NOTAM Amendment 5

WDD

WDD

Final Approach
Joined
Oct 16, 2019
Messages
5,339
Location
Atlanta / KRYY
Display Name
Display name:
Vintage Snazzy (so my adult children say)
I’ve not seen this before. When I look at the plate it has “amendment 5” on the bottom. NOTAM “reads procedure na”. It can’t surely mean the ILS 27 and RNAV 09 are discontinued for 2 years?? Why would they still publish a plate?

52465416-90B6-4AF6-9757-D8E3BD888C8F.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Those are the major / key approaches at our local D airport. What would cause an ILS and RNAV to be shut down for 2 years? Yikes - am I reading this right?
 
WDD said:
Those are the major / key approaches at our local D airport. What would cause an ILS and RNAV to be shut down for 2 years? Yikes - am I reading this right?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that two years is a default timeframe for a NOTAM with no specific time frame planned.
 
I was down there at RYY on Monday evening and they had the RNAV 09 in use. Looks like this just went into effect today. Strange.
 
WDD said:
Those are the major / key approaches at our local D airport. What would cause an ILS and RNAV to be shut down for 2 years? Yikes - am I reading this right?
Click to expand...
Probably won’t be for 2 years. I’ve seen long time spans like this before because they just aren’t sure how long something is going to take. That’s why the EST. There have been a lot of changes made and it looks like they are waiting to be Flight Checked. Go here https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/ and plug in RYY. Here’s a pic of part of it. @RussR , whadda ya know about this one?

upload_2022-7-15_15-40-6.png
 
Last edited:
Few folks in our club are now chatting about this. As LuvFLyin pointed out, the plates are changing to not depend on PDK VOR, as both the ATL and PDK VOR's are being shut down (that seems odd, but who knows).

Now, why not just issued new plates and let people use it, IDK. If not fully tested, then why not test and then release?
 
Why would the RNAV be taken down too?
 
masloki said:
Why would the RNAV be taken down too?
Click to expand...
Great question - doesn't make sense, unless like the ILS 27 one of the fixes or part of the missed and hold were dependent on the PDK or ATL VOR. Doesn't look like it though. I don't know.
 
Thanks @luvflyin - I do not have any insider knowledge of this specific case, however, if you note the date on these procedures, they were published on July 14, so Thursday. But if you look at the website you posted, the Production Plan tab says they are awaiting flight check. I put these together to infer that for some reason the flight inspection did not happen. Typically yes, the flight inspection occurs before they are published. However, in some cases that you could think of as a “fast track”, the procedures are put into the publishing queue while they are still awaiting flight check. Obviously this is a bit of a gamble that the flight check will get done on time, and the procedure will pass. It usually works, but sometimes it doesn’t.

If it doesn’t, then you have a procedure published which hasn’t actually been checked, and that’s not good. So the procedure is temporarily NOTAMed NA until it can get the flight check done.

The types of reasons for the delays range could be anything from facility status, to runway markings and painting not being completed, to bad weather, to flight check airplane maintenance, pilot availability, prioritization with other procedures, Covid, etc. The only way to know for certain is to email the FAA at the link on that website.

The 2-year time period for the NOTAMS is, as other stated, just a placeholder for when it’s unknown when the procedure is going to be returned to service. In a case like this, it’s not going to be two years. Might just be a few days, but again I have no insight into this particular case.
 
Learn a lot on this forum. Thanks RussR!
 
WDD said:
No one can use it. In what way does it still exist ? Just put a red X through it and in stern fonts “None Shall Pass”
Click to expand...
If they trash can the procedure it costs more to reestablish later.
 
While it sounds like this specific mystery has been solved, another reason for a long (even years) NA of an ILS is runway construction. You don’t want to follow a glide slope to a construction site. Sometimes the runway will be open in one form or another, such as shortened while they work on half of it each year, or they’ll mark a parallel taxiway as a runway while the runway is under construction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
Looks like the took off the NOTAM and put back the old plates
 
WDD said:
Looks like the took off the NOTAM and put back the old plates
Click to expand...

They're not the old plates, they are the current ones. Just the NOTAM has been canceled and therefore the approaches are usable.
 
Yes. Saw the “new one” on ForeFlight. CFII and I actually looked at it together where she pointed out the removal of the VOR defined waypoint
 
WDD said:
The plate that is now in use looks identical to the one listed as “old”, unlike the one they had up last Friday that didn’t use the PDK VOR for a fix - also listed below as “new”.
Click to expand...


The currently published ILS OR LOC RWY 27 is Amdt 5. This is what was published on July 14th and was NOTAMed NA, and is the chart available in Foreflight or Skyvector or from any other source. That NOTAM has since been canceled and so this approach (Amdt 5) is now flyable.

The one you posted is from the coordination website, and is Amdt 6. It is scheduled for publication on 11/3 and deals with the decommissioning of the PDK VOR/DME.
 
WDD said:
Yes. Saw the “new one” on ForeFlight. CFII and I actually looked at it together where she pointed out the removal of the VOR defined waypoint
Click to expand...
I think maybe this was you answering a post I had just made. But I deleted it a couple minutes later thinking that what I said had pretty much already been said by you. I had added a bunch of stuff about Chart cycle dates and Foreflight updates being current. The current cycle is Jul 14-Aug 11. It has the Amdt 5 Chart. So are you saying you and the CFII saw the Amdt 6 Chart, on Foreflight, during the Jun ##-Jul 13 cycle?
 
RussR said:
The currently published ILS OR LOC RWY 27 is Amdt 5. This is what was published on July 14th and was NOTAMed NA, and is the chart available in Foreflight or Skyvector or from any other source. That NOTAM has since been canceled and so this approach (Amdt 5) is now flyable.

The one you posted is from the coordination website, and is Amdt 6. It is scheduled for publication on 11/3 and deals with the decommissioning of the PDK VOR/DME.
Click to expand...
While we’re here I have some questions. The Amdt 5 one does not show OVPEW, ALBRS and CUMAV as DME Fixes. Charting error, or was there a reason then? Isn’t CUMAV to close in to be a Radar Fix? Amdt 6 seems to address this, CUMAV is not a Radar Fix there.
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
While we’re here I have some questions. The Amdt 5 one does not show OVPEW, ALBRS and CUMAV as DME Fixes. Charting error, or was there a reason? Isn’t CUMAV to close in to be a Radar Fix? Amdt 6 seems to address this, CUMAV is not a Radar Fix there.
Click to expand...

OVPEW, ALBRS, CUMAV DME:
Just from looking at the documents on the coordination website, I don't think it's a charting error exactly, nor a source error. Somewhere in between. The RYY LOC did not have an associated DME source in the past. If you look at Amdt 4E (available in the Amdt 5 "S" file), they are intersections and radar only, and in the upper left corner of the chart it says "I-RYY LOC" with the frequency, not "I-RYY LOC/DME". So it didn't have DME.

The source document (the "F" file) does not list these fixes as DME fixes either, and there is no discussion of adding "DME" in the Changes/Reasons. So I infer that to mean the facility did not have DME when the procedure was designed. However, the charting of "LOC/DME" on the chart is driven not from the source document, but from the navigation facility database. So it seems that for whatever reason, the DME was installed prior to the publishing date, but too late to make changes to the charted fixes - but that's a guess.

On the source document for Amdt 6, it adds the DME to those fixes. And if you look in the Changes/Reasons, it specifies that was done due to installation of the DME.

CUMAV RADAR - this does seem to be a charting error. CUMAV is not specified as a RADAR fix on the 8260-3 for Amdt 5 (profile section, Line 4). I suggest that be reported to the FAA through the IFP Gateway.
 
Appreciate the discussion. Reading and thinking through plates like this help keep this all just a little bit sharper.

Next time I’ll take a picture of what I see in ForeFlight for better documentation.

Surprised that the PDK (and ATL ?) VOR are being taken down given the amount of traffic in this area. Would have thought they were part of the MON.
 
RussR said:
OVPEW, ALBRS, CUMAV DME:
Just from looking at the documents on the coordination website, I don't think it's a charting error exactly, nor a source error. Somewhere in between. The RYY LOC did not have an associated DME source in the past. If you look at Amdt 4E (available in the Amdt 5 "S" file), they are intersections and radar only, and in the upper left corner of the chart it says "I-RYY LOC" with the frequency, not "I-RYY LOC/DME". So it didn't have DME.

The source document (the "F" file) does not list these fixes as DME fixes either, and there is no discussion of adding "DME" in the Changes/Reasons. So I infer that to mean the facility did not have DME when the procedure was designed. However, the charting of "LOC/DME" on the chart is driven not from the source document, but from the navigation facility database. So it seems that for whatever reason, the DME was installed prior to the publishing date, but too late to make changes to the charted fixes - but that's a guess.

On the source document for Amdt 6, it adds the DME to those fixes. And if you look in the Changes/Reasons, it specifies that was done due to installation of the DME.

CUMAV RADAR - this does seem to be a charting error. CUMAV is not specified as a RADAR fix on the 8260-3 for Amdt 5 (profile section, Line 4). I suggest that be reported to the FAA through the IFP Gateway.
Click to expand...
It’s going to become a moot point soon enough anyway but there is another thing. The RMG R-101. Isn’t that to narrow an angle? If there was a HILPT there I am sure it would be too narrow. What is the limit to just identify an IF intersection?
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
It’s going to become a moot point soon enough anyway but there is another thing. The RMG R-101. Isn’t that to narrow an angle? If there was a HILPT there I am sure it would be too narrow. What is the limit to just identify an IF intersection?
Click to expand...

For a holding pattern the minimum angle of divergence is 45 degrees. For a straight segment of an approach, the fix displacement error must be less than half the segment width. Due to the small angle here and the distance from the VOR, I'd say it's too acute as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top