Why is the plate like this?

DesertNomad

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
2,439
Location
Northern NV
Display Name

Display name:
DesertNomad
RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 20 @ KTRK

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1703/06021RZ20.PDF

This shows a line from FMG VORTAC to AWEGA, gives an MEA, heading and distance (10799, 272*, 17.8), then says:

Procedure NA for arrivals on FMG VORTAC airway radials 192 CW 332.

So why show FMG on the plate at all? It can't be just to identify AWEGA with a radial (it's a GPS approach anyway) or they would not give an MEA.
 
Last edited:
RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 20 @ KTRK

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1703/06021RZ20.PDF

This shows a line from FMG VORTAC to AWEGA, gives an MEA, heading and distance (10799, 272*, 17.8), then says:

Procedure NA for arrivals on FMG VORTAC airway radials 192 CW 332.

So why show FMG on the plate at all?
If you arrive at FMG on any radial from 192 CW to 332 you are going the wrong direction to fly the procedure.
 
The plate shows an arrival on the 272 radial which falls into this area (192 to 332). it goes right over Peavine Mountain (8266 elv). My CFII has had me fly this under the hood and make a right turn at AWEGA to do one lap around the hold, then inbound to KTRK. Why would they have this line from FMG if you are not supposed to do this?

If you arrive at FMG on any radial from 192 CW to 332 you are going the wrong direction to fly the procedure.

It doesn't say for arrivals AT FMG (which would have just come from the KTRK area), it says arrivals ON FMG radials 192-332.

Why can't you fly it when arriving on the FMG 272 radial westbound... flying FMG direct AWEGA?

It can't be talking about arrivals AT FMG, but rather at AWEGA (IAF), right?
 
Last edited:
The plate shows an arrival on the 272 radial which falls into this area (192 to 332). it goes right over Peavine Mountain (8266 elv). My CFII has had me fly this under the hood and make a right turn at AWEGA to do one lap around the hold, then inbound to KTRK. Why would they have this line from FMG if you are not supposed to do this?



It doesn't say for arrivals AT FMG (which would have just come from the KTRK area), it says arrivals ON FMG radials 192-332.

Why can't you fly it when arriving on the FMG 272 radial westbound?
Read it any way you want. Many plates have similar notes and you get used to interpreting them correctly quickly and easily.
 
The plate shows an arrival on the 272 radial which falls into this area (192 to 332). it goes right over Peavine Mountain (8266 elv). My CFII has had me fly this under the hood and make a right turn at AWEGA to do one lap around the hold, then inbound to KTRK. Why would they have this line from FMG if you are not supposed to do this?



It doesn't say for arrivals AT FMG (which would have just come from the KTRK area), it says arrivals ON FMG radials 192-332.

Why can't you fly it when arriving on the FMG 272 radial westbound... flying FMG direct AWEGA?

It can't be talking about arrivals AT FMG, but rather at AWEGA (IAF), right?

No, I think it's talking about arrivals at FMG specifically. 'Procedure NA for arrivals ON FMG VORTAC airway radials...' You see an airway from FMG to the IAF AWEGA so it's a feeder route, it does make me wonder why they don't list FMG as an IF though...
 
If you arrive at FMG on any radial from 192 CW to 332 you are going the wrong direction to fly the procedure.

I have always thought those notes were much like, "You can't get there, from here" as said by the local hick, on a country road.
There is always a means to ameliorate that situation.
You can always overfly the wp and then reverse course to approach from an acceptable direction.
 
Just a really odd phraseology.
Yeah the first time you see it ya sorta scratch yer head and then it dawns on you what it really means. "If you are coming from the wrong direction we aren't going to have ya fly over here 'cause we don't know how to turn you around at the navaid. " Sorta wordy but that's the gist of it.
 
It's referring to the airways inbound to FMG, not the feeder off FMG itself. There are 5 airways that are from 192 thru 332 clockwise. I'd imagine, based on the angle of intercept to FMG, you will exceed the protected area while trying to do the feeder off FMG.
 
It's referring to the airways inbound to FMG, not the feeder off FMG itself. There are 5 airways that are from 192 thru 332 clockwise. I'd imagine, based on the angle of intercept to FMG, you will exceed the protected area while trying to do the feeder off FMG.

This is exactly right. IAPs are not to be viewed in a vacuum. To get a whole picture of the procedure, it is necessary to often refer to the IFR Low Enroute Chart. In this case, if you are arriving from any one of the 5 airways @Velocity173 mentions (for example, V392 from the southwest), you can't turn around at FMG and then fly the feeder route inbound - the turn is too tight. Of course, if you were on V392 headed northeast, you wouldn't even want to get as far as the FMG VORTAC, since there's another feeder route from TRUCK, which is on V392 and you'd have to pass to get to FMG.

But notice there is a similar note near TRUCK for traffic headed the opposite direction. Same reason, too tight of a turn.
 
RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 20 @ KTRK

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1703/06021RZ20.PDF

This shows a line from FMG VORTAC to AWEGA, gives an MEA, heading and distance (10799, 272*, 17.8), then says:

Procedure NA for arrivals on FMG VORTAC airway radials 192 CW 332.

So why show FMG on the plate at all? It can't be just to identify AWEGA with a radial (it's a GPS approach anyway) or they would not give an MEA.

It's a feeder route from FMG to AWEGA. AWEGA is both an IAF and the IF. It is an IAF before you do the course reversal. On completion of the course reversal holding pattern it is the IF.
 
I have always thought those notes were much like, "You can't get there, from here" as said by the local hick, on a country road.
There is always a means to ameliorate that situation.
You can always overfly the wp and then reverse course to approach from an acceptable direction.

You don't want to be doing that unless there is a charted arrival holding pattern.
 
It's referring to the airways inbound to FMG, not the feeder off FMG itself. There are 5 airways that are from 192 thru 332 clockwise. I'd imagine, based on the angle of intercept to FMG, you will exceed the protected area while trying to do the feeder off FMG.
Yup. I still dont get why they put the word airway in there. Going by the letter of the rule you could be going direct to FMG from some where out west, between the 192 and the 332 radials, but not on an "airway" and make the claim it doesnt apply because you are not on an " 'airway' radial." It would be irresponsible to do so of course.
 
Yup. I still dont get why they put the word airway in there. Going by the letter of the rule you could be going direct to FMG from some where out west, between the 192 and the 332 radials, but not on an "airway" and make the claim it doesnt apply because you are not on an " 'airway' radial." It would be irresponsible to do so of course.
"Airway" and the limit radials are both limiting.
 
You don't want to be doing that unless there is a charted arrival holding pattern.

oh come on, you could get a vector or route to the far side of the fix, 20,000 feet above the msa, them come at it from the correct side - so it could be done.
 
oh come on, you could get a vector or route to the far side of the fix, 20,000 feet above the msa, them come at it from the correct side - so it could be done.
Anything is possible with radar vectors provided radar services are available and ATC is willing to provide the service. The post I was responding to sounded to me like a pilot improvisation.

Holding patterns are a different matter, especially in the mountains, at least below the appropriate minimum radar altitude. I suppose you do have a lot of flexibility at FL 320 (20,000 feet above the MSA) provided ATC concurs.
 

Attachments

  • NV_MUSTANG_VORTAC_REV29.pdf
    256.7 KB · Views: 3
The plate shows an arrival on the 272 radial which falls into this area (192 to 332). it goes right over Peavine Mountain (8266 elv). My CFII has had me fly this under the hood and make a right turn at AWEGA to do one lap around the hold, then inbound to KTRK. Why would they have this line from FMG if you are not supposed to do this?



It doesn't say for arrivals AT FMG (which would have just come from the KTRK area), it says arrivals ON FMG radials 192-332.

Why can't you fly it when arriving on the FMG 272 radial westbound... flying FMG direct AWEGA?

It can't be talking about arrivals AT FMG, but rather at AWEGA (IAF), right?

No, if you arrive at FMG on the 272 radial, you are flying eastbound. You then fly the procedure in exactly the opposite direction. Remember, VOR radials are always outbound, and are not related to your heading, only your position.

It's arrivals at FMG, which means AWEGA direct FMG, for the 272 radial.
 
No, if you arrive at FMG on the 272 radial, you are flying eastbound. You then fly the procedure in exactly the opposite direction. Remember, VOR radials are always outbound, and are not related to your heading, only your position.

It's arrivals at FMG, which means AWEGA direct FMG, for the 272 radial.

Yep, that's how someone can hold East on a 270 radial....
 
Anything is possible with radar vectors
I knew it could not be a "You can't get here from there" situation.
They are leaving a line out...something that would be too lengthy for a plate but should probably be in the AIM.
 
I knew it could not be a "You can't get here from there" situation.
They are leaving a line out...something that would be too lengthy for a plate but should probably be in the AIM.
The complexity of approach procedures increases while the thought process of the typical procedures specialist suffers from tunnel vision. Our only ally in the process is the flight inspection pilot and he/she can only do so much.
 
oh come on, you could get a vector or route to the far side of the fix, 20,000 feet above the msa, them come at it from the correct side - so it could be done.
The terps guys don't like practical solutions. A couple of them seem to be willing to say anything not on the plate is implicitly prohibited.
 
Last edited:
Let's say for some reason you are out of options and this is the only airport, the only approach left available to you. But you are coming at the fix from the "wrong direction".

You are going to find a way to overfly it and turn the airplane around.

It's either that or, "Oh rats I guess we are going to run out of gas and crash because the plate says we can't do a 180".
 
Let's say for some reason you are out of options and this is the only airport, the only approach left available to you. But you are coming at the fix from the "wrong direction".

You are going to find a way to overfly it and turn the airplane around.

It's either that or, "Oh rats I guess we are going to run out of gas and crash because the plate says we can't do a 180".


I would hope if you were that low on gas, you wouldn't fly all the way to FMG, only to turn back around and go to AWEGA. Just go direct AWEGA or get vectors to just outside OPOJI.
 
I would hope if you were that low on gas, you wouldn't fly all the way to FMG, only to turn back around and go to AWEGA. Just go direct AWEGA or get vectors to just outside OPOJI.

It was just an illustration.
 
Let's say for some reason you are out of options and this is the only airport, the only approach left available to you. But you are coming at the fix from the "wrong direction".

You are going to find a way to overfly it and turn the airplane around.

It's either that or, "Oh rats I guess we are going to run out of gas and crash because the plate says we can't do a 180".

You're making it MUCH too difficult. Just ask for vectors to final, and FMG is irrelevant to anything. You won't get anywhere near it, let alone arrive on the 272 radial.

Or if you must ('cause, say, you lost comms in addition to your poor fuel state), fly direct AWEGA (which is, after all, an IAF) above the MSA, then descend in the hold if necessary. Or just arrive at TRUCK like the procedure assumes.
 
Last edited:
You're making it MUCH too difficult.
Au contraire; in fact, I usually try to boil things down to their essence.
The plate says you can't do something. I say a person can, if using the slightest available neuron.
O&O.
 
The terps guys don't like practical solutions. A couple of them seem to be willing to say anything not on the plate is implicitly prohibited.
If you are referencing me, so you understand I do not and never did work for the FAA. My career was as a line pilot for TWA, as well as a whole lot of light airplane flying. I was an instrument flight instructor for many years and developed an interest in TERPs. I became the ALPA pilot safety representative for instrument procedures, and in that voluntary capacity represented airline pilots vs. the FAA in the design and implementation of TERPs criteria. I've learned a lot about the legalities of the system over the years, not the least of which was when three pilots from my domicile died on the side of a mountain in Virginia on December 1, 1974 (TWA 514). That accident tied up my life for a year, so.
 
If you are referencing me, so you understand I do not and never did work for the FAA. My career was as a line pilot for TWA, as well as a whole lot of light airplane flying. I was an instrument flight instructor for many years and developed an interest in TERPs. I became the ALPA pilot safety representative for instrument procedures, and in that voluntary capacity represented airline pilots vs. the FAA in the design and implementation of TERPs criteria. I've learned a lot about the legalities of the system over the years, not the least of which was when three pilots from my domicile died on the side of a mountain in Virginia on December 1, 1974 (TWA 514). That accident tied up my life for a year, so.

I was a controller in the USAF, and at one point in the 2nd Combat Comm Group. We were a mobile outfit, could set up and be flight checked w/ tower and approach control services within 24 hours, anywhere in the world. The guys doing our TERPS I thought told me they do the surveys and submit that info to, at the time, headquarters @ Scott AFB, and they fed all the info into a 'puter and it spit out a couple versions of approaches. I know you said you never work for the FAA but you ever hear anything like this? Just curious.

So, after AA screwed y'all did you remain at AA? Or maybe you didn't, or was that later after you left TWA?
 
If you are referencing me, so you understand I do not and never did work for the FAA. My career was as a line pilot for TWA, as well as a whole lot of light airplane flying. I was an instrument flight instructor for many years and developed an interest in TERPs. I became the ALPA pilot safety representative for instrument procedures, and in that voluntary capacity represented airline pilots vs. the FAA in the design and implementation of TERPs criteria. I've learned a lot about the legalities of the system over the years, not the least of which was when three pilots from my domicile died on the side of a mountain in Virginia on December 1, 1974 (TWA 514). That accident tied up my life for a year, so.
I am aware you have great knowledge of terps and are not employed by the FAA. My point all along is that the practical aspects of flying should not be overlooked when reviewing or flying an IAP. At it's root it's the old field dependent/field independent thinking thing. It seems to me that there are many potential problems and the pilot must remain aware enough to solve the problems regardless of the rules of IAP design. For routine operations the designs should be sufficient to the point that there are few concerns for routine flight for a proficient pilot/crew. When things aren't routine it helps to have thought about what can be done ahead of time. Obviously it's not always necessary to plan for a problem but just like engine out and partial panel training we should be training for lost coms or lost navaids or even bad instruction from ATC. Of course you airline guys get more and better training than us spam can guys so the need might not be as apparent.

All that said, maybe Dave and I are just the self-reliant types who looks at things and say "I can figure a way to..."
 
So, after AA screwed y'all did you remain at AA? Or maybe you didn't, or was that later after you left TWA?
No, I took early retirement in 1990 because of the p***k Icahn. Had I gone until age 60 I would have still been long gone when AAL came along.
 
I am aware you have great knowledge of terps and are not employed by the FAA. My point all along is that the practical aspects of flying should not be overlooked when reviewing or flying an IAP. At it's root it's the old field dependent/field independent thinking thing. It seems to me that there are many potential problems and the pilot must remain aware enough to solve the problems regardless of the rules of IAP design. For routine operations the designs should be sufficient to the point that there are few concerns for routine flight for a proficient pilot/crew. When things aren't routine it helps to have thought about what can be done ahead of time. Obviously it's not always necessary to plan for a problem but just like engine out and partial panel training we should be training for lost coms or lost navaids or even bad instruction from ATC. Of course you airline guys get more and better training than us spam can guys so the need might not be as apparent.

All that said, maybe Dave and I are just the self-reliant types who looks at things and say "I can figure a way to..."

It wasn't all airline training for me. I had lots of light airplane time. That is where I came from when I hired on to the airline. I continued to be active in GA for my first ten years on the airline. Put through a couple more instrument students and a couple of multi ratings during that time.

What seems fussy to some pilots about notes and limitations on approach charts is, in fact, sometimes fussy. Nonetheless, all the notes, altitudes, and courses are regulatory, not advisory. And, most controllers know little to nothing about those notes.

An example of ludicrous is the fairly recent limitation that an airway cannot join an RNAV approach at greater than a 90 degree course change. But, if it is a ground-based procedure the course change can (as always has been) as much as 120 degrees. Yet, most of the folks I work with these days use LNAV to transition onto any approach procedure. Up to 120 degrees is okay for an ILS but not for an RNAV approach. Yet, the same RNAV equipment is flying both transitions. An example of this are the poorly designed RNAV Runway 30 procedure at Las Cruces, New Mexico. They could have made a HILPT fit on that procedure, but they took the lazy way out, then realized they would have to prohibit arrival from the west. So, rather than fixing it correctly they slapped an arrival hold on the procedure, which neither pilots nor controllers understand. Lazy, lazy design by federal employees, some of who are quite indifferent. They fill in the squares and the computer makes sure the TERPs protected airspace is there.

When I started in this business the FAA designers were far more involved. They had to be because there was no design computer. They pasted paper 1:24,000 quad charts together for drafting of the intermediate and final approach segments. Lots of those designers prior to 1990, or so, were pilots. That is long since gone.
 
If you arrive ON radials 192 CW 332, you would flying ON them and toward the VOR TO their reciprocal radials (12 CW 152) and this is disallowed. Therefore, flying FROM the 272 radial (away from the VOR), although in the restricted range of radials, your are not "arriving" but "departing" the VOR and this would be the normal approach vector from the VOR to the IAF at AWEGA. Confusing for sure but that's how it works.
 
Last edited:
I think it is quite simple. There is a limit on the maximum allowed turn angle to join the feeder route. This note only applies to flight on airways and arriving at FMG on those airways when inbound to FMG on a radial between 192 CW 332. Feeder routes are routes between a victor airway and an IAF. There are five separate airways (or airway pairs), V28-113 on the 192 degree radial (012 degrees inbound), V6 on the 218 degree radial (38 degrees inbound), V200-392 on the 241 degree radial (61 degrees inbound), V452 on the 314 degree radial (134 degrees inbound), and V165 on the 332 radial (152 degrees inbound). Arriving on these routes and turning outbound from FMG to the 272 degree radial, requires a turn of respectively 100 degrees, 126 degrees, 149 degrees, 138 degrees, and 120 degrees. For an RNAV approach, the limit is 90 degrees. If radar is available, these limits are easily overcome as you can be vectored to the IAF or the feeder route. The limitation only applies if one is arriving by airways and using your own navigation.
 
I agree with John.

This same sort of chart phrase was brought up for discussion at the Indianapolis FSDO around 2014 when an IFR rating or CFI-I applicant failed a checkride at the Lafayette, IN Airport (LAF). The VOR approach there specifies "NoPT for arrivals on BVT VORTAC radials 234 CW 021." The applicant joined the approach from V251, entered the HILPT at BVT, and subsequently failed the checkride. As the story goes, the decision by the DPE/inspector was sustained and the student had to take another checkride.

As an aside, at an airport like Lafayette, radar vectors are not an option. The lowest MVA is 3,000 in that area and the radar itself is often unreliable. In my time there I saw approach/center radio transmitter outages, unreliable radar reception, radar outages (including the one related to the Chicago Center fire), and more that re-emphasized the importance of being familiar with the approach procedures.

I find it better to try to more completely understand something than to try to come up with reasons why that thing should not exist. (I say the same about written tests.)
 
I think it's been covered already. If you are INBOUND to FMG from the WEST (192 CW 332) then you are not in a position to proceed OUTBOUND on the FMG 272.

If you really need the transition from FMG on the 272R, then ask for a hold at FMG east, to get turned around.
 
Back
Top