VOR-A with a Garmin 430

luvflyin said:
That was nice of him to make sure you did rather than just let you not, and then fail you.
Click to expand...

azure said:
Well he asked me which course I was following and I told him. I'm really not sure whether he would have failed me if I'd forgotten to hit the CDI button, but I assume he would have. So maybe "made sure" wasn't quite the best choice of words.
Click to expand...

Forgetting to flip the CDI mode is one of the most common fails by candidates around here.

At least before the current AIM guidance.

Haven’t heard lately.
 
So, if you're on a VOR/DME approach and the DPE "fails" your GPS, you should discontinue the approach, because you lost your DME component, right? (Assuming plane doesn't have DME receiver and you're using the 430 for DME).
 
MacFlier said:
So, if you're on a VOR/DME approach and the DPE "fails" your GPS, you should discontinue the approach, because you lost your DME component, right? (Assuming plane doesn't have DME receiver and you're using the 430 for DME).
Click to expand...

For the approach that started this thread? Yes. For every single one? I would say yes, but someone will probably dig out some approach from who knows where that would allow you to continue for some reason.
 
MacFlier said:
So, if you're on a VOR/DME approach and the DPE "fails" your GPS, you should discontinue the approach, because you lost your DME component, right? (Assuming plane doesn't have DME receiver and you're using the 430 for DME).
Click to expand...
Right. In the "DME Required" approach in this thread, as @EdFred said, yo have lost a required component of the approach
upload_2019-8-19_15-57-49.png

and there is no way other than DME (or certified GPS) to legitimately identify either the FAF or the MAP.
upload_2019-8-19_15-59-40.png

Of course, if there is no way to identify the MAP (nor the MAP Hold), you have issues other than simply discontinuing the approach!
 
EdFred said:
The approach in question does not. And that might be due to the distance from the VOR.
Click to expand...
VOR approaches that require DME (formerly titled VOR/DME) will not have a timing table.
 
aterpster said:
VOR approaches that require DME (formerly titled VOR/DME) will not have a timing table.
Click to expand...

I was hesitant to say all, because there almost always seems to be an exception to the never/all statement, which is why I only addressed the approach in question.
 
EdFred said:
I was hesitant to say all, because there almost always seems to be an exception to the never/all statement, which is why I only addressed the approach in question.
Click to expand...
But even if it's "generally speaking," it's still due to it being a VOR/DME approach (under the old nomenclature), not due to "distance from the VOR."
 
midlifeflyer said:
But even if it's "generally speaking," it's still due to it being a VOR/DME approach (under the old nomenclature), not due to "distance from the VOR."
Click to expand...

I was addressing more why the DME was probably incorporated into the approach. There's a ton of VOR approaches out there without a DME component, but the ones I've seen have always been much shorter. (like the one into my home field)

Timing on a 20+ mile approach without knowing your GS could put you way short or way past on a 20+ mile leg. (Pre GPS days)
 
EdFred said:
Reading the AIM won't answer the question I asked.

How do YOU manage never hitting a CDI button with dual 430 set up?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: You keep on coming up with things I never said to argue with. I never said I never hit a CDI button, any more than the I fly the approach on Nav2 (the last thing you made up to argue with).

I said I keep my primary Nav - NAV 1 - in GPS mode. IOW, don't hit the CDI button on my primary Nav. It stays on the GPS. I set up NAV 2 (whether vanilla VOR, including the OBS for the FAC, or a second GPS) during a low workload point in the flight - almost literally as soon as I know I am going to use a VOR approach. Last time I did one it was for my IPC. Knowing we were going to do the nearby VOR A at some point, NAV 2 (except for identification) was set up before we ever left the ground.

Done. If you want to continue to switch CDIs on Nav 1 as was once arguably required, go right ahead. Nothing wrong with it. Just a different technique.
 
EdFred said:
I was hesitant to say all, because there almost always seems to be an exception to the never/all statement, which is why I only addressed the approach in question.
Click to expand...
There have been a few VOR/DME IAPs with timing tables because the procedures specialist completed the form 8260-5 incorrectly.
 
aterpster said:
There have been a few VOR/DME IAPs with timing tables because the procedures specialist completed the form 8260-5 incorrectly.
Click to expand...
But Ed raises a good question. Is the reason (or at least "a" reason) for requiring DME on what otherwise looks like a plain vanilla VOR approach the distance from the VOR to the MAP or other factors? On the one we have been discussing, it's 23.1 miles from the VOR to the MAP; that's a lot of timing estimation.
 
midlifeflyer said:
But Ed raises a good question. Is the reason (or at least "a" reason) for requiring DME on what otherwise looks like a plain vanilla VOR approach the distance from the VOR to the MAP or other factors? On the one we have been discussing, it's 23.1 miles from the VOR to the MAP; that's a lot of timing estimation.
Click to expand...
Looks like the missed approach requires DME/distance
 
wsuffa said:
Looks like the missed approach requires DME/distance
Click to expand...
:yes: That's true. And there aren't other viable VOR options other than returning all the way to the two nearby VORs. But that alone would be a reason for DME required for the missed approach segment, not necessarily for the extended FAC.
 
EdFred said:
Yes, but WHY?

This one does not:
https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1909/05778V12.PDF

Yes, it has the DME distance, but guess what the VIO DME is OTS right now.
Click to expand...
The approach into Hastings has DME distances, but DME isn't required for anything related to navigation (other than the optional step-down and lower minimums). You may well be right about distance being one of the factors making a vanilla VOR approach unfeasible, but If you look at the GPC VOR-A in the context of the enroute structure, there's pretty much nothing which would not require DME or a legal substitute except a missed going all the way back to VHP or forward to HUF.
 
midlifeflyer said:
:yes: That's true. And there aren't other viable VOR options other than returning all the way to the two nearby VORs. But that alone would be a reason for DME required for the missed approach segment, not necessarily for the extended FAC.
Click to expand...
Well, there's no PT at VHP, and it's stated that the approach is NA for airways arriving at VHP from 184 CW 278. Other than the stated approach path, the MSA is 3100 w/i 25 NM of VHP. VHP is under/within the outer ring Indy Class B, and VHP is used for many of the DPs at KIND as well as being just off the ILS-14 at KIND, so I'd expect that to be a problem. Likewise TTH is used for approaches at KHUF - and NA on routes back to the approach.

So, I'm not surprised at the MAP for this approach.
 
EdFred said:
Yes, but WHY?

This one does not:
https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1909/05778V12.PDF

Yes, it has the DME distance, but guess what the VIO DME is OTS right now.

(VOR 12 at 9D9 in case the link goes dead in the future)
Click to expand...
But that has two sets of minimums - one with DME, one without. The "no DME" minimum is the same as the crossing altitude at JCUBS so it's dive-and-drive. Then MAP is the VOR. So really no DME required unless one wants to take advantage of the lower minimums. As such it has the timing table since DME is not required.
 
wsuffa said:
But that has two sets of minimums - one with DME, one without. The "no DME" minimum is the same as the crossing altitude at JCUBS so it's dive-and-drive. Then MAP is the VOR. So really no DME required unless one wants to take advantage of the lower minimums. As such it has the timing table since DME is not required.
Click to expand...

Let's go back to the beginning, before the plates are even made. Blank sheet. We have two airports, and two VOR/DME stations.

During the construction of the approaches, why was the VOR approach into Greencastle made to require DME, when the approach into Hastings was not. We aren't talking about the differences on the plates, but WHY were the differences made during construction? Was it because of the distance from the station to the airport? That's the WHY that I am asking, not why are they different now, why were they constructed differently.
 
EdFred said:
The question was more rhetorical, as I know the answer.
Click to expand...
My question was not rhetorical. I know that you know the answer. Not having much recent experience I question whether I know the answer.
 
aterpster said:
VOR approaches that require DME (formerly titled VOR/DME) will not have a timing table.
Click to expand...

I think I might have seen DME required to find holding fix even where there is a time table to find the MAP. Not positive, though.
 
PPC1052 said:
My question was not rhetorical. I know that you know the answer. Not having much recent experience I question whether I know the answer.
Click to expand...

HA! Yes. If any part of the knowing of the distance fails, the approach is either not initiated, or abandoned.
 
Distance from the VOR is NOT a factor in determining whether or not there is a timing table. Remember, the timing table is not from the VOR to the MAP, it's from the FAF to the MAP. So, regardless of how far away the VOR is, the final segment is still usually somewhere around 3-10 nm long.

Whether or not there is a timing table is solely determined on how an aircraft is going to identify the MAP.
 
EdFred said:
Let's go back to the beginning, before the plates are even made. Blank sheet. We have two airports, and two VOR/DME stations.

During the construction of the approaches, why was the VOR approach into Greencastle made to require DME, when the approach into Hastings was not. We aren't talking about the differences on the plates, but WHY were the differences made during construction? Was it because of the distance from the station to the airport? That's the WHY that I am asking, not why are they different now, why were they constructed differently.
Click to expand...

Typical example of nearby VOR geometry affecting design.

The 9D9 VOR RWY 12 has a VOR that is close enough to the field to serve as the FAF. Final length is 9.7 nm, an optional stepdown is included if you have DME, but since DME is not required there is a timing table. If there was a suitable nearby VOR off to the side, the stepdown fix could also have been identified with a VOR radial, but there does not appear to be such a VOR.

The GPC VOR-A, on the other hand, is too far from the field to serve as a FAF itself, at 23 nm away. The maximum length from FAF to MAP for a VOR approach is 10 nm. So additional fixes along the inbound course are required, in this case the IF at 10 DME and the FAF at 18 DME for a final segment length of 5.1 nm. Since there are no good nearby VORs for crossing radials, the only way to identify these fixes is by DME. And since DME is required to fly it, there is no need for a timing table.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
But Ed raises a good question. Is the reason (or at least "a" reason) for requiring DME on what otherwise looks like a plain vanilla VOR approach the distance from the VOR to the MAP or other factors? On the one we have been discussing, it's 23.1 miles from the VOR to the MAP; that's a lot of timing estimation.
Click to expand...
A VOR IAP with FAF, can have the furthermost part of the final approach segment as far as 30 miles from the facility. This could be done without DME if there are crossing radials of sufficient accuracy. In such a case the timing is only from crossing the radial for the FAF to the MAP.
 
aterpster said:
A VOR IAP with FAF, can have the furthermost part of the final approach segment as far as 30 miles from the facility. This could be done without DME if there are crossing radials of sufficient accuracy. In such a case the timing is only from crossing the radial for the FAF to the MAP.
Click to expand...
So on the approach we e been discussing, it's the lack of alternative ways if identifying the FAF, etc than distance?

Thanks.
 
midlifeflyer said:
So on the approach we e been discussing, it's the lack of alternative ways if identifying the FAF, etc than distance?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Yes, a timing table or lack thereof has nothing to do with the length of final or how far away the VOR is.
 
midlifeflyer said:
So on the approach we e been discussing, it's the lack of alternative ways if identifying the FAF, etc than distance?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Here is one at my former home drome. DME for every fix. But, there are also radials from SLI. So, it is not "DME Required" and it must have a timing table for the pilot without DME. When possible, they should be built this way, both with DME and crossing radials. (That is, if they are making these any longer.)
KEMT VOR-A.jpg
 
Oddly, it doesn't provide a DME fix for the MAP. It provides a computer fix and the timing table. I guess you can intuit that it's at 12.2 DME, but odd they didn't put a DME flag there.
 
flyingron said:
Oddly, it doesn't provide a DME fix for the MAP. It provides a computer fix and the timing table. I guess you can intuit that it's at 12.2 DME, but odd they didn't put a DME flag there.
Click to expand...
Beats me. That is the way the source document reads. Having said that, Jeppesen charts both the 12.2 DME and the CNF.
 
aterpster said:
Beats me. That is the way the source document reads. Having said that, Jeppesen charts both the 12.2 DME and the CNF.
Click to expand...
So they did the arithmetic (I hesitate to call 6.3+5.9 "math" :D )
 
VOR-A.jpg
midlifeflyer said:
So they did the arithmetic (I hesitate to call 6.3+5.9 "math" :D )
Click to expand...
It's been 12.2 DME since the approach was implemented in the 1960s. They made a new original when they deleted the "or GPS" last year.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
I made the comment because of the old "are you allowed to create your own timing" discussions :D
Click to expand...
Jeppesen makes the choice easy. The CNF seems useless since it is no longer an overlay IAP.
 
aterpster said:
Jeppesen makes the choice easy. The CNF seems useless since it is no longer an overlay IAP.
Click to expand...
Well, if one flies the approach using GPS as primary with backup Data in NAV2, it still means something to the GPS prompting for or sequencing to to the missed.

Of course, much of the whole discussion of GPS use on VOR approaches can seem useless. To use the originally-discussed GPC VPR-A scenario, it would be rare for a pilot in the real IFR world to opt for the VOR-A circle to land when there are straight-in GPS approaches to both ends of the runway.
 
People sure like to obfuscate things around here.

Just tune the VORTAC, and select the NAV for the HSI and fly the CDI. Use the DME display for the fixes.

Easy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top