Why a lower minimum without stepdown fix in this approach?

[Stella_Caeli]

Why a higher minimum without stepdown fix in this approach?

Hello,

http://www.belgocontrol.be/eaip/eAIP_Main/graphics/Ad/Ebbr/EBBR_IAC10_v01.pdf

This VOR approach is what we used to call a "VOR/DME approach", however according to the new regulations published in PANS-OPS, it's now named a "VOR approach" with the note "DME required". In any case, this chart is designed according to ICAO regulations, not FAA.

I'm wondering what the reason is for the minimum without stepdown fix (880') in this VOR approach?

How in the world could I *not* identify D6.0 ?

1) DME is required for this approach. If I do not have operable DME, or if the DME would be U/S, I wouldn't be flying the approach in the first place. Except if the notion "DME required" would not apply to the stepdown fix, but couldn't find any such provision in the regulations.

2) It's also not aiming towards "dive and drive" pilots, since it says "do not descend below profile view"...

If I would fly the procedure now, I would continuously descend from 2000' to target altitude 880', and after crossing D6.0 DME (where my altitude would be 1150') I would change the target altitude to 640', since this seems to be the correct option. But again, I don't see the point of doing this, since I will make sure to never reach 880' before or at D6.0 BUB.

Also, this is the first procedure where I notice that it is actually allowed to descend *below* the altitude associated with the stepdown fix, even if you didn't identify the fix. Maybe this is related with my question?

Thank you,

Kind regards,
Sebastian

 

[TMetzinger]

The only thing I can think of is you had DME crossing the FAF and lost it afterwards - you know that your minimum is 880.

 

[poadeleted20]

With a Belgian approach chart, you're talking PANS-OPS, not the US FAA TERPS with which most all the members of this board are familiar. Further, this approach does not meet TERPS criteria in several respects, so it's hard for us to figure out how to fly it at all, no less without DME. I can see how to do that using dual VORs all the way up to identifying the FAF at the BUB 261/8.7 fix, but I see no way other than DME to determine when you cross that fix, so even if the other issues were resolved, it would have to be a VOR/DME approach under TERPS.

The only person I know who might be able to help would be TERPS wizard Wally Roberts. Check his web site http://www.terps.com for contact info.

 

[Stella_Caeli]

Hello,

Ron, your remark is fully correct.

I'm hoping to find some pilots/experts here who either fly internationally or are in another way familiar with PANS-OPS. Didn't find a similar forum like this that is more oriented towards PANS-OPS (if you know one, please pass it to me). I don't know if the more internationally-oriented USENET rec.aviation.ifr is still being used actively?

Timothy, thanks for your reply. I was also thinking in that direction. However, wouldn't you go around in the first place if you would lose your DME, since this is equipment required for the approach? Or is it legal to continue and perhaps even don't identify the MAP?

Kind regards,
Sebastian