This approach is marked radar required, and there is no charted feeder
route to the IAF. So one approaches via a random route under radar.

ATC will not issue an approach clearance until within 15 miles of the NDB.
In the past I was told this was due to their need to ensure the a/c was
within the service volume for the facility.

However, if the a/c is using GPS and executing the GPS Rwy 33 approach,
what is the point of delaying clearance issuance until 15 miles out?






Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Thu, 20 May 2004 02:38:59 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> One reason for delaying the clearance when using the NDB might
> >> be that, although ATC may be radar monitoring, once one
> >> descends below 4000', there is no direct radio contact with ATC.
> >>
> >
> >Radar monitoring is required even if the aircraft is executing the GPS RWY
> >33 approach.
> >
>
> Why do you think this delay in issuing the clearance is a policy at the
> Boston ARTCC?
>
> If it is not justified by the FAA published procedures, do you have a cite
> from the manual that I could present to the supervisor at the Boston ARTCC
> to support its elimination?
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"RADAR REQUIRED" can be for any number of reasons. One of them is:

8260.19C, Para 855: Where radar is the only method for procedure entry from
the en route environment, enter the following: Chart planview note: RADAR
REQUIRED.

You cannot use that NDB beyond 15 miles unless they see you on radar. You say
they lose radar below 4,000, but presumably you're within 15 miles before they
let that happen. The note is appropriate in view of the lack of facilities
supporting the IAP. It is not Boston Center that is the final authority on
that note, it is the IAP folks.

The fact you're using GPS is beside the point because it is an overlay IAP.
Perhaps it shouldn't be beside the point, but it is because it's an overlay.
They don't make special notes for overlay use of a ground-based IAP.

On Thu, 20 May 2004 05:35:50 -0700, wrote:

>"RADAR REQUIRED" can be for any number of reasons. One of them is:
>
>8260.19C, Para 855: Where radar is the only method for procedure entry from
>the en route environment, enter the following: Chart planview note: RADAR
>REQUIRED.
>
>You cannot use that NDB beyond 15 miles unless they see you on radar. You say
>they lose radar below 4,000,

No, they don't lose radar -- but they do lose direct radio communications.
Communication is still possible, although cumbersome, through a FSS.


> but presumably you're within 15 miles before they
>let that happen. The note is appropriate in view of the lack of facilities
>supporting the IAP. It is not Boston Center that is the final authority on
>that note, it is the IAP folks.
>
>The fact you're using GPS is beside the point because it is an overlay IAP.
>Perhaps it shouldn't be beside the point, but it is because it's an overlay.


>They don't make special notes for overlay use of a ground-based IAP.

OK. I did think it might have something to do with the inability to make a
differentiation since it is an overlay and not a stand-alone procedure. I
wonder how hard it will be to split it off as a stand-alone procedure.
I'll give a call to the procedure specialist in Mass.

Thanks.



Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

>
> >
> >You cannot use that NDB beyond 15 miles unless they see you on radar. You say
> >they lose radar below 4,000,
>
> No, they don't lose radar -- but they do lose direct radio communications.
> Communication is still possible, although cumbersome, through a FSS.

If they can't talk to you they can't provide radar services. ;-)

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why do you think this delay in issuing the clearance is a policy at the
> Boston ARTCC?
>

I don't think there is a delay. If you're on a random route radar
monitoring is required for all aircraft; course guidance is also required,
as necessary, unless the aircraft is /E, /F, /G, or /R equipped.
(Apparently non-advanced RNAV aircraft must be nudged back on course but
advanced RNAV aircraft can be left to wander.) Implicit in the requirement
for radar monitoring is the requirement for direct pilot-controller
communications. If radio communication is lost below 4000' then any
clearance that permits descent below that altitude must be withheld until
the requirement for radar monitoring no longer applies. If you really want
your approach clearance before you're within 15 miles of EPM ATC can easily
issue it with a restriction to maintain 4000' until crossing EPM NDB, but I
doubt that's a solution you'd be interested in.

Another solution is to file a route that does not require radar monitoring
as you approach EPM, but that may require you to add a fair distance to your
flight. Princeton VOR/DME is an L class VOR 39 miles NNW of EPM, the A/FD
shows no restrictions within the normal altitude/distance limitations, so
PNN direct EPM is a perfectly good non-radar route. You could be cleared
for the approach with a restriction to cross EPM at whatever the highest MIA
is between the VOR and the NDB. Radar monitoring wouldn't be required so
there'd be no reason to keep you on the ATC frequency or deny the approach
clearance.

One wonders why this wasn't charted as a feeder route.

> wrote in message ...
>
> "RADAR REQUIRED" can be for any number of reasons. One
> of them is:
>
> 8260.19C, Para 855: Where radar is the only method for
> procedure entry from the en route environment, enter the
> following: Chart planview note: RADAR REQUIRED.
>

Radar is not the only method for procedure entry from the en route
environment in this case.


>
> You cannot use that NDB beyond 15 miles unless they see you
> on radar.
>

That's true, but you could use another navaid until you're within 15 miles
of that NDB.


>
> You say they lose radar below 4,000, but presumably you're
> within 15 miles before they let that happen.
>

He didn't say that, he said they lose direct communications below 4000'.
The Bucks Harbor ARSR is only 23 miles away, the St. Albans RCAG is about
100 miles away.


>
> The note is appropriate in view of the lack of facilities
> supporting the IAP.
>

The note is inappropriate in view of the fact that this procedure can be
flown without the use of any radar services.

On Thu, 20 May 2004 17:22:30 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Why do you think this delay in issuing the clearance is a policy at the
>> Boston ARTCC?
>>
>
>I don't think there is a delay. If you're on a random route radar
>monitoring is required for all aircraft; course guidance is also required,
>as necessary, unless the aircraft is /E, /F, /G, or /R equipped.
>(Apparently non-advanced RNAV aircraft must be nudged back on course but
>advanced RNAV aircraft can be left to wander.) Implicit in the requirement
>for radar monitoring is the requirement for direct pilot-controller
>communications. If radio communication is lost below 4000' then any
>clearance that permits descent below that altitude must be withheld until
>the requirement for radar monitoring no longer applies. If you really want
>your approach clearance before you're within 15 miles of EPM ATC can easily
>issue it with a restriction to maintain 4000' until crossing EPM NDB, but I
>doubt that's a solution you'd be interested in.


Sometimes it's hard for me to follow your train of thought. But if I
understand you correctly, in the situation we are discussing, you are
saying that for a/c with non-advanced RNAV, clearance issuance *should* be
delayed until within the SSV of the EPM NDB (unless one is held at an
excessively high altitude).

However, I was filed /G so I'm still wondering about my specific situation.

>
>Another solution is to file a route that does not require radar monitoring
>as you approach EPM, but that may require you to add a fair distance to your
>flight. Princeton VOR/DME is an L class VOR 39 miles NNW of EPM, the A/FD
>shows no restrictions within the normal altitude/distance limitations, so
>PNN direct EPM is a perfectly good non-radar route. You could be cleared
>for the approach with a restriction to cross EPM at whatever the highest MIA
>is between the VOR and the NDB. Radar monitoring wouldn't be required so
>there'd be no reason to keep you on the ATC frequency or deny the approach
>clearance.
>
>One wonders why this wasn't charted as a feeder route.
>

I don't have a current AF/D to examine. However, the Princeton VOR has
been flakey for a number of years. In addition, www.airnav.com shows VOR
PORTION UNUSBL 113-158 (pnn-->epm is 149°). Also, checking with the Bangor
FSS, they tell me that restriction is published in the current A/FD.

(I believe that many years ago there was a published feeder route.)

So I guess that's not an option.

Oh well.

I'll see what the local procedure specialist has to say.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > "RADAR REQUIRED" can be for any number of reasons. One
> > of them is:
> >
> > 8260.19C, Para 855: Where radar is the only method for
> > procedure entry from the en route environment, enter the
> > following: Chart planview note: RADAR REQUIRED.
> >
>
> Radar is not the only method for procedure entry from the en route
> environment in this case.

What are the other methods?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

>>One wonders why this wasn't charted as a feeder route.

Perhaps flight inspection issues?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> Radar is not the only method for procedure entry from the en route
> environment in this case.

Unless the NDB is part of the airway system, then Radar is the only way
to legally and procedurally get to the IAF.

>>You cannot use that NDB beyond 15 miles unless they see you
>>on radar.
>>
> That's true, but you could use another navaid until you're within 15
miles
> of that NDB.
There are no other NAVAIDS that have been approved as feeders to the
IAF. Yes, you could use another NAVAID to get there, but it would have
to be with the assistance of the TRACON while they follow you on the
Radar (i.e., Radar required)

>>You say they lose radar below 4,000, but presumably you're
>>within 15 miles before they let that happen.
>>
> He didn't say that, he said they lose direct communications below 4000'.
> The Bucks Harbor ARSR is only 23 miles away, the St. Albans RCAG is about
> 100 miles away.
>>The note is appropriate in view of the lack of facilities
>>supporting the IAP.
>>
> The note is inappropriate in view of the fact that this procedure can be
> flown without the use of any radar services.
>

Not from a TERPS standpoint.

JPH

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sometimes it's hard for me to follow your train of thought. But if I
> understand you correctly, in the situation we are discussing, you are
> saying that for a/c with non-advanced RNAV, clearance issuance
> *should* be delayed until within the SSV of the EPM NDB (unless
> one is held at an excessively high altitude).
>

No, having or not having advanced RNAV makes no difference in this case. I
was just pointing out a quirk in the requirements. Exceeding normal navaid
distances requires radar regardless how you're equipped nav-wise. The
difference is those not equipped with advanced RNAV also require course
guidance, as necessary. If ATC observed someone that had filed /A veering
off course to high terrain they'd have to nudge him back on course. If ATC
observed someone that had filed /G doing the same they could just let him
fly into the rocks.


>
> I don't have a current AF/D to examine. However, the Princeton
> VOR has been flakey for a number of years. In addition,
> www.airnav.com shows VOR PORTION UNUSBL 113-158
> (pnn-->epm is 149°). Also, checking with the Bangor FSS, they
> tell me that restriction is published in the current A/FD.
>

I was working from an old directory, if FSS says there's now a restriction
on the required radial I'll certainly take their word for it.


>
> (I believe that many years ago there was a published feeder route.)
>

Many years ago? The current plate says "Orig". I have an NE-1 book dated
26 Feb 1998, there's no feeder route on it, it's the same approach as today.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

>
>
> No, having or not having advanced RNAV makes no difference in this case. I
> was just pointing out a quirk in the requirements. Exceeding normal navaid
> distances requires radar regardless how you're equipped nav-wise.
>

Unless a particular radial, loalizer, or bearing is documented by AVN-100 as
having extended service volume (ESV).

> wrote in message ...
>
> What are the other methods?
>

The other method is a route that does not require radar monitoring. In a
previous post I described an arrival over PNN, but Ron Rosenfeld tells me
there is now a restriction on the sector the applicable radial is in. I was
using an old A/FD.

But there are still others. A flight from Lubec to Eastport would not
require radar as it's less than 5 miles away. A flight from Machias Valley
to Eastport would not require radar. The distance is 24 miles but there's
an NDB on the field.

> wrote in message ...
>
> Perhaps flight inspection issues?
>

Apparently so. I'm told there is now a restriction on that radial.

"J Haggerty" > wrote in message
news:vQdrc.35351$bS1.29635@okepread02...
>
> Unless the NDB is part of the airway system, then Radar is the
> only way to legally and procedurally get to the IAF.
>

Please cite the applicable law.


>
> There are no other NAVAIDS that have been approved as feeders
> to the IAF.
>

They don't have to be approved as feeders, they just have to exist.


>
> Yes, you could use another NAVAID to get there, but it would have
> to be with the assistance of the TRACON while they follow you on the
> Radar (i.e., Radar required)
>

Negative. Radar monitoring is required only when operating beyond navaid
distance limitations.


>
> Not from a TERPS standpoint.
>

Irrelevant. Pilots are governed by the FARs and ATC by FAA Order 7110.65.

> wrote in message ...
>
> Unless a particular radial, loalizer, or bearing is documented by
> AVN-100 as having extended service volume (ESV).
>

If it had been would it be a secret to the regular operators in the
applicable area? Another exception is a route that is an MTR, but I saw no
point in listing exceptions that obviously don't apply.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > What are the other methods?
> >
>
> The other method is a route that does not require radar monitoring. In a
> previous post I described an arrival over PNN, but Ron Rosenfeld tells me
> there is now a restriction on the sector the applicable radial is in. I was
> using an old A/FD.
>
> But there are still others. A flight from Lubec to Eastport would not
> require radar as it's less than 5 miles away. A flight from Machias Valley
> to Eastport would not require radar. The distance is 24 miles but there's
> an NDB on the field.

By policy, at a location like this, AVN-100 would have established a feeder
route had any of the area nav aids permitted it. They work pretty hard at what
they do to avoid radar required under these types of circumstances (as opposed
to a TRACON that wants mandatory vectors-to-final).