NoPT Poll

[dmspilot]

The IAF and FAF are collocated. If you were to skip the procedure turn that means there is no initial approach segment nor an intermediate segment. I think I can see why a "NoPT" does not appear on that transition.

If BARNE was an IAF, and it intercepted the localizer before the FAF, then a NoPT would make sense.

 

[luvflyin]

Following is a proposed ILS approach for KTVR Runway 36. Note that the terminal route from BARNE intersection to the TKH NDB is not annotated “NoPT” even though its alignment and altitude easily meets NoPT criteria.

As you near BARNE on the airway to the south, Memphis Center say, “Piper 1234C, radar service terminated, cleared from over BARNES for the Tallulah ILS Runway 36 approach.”

Given that clearance you have to do the turn in the holding pattern. You could get a clearance for a "straight in approach" but you didn't. The reason there isn't a NoPT on that route is probably because of the intercept of the localizer happening at the FAF instead of outside of it. There is a requirement for ATC to vector you to intercept a certain distance outside of the FAF. I'm sure TERPS requirements have a similar requirement to be established a certain distance outside of the FAF. Something like 2 miles is ringing a bell with me that GPS's expect to work right for an an Approach.

 

[dtuuri]

The IAF and FAF are collocated. If you were to skip the procedure turn that means there is no initial approach segment nor an intermediate segment. I think I can see why a "NoPT" does not appear on that transition.

If BARNE was an IAF, and it intercepted the localizer before the FAF, then a NoPT would make sense.

Transition to final approach configuration is assumed to occur during the intermediate segment. None here.

dtuuri

 

[RotorDude]

Aside from the lack of "cleared straight-in" in the clearance, I would not want to be figuring out my crosswind correction inside the final approach point while descending on the glide slope.

The final approach course is only 12 degrees off the initial/intermediate segment. Your cross wind correction should be already established for the latter, so odds are when you crank in the extra 12 degrees right you'd be very close, within a couple of degrees. Of course slowing down for the descent and getting closer to the ground would change the WCA further, but that would be true for any final approach segment.

 

[John Collins]

In this approach, ATC is not permitted to clear you straight in when you are direct to the IAF. This is because it is also a FAF. Here is what the controller manual states:

c. Except for visual approaches, do not clear an aircraft direct to the FAF unless it is also an IAF, wherein the aircraft is expected to execute the depicted procedure turn or hold-in-lieu of procedure turn.

Although the course is within the alignment limits for a straight in along the feeder route to final approach course, the feeder is to an IAF which is followed by the HILPT to get established on the IF course inbound to the FAF where the GS is intercepted. You have to understand that you need to first navigate to the IAF and then get established both on the localizer and the GS, which means you need to get an ADF course reversal or if you are substituting with a GPS, you will need to immediately switch to VLOC and most likely capture the GS from above. Because the IAF and the FAF are co-located, you need the PT to allow the aircraft to get properly configured for the approach after reaching the IAF. The inbound leg of the PT is the intermediate leg and is designed to do this, allow the aircraft to be configured for the approach, establish itself on the localizer, and intercept the GS from below.

So IMHO, no way should the feeder route be NoPT.

 

[MAKG1]

There doesn't seem to be any significant terrain and the MSA is flat.

What's preventing an IAF two miles further out and a slight adjustment to the feeder? That would save 3 minutes and the usual PT confusion.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Because unless this area has poor radar coverage, there's no point in including that in the clearance. In this case, clear the aircraft for the approach. Monitor the aircraft as they proceed inbound on the feeder. Then, "Piper 34C, you can cancel the IFR with me in the air or De Ridder FSS on the ground." If he wants to cancel on the ground then "Piper 34C, radar services terminated, change to advisory frequency approved." Even then, that phraseology is optional because the instruction to change to CTAF automatically terminates radar service.

I guess I'm dense since I'm still not getting it. There are many approaches that are outside of radar coverage. In this case of this one, the reference to "Memphis Center" (as opposed to a TRACON) is a clue this is not a radar-monitored approach. A quick look at the AFD for the airport confirms it. There are no radar services for this approach.

AFAIK, ATC is not required to notify the pilot of the lack of radar services for the approach since the pilot is expected to know this, but what is the problem you see with doing so (other than the fun of hearing a pilot cleared for the full approach asking for vectors and getting a laugh in return, as happened to a student of mine on his IFR dual cross country.)

 

[azure]

Although the course is within the alignment limits for a straight in along the feeder route to final approach course, the feeder is to an IAF which is followed by the HILPT to get established on the IF course inbound to the FAF where the GS is intercepted. You have to understand that you need to first navigate to the IAF and then get established both on the localizer and the GS, which means you need to get an ADF course reversal or if you are substituting with a GPS, you will need to immediately switch to VLOC and most likely capture the GS from above. Because the IAF and the FAF are co-located, you need the PT to allow the aircraft to get properly configured for the approach after reaching the IAF. The inbound leg of the PT is the intermediate leg and is designed to do this, allow the aircraft to be configured for the approach, establish itself on the localizer, and intercept the GS from below.

Great, definitive answer. Thanks John!

This is what I love about this forum, I always learn something when I come here.

So IMHO, no way should the feeder route be NoPT.

Is there any reason why BARNE could not/should not be designated as an IAF?

 

[John Collins]

Is there any reason why BARNE could not/should not be designated as an IAF?

I don't think this would help matters. There still isn't an intermediate segment and even if one was defined by a fix along the route to the FAF, you would still be crossing the FAF not already established on the GS and localizer. If the localizer could have been extended to reach V245, another fix could have been added at the intersection of the localizer and V245 that could have served as an IAF, but in this case it is outside the standard localizer service volume of 18 NM. Another fix would also have to be established on the IAF to FAF localizer course to form an IF. See ILS or LOC 12 at KJVW nearby for an example where this was done.

 

[Everskyward]

Great, definitive answer. Thanks John!

This is what I love about this forum, I always learn something when I come here.

 

[azure]

I don't think this would help matters. There still isn't an intermediate segment and even if one was defined by a fix along the route to the FAF, you would still be crossing the FAF not already established on the GS and localizer. If the localizer could have been extended to reach V245, another fix could have been added at the intersection of the localizer and V245 that could have served as an IAF, but in this case it is outside the standard localizer service volume of 18 NM. Another fix would also have to be established on the IAF to FAF localizer course to form an IF. See ILS or LOC 12 at KJVW nearby for an example where this was done.

Yes, sorry for not elaborating, but I was thinking of adding an IF outside the FAF. Perhaps at or near the computer fix. Then establish the PT at the IF and establish a NoPT there from BARNE. That's similar to the way the RNAV 35 at KMPV is constructed, with an IAF at the LEB VOR, and a NoPT route to an IAF/IF at XIMKY. The FAF is then a few miles further in.

 

[midlifeflyer]

In this approach, ATC is not permitted to clear you straight in when you are direct to the IAF. This is because it is also a FAF. Here is what the controller manual states:



Although the course is within the alignment limits for a straight in along the feeder route to final approach course, the feeder is to an IAF which is followed by the HILPT to get established on the IF course inbound to the FAF where the GS is intercepted. You have to understand that you need to first navigate to the IAF and then get established both on the localizer and the GS, which means you need to get an ADF course reversal or if you are substituting with a GPS, you will need to immediately switch to VLOC and most likely capture the GS from above. Because the IAF and the FAF are co-located, you need the PT to allow the aircraft to get properly configured for the approach after reaching the IAF. The inbound leg of the PT is the intermediate leg and is designed to do this, allow the aircraft to be configured for the approach, establish itself on the localizer, and intercept the GS from below.

So IMHO, no way should the feeder route be NoPT.

This must be my day for being dense, John. I'm fairly certain I have seen approaches in which there are feeders or transitions to a combined IAF/FAF with either a NoPT notation that were approximately the same alignment as this one and at intercept altitude (OK, here 38' above). Am I mistaken? Or is that only in the case of a non-precision approach where GS interception is not a factor?

 

[azure]

BTW, I notice this plate has courses labeled true in addition to magnetic, even though the magnetic variation is apparently only 2*W. I've heard of that in the far north, but why here? Is that going to be standard in the near future?

 

[Everskyward]

BTW, I notice this plate has courses labeled true in addition to magnetic, even though the magnetic variation is apparently only 2*W. I've heard of that in the far north, but why here? Is that going to be standard in the near future?

I am guessing it's because the plate is a prototype and that those who are developing the approach use the true course (and that waypoint on the final approach course) for their own reasons.

 

[John Collins]

Yes, sorry for not elaborating, but I was thinking of adding an IF outside the FAF. Perhaps at or near the computer fix. Then establish the PT at the IF and establish a NoPT there from BARNE. That's similar to the way the RNAV 35 at KMPV is constructed, with an IAF at the LEB VOR, and a NoPT route to an IAF/IF at XIMKY. The FAF is then a few miles further in.

If the procedure was an RNAV procedure, one would have a means of navigating from BARNE to the new IF. But this situation requires the ADF to navigate from the airway to the facility where the HILPT is located. If there was another NDB located outside the FAF, then it would be possible to navigate to it, but not with the location of the existing NDB TKH.

 

[John Collins]

This must be my day for being dense, John. I'm fairly certain I have seen approaches in which there are feeders or transitions to a combined IAF/FAF with either a NoPT notation that were approximately the same alignment as this one and at intercept altitude (OK, here 38' above). Am I mistaken? Or is that only in the case of a non-precision approach where GS interception is not a factor?

Mark,

I don't think you will find a feeder to an IAF/FAF without a hold/PT. You will find all sorts of feeders to IAF or IAF/IF that are not a FAF with NoPt on the feeder.

 

[azure]

If the procedure was an RNAV procedure, one would have a means of navigating from BARNE to the new IF. But this situation requires the ADF to navigate from the airway to the facility where the HILPT is located. If there was another NDB located outside the FAF, then it would be possible to navigate to it, but not with the location of the existing NDB TKH.

Why not define a cross radial from HEZ to some point on the localizer course to establish an IF? In that case it would probably make sense to make HEZ an IAF as well so that a non-RNAV aircraft could navigate to the new IF, but I don't see why this approach HAS to be defined in such a way as to require ADF. Seems like they could define multiple entry points to make the HILPT unnecessary in some cases.

 

[John Collins]

Why not define a cross radial from HEZ to some point on the localizer course to establish an IF? In that case it would probably make sense to make HEZ an IAF as well so that a non-RNAV aircraft could navigate to the new IF, but I don't see why this approach HAS to be defined in such a way as to require ADF. Seems like they could define multiple entry points to make the HILPT unnecessary in some cases.

That is a possibility because the feeder or IAF at the VOR uses the VOR as the facility to navigate to the ILS. I was commenting on the route from BARNE doesn't have that possibility without using the NDB to provide course guidance to the localizer.

 

[taters]

" if in bold , you must hold " is an old saying that comes to mind ..

but I find it practically ridiculous that Barnes ( or another fix ) can't be an IAF.

 

[AustinPilot]

Technically, if you can align yourself with the inbound course prior to crossing the fix (i.e. a direct entry), then you have already executed the 'hold' and wouldn't need to go around again.

That said... the feeder also technically takes you straight to the NDB and doesn't provide for a deviation to align yourself with the inbound course. So it may be more expedient to skip the transition in this case altogether.

 

[John Collins]

" if in bold , you must hold " is an old saying that comes to mind ..

but I find it practically ridiculous that Barnes ( or another fix ) can't be an IAF.

An approach with an IAF also has an IF segment and a final segment. If the IAF is at BARNE, you would need to add an IF segment and it would have to be aligned with the localizer for an ILS approach. Without requiring RNAV, how do you propose one gets to the IF Fix on the localizer? Certainly you don't plan on just skipping the intermediate segment along the localizer course and proceeding directly from the IAF to the FAF turn on the ILS and capture the GS from above? What happened to stabilized approaches?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Mark,

I don't think you will find a feeder to an IAF/FAF without a hold/PT. You will find all sorts of feeders to IAF or IAF/IF that are not a FAF with NoPt on the feeder.

Thanks, John. You are probably right. I'm not going to start searching around but I'll keep an eye out in the ordinary course...

 

[RotorDude]

Still unclear to me why the GPS 36 approach to the same runway (which I would use in general in lieu of the ILS where possible) has the 85' penalty in comparison to the ILS. Is it the 218' MSL obstruction on short final? If so, doesn't it affect the ILS the same way?

 

[PPC1052]

Damn you aterpster! How dare you drop this turd in the punch bowl and not come back to clean it up? Where are you? I want to know if my vote is correct.

 

[eetrojan]

Technically, if you can align yourself with the inbound course prior to crossing the fix (i.e. a direct entry), then you have already executed the 'hold' and wouldn't need to go around again.

That said... the feeder also technically takes you straight to the NDB and doesn't provide for a deviation to align yourself with the inbound course. So it may be more expedient to skip the transition in this case altogether.

I’m still wondering about this exact thought (your first paragraph), but I don't think the feeder takes you straight to the NDB. I’m just a lowly student… so feel free to pile on.

According to ForeFlight (see below), if you don’t home in on the NDB, but just fly the IAP’s specified heading of 344 magnetic from BARNE, you don’t actually arrive at the TKH NDB. Instead, you arrive about 5 nm to the south of the TKH NDB, still at or above 2100. Eventually, you intercept the ILS/localizer and then turn onto the inbound course to the HILPT fix defined by the TKH NDB, and as suggested by the side view, below the glideslope for the ILS.

Thus, I continue to think that while you literally need to do the “hold-in-lieu of procedure turn” (HILPT) because the chart doesn’t say “No PT,” you are in fact doing the required HILPT by already being on the inbound course before crossing the fix. Thus, the required hold essentially becomes synonymous with continuing straight-in, beginning your descent at the TKH NDB.

Or, is there some reason that you must cross the fix TWICE to legally do the hold?

That doesn’t seem right to me, but I’m a newbie.

 

[luvflyin]

Great, definitive answer. Thanks John!

This is what I love about this forum, I always learn something when I come here.

Is there any reason why BARNE could not/should not be designated as an IAF?

My guess is if this same approach was at a much busier place, or this place was much busier, then they would probably go through the trouble to establish an intermediate fix, move the barnes transition a couple of degrees to the left to join it and NoPT it. TERPS experts?? any terrain or NAVAID issues to prevent this?

 

[taters]

An approach with an IAF also has an IF segment and a final segment. If the IAF is at BARNE, you would need to add an IF segment and it would have to be aligned with the localizer for an ILS approach. Without requiring RNAV, how do you propose one gets to the IF Fix on the localizer? Certainly you don't plan on just skipping the intermediate segment along the localizer course and proceeding directly from the IAF to the FAF turn on the ILS and capture the GS from above? What happened to stabilized approaches?

doesn't need to be complicated and I think we are on the same page , all you need is a radial that would allow enough room for an IF on the localizer upstream of the FAF......
KBUR ILS 8 comes to mind as a principal example of the concept.

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1509/00067ILZ8.PDF

to rephrase I find it practically ridiculous that a fix such as Barne can't be positioned in a such a way to allow it to be an IAF, I have never seen an approach of this nature send you right into a final approach fix, but many approaches of this nature set you up much more conveniently .

 

[AustinPilot]

Or, is there some reason that you must cross the fix TWICE to legally do the hold?

Certainly not. Per the AIM:

A holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn may be specified for course reversal in some procedures. In such cases, the holding pattern is established over an intermediate fix or a final approach fix. The holding pattern distance or time specified in the profile view must be observed. For a hold−in−lieu−of−PT, the holding pattern direction must be flown as depicted and the specified leg length/timing must not be exceeded. Maximum holding airspeed limitations as set forth for all holding patterns apply. The holding pattern maneuver is completed when the aircraft is established on the inbound course after executing the appropriate entry. If cleared for the approach prior to returning to the holding fix, and the aircraft is at the prescribed altitude, additional circuits of the holding pattern are not necessary nor expected by ATC. If pilots elect to make additional circuits to lose excessive altitude or to become better established on course, it is their responsibility to so advise ATC upon receipt of their approach clearance.

 

[Velocity173]

I guess I'm dense since I'm still not getting it. There are many approaches that are outside of radar coverage. In this case of this one, the reference to "Memphis Center" (as opposed to a TRACON) is a clue this is not a radar-monitored approach. A quick look at the AFD for the airport confirms it. There are no radar services for this approach.

AFAIK, ATC is not required to notify the pilot of the lack of radar services for the approach since the pilot is expected to know this, but what is the problem you see with doing so (other than the fun of hearing a pilot cleared for the full approach asking for vectors and getting a laugh in return, as happened to a student of mine on his IFR dual cross country.)

I'm not saying the approach itself is within radar coverage. Even the feeder might be outside of radar coverage. My point is 1) the aircraft is still in the enroute environment along the airway. Obviously they're under converge then. And 2) This is an arrival and not an overflight. After you find out when they'll cancel, you change them to CTAF. At that point the aircraft is automatically terminated and need not be advised.

I don't have a problem with the phraseology in the example, just saying it's not required given the circumstances.

 

[dtuuri]

According to ForeFlight (see below), if you don’t home in on the NDB, but just fly the IAP’s specified heading of 344 magnetic from BARNE, you don’t actually arrive at the TKH NDB.

It's an NDB, so you DO "home" (track) to the NDB on a 344° magnetic course. According to Skyvector, the magnetic bearing from the NDB to BARNE is 164°, so the reciprocal would be 344°. EDIT: I see Skyvector doesn't want to play well. It sticks some other airport in there, so back that out and edit the route to read "TKH BARNE", then hit ENTER.

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

Certainly not. Per the AIM:

Once you pass the fix you aren't on the inbound course anymore. You have to establish yourself on the inbound course AFTER the entry before the holding pattern is considered complete.

"The holding pattern maneuver is completed when the aircraft is established on the inbound course after executing the appropriate entry."​

dtuuri

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm personally still not convinced there is a problem (other than perhaps a purely technical regulatory one) flying direct to TKH NDB and intercepting the localizer and glideslope straight in.

Coming in from BARNE, we have a 344° course to intercept a 357° localizer course at, a whopping 13°. And while flying a huge 38' above glideslope intercept. Wow!

OTOH, consider approaching the NDB from anywhere in the northwest quadrant and flying the PT. You fly to TKH and (assuming you follow the FAA's own guidance on hold entries) do a parallel entry to the HILPT. That puts you, in ideal conditions, on a 30° intercept to the same 357° course, the and the same glideslope at the exact same location and at the exact same altitude.

In fact, the only difference I can see between doing it "wrong" from BARNE without the PT and "correctly" from the northwest quadrant with the PT, is that all the reasons given why it's "wrong" seem to apply apply more than twice as much (30° vs 13° for the intercept; everything else is exactly the same) to doing it the "correct" way.

 

[Turningfinal]

I'm personally still not convinced there is a problem (other than perhaps a purely technical regulatory one) flying direct to TKH NDB and intercepting the localizer and glideslope straight in.

Coming in from BARNE, we have a 344° course to intercept a 357° localizer course at, a whopping 13°. And while flying a huge 38' above glideslope intercept. Wow!

OTOH, consider approaching the NDB from anywhere in the northwest quadrant and flying the PT. You fly to TKH and (assuming you follow the FAA's own guidance on hold entries) do a parallel entry to the HILPT. That puts you, in ideal conditions, on a 30° intercept to the same 357° course, the and the same glideslope at the exact same location and at the exact same altitude.

In fact, the only difference I can see between doing it "wrong" from BARNE without the PT and "correctly" from the northwest quadrant with the PT, is that all the reasons given why it's "wrong" seem to apply apply more than twice as much (30° vs 13° for the intercept; everything else is exactly the same) to doing it the "correct" way.

On the parallel entry, you should be intercepting the localizer inbound sometime before TKH. Flying to TKH from BARNE, you intercept the localizer right at the IAF/FAF. With no IF, like the other posters have said, you're required to execute the HILPT.

 

[dtuuri]

In fact, the only difference I can see between doing it "wrong" from BARNE without the PT and "correctly" from the northwest quadrant with the PT, is that all the reasons given why it's "wrong" seem to apply apply more than twice as much (30° vs 13° for the intercept; everything else is exactly the same) to doing it the "correct" way.

If you had no range information and were drawing your cue to slow down and configure after crossing the IAF, the "correct" path would give you time, the "wrong" path would destabilize the approach.

dtuuri

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm not saying the approach itself is within radar coverage. Even the feeder might be outside of radar coverage. My point is 1) the aircraft is still in the enroute environment along the airway. Obviously they're under converge then.

Why "obviously"? Radar coverage was not always as widespread en route as it is now, and many of our procedures still operate under that assumption. MEAs guaranty obstruction clearance, communications and navigation signals. They don't guaranty radar coverage. Even in current reality, there are still places in the continental US where there is no or limited radar coverage at en route MEAs.

You may very well be right about the degree of radar coverage available in this particular approach, but I don't see a Center controller saying "radar services terminated" in this type of situation as anything other than being "Used by ATC to inform a pilot that he/she will no longer be provided any of the services that could be received while in radar contact" (quoting the PCG) from that point on.

 

[Turningfinal]

Still unclear to me why the GPS 36 approach to the same runway (which I would use in general in lieu of the ILS where possible) has the 85' penalty in comparison to the ILS. Is it the 218' MSL obstruction on short final? If so, doesn't it affect the ILS the same way?

Rotordude,

The amended RNAV (GPS) 36 being designed now has the same minimums as the ILS. This was due to a new runway survey and obstacle removal. I'm guessing all this was done in conjunction with adding the SSALR & glideslope to the existing localizer system.

Changes:
8. LPV DA/HAT ALL CATS CHANGED FROM 371/285 TO 286/200.
9. LPV VISIBILITY ALL CATS CHANGED FROM 1 TO 1/2.

Reasons:
8, 22. NEW RWY SURVEY / OBST REMOVAL.
9, 11, 14. IAW 8260.3B, CHG 20, CH 3 / LIGHT CREDIT DUE TO NEW SSALR.

 

[midlifeflyer]

If you had no range information and were drawing your cue to slow down and configure after crossing the IAF, the "correct" path would give you time, the "wrong" path would destabilize the approach.

dtuuri

...as would choosing to fly the PT at a significantly higher speed than your final precision approach final all the way until hitting the NDB inbound.

Assuming no radar and no other range information (which, as unlikely as it might be, I agree we must do since there are no notes requiring either), it's still a simple pilot operational issue.

If a pilot chooses to fly from BARNE to the NDB at en route speeds, yes, she would probably want to do the PT to slow down. But that's not an operational necessity and the pilot can always choose to slow down immediately after crossing BARNE or to guesstimate a halfway point to slow down.

Keep in mind that I am not commenting on whether the PT should be a required maneuver. I've never claimed and have no desire to be that much of an expert in approach design. I'm only looking at Wally's actual question which was what we would do as pilots given that chart. Based on that, I'm sticking with my original answer

I'm inclined to say "None of the above" and that my read back of the approach clearance would be "Cleared for the ILS Runway 36 approach. Request straight in." With no rationale for the route (as opposed to the reg) requiring a PT, the only important consideration is that the pilot and ATC are on the same page.

 

[Everskyward]

I'm only looking at Wally's actual question which was what we would do as pilots given that chart. Based on that, I'm sticking with my original answer

I am guessing that, at least prior to this discussion, many pilots would have asked to do the approach straight in. I am wondering how many ATC controllers would have gone along with that request regardless of what it says in the section of the controller manual which John quoted in post #45.

c. Except for visual approaches, do not clear an aircraft direct to the FAF unless it is also an IAF, wherein the aircraft is expected to execute the depicted procedure turn or hold-in-lieu of procedure turn.

I don't think this is quite the same situation as the scenario posted by the OP. Although the airplane would end up following the same routing, they were not cleared direct to the FAF. It would be interesting to hear a controller's point of view.

As you near BARNE on the airway to the south, Memphis Center say, “Piper 1234C, radar service terminated, cleared from over BARNES for the Tallulah ILS Runway 36 approach.”

 

[Velocity173]

I am guessing that, at least prior to this discussion, many pilots would have asked to do the approach straight in. I am wondering how many ATC controllers would have gone along with that request regardless of what it says in the section of the controller manual which John quoted in post #45.



I don't think this is quite the same situation as the scenario posted by the OP. Although the airplane would end up following the same routing, they were not cleared direct to the FAF. It would be interesting to hear a controller's point of view.

Well, I don't do ATC anymore, but I'd agree with John in this case. The aircraft is proceeding to a collocated IAF / FAF. I don't think they can clear them for the straight in based on the verbiage in ch4 of the .65. The only example in the .65 that deals with clearing for a straight in with a HILPT, is one where the HILPT is at an IAF well outside the FAF.

Steven would know. He knows everything.:wink2:

 

[RotorDude]

Rotordude,

The amended RNAV (GPS) 36 being designed now has the same minimums as the ILS. This was due to a new runway survey and obstacle removal. I'm guessing all this was done in conjunction with adding the SSALR & glideslope to the existing localizer system.

Thanks! That's very helpful.
I fail to see why we spend so much time and energy discussing the minutiae of a quaint NDB/ILS approach when the RNAV into the same runway is vastly easier, quicker, arguably safer, and has the same minimums.