Oh. What’s the ‘cycle’ when names usually get changed. I haven’t seen one of these in quite awhile?
More substantive amendment to the procedure - numbered rather than lettered. In this one, the name would change if and when it goes to Amendment 11.
Better yet, RADIAL/DIST.
Why DIST?
I'm waiting for that one too. I have a guess, but let's see.
I’m thinkin’ it’s an RNAV can substitute thang
That's my guess too, in which case I disagree with using DIST.
Agreed. Biggest problem is getting pilots to read the single box.
It was worse before. Plan View to get from the enroute environment. Notes for approach segments other than the FAC. Title, needed for the FAC. Who memorized that, except maybe for the checkride? You might have a confusing mess, with a Plan View with "ADF Required" and Notes with "ADF OR DME Required" on the same chart. What? Maybe ADF isn't really required? And it might not have made any difference anyway since the location within the chart was mostly informational. Operationally, "required" meant "required" to use the approach, wherever it happened to be located.
To quickly identify the approach requires an approved distance source without referencing other portions of the chart in the event of GPS outage or RNAV failure. We in an era with far too many unneeded notes in the IAPs.
Everything you need to know about what you need is on the Planview and Missed Approach Procedure. No need for fancy names and notes. Just number the Approaches. Like proceed direct [fix] Cleared for a number six.
I guess. What’s the other approved distance source during the GPS outage?
We “should.” We “could.” The question is whether most of us “would.”
DME or RADAR.
Sometimes RADAR can. There would have to be Radar Fixes established though. Radar coverage and a DME Fix, intersection or Navaid being there is not enough. It has to be TERP’d out and flight checked to become a Radar Fix.
If RADAR is an approved substitute, the TERPS'd chart will say so. Will it be used anyway in a pinch if it's above the controller's MVA or MIA? Sure, but even that is not always the case.
Sure it will, but why does the pilot have to search the chart to determine if distance is required for a VOR approach? I think there is a better way to ID a distance requirement out to the pilot. Then in the plan and profile view continue to show the options and eliminate the note.
The question was what were the other approved means. While the number of published radar fixes has declined dramatically over the last 15 years with RNAV, it is an approved means when published.
I guess we'll have to disagree. I just don't see having to "search" an equipment requirements box in the briefing section of an approach chart for "DME OR RADAR REQUIRED" as a problem and I don't see how removing the specific type of navaid required makes it better. Of all the errors I see instrument pilots make, not understanding the equipment required for the approach is pretty low on the list and the biggest issue I see there is the FAA's constant changing of terminology.
Well this put it this way, you didn’t have to read a note when they were VOR/DME approaches, now you do with VOR. Some require DME, some don’t. There was now reason to have changed from the previous format.
Perhaps. You may well be right. But since you still had to read the notes for gotchas and other types of equipment requirements anyway, I just don't see the problem that you see,
When converting a noun into a verb, all bets are off.
