M32: Thoughts on VOR-A

ARFlyer

ARFlyer

En-Route
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
3,182
Location
Central AR
Display Name
Display name:
ARFlyer
My student is working on DME Arcs and I thought I'd try to find the hardest one in the area. Well think I've succeeded at a local airport called M32: Lake Village, AR.

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1605/06062VA.PDF

The approach is a VOR-A outbound from a VOR at nearly 23 miles with a mind bending, for students, DME Arc. I've discovered that this approach is nearly impossible to shoot to mins as you can't circle on the farside of the runway. Plus your MAP is 23.8 miles from the VOR with a nice CDI distance displacement. So your left making a tight turn that puts you almost on top of the runway.

Any thoughts? I know this is child's play compared to the West Coast, but it's still a WTF one.
 
Well you don't have to fly the arc, the VOR itself is an IAF. It's easier the further you get from a VOR, just less precise once you get there. You are right that if you don't get the runway in sight well before the MAP, it's going to be challenging to circle to land.
 
flyingron said:
Well you don't have to fly the arc, the VOR itself is an IAF. It's easier the further you get from a VOR, just less precise once you get there. You are right that if you don't get the runway in sight well before the MAP, it's going to be challenging to circle to land.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just for the DME arc it's an interesting approach. Your tendency is to keep turning to the inside on the final turn. However this one, as you saw, is a turn to the outside.

Yeah I didn't let him take his foggles off until the 1.25 mile vis min. He still couldn't get it turned into a downwind that would allow for an easy pattern.
 
Nothing overly difficult to me.. It's a short arc, so getting established on it might be a little bit of a chore. I agree about the circling... would be a tough one especially since its NA to the east. But almost 11 miles to get on course and pretty much the same altitude everywhere(MSA, the arc, etc) prior to the FAF... this one probably wouldn't fry my brain too bad.

The distance from the VOR would take some getting used to as far as course tracking. I've done a couple approaches where the VOR is very close to the field and you're circling right back around to it after climbing away missed and the needle moves quite quickly.
 
[QUOTE="fiveoboy01, post: 2062958, member: 15117]The distance from the VOR would take some getting used to as far as course tracking. I've done a couple approaches where the VOR is very close to the field and you're circling right back around to it after climbing away missed and the needle moves quite quickly.[/QUOTE]

The airport I used a lot during my training and my students training has the VOR located in the middle of the field. The VOR is the MAP and the missed on multiple approaches. I agree on those being interesting with the extremely twitchy needle and the zone of confusion.
 
Why not just do the VOR A into KLLQ? It has a nice 7 mile arc or a procedure turn. Or, if you really want to practice flying the arc, how about asking approach if you can practice a 10 mile arc around LLQ. Use Foreflight to show him his track as part of the debrief. You can really see how well he tracked and correct for winds.
 
There is another aiport near by, KPBF, that has multiple DME arcs that are almost 180* arcs sitting at 15 DME. Most students I've talk to hate shooting them because it's almost a X/c in itself.

LLQ and PBF are also both in the plans for him.
 
This is one of those approaches where we used to teach "dive and drive", get down to MDA quick, level off giving you more time to find the runway. Still doing it as taught now isn't bad except not as much time to find it. Limited as you can't circle east of the runway but still not too bad, imo. The arc not a big deal, it's almost 11 miles from the airport. Either go there (ZIRUL) or the VOR, both IAFs.
 
flyingron said:
Well you don't have to fly the arc
Click to expand...
ARFlyer said:
My student is working on DME Arcs...
***
The approach is a VOR-A outbound from a VOR at nearly 23 miles with a mind bending, for students, DME Arc. I've discovered that this approach is nearly impossible to shoot to mins as you can't circle on the farside of the runway. Plus your MAP is 23.8 miles from the VOR with a nice CDI distance displacement. So your left making a tight turn that puts you almost on top of the runway.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Non-precision approaches are notorious for putting you on top of the runway and VOR-As are probably the worst about it since they tend not to be aligned with the runway. Plenty that dump you on top of the airport in a crosswind position like this one.

We tend to get spoiled with all the straight-ins that include a VDP or have an advisory glidepath or are GPS-based LNAVs that allow a 3-4.5° descent to an MDA that gives some extra maneuvering room.

This is tough because it's a bit different. The "backward" arc isn't difficult except that one is usually expecting the continuation of the same turn direction. And, as you point out, even the circling options are limited. Looks like an excellent approach for training, not only for a student but also for recurrent training.
 
ARFlyer said:
My student is working on DME Arcs and I thought I'd try to find the hardest one in the area. Well think I've succeeded at a local airport called M32: Lake Village, AR.

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1605/06062VA.PDF

The approach is a VOR-A outbound from a VOR at nearly 23 miles with a mind bending, for students, DME Arc. I've discovered that this approach is nearly impossible to shoot to mins as you can't circle on the farside of the runway. Plus your MAP is 23.8 miles from the VOR with a nice CDI distance displacement. So your left making a tight turn that puts you almost on top of the runway.

Any thoughts? I know this is child's play compared to the West Coast, but it's still a WTF one.
Click to expand...

This approach was supposed to be cancelled on February 4th, 2016. Didn't happen?

Bob Gardner
 
mscard88 said:
This is one of those approaches where we used to teach "dive and drive", get down to MDA quick, level off giving you more time to find the runway. Still doing it as taught now isn't bad except not as much time to find it. Limited as you can't circle east of the runway but still not too bad, imo. The arc not a big deal, it's almost 11 miles from the airport. Either go there (ZIRUL) or the VOR, both IAFs.
Click to expand...

The airline training taught me that new constant rate descent procedure. I just tell my students to use the "dive and drive" depending on the layout of the approach.

midlifeflyer said:
This is tough because it's a bit different. The "backward" arc isn't difficult except that one is usually expecting the continuation of the same turn direction. And, as you point out, even the circling options are limited. Looks like an excellent approach for training, not only for a student but also for recurrent training.
Click to expand...

Yep, it looks like a great airport to use in future recurrent training. I might even throw it on @timwinters during his upcoming IPC, depending on the location we meet up. I have to be evil to the d**k head... :D I have to earn my ice cream and beer at Gastons!
 
bobmrg said:
This approach was supposed to be cancelled on February 4th, 2016. Didn't happen?

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

Nothing on NOTAMs and it was reissued on the latest plate release. Where did you find that info? FAA IFP portal or a NPRM?
 
ARFlyer said:
The airline training taught me that new constant rate descent procedure. I just tell my students to use the "dive and drive" depending on the layout of the approach.



Yep, it looks like a great airport to use in future recurrent training. I might even throw it on @timwinters during his upcoming IPC, depending on the location we meet up. I have to be evil to the d**k head... :D I have to earn my ice cream and beer at Gastons!
Click to expand...
The beauty of approaches like this for recurrent training is that it proves the point that we don't have to make up unrealistic stuff in order to create a challenge. Reality is tough enough. It's usually said about getting older but, to borrow the phrase, "Reality ain't for sissies!"
 
midlifeflyer said:
The beauty of approaches like this for recurrent training is that it proves the point that we don't have to make up unrealistic stuff in order to create a challenge. Reality is tough enough. It's usually said about getting older but, to borrow the phrase, "Reality ain't for sissies!"
Click to expand...

I only shot the same 2 approaches for most of my non IR x/c training. I later realized this was an extreme disservice to myself as those two are some of the easiest in the state.
 
ARFlyer said:
The airline training taught me that new constant rate descent procedure. I just tell my students to use the "dive and drive" depending on the layout of the approach.
Click to expand...

Yes that's what I was referring to, Constant Rate Descent, also at the airline I flew at. I like your second sentence which makes sense.
 
ARFlyer said:
Nothing on NOTAMs and it was reissued on the latest plate release. Where did you find that info? FAA IFP portal or a NPRM?
Click to expand...

Federal Register 4/13/2015. I also have a PDF titled "Underutilized or Redundant IAPs n the FAA Cancellation Initiative."

Bob
 
bobmrg said:
Federal Register 4/13/2015. I also have a PDF titled "Underutilized or Redundant IAPs n the FAA Cancellation Initiative."

Bob
Click to expand...

Looks like the approach listed on your PDF is the VOR/DME-B. So I'm guessing there was two VOR approaches into M32.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Non-precision approaches are notorious for putting you on top of the runway and VOR-As are probably the worst about it since they tend not to be aligned with the runway. Plenty that dump you on top of the airport in a crosswind position like this one.
Click to expand...
The point was that this one does not allow circling on the EAST side of the runway and the approach arrives from the west. You can't fly a "crosswind" legally.
 
Knowing that, though, and with a little forethought, I'd probably enter an upwind over the runway if it was at mins on this approach.
 
Last edited:
On the checkride the DE had me enter the DME arc from outside the arc. The published entry was from inside the arc. If you are coming in on a radial to the VOR that defines the arc, its is always a 90 degree turn. I got that one right. Its not in the PTS either. Just general geometry knowledge.

Remember if you have a tailwind, you need to come down faster to make it to the missed and not overun the airport. Dont forget to turn the lights on!
 
ARFlyer said:
Looks like the approach listed on your PDF is the VOR/DME-B. So I'm guessing there was two VOR approaches into M32.
Click to expand...

You are right. The AOPA list of approaches to that airport now shows two RNAV and the VOR-A. My bad.

Bob
 
Last edited:
ARFlyer said:
Any thoughts? I know this is child's play compared to the West Coast, but it's still a WTF one.
Click to expand...

Radials per NM = 60 divided by DME Arc(13)
Turn Radius(standard rate) = .5% of TAS(or GS)
Lead Radial = Radials per NM x Turn Radius

Radials per NM = 4.6
Turn Radius(assuming 100 knots) = 0.5
Lead Radial = 2.3(round up to 3)

Start turn off the ARC passing through radial 116. Go down to 680. Enter a right downwind for 19 or a left downwind for 1. If you are too tight for 19, angle yourself out on the downwind to give you space. Right over the runway when I see it? I probably should have planned a more precise approach. Don't have a GPS? Looks like I am going to my alternate.
 
If you arrive at the FAF properly configured, it shouldn't be an issue to get from 2000 (FAF alt) to 680ft by the point where you'd circle west of the field.

As for the arc, that is an interesting one. Neat approach! Do you know if vectors to final are available on the approach? The plate lists Memphis Center as the controlling facility. If the scope doesn't have the final approach course depicted on the video map, my understanding is they won't be able to vector you to final, so the two IAFs are going to be it (unless you have RNAV and go direct to the IF, but if you have RNAV, then you wouldn't be shooting this approach for anything other than training anyway since there are straight-in RNAV approaches at the field).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top