VOR RWY19 Approach

akpilot907

akpilot907

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
May 14, 2013
Messages
398
Location
Anchorage, Alaska
Display Name
Display name:
citabriav8tr
I have been quite dormant for a while on this side of the house... Figure I'd get the fingers typing again...

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1411/01218v19.pdf

Please refference the above link for a VOR approach into Allen AAF, Delta Jct, Alaska... Not to far from my home in Fairbanks...

Anywho... I was looking this approach plate over and I thought to myself... "Ok, so this approach doesn't have an IAF or a FAF... :hairraise:"

If you're recieving Radar Vectors... How would you even begin shooting this approach? How would you Own Nav?? Radar Vectors??

Let the pooring of information begin.......... Inform ME POA BLOGGERS!!!
 
Start at the VORTAC outbound on the 017R and then do the procedure turn as shown.
 
Last edited:
I think it's a charting error, there should be an "IAF" depicted at BIG. You don't need a FAF, lot'sa approaches don't have a final approach fix. The final approach segment begins when you're established PT inbound. I don't think you would get VTF.
 
peerlesscowboy said:
I think it's a charting error, there should be an "IAF" depicted at BIG. You don't need a FAF, lot'sa approaches don't have a final approach fix. The final approach segment begins when you're established PT inbound. I don't think you would get VTF.
Click to expand...

Makes sense... You would think the FAA being as big as they are wouldn't make mistakes...
 
I agree that the failure to label BIG VOR as the IAF is probably a charting error, and should be pointed out to the FAA by emailing 9-AMC-Aerochart@faa.gov. And yes, such errors occur all the time, and it's up to us to spot them and point them out so they can be fixed.

Also, as noted by peerlesscowboy, since there is no final approach fix, vectors to final is not possible on this approach. Vectors to final requires that there be a final approach gate on the controller's scope, and the final approach gate is based on the final approach fix. See FAA Order 7110.65, Section 5-9-1, for details.
 
PABIVOR19_zpscc8ad956.jpg
 
John Collins said:
It may be because the chart is of a military field and they have different charting standards.
Click to expand...

The military uses the same TERPs as does the feds. If they deviate from criteria then they must mark the chart "Not For Civil Use."

In this case it appears the FAA designed the procedure because Jepp usually designate when it is a military-designed procedure.

I suspect the 8260-5 source form is correct.
 
aterpster said:
PABIVOR19_zpscc8ad956.jpg
Click to expand...
Teaching moment (teach me). The gumint chart has an arrival holding pattern depicted because it isn't a dashed line. Does Jeppesen use the same convention for arrival vs. missed approach holding patterns? Or are they all solid lines? I can't remember and don't have a legend handy.

dtuuri
 
Unlike most VOR approaches I have seen, there is no table when to go missed. I presume the MAP is the VOR, too. Should that have been marked on the approach as well?
 
I don't understand how the IAF is lower than the MSA
 
PPC1052 said:
Unlike most VOR approaches I have seen, there is no table when to go missed. I presume the MAP is the VOR, too. Should that have been marked on the approach as well?
Click to expand...
It is, in the profile view, at least implicitly. The Jepp one has a more obvious 'M'.
There's no timing table since the procedure turn can be done whenever you want as long as you're within 10 miles.

Here's a similar one: http://www.chartbundle.com/qc/ktrm_vor-a.png
 
PPC1052 said:
Unlike most VOR approaches I have seen, there is no table when to go missed. I presume the MAP is the VOR, too. Should that have been marked on the approach as well?
Click to expand...

Jepp chart say "MAP at VOR" and has a big M in the profile view. This is what is called an On-Airport, No FAF VOR approach. The missed approach is always at the VOR with this type of approach.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I don't understand how the IAF is lower than the MSA
Click to expand...

It is presumed you will arrive via an airway. Since the MEA of some of the airways arriving at BIG VOR are too high to directly enter the procedure turn, the arrival hold is provided to lose some altitude.
 
dtuuri said:
Teaching moment (teach me). The gumint chart has an arrival holding pattern depicted because it isn't a dashed line. Does Jeppesen use the same convention for arrival vs. missed approach holding patterns? Or are they all solid lines? I can't remember and don't have a legend handy.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

Thin lines instead of the bold lines used for HILPTs.
 
aterpster said:
It is presumed you will arrive via an airway. Since the MEA of some of the airways arriving at BIG VOR are too high to directly enter the procedure turn, the arrival hold is provided to lose some altitude.
Click to expand...

Okay for someone like me, trying to grasp Instrument fundamentals, yesterday we discussed how MSA was an emergency (do not go below or big rocks will smite thee) and now MSA is .... not so scary.... Seems these rules are some-timey, when explained that way.:confused:
 
Jaybird180 said:
I don't understand how the IAF is lower than the MSA
Click to expand...

The MSA circle (which is for emergency use) only requires you to be within 25 NM of its center, so its minimum altitude sectors can be affected by rising terrain a lot farther out. When you're using the IAF, your positional error is required to be much smaller than that (although I don't know the exact number).
 
Jaybird180 said:
Okay for someone like me, trying to grasp Instrument fundamentals, yesterday we discussed how MSA was an emergency (do not go below or big rocks will smite thee) and now MSA is .... not so scary.... Seems these rules are some-timey, when explained that way.:confused:
Click to expand...

Not so when on a Victor airway. The MEA controls (or the MOCA, if published, and within 22 miles of the VOR).

The MSA only applies to the approach chart on which it appears and then only for emergency orientation when you get significantly off the published segments of the approach.
 
John Collins said:
It may be because the chart is of a military field and they have different charting standards.
Click to expand...

I was wrong when I stated it was probably an FAA-developed IAP. Note the (USA) at the top of the FAA chart. US Army. :)
 
aterpster said:
Not so when on a Victor airway. The MEA controls (or the MOCA, if published, and within 22 miles of the VOR).

The MSA only applies to the approach chart on which it appears and then only for emergency orientation when you get significantly off the published segments of the approach.
Click to expand...
There's nothing on the chart that tells me the FAC is on a VA.
 
dtuuri said:
What I mean is the missed approach holding pattern shown by a dashed line on Jepps like on the Aeronav charts?
Click to expand...

It's shown with a thin line on my Jepp charts.
 
Jaybird180 said:
There's nothing on the chart that tells me the FAC is on a VA.
Click to expand...

True and this is a good lesson to learn when analyzing approach charts.

Approach charts are not to be read in isolation as they are integrated into the enroute navigation system. You have to look at the low altitude enroute charts and in some cases the STAR charts for the airport if they exist in order to put the procedure into perspective. That is one reason i like the ForeFlight Approach Chart presentation overlaid on the map as one can vary the opacity and gain a better understanding how the approach fits in.
 
aterpster said:
I was wrong when I stated it was probably an FAA-developed IAP. Note the (USA) at the top of the FAA chart. US Army. :)
Click to expand...

Does anyone have an example of an FAA-developed IAP where an arrival hold is coincident with the missed approach hold?
 
I was wondering how you determine the minimum altitude on an arrival hold when no altitude is shown on the chart, so I looked it up in the Aeronautical Chart User's Guide, and it says "Arrival Holding Pattern altitude restrictions will be indicated when they deviate from the adjacent leg." (See page 83.)
 
Palmpilot said:
Does anyone have an example of an FAA-developed IAP where an arrival hold is coincident with the missed approach hold?
Click to expand...
Can't think of one offhand but I've seen more than a few. There are probably plenty. Pretty common to have a missed hold at the FAF, and at the same altitude as the FAF. All you need is a HILO instead of a barbed PT.
 
John Collins said:
That is a Hold In Lieu of a PT, not an arrival hold. An arrival hold would not use the bold hold symbol.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I should have been more specific, because what I was looking for was an example of the latter, which is depicted with a thin line, as shown on the OP's chart. I wanted to see if the FAA-developed charts depict them the same way as the Army one that the OP linked to, when they're coincident with the missed approach hold.
 
Palmpilot said:
Yeah, I should have been more specific, because what I was looking for was an example of the latter, which is depicted with a thin line, as shown on the OP's chart. I wanted to see if the FAA-developed charts depict them the same way as the Army one that the OP linked to, when they're coincident with the missed approach hold.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's in the legend.

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1411/frntmatter.pdf

p. 10.
 
Palmpilot said:
That's the same as in the reference I provided. Neither indicates which depiction applies when an arrival hold and a missed approach hold are coincident.
Click to expand...

Using the approach chart by itself you can only determine that the hold on the BIG R 287 is the missed approach hold. Presumably, if you were flying into this airport you would also have the low altitude en route chart out (AL-3), which also shows the same holding pattern. In any case you cannot use an arrival holding pattern for descent without an ATC clearance separate from the approach clearance.
 
Palmpilot said:
That's the same as in the reference I provided. Neither indicates which depiction applies when an arrival hold and a missed approach hold are coincident.
Click to expand...

Sorry. The only examples I found were also military airfields. This approach at Patuxent is the same, showing the arrival hold:
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1411/00314VDT24.PDF

Logically speaking, if they depicted such a coincident hold with a dashed missed approach hold line, how would you know it was an arrival hold? But if an arrival hold is to be used as a missed approach hold, the missed instructions would elucidate that just like when a missed approach hold and HILPT are coincident.
 
Last edited:
aterpster said:
Using the approach chart by itself you can only determine that the hold on the BIG R 287 is the missed approach hold. Presumably, if you were flying into this airport you would also have the low altitude en route chart out (AL-3), which also shows the same holding pattern. In any case you cannot use an arrival holding pattern for descent without an ATC clearance separate from the approach clearance.
Click to expand...

:confused: The enroute chart has no holding pattern and the airway is 287°. The Aeronav chart has an arrival pattern at 285°.
Still wondering if Jepp uses a dashed line for missed approach holding patterns or how they distinguish between that and the arrival patterns.

Also, if holding in an arrival pattern and cleared for the approach, are you saying you can't descend there without yet an additional clearance?

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