Yet Another DME Required Thread

[midlifeflyer]

It doesn't need a name. You can still sub GPS distance.

Of course you can, but you asked what he means by "missing waypoint" and I'm pretty sure that's the answer. In fact, if he finds one (I'm not sure I've seen one since before GPS), we can load the approach and see it's there.

 

[dmspilot]

Funny enough older receivers (e.g. KLN-89B) didn't support certain fixes so we used to use just the distance number even on some "native" GPS approaches.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Aha! They do exist. The OLV ILS OR LOC 18 I mentioned earlier. The MAP is just I-OLV D 1.1.

and when you load the approach, Lo and Behold!

 

[RussR]

Aha! They do exist. The OLV ILS OR LOC 18 I mentioned earlier. The MAP is just I-OLV D 1.1.
View attachment 153910
and when you load the approach, Lo and Behold!
View attachment 153911

Sorry to dampen your excitement, but that's routine and normal. MAPs that are collocated with the runway threshold do not get named, since there is already a fix there (the runway threshold).

At least a few years ago, I still ran across an occasional DME arc on a VOR procedure that did not have named fixes. I'll see if I can find one still.

 

[RussR]

Yep, here's one. Note the unnamed IAFs and FAF. The same is true on the procedure to RWY 34. Upon the next full amendment I am sure this will updated to include names.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Sorry to dampen your excitement, but that's routine and normal. MAPs that are collocated with the runway threshold do not get named, since there is already a fix there (the runway threshold).

At least a few years ago, I still ran across an occasional DME arc on a VOR procedure that did not have named fixes. I'll see if I can find one still.

I’m not excited. Just noticed it.

 

[RussR]

I’m not excited. Just noticed it.

Oh, I beg to differ. "Aha!" and "Lo and behold!" with appropriate use of exclamation marks clearly shows excitement regarding the topic.

 

[luvflyin]

I have to say, though, that my favorite in the hybrid ILS ("hybrid" is my term) is the HILO for the OLV ILS OR LOC 18

View attachment 153906

Here’s the whole thing

 

[flyingron]

I suppose Litte Rock is Little Rock, but if you are from KY it’s called LOO-uh-vul.

The question is is whether the capital of Kentucky is pronounced LOO-EE-VILLE or LOO-ISS-VILLE.

After the argument goes on a bit, I point out that I pronounce it FRANK-FURT.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The question is is whether the capital of Kentucky is pronounced LOO-EE-VILLE or LOO-ISS-VILLE.

After the argument goes on a bit, I point out that I pronounce it FRANK-FURT.

I was still working on why people from KY call Little Rock “LOO-uh-vul.”

 

[luvflyin]

Peter, for one similar to yours I wrote in about, there's the PBG ILS ORL LOC 35
View attachment 153907

The DME required should not be there. If you look at the full chart, nether should the alternate missed approach fix.

Yeah, GPS being required and it being an authorized substitute for DME does kinda make DME required redundant. The Approach can be flown without GPS if you have DME. GPS doesn’t come into play until the Missed Approach Fix. It seems they would rather have the Hold West of JUTEK rather than North of for some reason.

 

[RussR]

Peter, for one similar to yours I wrote in about, there's the PBG ILS ORL LOC 35
View attachment 153907

The DME required should not be there. If you look at the full chart, nether should the alternate missed approach fix.

The last full amendment on that procedure was 2017, with an abbreviated amendment in 2019. At that time, the criteria for equipment requirements notes like "GPS required" was very new and undergoing constant changes. It seemed like every few months we'd get something that said "now we're wording it THIS way" as the criteria makers, together with user groups, tried to settle on a good standard. So while now the wording also contains what segment it pertains to, back in the day it wasn't anywhere near as clear. For this one, DME is required for procedure entry but GPS is required for the missed. That would be better specified now, and should be whenever the procedure is amended next.

The alternate missed approach is an oddity. I also would have said it doesn't belong there, as you don't have alternate missed approaches with an RNAV missed - there's no point. But on this one, it looks like it was specifically requested:



I have no idea why that would be requested though.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The last full amendment on that procedure was 2017, with an abbreviated amendment in 2019. At that time, the criteria for equipment requirements notes like "GPS required" was very new and undergoing constant changes. It seemed like every few months we'd get something that said "now we're wording it THIS way" as the criteria makers, together with user groups, tried to settle on a good standard. So while now the wording also contains what segment it pertains to, back in the day it wasn't anywhere near as clear. For this one, DME is required for procedure entry but GPS is required for the missed. That would be better specified now, and should be whenever the procedure is amended next.

The alternate missed approach is an oddity. I also would have said it doesn't belong there, as you don't have alternate missed approaches with an RNAV missed - there's no point. But on this one, it looks like it was specifically requested:

View attachment 153938

I have no idea why that would be requested though.

I suspect it's still based on it be treated as a full ground-based navaid approach. I questioned both and the answer was that neither should be there.


I think it's just about the kind of errors that are made when things change. I've seen people raise all sorts of questions about approaches which turn out to be charring or design errors. This one is pretty funny. I only noticed it at all because I was reviewing it with an instrument student and I'm still surprised I caught the error.

 

[flyingron]

I suspect it's still based on it be treated as a full ground-based navaid approach. I questioned both and the answer was that neither should be there.

I think it's just about the kind of errors that are made when things change. I've seen people raise all sorts of questions about approaches which turn out to be charring or design errors. This one is pretty funny. I only noticed it at all because I was reviewing it with an instrument student and I'm still surprised I caught the error.

OK, I give. What's wrong with that approach?

 

[midlifeflyer]

OK, I give. What's wrong with that approach?

KENIR marked as an IF. You know, the fix between the iAF and the FAF? The IAF which leads to it is... ? That's what caught my attention.

I could understand KENIR being an IAF or other transition fix. It's on V290 and it has been given a segment altitude. That's the way it's depicted on the Y hybrid version of the approach (which I suspect is the one that's actually used in practice) . But it's not charted or identified that way in the 8260 for this approach. If you load the approach in a NAV database, it's not part of the procedure at all, Not an "intermediate" fix and not a selectable transition. Not part of any segment of the approach.