differences in loc/dme and loc with dme appch at KRUT?

[Richard Hertz]

Can anyone point out why the following approaches have minor differences
(specifically the minimums and the MAP):

RUT LOC/DME 19
RUT LOC 19 (with DME)

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Richard Hertz" > wrote:

> Can anyone point out why the following approaches have minor differences
> (specifically the minimums and the MAP):
>
> RUT LOC/DME 19
> RUT LOC 19 (with DME)
>
>

Beats me. All the minimums for the LOC w/DME are as good or better than
the corresponding values for the LOC/DME. I can't see any reason
anybody would ever want to fly the LOC-DME.

I can only see one possible reason for the LOC-DME to exist, and I'll
admit it's grasping at straws. In the LOC-DME, you start the missed
further out, which may be of some operational advantage to ATC? But
since this is an untowered airport, it's almost certainy "one-in,
one-out", so I can't get too excited about that idea.

[Dave S]

> RUT LOC/DME 19
The DME is required.. and in this approach the DME is co-located with
the localizer for 19.


> RUT LOC 19 (with DME)
DME optional, but the DME for use in THIS approach is co-located with
the VOR which is on-field, but sited differently from the Localizer.

I GUESS it gives you the option of using either DME if one happens to be
inop on the ground. the DME mins are in the 800 ft range agl (with
plenty of tall obstructions within 10 miles..) Might make it a little
easier for the commuters to get in there when the weather is bad.. I dunno.

Dave


>
>

[Roy Smith]

In article . net>,
Dave S > wrote:

> > RUT LOC/DME 19
> The DME is required.. and in this approach the DME is co-located with
> the localizer for 19.
>
>
> > RUT LOC 19 (with DME)
> DME optional, but the DME for use in THIS approach is co-located with
> the VOR which is on-field, but sited differently from the Localizer.

It looks to me like other than the step-downs at FISER and MAUVE on the
feeder routes, all the DME callouts on both approaches reference I-RUT.
Are you seeing something I'm not?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
t...
>
> Can anyone point out why the following approaches have minor differences
> (specifically the minimums and the MAP):
>
> RUT LOC/DME 19
> RUT LOC 19 (with DME)
>

It looks like the missed approach procedure is the culprit. The procedure
for the LOC RWY 19 uses the RUT VOR/DME while the procedure for the LOC/DME
RWY 19 does not. Apparently not using the VOR/DME for the procedure pushes
the MAP 1.5 miles further out and bumps up the MDA and minima a bit. The
LOC RWY 19 is a better approach, but would be NOTAMed NA if the RUT VOR/DME
is out of service.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Beats me. All the minimums for the LOC w/DME are as good or better than
> the corresponding values for the LOC/DME. I can't see any reason
> anybody would ever want to fly the LOC-DME.
>

Not want to, but may have to if RUT VOR/DME is out of service. The missed
approach procedure for the LOC RWY 19 uses RUT VOR/DME, the procedure for
the LOC/DME RWY 19 does not.


>
> I can only see one possible reason for the LOC-DME to exist, and I'll
> admit it's grasping at straws. In the LOC-DME, you start the missed
> further out, which may be of some operational advantage to ATC? But
> since this is an untowered airport, it's almost certainy "one-in,
> one-out", so I can't get too excited about that idea.
>

No advantage to ATC in that. If you don't have GPS and the RUT VOR/DME is
out of service, the LOC/DME RWY 19 is your only approach.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> > RUT LOC/DME 19
> The DME is required.. and in this approach the DME is co-located with
> the localizer for 19.
>
>
> > RUT LOC 19 (with DME)
> DME optional, but the DME for use in THIS approach is co-located with
> the VOR which is on-field, but sited differently from the Localizer.
>

No, the DME used in this approach is the same as the LOC/DME approach, if it
was from the VOR/DME the identifier by the DME fixes would show RUT instead
of I-RUT.

[Roy Smith]

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> The missed approach procedure for the LOC RWY 19 uses RUT VOR/DME,

Does it? Yes, it mentions "via RUT VOR/DME" in the missed text, but
there aren't actually any fixes that use DME from RUT. The only DME
callout I see in the missed is GITEW, which is I-RUT 16.4.

I can't see any reason this approach wouldn't be flyable with the RUT
DME out of service, as long as the VOR azimuth was still operating.

[Richard Hertz]

Right, but why should that force the odd differences in the final segments
of the approaches?
e.g. - the "Fly visual 2.5 nm" on the LOC/DME 19 and the 1600 and 2 (loc/dme
19) vs the 1580 and 1 1/4 minima (loc 19 with dme)?

I suppose there is no good reason for the differences (the different minima
and MAPs)

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> > Can anyone point out why the following approaches have minor differences
> > (specifically the minimums and the MAP):
> >
> > RUT LOC/DME 19
> > RUT LOC 19 (with DME)
> >
>
> It looks like the missed approach procedure is the culprit. The procedure
> for the LOC RWY 19 uses the RUT VOR/DME while the procedure for the
LOC/DME
> RWY 19 does not. Apparently not using the VOR/DME for the procedure
pushes
> the MAP 1.5 miles further out and bumps up the MDA and minima a bit. The
> LOC RWY 19 is a better approach, but would be NOTAMed NA if the RUT
VOR/DME
> is out of service.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Does it? Yes, it mentions "via RUT VOR/DME" in the missed text, but
> there aren't actually any fixes that use DME from RUT. The only DME
> callout I see in the missed is GITEW, which is I-RUT 16.4.
>
> I can't see any reason this approach wouldn't be flyable with the RUT
> DME out of service, as long as the VOR azimuth was still operating.
>

I didn't say the procedure used DME information from RUT VOR/DME. The
navaid is called a VOR/DME. The missed approach procedure includes a climb
to 2600 via direct to the VOR/DME and then the 221 radial from it. You
can't do that if the navaid is out of service.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
et...
>
> Right, but why should that force the odd differences in the final segments
> of the approaches?
> e.g. - the "Fly visual 2.5 nm" on the LOC/DME 19 and the 1600 and 2
(loc/dme
> 19) vs the 1580 and 1 1/4 minima (loc 19 with dme)?
>
> I suppose there is no good reason for the differences (the different
minima
> and MAPs)
>

I'm not a TERPS expert, I'm pretty much just guessing. There is higher
terrain to the south, southwest, and west of KRUT. Climbing to 2600 via the
RUT VOR/DME 221 radial allows you to avoid these rocks until you're above
them. Without the positive course guidance provided by RUT VOR/DME you're
left with climb gradient requirements that can't be met with the MAP at
I-RUT 1.9 DME so the MAP must be pushed back to 3.4 DME.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> I'm not a TERPS expert, I'm pretty much just guessing. There is higher
> terrain to the south, southwest, and west of KRUT. Climbing to 2600 via
the
> RUT VOR/DME 221 radial allows you to avoid these rocks until you're above
> them. Without the positive course guidance provided by RUT VOR/DME you're
> left with climb gradient requirements that can't be met with the MAP at
> I-RUT 1.9 DME so the MAP must be pushed back to 3.4 DME.
>

A portion of the New York sectional showing the area can be viewed here:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z2A616C27

[Roy Smith]

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Does it? Yes, it mentions "via RUT VOR/DME" in the missed text, but
> > there aren't actually any fixes that use DME from RUT. The only DME
> > callout I see in the missed is GITEW, which is I-RUT 16.4.
> >
> > I can't see any reason this approach wouldn't be flyable with the RUT
> > DME out of service, as long as the VOR azimuth was still operating.
> >
>
> I didn't say the procedure used DME information from RUT VOR/DME. The
> navaid is called a VOR/DME. The missed approach procedure includes a climb
> to 2600 via direct to the VOR/DME and then the 221 radial from it. You
> can't do that if the navaid is out of service.
>
>

As long as the VOR portion is working, you can. The status of the DME
portion is immaterial to this approach.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> As long as the VOR portion is working, you can. The status of the DME
> portion is immaterial to this approach.
>

No ****.

[Dave S]

Roy.. After reading yours and Stephen's reply.. I concede I am mistaken
and you are correct. Dang.. and to think I was trying to be extra
careful on this one too and figure out why the plate differences existed.

I am getting pretty frustrated with myself lately, since I appear to be
proven inaccurate more often than not with some of my replies on here,
even though my intent was to be helpful. I think I am going to sit back
and be a spectator for a while.. I dont want to be a resource if it ends
up being a BAD resource.

Dave

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article . net>,
> Dave S > wrote:
>
>
>> > RUT LOC/DME 19
>> The DME is required.. and in this approach the DME is co-located with
>>the localizer for 19.
>>
>>
>>
>>>RUT LOC 19 (with DME)
>>
>>DME optional, but the DME for use in THIS approach is co-located with
>>the VOR which is on-field, but sited differently from the Localizer.
>
>
> It looks to me like other than the step-downs at FISER and MAUVE on the
> feeder routes, all the DME callouts on both approaches reference I-RUT.
> Are you seeing something I'm not?

[Roy Smith]

In article . net>,
Dave S > wrote:
> I am getting pretty frustrated with myself lately, since I appear to be
> proven inaccurate more often than not with some of my replies on here,
> even though my intent was to be helpful. I think I am going to sit back
> and be a spectator for a while.

Don't get discouraged. If I had a nickle for every time I was wrong in
public, I'd be a rich man. I've learned more about aviation being an
instructor than I did as a student, and a lot of the best learning came
when I was proven wrong.

Correlary: just because somebody with lots of letters after their name
says something, don't think it must be true!

PS, I'm still stumped by these approaches. I really have no clue why
the LOC-DME version exists. For all the arguing back and forth about
details, I still don't see the big picture.

[Richard Hertz]

Thanks - I will have to look into that later - it is the best answer I have
seen yet.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
> et...
> >
> > Right, but why should that force the odd differences in the final
segments
> > of the approaches?
> > e.g. - the "Fly visual 2.5 nm" on the LOC/DME 19 and the 1600 and 2
> (loc/dme
> > 19) vs the 1580 and 1 1/4 minima (loc 19 with dme)?
> >
> > I suppose there is no good reason for the differences (the different
> minima
> > and MAPs)
> >
>
> I'm not a TERPS expert, I'm pretty much just guessing. There is higher
> terrain to the south, southwest, and west of KRUT. Climbing to 2600 via
the
> RUT VOR/DME 221 radial allows you to avoid these rocks until you're above
> them. Without the positive course guidance provided by RUT VOR/DME you're
> left with climb gradient requirements that can't be met with the MAP at
> I-RUT 1.9 DME so the MAP must be pushed back to 3.4 DME.
>
>

[[email protected]]

The naming convention was changed in TERPs.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Beats me. All the minimums for the LOC w/DME are as good or better than
> > the corresponding values for the LOC/DME. I can't see any reason
> > anybody would ever want to fly the LOC-DME.
> >
>
> Not want to, but may have to if RUT VOR/DME is out of service. The missed
> approach procedure for the LOC RWY 19 uses RUT VOR/DME, the procedure for
> the LOC/DME RWY 19 does not.
>
> >
> > I can only see one possible reason for the LOC-DME to exist, and I'll
> > admit it's grasping at straws. In the LOC-DME, you start the missed
> > further out, which may be of some operational advantage to ATC? But
> > since this is an untowered airport, it's almost certainy "one-in,
> > one-out", so I can't get too excited about that idea.
> >
>
> No advantage to ATC in that. If you don't have GPS and the RUT VOR/DME is
> out of service, the LOC/DME RWY 19 is your only approach.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> The naming convention was changed in TERPs.
>

What name are you referring to?

[Dave S]

Someone said something about the missed approach portion having
something to do with it, particularly with all the terrain surrounding
the airport.

Dave

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article . net>,
> Dave S > wrote:
>
>>I am getting pretty frustrated with myself lately, since I appear to be
>>proven inaccurate more often than not with some of my replies on here,
>>even though my intent was to be helpful. I think I am going to sit back
>>and be a spectator for a while.
>
>
> Don't get discouraged. If I had a nickle for every time I was wrong in
> public, I'd be a rich man. I've learned more about aviation being an
> instructor than I did as a student, and a lot of the best learning came
> when I was proven wrong.
>
> Correlary: just because somebody with lots of letters after their name
> says something, don't think it must be true!
>
> PS, I'm still stumped by these approaches. I really have no clue why
> the LOC-DME version exists. For all the arguing back and forth about
> details, I still don't see the big picture.