lots of course changes and odd mins on Rnav approach

C

c310flyr

Pre-Flight
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
46
Display Name
c310flyr
Please look at the Rnav (gps) approach for runway 15 at Kingston NY http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1302/09137R15.PDF

1st, I don't remember seeing an approach with this many course changes. Is this ok ?

After the intermediate fix, there is a turn at wobvu, another turn at the faf (which I knew you could have ), and finally another turn at frldi.

Didn't know we could have that many turns on an approach. Are there "turn " limits ?

Also, if you look at the circling mins, the lowest one can go is 800 feet when circling to rwy 33.

If you look at the Rnav approach to Runway 33 at the same airport, ( http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1302/09137R33.PDF), the straight in mins to Rwy 33 are higher (880' ) than the mins for circling from the opposite direction.

There is a bridge (Kingston Bridge) that may have something to do with it, but I don't understand if that is the case how the circling distances from 15 don't involve that as well.

Is it very unusual to have the circling approach from the other end of a runway be lower than the straight in approach to the same runway ?
 
c310flyr said:
Please look at the Rnav (gps) approach for runway 15 at Kingston NY http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1302/09137R15.PDF

1st, I don't remember seeing an approach with this many course changes. Is this ok ?

After the intermediate fix, there is a turn at wobvu, another turn at the faf (which I knew you could have ), and finally another turn at frldi.

Didn't know we could have that many turns on an approach. Are there "turn " limits ?

Also, if you look at the circling mins, the lowest one can go is 800 feet when circling to rwy 33.

If you look at the Rnav approach to Runway 33 at the same airport, ( http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1302/09137R33.PDF), the straight in mins to Rwy 33 are higher (880' ) than the mins for circling from the opposite direction.

There is a bridge (Kingston Bridge) that may have something to do with it, but I don't understand if that is the case how the circling distances from 15 don't involve that as well.

Is it very unusual to have the circling approach from the other end of a runway be lower than the straight in approach to the same runway ?
Click to expand...

It is an interesting procedure. I only see two turns inbound from the IF/IAF on the guided portion of the procedure. Their is also an angle to the runway within the permitted limit for a straight in. The limit for the turns are 30 degrees each. Circling minimums have two limits. The circling minimums may not be lower than the straight in LNAV minimums. The Required Obstacle Clearance in the circling area is 300 feet above the controlling obstacle. For the approach to runway 15, the straight in minimums are 800 feet and for runway 33 they are 880 feet. The straight in minimums are based on the highest obstacle in between the FAF and the runway and can be anywhere along the final approach path and up to .6 NM to the side. For these approaches, the Category A circling area is within 1.3 NM of the runway and 1.5 for Category B. Obviously the circling minimums for runway 33 could have been at 800 feet MSL if it were not for the fact that the straight in minimums were higher at 880 MSL, but since they must be the same or higher than the straight in MDA, they are forced up to the 880.
 
looks like there are a bunch of tall obstacles off the approach end of the runway that drives the curving approach.
 
is there any simple method to overlay an approach on Google Earth?

Put the course, fixes, altitude, glide slope, etc into 3-d space.

That would be a nice way to translate the 2D plan and profile into something we could visualize better. And be a good way to review and prep for the flight.
 
Right, John. My mistake, no turn at frldi.

Is there a limit? For instance, could there be a turn at frldi as long as it was within the 30 degree limit?
In other words is there a terps limit to the number of course changes you can have after the faf?
 
c310flyr said:
Please look at the Rnav (gps) approach for runway 15 at Kingston NY http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1302/09137R15.PDF

1st, I don't remember seeing an approach with this many course changes. Is this ok ?

After the intermediate fix, there is a turn at wobvu, another turn at the faf (which I knew you could have ), and finally another turn at frldi.

Didn't know we could have that many turns on an approach. Are there "turn " limits ?
Click to expand...

Looks like Catskill avoidance to me.
 
c310flyr said:
Right, John. My mistake, no turn at frldi.

Is there a limit? For instance, could there be a turn at frldi as long as it was within the 30 degree limit?
In other words is there a terps limit to the number of course changes you can have after the faf?
Click to expand...

The details for the approach construction are quite lengthy. You can find the current ones for RNAV in volume 6 in: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8260.58.pdf c
 
Look at the VGT Rwy 12R GPS approach, there is a heading change at the FAF.

The design required more distance for descent on the base leg. So you essentially overshoot final, turn to a 150 hdg to get back close, then a 135 hdg on final with the Rwy 12R.

Tower has to watch the GPS approach to 12R as it does conflict with the VFR pattern to 12L as it comes in off hdg. The GPS to 12R also crosses the ILS to 12L.

Also, why the ILS to the shorter runway? The hangers to the right of 12R are too close and could cause interference to the LOC signal.
 
It's all done to:
Not fly into the Kingston-Rhinecliff Bridge
Not fly into the toll booths or traffic on the Kingston side of the bridge. (RT199)
Not fly over the houses on the north end of the field.
And finally: To keep government officials employed.

It's an interesting place to fly into if you've never been there.
 
Look at the KJAC ILS Z. It now has an RNAV terminal route to avoid sensitive NPS areas.
 
aterpster said:
Look at the KJAC ILS Z. It now has an RNAV terminal route to avoid sensitive NPS areas.
Click to expand...

Wally:

What is the point of having the ILS approach in this case, as I see Jackson Hole has a GPS approach to the same runway with the same mins as the ILS ?


:dunno:
 
c310flyr said:
Wally:

What is the point of having the ILS approach in this case, as I see Jackson Hole has a GPS approach to the same runway with the same mins as the ILS ?


:dunno:
Click to expand...

Lots of folks out there don't have WAAS GPS. Or don't have a GPS at all.
 
I know, Ted. But Gps is required for the ILS Z as well as the gps approaches.

not sure what the advantage of having the ILS approach is, in this case. (at Jackson Hole)
 
Last edited:
c310flyr said:
I know, Ted. But Gps is required for the ILS Z as well as the gps approaches.

not sure what the advantage of having the ILS approach is, in this case. (at Jackson Hole)
Click to expand...
As dukeblue219 mentioned, a lot of airplanes have GPS or FMS but no WAAS. We fit that category and I'll bet a lot of airliners do too.
 
having the ILS also allows lower alternate minimums
 
Shepherd said:
It's all done to:
Not fly into the Kingston-Rhinecliff Bridge
Not fly into the toll booths or traffic on the Kingston side of the bridge. (RT199)
Not fly over the houses on the north end of the field.
And finally: To keep government officials employed.

It's an interesting place to fly into if you've never been there.
Click to expand...

I haven't been in there for many years but it all makes sense given the hills and the bridge and the rather depressed location of the runway. The CAVU visual to 33 is pretty exciting the first time you go in there.

This is an airport where WAAS enables the previously impossible.

Not sure why "guv'ment official employment" is part of the critique here. Seems like a benefit for this GA pilot. I know it's the fashionable thing to say but really?
 
These approaches replaced the former VOR-A into Kingston which was discontinued a couple of cycles ago. Yes, the bridge is a primary obstruction and has an impact on the minimums. The approach course to 15 takes into account the proximity of the Catskill Mountains to the west. It is an interesting approach, as the bridge does make for a pretty solid visual obstruction on very short final coming into 33, and a departure obstacle when flying out of 15.

Been in and out of that field too many times to count. When it's windy, you know it!!

Interesting is the fact that the only approach now into Kingston is an RNAV. Without that equipment aboard, you're pretty much shut out of an approach in IMC.
 
tonycondon said:
having the ILS also allows lower alternate minimums
Click to expand...
I wonder if that's true if your only means of navigating the arrival is a non-WAAS GPS? Seems like that would put it into the same category as an alternate requiring DME when you're "DME" is GPS.
 
c310flyr said:
I know, Ted. But Gps is required for the ILS Z as well as the gps approaches.

not sure what the advantage of having the ILS approach is, in this case. (at Jackson Hole)
Click to expand...

If you don't have RNAV, you use the ILS "Y".
 
c310flyr said:
Please look at the Rnav (gps) approach for runway 15 at Kingston NY http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1302/09137R15.PDF

1st, I don't remember seeing an approach with this many course changes. Is this ok ?

After the intermediate fix, there is a turn at wobvu, another turn at the faf (which I knew you could have ), and finally another turn at frldi.

Didn't know we could have that many turns on an approach. Are there "turn " limits ?

Also, if you look at the circling mins, the lowest one can go is 800 feet when circling to rwy 33.

If you look at the Rnav approach to Runway 33 at the same airport, ( http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1302/09137R33.PDF), the straight in mins to Rwy 33 are higher (880' ) than the mins for circling from the opposite direction.

There is a bridge (Kingston Bridge) that may have something to do with it, but I don't understand if that is the case how the circling distances from 15 don't involve that as well.

Is it very unusual to have the circling approach from the other end of a runway be lower than the straight in approach to the same runway ?
Click to expand...

It looks like those links got broken in less than a month!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top