Stupid filing question

[MikePapa]

Before I ask my question, here is the following assumptions:

1) The aircraft to fly the approach has only basic equipment consisting of 2 Nav heads, GS receiver, DME, and marker beacon receiver. No GPS or ADF.

2) The following ILS 12L approach to Victoria, TX (KVCT).
http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0908/00438IL12L.PDF

3) The flight will be approaching KVCT from the north.

Apparently the VCT VOR is a terminal VOR and is not listed as an IAF. The only transition listed on the approach plate is the PSX VOR far to the southeast. Since the approach doesn't require ADF, it appears as if the IAF can be identified via the LOC and OM.

It seems like the only legal way to file would be to file to PSX, fly the transition, intercept the LOC outbound course to the OM (IAF), then fly the procedure turn as usual.

Assuming ceilings below the MVA, is there any other way to legally file for this approach? Obviously there's a good chance in reality of getting vectors to the final approach course, but I'm interested in how this approach should be filed.

 

[bbchien]

Not a stupid question. But this approach only has one IAF...and it's an NDB. Unless you have radar coverage and they have it on their scopes, marked and reviewed, you rather SOL finidng the IAF....

Even using the VOR 35 nm away and using the cross radial with the loc .....how accurate is that going to be? You think that has something to do with PSX not being an IAF?

Better get that IFR GPS. It's a good bet that the NDB is going away sometime soon, and then all you'll have is an LVP GPS over the old localizer track....

sigh.

 

[wsuffa]

Bruce is correct in his analysis, although I'd add one point: there is a note on the plate that indicates you should use I-VCT DME while on the LOC course. Further, the DME of the LOM is indicated on the chart. Given that note, you should be able to identify the IAF if you're on-course by using DME (I also note that the chart does NOT make DME mandatory).

If you have DME, AND you can get on-course for the LOC, then you can identify the IAF and fly the approach. But doing so assumes you can get established on the ILS course.

Still, GPS seems to be becoming mandatory....

 

[MikePapa]

Thanks for the insight, Bruce.

I actually do have an approach certified GPS in both the aircraft I fly on a regular basis. However I like to run these scenarios out because it's my understanding that if my filed destination requires a GPS for any part of the approach, my alternate can't require a GPS for any part of the approach. Also as a newly minted IFR pilot, I kinda like the idea of flying sans GPS if I'm not in a hurry to get somewhere just to polish the green needle skills.

 

[SCCutler]

MP-

Where are you based?

Tell us about yourself. So we can stalk you.

 

[roncachamp]

Apparently the VCT VOR is a terminal VOR and is not listed as an IAF.

VCT is an L class VOR/DME.

The only transition listed on the approach plate is the PSX VOR far to the southeast.

There are two feeder routes on the plate, the PSX VORTAC 276 radial and the VCT VOR/DME 302 radial.

 

[MikePapa]

I live in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. I fly mostly out of KFTW, but also out of KGPM. I've seen you over on the DFWPilots board, but I'm not sure if I've ever seen you in person.

 

[MikePapa]

There are two feeder routes on the plate, the PSX VORTAC 276 radial and the VCT VOR/DME 302 radial.

OK, I missed the feeder route off the VCT VOR. It's not listed very plainly.

 

[Palmpilot]

OK, I missed the feeder route off the VCT VOR. It's not listed very plainly.

It's not very obvious - one needs to really go over approach plates with a fine tooth comb to spot everything sometimes. I guess the thing to look for on feeder routes is any arrow that has an altitude associated with it.

What I'd like to know is, does the fact that the procedure turn is depicted outside the 10 nm ring mean that it must be flown outside that ring?

 

[MikePapa]

What I'd like to know is, does the fact that the procedure turn is depicted outside the 10 nm ring mean that it must be flown outside that ring?

That one I know (or at least think I do). The 10nm ring doesn't apply to the PT. If you look in the profile view, it says, "Remain within 15nm".

 

[SCCutler]

I live in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. I fly mostly out of KFTW, but also out of KGPM. I've seen you over on the DFWPilots board, but I'm not sure if I've ever seen you in person.

Oh, you'd know... the scars take along time to heal!

So far as I know, the only DFWPilots participant I've met (and flown with) is Allen Gilbert (Jounin).

 

[roncachamp]

OK, I missed the feeder route off the VCT VOR. It's not listed very plainly.

Well, it's shown about as plainly as it can be given that the route is only 1.4 miles long.

 

[bbchien]

And it's also plain as day that that's not an IAF, as in no "VCT/IAF" notation at the VOR.

 

[MikePapa]

And it's also plain as day that that's not an IAF, as in no "VCT/IAF" notation at the VOR.

It's not an IAF, but since the VOR is listed on both the approach plate and the enroute chart, can I not use it as a transition to the IAF (even though it's only 1.4 miles long)? I understand it would be very impractical if approaching from the north to make almost a 180 degree turn and intercept the 302 radial in less than 1.4 miles.

 

[bbchien]

I'd like to see how it washes with the ALJ when you virtually identified the NDB, from an enroute altitude determined by you, with no airways leading you to the VOR. There are none.

If you got Radar Vectors to the VOR at minimum vectoring altitude, you arrive at VCT and have 1.4 nm to lose the altitude you can, make the procedure turn at 2200....

I always say, I wonder how it'll sound in the NTSB reports. Maybe it's doable. It's like me flying no longer authorized CAT II in a nonemergency. Just not happening.

Why are there no airways going to VCT? how about the Kings 4 MOAs and very poor radar coverage out of Corpus Christie.

 

[MikePapa]

I'd like to see how it washes with the ALJ when you virtually identified the NDB, from an enroute altitude determined by you, with no airways leading you to the VOR. There are none.

I guess that's part of my question. Is the VCT VOR legal to use as a transition if it's not on an airway? If the answer is no, why is the feeder route depicted on the approach chart?

As far as identifying the LOM, it would seem as if you could either identify the fix by the LOC course and the ILS/DME or by the VCT VOR r302 and the outer marker beacon.

 

[Palmpilot]

I'd like to see how it washes with the ALJ when you virtually identified the NDB, from an enroute altitude determined by you, with no airways leading you to the VOR. There are none.

I was under the impression that flying direct to a VOR was a permitted IFR operation as long as you are within its service volume, there are no NOTAMs saying its not usable, and you are at or above the OROCA/MORA.

If you got Radar Vectors to the VOR at minimum vectoring altitude, you arrive at VCT and have 1.4 nm to lose the altitude you can, make the procedure turn at 2200....

Why would you need to get down to 2200 in 1.4 miles? You can lose additional altitude in the PT if you need to. Besides, judging by the minimum safe altitude on the sectional, it's unlikely that the OROCA/MORA is much above 2200, if at all.

 

[roncachamp]

And it's also plain as day that that's not an IAF, as in no "VCT/IAF" notation at the VOR.

Who said it was an IAF? It was described as a feeder route as plain as day.

 

[roncachamp]

It's not an IAF, but since the VOR is listed on both the approach plate and the enroute chart, can I not use it as a transition to the IAF (even though it's only 1.4 miles long)?

Of course you can, that's why it's on the plate. The purpose of feeder routes is to provide procedures for aircraft to transition from the en route environment to the IAF.

 

[roncachamp]

I'd like to see how it washes with the ALJ when you virtually identified the NDB, from an enroute altitude determined by you, with no airways leading you to the VOR. There are none.

The altitude would be assigned by ATC. Why do you feel the lack of airways is an issue?

If you got Radar Vectors to the VOR at minimum vectoring altitude, you arrive at VCT and have 1.4 nm to lose the altitude you can, make the procedure turn at 2200.....

You arrive at VCT and have 1.4 miles to lose how much altitude? Is there a maximum altitude at the IAF outbound?

Why are there no airways going to VCT? how about the Kings 4 MOAs and very poor radar coverage out of Corpus Christie.

The Morales ARSR is 27 miles NNE of VCT, I'd expect radar coverage to be quite good for this approach.

 

[roncachamp]

I guess that's part of my question. Is the VCT VOR legal to use as a transition if it's not on an airway? If the answer is no, why is the feeder route depicted on the approach chart?

The answer is yes.

 

[roncachamp]

I was under the impression that flying direct to a VOR was a permitted IFR operation as long as you are within its service volume, there are no NOTAMs saying its not usable, and you are at or above the OROCA/MORA.

It's legal with radar monitoring even if you're outside of the service volume, and radar coverage should be very good in this area.

 

[bbchien]

Of course you can fly to VCT w/o an airway. The question was, why is it that way? The answer is probably that it's military reserve airspace and no GA development took place there.

But you still have the problem of identifying the IAF without the "appropriate equipment". 3 degrees off at 38 nm distance, crossing a localize that is not nearly orthogonal. You could be +/- 1.6 miles side to side. A good bet that doesn't meet TERPS standards.

What, no ADF? Looks like an ALJ case to me.

Of course you can fly to the VOR. That's not what you need to accomplish, however....you need to accomplish a bit more.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Thanks for the insight, Bruce.

I actually do have an approach certified GPS in both the aircraft I fly on a regular basis. However I like to run these scenarios out because it's my understanding that if my filed destination requires a GPS for any part of the approach, my alternate can't require a GPS for any part of the approach. Also as a newly minted IFR pilot, I kinda like the idea of flying sans GPS if I'm not in a hurry to get somewhere just to polish the green needle skills.

Nice to meet you, MikeP. I fly out of GPM, FTW, and 52F, and live near FTW (Keller/Watauga area, west of 377/north of Basswood). Let's get together sometime.

I just wanted to touch on the "understanding" you mentioned above, not yet addressed by anybody else.

With some caveats, the newer WAAS-approved TSO C-146A model GPS's can be used for the alternates as well. It's the older C-129/129A TSO GPS's that require a non-GPS alternate.

Here's a Jepp briefing document with details:

http://www.jeppesen.com/download/briefbull/bulletin_jep03D_WAAS.pdf

Congrats on your IFR rating... how long ago did you earn it?

 

[Palmpilot]

Of course you can fly to VCT w/o an airway. The question was, why is it that way? The answer is probably that it's military reserve airspace and no GA development took place there.

But you still have the problem of identifying the IAF without the "appropriate equipment".

What's wrong with identifying the IAF via the VCT 302 degree radial at 1.4 DME, as depicted on the chart?

3 degrees off at 38 nm distance, crossing a localize that is not nearly orthogonal. You could be +/- 1.6 miles side to side. A good bet that doesn't meet TERPS standards.

Then don't use the PSX transition. Use the VCT transition.

What, no ADF? Looks like an ALJ case to me.

If there were no legal way to fly the approach without an ADF (or GPS substitution), it would say "ADF required" on the chart.

Of course you can fly to the VOR. That's not what you need to accomplish, however....you need to accomplish a bit more.

Which you can easily accomplish by flying out the VCT 302 degree radial to 1.4 DME, maintaining 2200 feet or above, as charted (i.e., the VCT transition).

 

[wsuffa]

Of course you can fly to VCT w/o an airway. The question was, why is it that way? The answer is probably that it's military reserve airspace and no GA development took place there.

But you still have the problem of identifying the IAF without the "appropriate equipment". 3 degrees off at 38 nm distance, crossing a localize that is not nearly orthogonal. You could be +/- 1.6 miles side to side. A good bet that doesn't meet TERPS standards.

What, no ADF? Looks like an ALJ case to me.

Of course you can fly to the VOR. That's not what you need to accomplish, however....you need to accomplish a bit more.

IIRC, VCT is under (or very close to being under) one of the Randolph MOAs.

 

[John Collins]

What I'd like to know is, does the fact that the procedure turn is depicted outside the 10 nm ring mean that it must be flown outside that ring?

No. The 10 NM ring is only used to indicate that the chart is to scale inside the ring, it may or may not be to scale outside the ring. It serves no other purpose although many pilots attribute magical qualities to the ring. BTW, if a ring is shown, it is not always 10 NM as it is on this chart.

The note on the chart profile view states "Remain within 15 NM" so the procedure turn must be completed within 15 NM, but it may be commenced anytime past the FAF. It is also not required to fly the PT as depicted, one can use other methods of course reversal such as a left 90 and a right 270.

 

[John Collins]

Thanks for the insight, Bruce.

I actually do have an approach certified GPS in both the aircraft I fly on a regular basis. However I like to run these scenarios out because it's my understanding that if my filed destination requires a GPS for any part of the approach, my alternate can't require a GPS for any part of the approach.

That is not exactly correct.

If you have a TSO C129a GPS navigator, you may not use an airport as an alternate using an approach with GPS in the title, for example RNAV (GPS) or GPS. If you have the appropriate equipment on board, for example a VOR system, you can use an approach for the purposes of filing for an alternate that has something like "VOR or GPS" in the title. Once you actually get to your alternate, you can use whatever approach you are equipped to fly. There is no limitation on filing for an alternate for an approach that doesn't use a GPS but that requires you to locate a waypoint on the approach using the "GPS in lieu of" a VOR, DME, or NDB that is on the approach. The "GPS in lieu of" doesn't allow you to substitute the GPS for the final approach course guidance.

If you have a WAAS TSO C145a/146a GPS navigator, then you can use a GPS or RNAV (GPS) approach for filing purposes for an alternate if the approach in question does not have the "alternate NA" symbol on the chart. However, the forecast for the airport must meet the minimums requirement for the LNAV minimums, even if it has LPV minimums available.

Regards,

John Collins

 

[ghayes]

Correct me if I'm wrong (as I'm sure many will), if you decide you do need to go to an alternate, you can always go somewhere else, even if it has nothing but a pure GPS approach ... pending clearance from ATC of course. Your filed "alternate" is really just a backup in case you lose comm and you are in the soup if you go missed from your primary destination, which ATC knows where you're going so they can clear the airspace.

 

[MikePapa]

That is not exactly correct.

If you have a TSO C129a GPS navigator, you may not use an airport as an alternate using an approach with GPS in the title, for example RNAV (GPS) or GPS. If you have the appropriate equipment on board, for example a VOR system, you can use an approach for the purposes of filing for an alternate that has something like "VOR or GPS" in the title. Once you actually get to your alternate, you can use whatever approach you are equipped to fly. There is no limitation on filing for an alternate for an approach that doesn't use a GPS but that requires you to locate a waypoint on the approach using the "GPS in lieu of" a VOR, DME, or NDB that is on the approach. The "GPS in lieu of" doesn't allow you to substitute the GPS for the final approach course guidance.

If you have a WAAS TSO C145a/146a GPS navigator, then you can use a GPS or RNAV (GPS) approach for filing purposes for an alternate if the approach in question does not have the "alternate NA" symbol on the chart. However, the forecast for the airport must meet the minimums requirement for the LNAV minimums, even if it has LPV minimums available.

Regards,

John Collins

I have little doubt that you are correct, but one thing does seem a bit curious. My 2006 version of the AIM specifically says TSO-C129/129A users may not use GPS in lieu of ADF/DME for the alternate if the approach requires it. My 2009 version of the AIM dropped that section.

 

[MikePapa]

Correct me if I'm wrong (as I'm sure many will), if you decide you do need to go to an alternate, you can always go somewhere else, even if it has nothing but a pure GPS approach ... pending clearance from ATC of course. Your filed "alternate" is really just a backup in case you lose comm and you are in the soup if you go missed from your primary destination, which ATC knows where you're going so they can clear the airspace.

That's my understanding also. If you have good comm with ATC you have a lot of other options besides going to the alternate. However one thing I would add is that there are specific requirements regarding what can and can't be an alternate, fuel requirements, etc., so I see it as a bit more than just a backup in case your comm fails.

 

[Palmpilot]

I have little doubt that you are correct, but one thing does seem a bit curious. My 2006 version of the AIM specifically says TSO-C129/129A users may not use GPS in lieu of ADF/DME for the alternate if the approach requires it. My 2009 version of the AIM dropped that section.

Does this AIM passage bear on your question?

1-1-19e2.GPS domestic en route and terminal IFR operations can be conducted as soon as proper avionics systems are installed, provided all general requirements are met. The avionics necessary to receive all of the ground-based facilities appropriate for the route to the destination airport and any required alternate airport must be installed and operational. Ground-based facilities necessary for these routes must also be operational. [emphsis added]

 

[MikePapa]

Does this AIM passage bear on your question?

I'm not sure it does. The key phrase seems to be "appropriate for the route". It just seems as if they are saying you need to have whatever equipment is required to conduct your flight the way you have planned it.

 

[John Collins]

I have little doubt that you are correct, but one thing does seem a bit curious. My 2006 version of the AIM specifically says TSO-C129/129A users may not use GPS in lieu of ADF/DME for the alternate if the approach requires it. My 2009 version of the AIM dropped that section.

Upon further review, you are correct and I was wrong. The original section of the 2005 AIM on the subject was in section 1.1.19 f. 1. Use of GPS in Lieu of. It was removed from this section and moved in the 2009 AIM to 1-2-7 f. 1. Operational Requirements for Instrument Approach Procedures. It reads as follows:

When the use of RNAV equipment using GPS
input is planned as a substitute means of navigation
guidance for part of an instrument approach
procedure at a destination airport, any required
alternate airport must have an available instrument
approach procedure that does not require the use of
GPS. This restriction includes conducting a conventional
approach at the alternate airport using a
substitute means of navigation guidance based upon
the use of GPS. This restriction does not apply to​

RNAV systems using WAAS as an input.

It is interesting that the restriction doesn't apply to a WAAS GPS. I learned something, thanks.

BTW there is an update to the AIM that goes into effect 8-27-2009 that has been published, see http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATPubs/AIM/CHG3AIM8-27-09.pdf. It has some interesting updates, one of which I initiated in discussion with the FAA on the subject of the meaning of "fly visual to runway" (page 5-4-19, g.) that is found on some approach charts such as the Helena , MT KHLN RNAV (GPS) X RWY27 approach http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0907/00192RX27.PDF.

 

[taters]

+1...note taken didnt know that about waas.

 

[MikePapa]

Upon further review, you are correct and I was wrong.

It was purely by luck, John. This was just something my instructor had told me. I am, by no means, any sort of expert on the finer points of IFR.

 

[roncachamp]

But you still have the problem of identifying the IAF without the "appropriate equipment". 3 degrees off at 38 nm distance, crossing a localize that is not nearly orthogonal. You could be +/- 1.6 miles side to side. A good bet that doesn't meet TERPS standards.

You don't consider a marker beacon receiver to be "appropriate equipment"?

Of course you can fly to the VOR. That's not what you need to accomplish, however....you need to accomplish a bit more.

Like what?

 

[bbchien]

You don't consider a marker beacon receiver to be "appropriate equipment"?

I missed that he has a marker beacon receiver!