questions about an approach

I just entered the IAF into my Garmin, and it gave me a course of 047 degrees at 1386 nm.

GPS breaks most of the rules in the system anyway. ;)

Bit KIKKY is marked as both the IAF and the IF, yet there's no course reversal depicted. It's not part of the enroute structure, there are no transitions listed...

I'm curious, TERPS gods... Absent a "RADAR Required" note, would it be legal to be cleared direct to the "IAF/IF" at the 3400-foot MOCA, turn inbound and get established, descend to 2500 feet and shoot the remainder of the approach on one's own? What is the purpose of RADAR Required on this plate?
 
RADAR REQUIRED also shows up in the plan view of the ILS32 at KSTP:

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1106/00263IL32.PDF

It sure looks to me like this procedure could be flown without RADAR or DME (BTW, "radar or DME" is in the notes as well).

A quick examination of the plate indicates to me that it could be flown without DME, DME is only needed for the localizer approach to HOVIN fix minimums. However, radar is required for procedure entry as no means of procedure entry via pilot nav was provided by the approach designer. Now, one can easily see how pilot nav entry could have been provided, but it wasn't, so RADAR is required for this approach.

A closer examination suggests something is missing. Note that "INT" follows HOVIN in the plan and profile views, but no course or radial is shown crossing the localizer that establishes an intersection at HOVIN. There is a chart error here, the fix data shows that HOVIN is an intersection of the localizer and the FGT R-016. The note, "RADAR or DME required", is erroneous, as DME is not required to fly any part of this approach.

Since you found the plate you may have the glory of reporting the error.
 

Attachments

  • HOVIN.pdf
    2.4 KB · Views: 13
Well, what's the only reason anyone requests a full procedure instead of vectors to final? Why, because there's a CFII sitting next to them, of course!

That would be a new one for me. In my experience, whenever a pilot has requested a full procedure he has been able to fly the full procedure on his own navigation.
 
Last edited:
That would be a new one for me. In my experience, whenever a pilot has requested a full procedure he has been able to fly the full procedure on his own navigation.

Uhhh... Yeah, that's kind of a prerequisite. What's your point? I'm always able to fly the full procedure, but that doesn't mean I ask for it. In real life (as opposed to receiving instruction), I (almost?) never get anything other than vectors to final.
 
Uhhh... Yeah, that's kind of a prerequisite. What's your point? I'm always able to fly the full procedure, but that doesn't mean I ask for it. In real life (as opposed to receiving instruction), I (almost?) never get anything other than vectors to final.

You've lost track of the discussion. If you review it the point should become clear.
 
This discussion makes a whole lot more sense now that I've started IFR training and completed my first couple of ILS approaches. Nailed 'em, by the way.
 
Random followup 'cause i was looking at the chart the other day.

They have now removed the IAF label from AGENS, so I guess it was a mistake in the previous version.

It's a bit disturbing to think about there being errors in charted approach procedures, but i guess there are probably quite a few out there with mistakes.
 

Attachments

  • 00915I31.pdf
    220.4 KB · Views: 4
Last edited:
Random followup 'cause i was looking at the chart the other day.

They have now removed the IAF label from AGENS, so I guess it was a mistake in the previous version.

It's a bit disturbing to think about there being errors in charted approach procedures, but i guess there are probably quite out there with mistakes.

I've gotten three approaches "fixed" - But it's never something that'd kill you, merely the sort of things we tend to get into discussions about here - As in, something that doesn't appear to make any sense. IAF's that aren't, transition routes marked as procedure tracks, etc.

The nice thing is that the NACO folks are the exact opposite of the stereotypical government employee. They're quick to respond, helpful, and friendly. It's nice to have such positive interactions after constantly hearing about how awful they all are in the media.
 
3. The navigation equipment required to join and fly an instrument approach procedure is indicated by the title of the procedure and notes on the chart.
(a) Straight-in IAPs are identified by the navigational system providing the final approach guidance and the runway to which the approach is aligned (e.g., VOR RWY 13). Circling only approaches are identified by the navigational system providing final approach guidance and a letter (e.g., VOR A). More than one navigational system separated by a slash indicates that more than one type of equipment must be used to execute the final approach (e.g., VOR/DME RWY 31). More than one navigational system separated by the word “or” indicates either type of equipment may be used to execute the final approach (e.g., VOR or GPS RWY 15).
(b) In some cases, other types of navigation systems including radar may be required to execute other portions of the approach or to navigate to the IAF (e.g., an NDB procedure turn to an ILS, an NDB in the missed approach, or radar required to join the procedure or identify a fix). When radar or other equipment is required for procedure entry from the en route environment, a note will be charted in the planview of the approach procedure chart (e.g., RADAR REQUIRED or ADF REQUIRED). When radar or other equipment is required on portions of the procedure outside the final approach segment, including the missed approach, a note will be charted in the notes box of the pilot briefing portion of the approach chart (e.g., RADAR REQUIRED or DME REQUIRED). Notes are not charted when VOR is required outside the final approach segment. Pilots should ensure that the aircraft is equipped with the required NAVAID(s) in order to execute the approach, including the missed approach.
NOTE-
Some military (i.e., U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy) IAPs have these “additional equipment required" notes charted only in the planview of the approach procedure and do not conform to the same application standards used by the FAA.

(c) The FAA has initiated a program to provide a new notation for LOC approaches when charted on an ILS approach requiring other navigational aids to fly the final approach course. The LOC minimums will be annotated with the NAVAID required (e.g., “DME Required” or “RADAR Required”). During the transition period, ILS approaches will still exist without the annotation.
 
Back
Top