Reasoning behind NOTAM.

[benyflyguy]

Local field has had a NOTAM for months now regarding the RNAV approaches on both ends being NA. Backstory is the airport lengthened the threshold so runway would be technically >5000. Apparently insurance on smaller jets requires it I’m told and they get some money to do it through power of magic (govt grant?).
I’m told that the NOTAM exists because the FAA has to come and officially fly the approaches after the runway length has changed-which they are behind on.
It creates some interesting side talk. Legal to fly? Probably might come up if you have an accident landing at a field Using a NA approach.
Thoughts?

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

I've always wondered how the atc conversation would go.
"I want that approach" "Sorry it's notamed ots" "I'll take my chances, let me at it"
(atc call to fsdo next day?)
I agree it seems silly that you are stuck, and for a significant time, when they lengthened the runway.

 

[MauleSkinner]

“Better than designed” doesn’t actually count in the TERPS world...it has to be “as designed”.

Depending upon how long they anticipated it being NA and/or how long it takes Jepp to notice, they may not be in the GPS database right now, either.

 

[benyflyguy]

The localizer approach was not affected oddly enough. Seems weird. Fortunately we just updated our Garmin 430w database and the approach is still in there. I don’t know enough about what the hold up is, or if that is common. Things like this are annoying, ppl are using those approaches all the time, was lengthened for small jet traffic which we get more and more of. What happens when someone has a boo boo and the faa comes investigating and it comes up they were shooting a NA approach? Seems like with this it’s not harm no foul until there’s harm!!! I looked around other local fields and no such NOTAMs.

 

[MauleSkinner]

What happens when someone has a boo boo and the faa comes investigating and it comes up they were shooting a NA approach? Seems like with this it’s not harm no foul until there’s harm!!! I looked around other local fields and no such NOTAMs.

In general, there’s no foul until there’s harm. But if something happens and the FAA realizes in that the pilot(s) shot an NA approach, I’m sure it will be added into the mix whether it’s relevant to the “something” or not.

 

[Sluggo63]

I’m told that the NOTAM exists because the FAA has to come and officially fly the approaches after the runway length has changed-which they are behind on.
It creates some interesting side talk. Legal to fly? Probably might come up if you have an accident landing at a field Using a NA approach.
Thoughts?

"I'm told..." by whom? Is it just the coffee klatch around the FBO, or someone official. I wouldn't fly an NA approach unless I was an emergency. The fact is that you really don't know why it's NA. There's conjecture that it's because of the runway lengthening, but you can't be sure.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I've always wondered how the atc conversation would go.
"I want that approach" "Sorry it's notamed ots" "I'll take my chances, let me at it"
(atc call to fsdo next day?)
I agree it seems silly that you are stuck, and for a significant time, when they lengthened the runway.

If my experience with a nigh instrument approach NOTAM'd "NA at night" is any indication, the ATC answer would be, "sorry, we can't do that."

 

[midwestpa24]

If my experience with a nigh instrument approach NOTAM'd "NA at night" is any indication, the ATC answer would be, "sorry, we can't do that."

ATC should never clear you for an approach that was NOTAMed NA. Likewise they shouldn't clear you for an approach to closed airport or runway either.

At the end of the day, you don't know the reason its NA, only that its NOTAMed so. Whoever is in charge of it decided it is not safe or legal to use. I run into the same with runway closure NOTAMs. I've had pilots that want to use a closed runway because "it looked ok to them." You don't know why I closed it. For all you know there is a cable stretched across it, or a hole in the middle you couldn't see. I didn't close it for giggles...probably.

 

[SbestCFII]

They won't. Often they are NA because they haven't been test-flown by the FAA. In the case cited, the change in runway length may require an adjustment to the RNAV approaches. I don't think it would affect the LOC approach unless it might affect the MDA. In any case, whether we understand the reason of not doesn't really matter, if it's NOTAM'd as NA, then ATC won't clear you for it.

 

[Jmcmanna]

Am I missing something here? I see the LPV and LNAV/VNAV mins are NA, but why can’t you shoot the approach to LNAV mins?

With a change in the runway length, it would make sense that the approaches with vertical guidance would be NA until they could be modified to fit with the new runway dimensions and flight checked.

 

[davidgfern]

ATC should never clear you for an approach that was NOTAMed NA. Likewise they shouldn't clear you for an approach to closed airport or runway either.

At the end of the day, you don't know the reason its NA, only that its NOTAMed so. Whoever is in charge of it decided it is not safe or legal to use. I run into the same with runway closure NOTAMs. I've had pilots that want to use a closed runway because "it looked ok to them." You don't know why I closed it. For all you know there is a cable stretched across it, or a hole in the middle you couldn't see. I didn't close it for giggles...probably.

 

[benyflyguy]

Just updated them today. Looks like RNAV 10
Will be circling min only until July and the RNAV 28 the circling and LNAV only min until July!!!??

 

[MauleSkinner]

Am I missing something here? I see the LPV and LNAV/VNAV mins are NA, but why can’t you shoot the approach to LNAV mins?

Because straight in nonprecision approaches still have descent angle requirements.

 

[Jmcmanna]

I get that, but I don’t seee where it says the LNAV or Circling mins are not authorized, just LPV and LNAV/VNAV.

 

[benyflyguy]

I get that, but I don’t seee where it says the LNAV or Circling mins are not authorized, just LPV and LNAV/VNAV.

Those are the approaches that are not included, thus the only ones available plus the localizer one too. For the 10 approach only a 100 ft difference, for the 28 approach a 200’ difference. My planned personal min are higher so won’t affect me much. But there are a lot of days that would make a difference for the approaches. Especially the 28 one

 

[benyflyguy]

Made my day!!!

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

the ATC answer would be, "sorry, we can't do that."

I was nearing home today and atc gave me the AS from a 20mi-away airport as the home AS was ots again.
It was vmc, so I asked atc about it hypothetically, they said as you do MLF - no AS, no approach.
Next Q; I have a guy at the fbo reading me the AS from paired, certified altimeters. Will atc say, "Well, Ok then cleared for the approach" or not?

 

[Jmcmanna]

Most approach plates have a “if local altimeter setting not received, use XXX altimeter setting and increase DA by XX feet” or something to that effect. It looks like the AVP altimeter setting would be used instead. There are two independent altimeter settings at most towered airports; one from the AWOS and one from an independent source, so realistically you would never be without.

With that said, and I say this as an air traffic controller, if you tell me you have a local altimeter setting, I will clear you for the approach. My job is to separate traffic, not police what minimums you use, what equipment you have, etc...

 

[dmspilot]

I was nearing home today and atc gave me the AS from a 20mi-away airport as the home AS was ots again.
It was vmc, so I asked atc about it hypothetically, they said as you do MLF - no AS, no approach.
Next Q; I have a guy at the fbo reading me the AS from paired, certified altimeters. Will atc say, "Well, Ok then cleared for the approach" or not?

How about you ask in English. I have no idea what you're saying.

 

[benyflyguy]

How about you ask in English. I have no idea what you're saying.

Lol. I got most of it when I read that. But I didn’t know how a “Mother I’d Like to falafel” fits into the conversation

 

[Hank S]

Most approach plates have a “if local altimeter setting not received, use XXX altimeter setting and increase DA by XX feet” or something to that effect. It looks like the AVP altimeter setting would be used instead. There are two independent altimeter settings at most towered airports; one from the AWOS and one from an independent source, so realistically you would never be without.

With that said, and I say this as an air traffic controller, if you tell me you have a local altimeter setting, I will clear you for the approach. My job is to separate traffic, not police what minimums you use, what equipment you have, etc...

In my admittedly limited IFR experience, a mere 8 or 9 years of occasional GA use, it's more like "some" approach plates list an alternate altimeter. Most of the ones I have gone to, real and practice, do not have this statement. But also, most are untowered and often unattended.

 

[Jmcmanna]

Must be a regional thing. I looked at every public uncontrolled airport within Chicago Approach’s airspace that had a published IAP and every single one of them had a means of obtaining an altimeter setting from somewhere other than the AWOS. That might not be practical (or possible) in more rural areas, I suppose.

Interestingly enough, some of them actually said “obtain local altimeter setting on CTAF, if not available use XXX altimeter setting and raise all DA’s by XX feet”. To the question about “if I get the altimeter setting from the FBO, can I shoot the approach”... some approach plates literally just say “obtain local altimeter setting on CTAF”, so I would say that you would be good to go.

 

[bflynn]

Reminds me - Seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we keep the PC on the QT? 'Cause if it leaks to the VC he could end up MIA, and then we'd all be put on KP.

 

[aterpster]

Must be a regional thing. I looked at every public uncontrolled airport within Chicago Approach’s airspace that had a published IAP and every single one of them had a means of obtaining an altimeter setting from somewhere other than the AWOS. That might not be practical (or possible) in more rural areas, I suppose.

Interestingly enough, some of them actually said “obtain local altimeter setting on CTAF, if not available use XXX altimeter setting and raise all DA’s by XX feet”. To the question about “if I get the altimeter setting from the FBO, can I shoot the approach”... some approach plates literally just say “obtain local altimeter setting on CTAF”, so I would say that you would be good to go.

Here is one in my area that is becoming an IFR airport on January 3. It doesn't say anything about obtaining the altimeter on CTAF
.

 

[John Collins]

In the case of RNAV (GPS) RWY 10 approach, you are limited to circling. In the case of RNAV (GPS) RWY 28 approach, you are limited to the LNAV MDA and to circling. If the FAA wanted to prevent all usage of the procedure, it would use the terminology, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10 Procedure NA. So for both of these procedures, ATC should not have any issue with clearing an aircraft for the approach, although they may ask if you have the NOTAMs. It is not their job to enforce which minimums your aircraft is capable of flying, although they do so in some instances. At a non towered airport, ATC has no control over whether you circle or not. One can circle to the runway if they are inside the circling area and can make a normal descent to the runway. If you are too high and still want to land on Runway 10, just overfly the runway and enter the traffic pattern from overhead.