing to the example given in the legend for the booklet of approach plates. The response was interesting to say the least. To the DPE's credit, he did agree with my perspective on that particular issue. I still wish I had even half his knowledge and experience though...so I do appreciate other folks points-of-view, I just don't automatically agree because they sound authoritative...

And for folks excited about needing a feeder route, lets go fly some NDB IAPs. - St. Francis, KS comes to mind...just head off in that direction I think there is also one on the Colorado side of the border just south of I-70, had to call on CTAF to get the NDB turned on and that sorta messed up the approach (to say the least).

 

[PPC1052]

I assume you meant to say "...., and I'm pretty sure it does so at HANOM"?

Oops. You are correct.

As a practical matter I suppose it's a question of how to best utilize your single source of redundancy (#2 Nav)? If your #1 Nav craps out you can continue the approach with your #2, if your DME craps out you can't.

Good point.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

.............................
And for folks excited about needing a feeder route, lets go fly some NDB IAPs. - St. Francis, KS comes to mind...just head off in that direction I think there is also one on the Colorado side of the border just south of I-70, had to call on CTAF to get the NDB turned on and that sorta messed up the approach (to say the least).

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1409/05382N30.PDF
NDB 30 approach to Glasgow, Montana.
Here's a question for the plate guru's.........do you need to be cleared direct to the Milk River NDB (MKR) to fly this approach? MKR is not an airway fix and there's no feeder route from the airway to MKR but the Glasgow VOR/DME (GGW) is an airway fix and they're both on the airport less than half a mile apart. Let's say we're motoring down V430 and we're cleared ...... "cleared for the approach to Glasgow report arrival or cancellation this frequency or with flight service frequency change approved." Does this clearance authorize us to fly the NDB approach?

 

[PPC1052]

sorry, the phrasing just struck me a humorous this morning

These IAP religious wars are entertaining and informative.

I don't know that I would call these "religious wars," but that may only be due to my own ignorance. I am not instrument rated myself. I engage in these discussions as a mental exercise while I work on the rating. I, too, find them very informative.

A bit of a non-sequitur, but earlier in my training I was a little lost in terms of what to do because I didn't have a better handle on what to expect the controller to be telling me and why. Once that became more familiar to me, then my role as the pilot became much clearer to me. That is in large part why I responded above as I did from the controller's perspective. If you don't appreciate the interaction between pilot and controller, then your job as the pilot can be a little bit mystifying.

 

[Clark1961]

If you don't appreciate the interaction between pilot and controller, then your job as the pilot can be a little bit mystifying.

Have you been in IMC on a busy day yet? The pilot/controller interaction does get just a bit interesting around the Bravo...multiple controllers on freq and all of them focus on the big iron - spam cans get to fend for themselves (somewhat).

The good news is that away from the busy areas things are pretty much like training days so it's really good to have the routine down pat.

 

[PPC1052]

Have you been in IMC on a busy day yet?

Nope.

But I have been on flight following underneath the Chicago Bravo as they were bringing in the airliners overhead to land at Midway and O'Hare. We were on the lake shore route just off the coast over Lake Michigan. Had to have my head on a swivel. I know, not the same thing.

 

[Clark1961]

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1409/05382N30.PDF
NDB 30 approach to Glasgow, Montana.
Here's a question for the plate guru's.........do you need to be cleared direct to the Milk River NDB (MKR) to fly this approach? MKR is not an airway fix and there's no feeder route from the airway to MKR but the Glasgow VOR/DME (GGW) is an airway fix and they're both on the airport less than half a mile apart. Let's say we're motoring down V430 and we're cleared ...... "cleared for the approach to Glasgow report arrival or cancellation this frequency or with flight service frequency change approved." Does this clearance authorize us to fly the NDB approach?

You're diligent John - actually dug up an example. I wanted to go to St. Francis for my IFR x-c so was reviewing the plate with the CFII - His comment was "How do we get there?" In practice the controller just gave us a vector and said report when ya got the weather then read us the notams. I guess saying we were current on notams up to an hour or so ago wasn't good enough for her...

 

[RussR]

The only thing plain and simple here is that the omission of a feeder route from URH to HANOM is obviously a charting error.

Yes, either they missed a feeder from URH to HANOM, or they accidentally charted a HILPT at HANOM. I think the former is more likely.

Looking at the plate again, I discovered an error in my original interpretation. I was going to use the radial off of BYP as a means to "cross identify". But since the line from BYP doesn't intersect the radial from URH, I don't think that's a permitted method.

So as Peerless says, I must use DME to ID HANOM

Yes, it is required to use DME to identify HANOM due to the way it's charted. But, if you're flying it the way it's charted, you would be flying the route from BYP anyway, see the finall approach course CDI start to center, and turn to intercept inbound, without the HILPT. Once you're within 10 DME you can descend to 2200.

To expand the discussion (and many good points have been raised), let's look at the same airport, but the VOR/DME RWY 17 approach.

If we were starting in the same SW quadrant of the plate, near where the ELEV and TDZE is shown, how would the approach be executed?

Without GPS or vectoring? From BYP or ADM. Of course neither is convenient, but that's the joys of /A. With GPS and under radar coverage, yes, you can get direct to NANDE I suppose, but why not just get vectors to final?

It appears that URH is not on an airway so yes, I agree. You should be able to be cleared --D-> URH --D-> NANDE cross NANDE at or above 2500 cleared for the VOR/DME 17 approach.
By the same token you should be able to be cleared --D-> URH --D-> HANOM cross HANOM at or above 2500 cleared for the VOR/DME 35 approach.
No charted feeder routes required because URH isn't an airway fix.

URH is indeed a fix on an airway, V63. A proper /A clearance would not take you from URH to NANDE because there is no feeder route established in this case either. (Though at least in this example, the HILPT is indeed being used by the existing feeder routes.)

One reason you can't just reverse a final approach course to make it a "feeder" route is that the areas evaluated by TERPS differ greatly, with the evaluation area for a VOR final much, much narrower than for a feeder route. (At the VOR, the final is 1nm each side of center, whereas the feeder is 4nm each side of center.) Let's say you're approaching the VOR in such a way that you need to make a 90 degree turn to go outbound on your uncharted "feeder" route. An actual feeder route, being wider, allows for you crossing the VOR, then beginning your turn, with enough area to contain the turn radius. A final segment used in reverse would not have this, as the area is much smaller (and turns to line up on final are much more restricted in terms of heading change for this reason). Might not be a problem in a 172, but in something faster it could. What if there is an antenna tower or mountain off to the side of final?

 

[AggieMike88]

Russ; Do I recall correctly your employment involves something to do with FAA charting?

 

[flyingron]

Yup. But I also need to read up on if that is all that I need to do, or if there is an additional button press or two for the 480 to open the NAV audio rx.

That's all you need to do. Unless someone has turned down the NAV volume. Then you push NAV and turn the PWR-VOL knob to turn it back up.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

....................
URH is indeed a fix on an airway, V63. ................

Ok, I don't have an enroute chart handy for that area, I was just going by the small slice of a sectional shown on AirNav for the airport and VOR and didn't see an airway depicted but the little block wasn't really big enuf' to show what was there.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

Yes, either they missed a feeder from URH to HANOM, or they accidentally charted a HILPT at HANOM. I think the former is more likely.
......................

Prob'ly the same guy that drew up the VOR/DME RWY 17 chart
It'd be really helpful if somebody had the Jeppesen versions of these two approach charts to see if they depict feeder routes from URH.........

 

[dtuuri]

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1409/05382N30.PDF
NDB 30 approach to Glasgow, Montana.
.........do you need to be cleared direct to the Milk River NDB (MKR) to fly this approach? MKR is not an airway fix and there's no feeder route from the airway to MKR but the Glasgow VOR/DME (GGW) is an airway fix and they're both on the airport less than half a mile apart. Let's say we're motoring down V430 and we're cleared ...... "cleared for the approach to Glasgow report arrival or cancellation this frequency or with flight service frequency change approved." Does this clearance authorize us to fly the NDB approach?

Sure, since the controller didn't require a particular approach nor desire a direct route to the NDB. From the AIM:

5-4-6. Approach Clearance
a. ...
b. ...
c. If a route of flight directly to the initial approach fix is desired, it should be so stated by the controller with phraseology to include the words “direct . . . ,” “proceed direct” or a similar phrase which the pilot can interpret without question. When uncertain of the clearance, immediately query ATC as to what route of flight is desired.
​

MKR underlies the airway, so no feeder is needed.

And for folks excited about needing a feeder route, lets go fly some NDB IAPs. - St. Francis, KS comes to mind....

It has two feeder routes: http://imageserver.fltplan.com/merge/merge1409/Single/06795NG32.PDF

dtuuri

 

[peerlesscowboy]

You're diligent John - actually dug up an example. I wanted to go to St. Francis for my IFR x-c so was reviewing the plate with the CFII - His comment was "How do we get there?" In practice the controller just gave us a vector and said report when ya got the weather then read us the notams. I guess saying we were current on notams up to an hour or so ago wasn't good enough for her...

......the NDB approach at St Francis (http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1409/06795NG32.PDF) has not only a charted feeder route from the airways but two of 'em.
........... they ask you if you have current weather and NOTAMs. So yeah, I just listened to the AWOS/ASOS so I have current weather......NOTAMs??, yeah I had what was current 3 hours ago when I got a standard briefing, anything issued after that I wouldn't have a clue ".....just to be safe I s'pose you better read me all the NOTAMs"

 

[peerlesscowboy]

....................
MKR underlies the airway, so no feeder is needed.
http://

So, since MKR is within the lateral confines of the airway then one doesn't need a clearance --D-> MKR to proceed direct to MKR for the approach? Is MKR considered to be an airway fix even tho' the airway is defined by radials from the GGW VOR/DME?

 

[dtuuri]

So, since MKR is within the lateral confines of the airway then one doesn't need a clearance --D-> MKR to proceed direct to MKR for the approach? Is MKR considered to be an airway fix even tho' the airway is defined by radials from the GGW VOR/DME?

The way I understand your scenario, there are two issues:

1) The clearance doesn't specify a particular approach, so you can do which one you want

2) TERPS doesn't always provide feeder routes:

"220. FEEDER ROUTES When the IAF is part of the
en route structure, there may be no need to designate
additional routes for aircraft to procede to the IAF. In
some cases, however, it is necessary to designate feeder
routes from the en route structure to tbe IAF..."​

MKR is within the geography of the en route structure, not that it's an "airway fix", so presumably doesn't require feeder route protection which is the same as for en route anyway.​

Now, if you're asking can you technically go direct to MKR upon receiving that general approach clearance instead of continuing to GGW first? I don't think so, but I don't think it would matter if you did. GGW and MKR are almost colocated. If there's an official FAA reference for that tolerance, though, I can't cite it.

dtuuri

 

[Clark1961]

......the NDB approach at St Francis (http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1409/06795NG32.PDF) has not only a charted feeder route from the airways but two of 'em.
........... they ask you if you have current weather and NOTAMs. So yeah, I just listened to the AWOS/ASOS so I have current weather......NOTAMs??, yeah I had what was current 3 hours ago when I got a standard briefing, anything issued after that I wouldn't have a clue ".....just to be safe I s'pose you better read me all the NOTAMs"

I assure you that we did not go to Goodland or MCJEF before turning for St. Francis. I filed for a fix and turn prior to Goodland and ATC gave the vector at the fix. A feeder route isn't required as long as there is radar coverage and comms.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

..............
2) TERPS doesn't always provide feeder routes:

"220. FEEDER ROUTES When the IAF is part of the
en route structure, there may be a need to designate
additional routes for aircraft to procede to the IAF. ..........​

That paragraph is confusing to me Dave, are you sure you didn't mean to say "When the IAF is part of the en route structure there may not be a need .............."?​

 

[peerlesscowboy]

I assure you that we did not go to Goodland or MCJEF before turning for St. Francis. I filed for a fix and turn prior to Goodland and ATC gave the vector at the fix. A feeder route isn't required as long as there is radar coverage and comms.

I was merely pointing out that feeder routes are in fact provided from the published enroute structure on the approach that you cited.
BTW you wouldn't need radar coverage to go direct to the NDB.

 

[dtuuri]

That paragraph is confusing to me Dave, are you sure you didn't mean to say "When the IAF is part of the en route structure there may not be a need .............."?

Oops. I pasted from a PDF file on the FAA website and it didn't accurately transfer all the words. I fixed it now. Should have been, "When the IAF is part of the en route structure there may be no need .............."

 

[Clark1961]

I was merely pointing out that feeder routes are in fact provided from the published enroute structure on the approach that you cited.
BTW you wouldn't need radar coverage to go direct to the NDB.

So we're back to the fact that a feeder route isn't required to the IAF...

 

[dtuuri]

So we're back to the fact that a feeder route isn't required to the IAF...

I also don't see your point. It seemed you are saying feeder routes to NDBs aren't required to be charted, that's not it? The exception is when the IAF can be reached via airways, which isn't the case at KSYF. So, what are you saying?

dtuuri

 

[Clark1961]

I also don't see your point. It seemed you are saying feeder routes to NDBs aren't required to be charted, that's not it? The exception is when the IAF can be reached via airways, which isn't the case at KSYF. So, what are you saying?

I'm saying we don't have to fly a feeder route to the IAF because that's how things actually work. That is all. In the case of the original discussion Russ claimed that URH-->HONUM couldn't be flown which was absurd.

I'd agree that we couldn't fly a non-feeder route to the IAF without comms but that wasn't part of the discussion.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

So we're back to the fact that a feeder route isn't required to the IAF...

No, I didn't intend to suggest it was. What I meant to suggest was that a feeder route is normally charted if the IAF is not a fix on the published enroute structure. That doesn't mean you can't just be cleared direct to the IAF if you're equipped to do so and within the navaid service volume if the IAF is a navaid.

 

[Clark1961]

No, I didn't intend to suggest it was. What I meant to suggest was that a feeder route is normally charted if the IAF is not a fix on the published enroute structure. That doesn't mean you can't just be cleared direct to the IAF if you're equipped to do so and within the navaid service volume if the IAF is a navaid.

doesn't even have to be a navaid...if you can get to the IAF then all is good - how many times have you had vectors to intercept a localizer and then on to the IAF which is defined by DME or crossing radial?

 

[peerlesscowboy]

.................... In the case of the original discussion Russ claimed that URH-->HONUM couldn't be flown which was absurd.

I agree that with the proper clearance URH --D-> HONOM could be flown altho' as per what I understand of approach design a feeder route should have been charted. Consider this;

........on the VOR/DME 35 approach either it was an error of omitting the feeder route or an error of depicting a HILPT that you can't get there from here via the published procedure. Which do you think is the more likely?

 

[dtuuri]

In the case of the original discussion Russ claimed that URH-->HONUM couldn't be flown which was absurd.

I think he said it "could" be flown, but that the chart is in error and therefore such a clearance would be improper. Russ is a certified procedure specialist, AFAIK, btw. The thing is, all clearances are rooted in possible comm failure. The route segment URH-->HONoM has no MEA (can't use the MDA instead), so the chart is in error. Could one make do in an emergency and still git 'r done? Sure, unless there's a tower outside the final approach course with your name on it.

I'd agree that we couldn't fly a non-feeder route to the IAF without comms but that wasn't part of the discussion.

Yes you can NORDO, if you planned it right and filed it.

dtuuri

 

[peerlesscowboy]

doesn't even have to be a navaid...if you can get to the IAF then all is good - how many times have you had vectors to intercept a localizer and then on to the IAF which is defined by DME or crossing radial?

You're not getting vectored to the IAF, you're getting vectored to join the localizer.

 

[Clark1961]

You're not getting vectored to the IAF, you're getting vectored to join the localizer.

exactly, all you need is a way to IAF

 

[peerlesscowboy]

I see we've all started mis-spelling HANOM

 

[Clark1961]

I think he said it "could" be flown, but that the chart is in error and therefore such a clearance would be improper. Russ is a certified procedure specialist, AFAIK, btw. The thing is, all clearances are rooted in possible comm failure. The route segment URH-->HONoM has no MEA (can't use the MDA instead), so the chart is in error. Could one make do in an emergency and still git 'r done? Sure, unless there's a tower outside the final approach course with your name on it.

I will stand by my position that all we need is a way to the IAF. The tower comment is inappropriate since it is covered by the IAP altitudes for the route from URH to HANOM.

I'm glad that Russ is a certified procedure specialist. I also maintain that the specialist shouldn't forget the practical nature of IFR operations. All we need in this case is an altitude from ATC and the URH to HANOM is a piece of cake for /A aircraft. In practice I have gotten such from ATC. Given the practical nature of operations then a course reversal is required for the referenced approach. Perhaps your and Russ's experience is much different.

 

[dtuuri]

I will stand by my position that all we need is a way to the IAF.

Need for what, a minimum en route altitude? If it isn't charted you'll have to undertake the task yourself, as best you can using a VFR sectional instead of the IFR chart.

The tower comment is inappropriate since it is covered by the IAP altitudes for the route from URH to HANOM.

The point of my comment (and Russ' too) is that final approach segment lateral dimensions are far less than en route/feeder obstacle protection. The intermediate segment is a trapezoid connecting the two different dimensions. MDA is inappropriate for en route/feeder operations.

I'm glad that Russ is a certified procedure specialist. I also maintain that the specialist shouldn't forget the practical nature of IFR operations. All we need in this case is an altitude from ATC and the URH to HANOM is a piece of cake for /A aircraft. In practice I have gotten such from ATC. Given the practical nature of operations then a course reversal is required for the referenced approach. Perhaps your and Russ's experience is much different.

Whether ATC can cover for the charting error by using radar vectoring or sectorized MIAs misses the point of this discussion, IMO. The OP is planning a trip and FAA-recommended procedure is to plan assuming a comm failure. Since he's getting ready for an IFR flight test, comm failure is very likely. Since the MEA is missing, he'll need to plan that segment as a direct route, figuring 91.177 compliance entirely on his own. Most ATC initial clearances are "as filed" and the issuing controller may have no knowledge of the local MEAs near the destination. Comm failure prior to receiving the altitude you are relying on from approach control would leave you unprepared if you didn't recognize the need for your own due-diligence on that route. It's a fundamental way of thinking, in my experience, to know exactly where my responsibility ends and ATC's begins or vice-versa.

I emphasize this demarcation between ATC's and pilot responsibilities in my tutorials at www.AvClicks.com, btw.

dtuuri

 

[RussR]

I think he said it "could" be flown, but that the chart is in error and therefore such a clearance would be improper. Russ is a certified procedure specialist, AFAIK, btw. The thing is, all clearances are rooted in possible comm failure. The route segment URH-->HONoM has no MEA (can't use the MDA instead), so the chart is in error. Could one make do in an emergency and still git 'r done? Sure, unless there's a tower outside the final approach course with your name on it.

Yes you can NORDO, if you planned it right and filed it.

dtuuri

All correct dtuuri, thanks.

I will stand by my position that all we need is a way to the IAF. The tower comment is inappropriate since it is covered by the IAP altitudes for the route from URH to HANOM.

No, the tower comment is not inappropriate, it's exactly the point. I even worked up a small graphic to explain what I mean, and why the method of "rolling your own" can be dangerous, see attachment. Now, in Durant, Oklahoma, you're not likely to hit anything (and the MSA is there to prove it), but this discussion has proceeded well beyond the exact example of DUA and into a more general question about published segments of approaches.

I'm glad that Russ is a certified procedure specialist. I also maintain that the specialist shouldn't forget the practical nature of IFR operations. All we need in this case is an altitude from ATC and the URH to HANOM is a piece of cake for /A aircraft. In practice I have gotten such from ATC. Given the practical nature of operations then a course reversal is required for the referenced approach. Perhaps your and Russ's experience is much different.

Never said it wasn't possible, in fact I said the opposite - it would of course be easy to actually fly. No big trick to flying a radial to a DME fix. But it's not a published segment of the approach, and therefore the HILPT shouldn't be charted (actually, conversely, I believe the chart error is that the feeder SHOULD be charted).

(Yes, I am a former TERPS specialist (though I'm not sure how dtuuri knew that), but am an active flight instructor, pilot, and former air traffic controller as well.)

 

[AggieMike88]

I emphasize this demarcation between ATC's and pilot responsibilities in my tutorials at www.AvClicks.com, btw.

Can you point out which section? I'd like to review that.

 

[dtuuri]

Can you point out which section? I'd like to review that.

It's a running theme throughout--you'll have to review the entire series. That's why my first tutorial is "An IFR Pilot's Mindset"--I don't want pilots getting in the habit of abdicating their "final authority" to ATC for convenience's sake. The tutorials show how ATC uses radar to shortcut the formal IFR apparatus in the interest of expediency, but how pilots should be loathe to allow ATC to become the sole arbiter of one's safe obstruction clearance. If you haven't yet seen them all, now would be a good time. It would be a great review of the fundamentals (no GPS, just primary ground-based navigational infrastructure, ie, the square hole into which the round peg of GPS is to be smashed).

dtuuri

 

[AggieMike88]

It's a running theme throughout--you'll have to review the entire series. That's why my first tutorial is "An IFR Pilot's Mindset"--I don't want pilots getting in the habit of abdicating their "final authority" to ATC for convenience's sake. The tutorials show how ATC uses radar to shortcut the formal IFR apparatus in the interest of expediency, but how pilots should be loathe to allow ATC to become the sole arbiter of one's safe obstruction clearance. If you haven't yet seen them all, now would be a good time. It would be a great review of the fundamentals (no GPS, just primary ground-based navigational infrastructure).

dtuuri

Start to finish, what is the run time? (so I can figure in this review to my study schedule)

 

[dtuuri]

Start to finish, what is the run time? (so I can figure in this review to my study schedule)

It's strictly at your own pace. Click through as fast as you can assimilate the information--no faster. For you, at your stage, it might be pretty fast, "Yeah, I knew that, click, I knew that too, click, what? Let me think about that one for a minute..."

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

I even worked up a small graphic to explain what I mean, and why the method of "rolling your own" can be dangerous, see attachment.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=35641&d=1410441799

Excellent!

dtuuri