dtuuri
Final Approach
A discussion of a certain instrument approach chart in another thread uncovered an error, as pointed out by a chart designer who participated in the discussion. So, after spending some time searching the FAA's website for the most expeditious way to correct the error, I used the link suggested for rendering "better support" than the standard error reporting link. Apparently "better support" means they pass the buck faster than usual to another division. You can always count on that happening, so I was curious if this newer, better "Gateway" actually could deliver the goods. The answer, IMO, is "Business as usual, just faster dissatisfaction."
Now what? If it were you, would you reply to the response? Just forget it? Play ball without complaint? My case number was immediately marked "closed", so do I open a new one? The link they passed me off to, is for initiating a brand-new approach, not for error reporting, do I still use it anyway or was that a typo?
The answer they gave, btw, re: HILPT being for ATC radar vectored aircraft to the FAF is pure bs, IMO. Should I argue that point? With who? Call the person who responded? What would you do?
Here's the website's instructions to "support you better", my emphasis:
Here's FAA's response, including my error report:
Is this "better support"? Your thoughts...
dtuuri
Now what? If it were you, would you reply to the response? Just forget it? Play ball without complaint? My case number was immediately marked "closed", so do I open a new one? The link they passed me off to, is for initiating a brand-new approach, not for error reporting, do I still use it anyway or was that a typo?
The answer they gave, btw, re: HILPT being for ATC radar vectored aircraft to the FAF is pure bs, IMO. Should I argue that point? With who? Call the person who responded? What would you do?
Here's the website's instructions to "support you better", my emphasis:
"For general comments, e-mail us at <9-AMC-Aerochart@faa.gov>. For specific questions/comments about airports and/or procedures, please use the "E-Mail FAA" links next to the specific Procedure(s) to allow us to support you better."
Here's FAA's response, including my error report:
Dear David:
Thank you for reporting the problem concerning:
Regarding: DUA ( KDUA) DURANT RGNL - EAKER FIELD, DURANT, OK - VOR/DME RWY 35
David Tuuri sent the following message:
There is a missing feeder route from URH to HANOM (IAF). It's required for lost comms and cruise clearances. It should be shown offset from the final approach course with an associated minimum altitude. Without a published feeder, no HILPT should be charted, since the only entry to the IAF is marked NoPT.
Control Number 20091 has been assigned to this issue for tracking purposes.
This concern has been closed with the following Response:
Mr Tuuri
You have posed a valid comment concerning this instrument approach procedure (IFP). You are correct this IFP could have a feeder route from Texoma to the FAF. However, after researching our files and procedure histories, we are unable to provide you with a reason for the lack of a feeder. However, ATC always has the ability to vector aircraft to the FAF and this most often would require the use of the HILPT.
This office deveolped this IFP at the request of the Flight Procedures Team in Ft Worth. As stated though, we can find no record of the specifics of the original request made in 2001. So at this point we have to assume our specialist developed the IFPs as requested and the original request did not include a feeder off Texoma to the FAF.
You may submit a request to add the feeder, if you feel this would be an enhancement to this IFP. Just go to the following website address and you will be able to enter your request.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/ifp_initiation/
Follow the guidance provided and your request will go direct to the Ft Worth office for action. Thank you for your interest in our products.
Regards,
George Gonzalez
Mgr
Phone: (405) 954-2884
Thank you for reporting the problem concerning:
Regarding: DUA ( KDUA) DURANT RGNL - EAKER FIELD, DURANT, OK - VOR/DME RWY 35
David Tuuri sent the following message:
There is a missing feeder route from URH to HANOM (IAF). It's required for lost comms and cruise clearances. It should be shown offset from the final approach course with an associated minimum altitude. Without a published feeder, no HILPT should be charted, since the only entry to the IAF is marked NoPT.
Control Number 20091 has been assigned to this issue for tracking purposes.
This concern has been closed with the following Response:
Mr Tuuri
You have posed a valid comment concerning this instrument approach procedure (IFP). You are correct this IFP could have a feeder route from Texoma to the FAF. However, after researching our files and procedure histories, we are unable to provide you with a reason for the lack of a feeder. However, ATC always has the ability to vector aircraft to the FAF and this most often would require the use of the HILPT.
This office deveolped this IFP at the request of the Flight Procedures Team in Ft Worth. As stated though, we can find no record of the specifics of the original request made in 2001. So at this point we have to assume our specialist developed the IFPs as requested and the original request did not include a feeder off Texoma to the FAF.
You may submit a request to add the feeder, if you feel this would be an enhancement to this IFP. Just go to the following website address and you will be able to enter your request.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/ifp_initiation/
Follow the guidance provided and your request will go direct to the Ft Worth office for action. Thank you for your interest in our products.
Regards,
George Gonzalez
Mgr
Phone: (405) 954-2884
Is this "better support"? Your thoughts...
dtuuri