I can't seem to find the IAF for the LOC BC RWY 03R at LUK. Any ideas why?

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
. 158...
>
> I can't seem to find the IAF for the LOC BC RWY 03R at LUK. Any
> ideas why?
>

Because none is designated.

Andrew Sarangan > wrote in message >...
> I can't seem to find the IAF for the LOC BC RWY 03R at LUK. Any ideas why?

I'm new at IFR so this may be off base, but... the chart says radar is
required, so I'm guessing you can only use this with radar vectors.
There isn't even a proc turn shown.

Maybe they don't want people wandering around CVG.

"PaulH" > wrote in message
om...
>
> I'm new at IFR so this may be off base, but... the chart says radar is
> required, so I'm guessing you can only use this with radar vectors.
> There isn't even a proc turn shown.
>

The chart doesn't say "RADAR REQUIRED", it says "DME or RADAR and ADF
REQUIRED". You can fly it without radar assistance as long as you have DME
and ADF (or suitable GPS) and navigate via Falmouth VOR/DME.

"PaulH" > wrote in message
om...
> Andrew Sarangan > wrote in message
>...
> > I can't seem to find the IAF for the LOC BC RWY 03R at LUK. Any ideas
why?
>
> I'm new at IFR so this may be off base, but... the chart says radar is
> required, so I'm guessing you can only use this with radar vectors.
> There isn't even a proc turn shown.

Hm, which version of the chart are you looking at? The current NACO chart
(http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0406/00083LBC3R.PDF) says radar isn't needed
if you have DME.

--Gary

Another approach with no IAF is the NDB or GPS-A approach to Portland
Troutdale (TTD). This approach requires radar. It also has an interesting
lost communications procedure.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> I can't seem to find the IAF for the LOC BC RWY 03R at LUK. Any ideas why?

Charting error. Falmouth is the IAF. They most likely failed to designate it
on the source document. Stuff like that happens.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "PaulH" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>I'm new at IFR so this may be off base, but... the chart says radar is
>>required, so I'm guessing you can only use this with radar vectors.
>>There isn't even a proc turn shown.
>>
>
>
> The chart doesn't say "RADAR REQUIRED", it says "DME or RADAR and ADF
> REQUIRED". You can fly it without radar assistance as long as you have DME
> and ADF (or suitable GPS) and navigate via Falmouth VOR/DME.
>
>

I never was very good in grammar, but what is the parsing order in the
above. Is it "DME or (RADAR and ADF)" or "(DME or RADAR) and ADF?" I'm
assuming English has an order of evaluation as does mathematics, I'm
just not familiar with what it is. I would have read this as requiring
either DME or requiring RADAR and ADF, but that isn't how you
interpreted it and I frankly don't know which is correct from a language
perspective.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> > "PaulH" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> >>I'm new at IFR so this may be off base, but... the chart says radar is
> >>required, so I'm guessing you can only use this with radar vectors.
> >>There isn't even a proc turn shown.
> >>
> >
> >
> > The chart doesn't say "RADAR REQUIRED", it says "DME or RADAR and ADF
> > REQUIRED". You can fly it without radar assistance as long as you have DME
> > and ADF (or suitable GPS) and navigate via Falmouth VOR/DME.
> >
> >
>
> I never was very good in grammar, but what is the parsing order in the
> above. Is it "DME or (RADAR and ADF)" or "(DME or RADAR) and ADF?" I'm
> assuming English has an order of evaluation as does mathematics, I'm
> just not familiar with what it is. I would have read this as requiring
> either DME or requiring RADAR and ADF, but that isn't how you
> interpreted it and I frankly don't know which is correct from a language
> perspective.
>
> Matt

DME or Radar...one of the other
ADF no matter which of the "ors" above you have.

Look at the context. There are radar fixes where there are DME fixes.

So, if you don't have DME, how do you identify the LOC FAF? It isn't
identified as a RADAR fix or an Intersection, just a DME fix.
Seems like the title should be LOC/DME BC RWY 3R, since, as published,
DME is required to fly the final approach.

JPH

wrote:
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"PaulH" > wrote in message
om...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm new at IFR so this may be off base, but... the chart says radar is
>>>>required, so I'm guessing you can only use this with radar vectors.
>>>>There isn't even a proc turn shown.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The chart doesn't say "RADAR REQUIRED", it says "DME or RADAR and ADF
>>>REQUIRED". You can fly it without radar assistance as long as you have DME
>>>and ADF (or suitable GPS) and navigate via Falmouth VOR/DME.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I never was very good in grammar, but what is the parsing order in the
>>above. Is it "DME or (RADAR and ADF)" or "(DME or RADAR) and ADF?" I'm
>>assuming English has an order of evaluation as does mathematics, I'm
>>just not familiar with what it is. I would have read this as requiring
>>either DME or requiring RADAR and ADF, but that isn't how you
>>interpreted it and I frankly don't know which is correct from a language
>>perspective.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> DME or Radar...one of the other
> ADF no matter which of the "ors" above you have.
>
> Look at the context. There are radar fixes where there are DME fixes.
>

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> I never was very good in grammar, but what is the parsing order in the
> above. Is it "DME or (RADAR and ADF)" or "(DME or RADAR)
> and ADF?" I'm assuming English has an order of evaluation as does
> mathematics, I'm just not familiar with what it is.
>

I don't know anything about orders of evaluation for English. RADAR or DME
is required, you must also have ADF. That's clear from a brief examination
of the procedure.


>
> I would have read this as requiring
> either DME or requiring RADAR and ADF, but that isn't how you
> interpreted it and I frankly don't know which is correct from a language
> perspective.
>

I conclude the same as you. Remember, these notes are not regulatory,
they're just reminders.

"J Haggerty" > wrote in message
news:Qm%yc.16248$1L4.10836@okepread02...
>
> So, if you don't have DME, how do you identify the LOC FAF? It isn't
> identified as a RADAR fix or an Intersection, just a DME fix.
> Seems like the title should be LOC/DME BC RWY 3R, since, as published,
> DME is required to fly the final approach.
>

You identify it by radar. Approach can call the FAF as long as it's
depicted on the scope, it doesn't have to be designated on the plate.

J Haggerty wrote:

> So, if you don't have DME, how do you identify the LOC FAF? It isn't
> identified as a RADAR fix or an Intersection, just a DME fix.
> Seems like the title should be LOC/DME BC RWY 3R, since, as published,
> DME is required to fly the final approach.
>

They could have done a better job by including "RADAR" at the FAF, as well. But,
the procedure wouldn't say "RADAR or DME," nor woult the intermediate fix have
"RADAR" unless ATC is set up to call the FAF as well.

As an aside, you won't see new LOC procedures with DME in the title any longer,
even when it is mandatory. Instead, a note will say "DME required," with no
conditions. This is a database limitation issue; thus the naming convention was
changed to fix avionics issues, not make it any easier for you to understand.

No IAF is designated.

No matter where you are coming from, Cincy approach will vector you to
the SHILA FAC fix.

You will always get RADAR vectors, as you will be in Cincy's Class B
airspace to perform this approach.

Sandy Mustard

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> I can't seem to find the IAF for the LOC BC RWY 03R at LUK. Any ideas why?
>

"Sandy Mustard" > wrote in message
...
>
> No IAF is designated.
>
> No matter where you are coming from, Cincy approach will vector you to
> the SHILA FAC fix.
>
> You will always get RADAR vectors, as you will be in Cincy's Class B
> airspace to perform this approach.
>

Cincy approach isn't going to vector you if they are without radar, but this
approach can be flown without it. Falmouth VOR/DME should have been
designated as an IAF. Note that the FLM 338R has the heavy line of a
procedure track, not the lighter line of a feeder route. Chart error. You
can fly this approach via FLM if you've got DME and ADF, or appropriate GPS.

I believe Steve is right.

In addition, they would not put NoPT on a feeder route, only on the approach
route. NoPT on a feeder route does not make sense.

Kevin

True, but Cincy approach may not let you into their class B airpspace
without their radar working.

Shila could have been the IAF, no reason FLM needs to be it.

The Jepp charts for all LUK approaches show no difference in the line
thicknesses so I guess everyone charted it wrong.

Sandy

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Sandy Mustard" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>No IAF is designated.
>>
>>No matter where you are coming from, Cincy approach will vector you to
>>the SHILA FAC fix.
>>
>>You will always get RADAR vectors, as you will be in Cincy's Class B
>>airspace to perform this approach.
>>
>
>
> Cincy approach isn't going to vector you if they are without radar, but this
> approach can be flown without it. Falmouth VOR/DME should have been
> designated as an IAF. Note that the FLM 338R has the heavy line of a
> procedure track, not the lighter line of a feeder route. Chart error. You
> can fly this approach via FLM if you've got DME and ADF, or appropriate GPS.
>
>

Sandy Mustard wrote:

> True, but Cincy approach may not let you into their class B airpspace
> without their radar working.
>
> Shila could have been the IAF, no reason FLM needs to be it.

Nope. Shila is the intermediate fix. An intermediate fix cannot also be an IAF
unless it is a course reversal fix.

"Sandy Mustard" > wrote in message
...
>
> True, but Cincy approach may not let you into their class B airpspace
> without their radar working.

No radar, no class B, they would revert to a class D facility.

<<No radar, no class B, they would revert to a class D facility.>>

Interesting! Where is the provision for this in the regs? I know
that some class C's revert to class E at night, but there's some
escape clause in the FAAO that creates the airspace, saying something
to the effect that NOTAM's can change the airspace.

"Sandy Mustard" > wrote in message
...
>
> True, but Cincy approach may not let you into their class B airpspace
> without their radar working.
>

Why not?


>
> Shila could have been the IAF, no reason FLM needs to be it.
>

How could SHILA be an IAF? How can the FLM 338R be a procedure track id FLM
is not an IAF?


>
> The Jepp charts for all LUK approaches show no difference in the line
> thicknesses so I guess everyone charted it wrong.
>

Why is that necessarily so?

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> No radar, no class B, they would revert to a class D facility.
>

The status of the radar does not affect the Class of airspace.

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
>
> Interesting! Where is the provision for this in the regs? I know
> that some class C's revert to class E at night, but there's some
> escape clause in the FAAO that creates the airspace, saying something
> to the effect that NOTAM's can change the airspace.
>

There's no provision in the regs for it because it ain't so. FAAO 7110.65
requires the suspension of Class C services when a radar outage occurs, but
the class of airspace does not change. With regard to Class B airspace,
FAAO 7110.65 states; "Separation and sequencing for VFR aircraft is
dependent upon radar. Efforts should be made to segregate VFR traffic from
IFR traffic flows when a radar outage occurs."

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sandy Mustard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > True, but Cincy approach may not let you into their class B airpspace
> > without their radar working.
>
> No radar, no class B, they would revert to a class D facility.
>
>
>

There is no provision in FAR 71 for revision of Class B airspace to Class D
in the event of a radar outage. The definition of the CVG Class B airspace
in FAAO 7400.9 makes no reference to reversion to any other class under any
event. The Class B airspace remains Class B under conditions of radar
outage.

Stan

Newps wrote:

> "Sandy Mustard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > True, but Cincy approach may not let you into their class B airpspace
> > without their radar working.
>
> No radar, no class B, they would revert to a class D facility.

And, come to a screeching halt. ;-)

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<No radar, no class B, they would revert to a class D facility.>>
>
> Interesting! Where is the provision for this in the regs? I know
> that some class C's revert to class E at night, but there's some
> escape clause in the FAAO that creates the airspace, saying something
> to the effect that NOTAM's can change the airspace.

If for some reason they lose all radar, which won't ever happen, but let's
say it does. The TRACON becomes a nonradar approach control. That will
essentially bring things to a halt. Not totally but since class B's are
inhabited by aircraft that are required to be IFR those aircraft would have
huge delays. A national groundstop for that airport and most likely all
airports in the class B's airspace would be issued. The part 135 guys would
love it since most of them can go VFR, so their delays would be minor.
Class B service would no longer exist and a statement to that effect would
be put on the ATIS. Arrivals and departures would no longer be separated,
unless they were IFR. We go thru this at least twice a year when they turn
our radar off for routine maintenence. Lately we have done this for a few
hours at a time because we are getting a new radar installed and there are
certain things that can only be done with everything turned off. So we
become a class D for that period of time. I'm not sure if they issue a
notam or not for these 3-4 hour radar shutdowns. We just put the message on
the ATIS and go about our business, most pilots don't ever notice the
difference.

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Newps wrote:
>
> > "Sandy Mustard" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > True, but Cincy approach may not let you into their class B airpspace
> > > without their radar working.
> >
> > No radar, no class B, they would revert to a class D facility.
>
> And, come to a screeching halt. ;-)

Yes, because nobody practices nonradar and to do it for real would be a
total cluster. And that's with no traffic.

<<FAAO 7110.65 requires the suspension of Class C services when a
radar outage occurs, but the class of airspace does not change.>>

That's what I would have guessed.

Thanks.