Yet another "Radar Required" question.

[Roy Smith]

There's two GPS approaches into KDMW; the RNAV (GPS) RWY 16 and the RNAV
(GPS) RWY 32.

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05533R16.pdf
http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05533R34.pdf

Both start from off-airway IAF's, with no feeder routes. Both use the
same missed approach fix. Yet, one is marked "Radar Required" and the
other isn't. Anybody have any clue why?

Secondary question -- I thought the concept of these pure GPS approaches
was to lay out 3 IAF's in a T pattern. Why no outside IAF's, and no PT?
Both of these seem kind of ugly if you start them from a course 180
degrees off the FAC.

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith wrote:

> There's two GPS approaches into KDMW; the RNAV (GPS) RWY 16 and the RNAV
> (GPS) RWY 32.
>
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05533R16.pdf
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05533R34.pdf
>
> Both start from off-airway IAF's, with no feeder routes. Both use the
> same missed approach fix. Yet, one is marked "Radar Required" and the
> other isn't. Anybody have any clue why?
>
> Secondary question -- I thought the concept of these pure GPS approaches
> was to lay out 3 IAF's in a T pattern. Why no outside IAF's, and no PT?
> Both of these seem kind of ugly if you start them from a course 180
> degrees off the FAC.

Is FOUST on an airway? If it isn't then the facility needs to use at least
a radar monitor to get you there.

As to the "T" design, that is the design objective, but in crowded airspace
like that the ATC folks probably told the procedures designers "Don't do
that here."

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith wrote:

> Secondary question -- I thought the concept of these pure GPS approaches
> was to lay out 3 IAF's in a T pattern. Why no outside IAF's, and no PT?
> Both of these seem kind of ugly if you start them from a course 180
> degrees off the FAC.

As to a large course change, the procedures designer is supposed to annotate
course-change limitations for procedure entry. See KUDD RNAV 10. But, they
haven't started "enforcing" that requirement of TERPs until the last couple
of years.

[Bob Gardner]

AIM 5-4-5, figures 5-4-10 and onward, show some alternatives to the basic T.
Not a complete answer to your question, but...
Bob Gardner

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> There's two GPS approaches into KDMW; the RNAV (GPS) RWY 16 and the RNAV
> (GPS) RWY 32.
>
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05533R16.pdf
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05533R34.pdf
>
> Both start from off-airway IAF's, with no feeder routes. Both use the
> same missed approach fix. Yet, one is marked "Radar Required" and the
> other isn't. Anybody have any clue why?
>
> Secondary question -- I thought the concept of these pure GPS approaches
> was to lay out 3 IAF's in a T pattern. Why no outside IAF's, and no PT?
> Both of these seem kind of ugly if you start them from a course 180
> degrees off the FAC.

[Stan Gosnell]

Roy Smith > wrote in
:

> There's two GPS approaches into KDMW; the RNAV (GPS) RWY 16
> and the RNAV (GPS) RWY 32.
>
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05533R16.p
> df
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05533R34.p
> df
>
> Both start from off-airway IAF's, with no feeder routes.
> Both use the same missed approach fix. Yet, one is marked
> "Radar Required" and the other isn't. Anybody have any
> clue why?

It appears to me that they made a mistake on the GPS Rwy 16 by
not making radar required. There is no way to fly the approach
if you're coming from the south, since it's marked PT NA.

> Secondary question -- I thought the concept of these pure
> GPS approaches was to lay out 3 IAF's in a T pattern. Why
> no outside IAF's, and no PT? Both of these seem kind of
> ugly if you start them from a course 180 degrees off the
> FAC.

Yabbut, lots of them don't have that. All the GPS approaches to
Scholes Field, Galveston, TX are without a T, and all are marked
radar required. They are too close to HOU and EFD to have
people flying long procedure turns, so they just have a
straight-in approach, with radar required to get to the FAC.
The approaches you referenced look the same, but I don't have
any charts handy to see what else is near. I think both
approaches should have radar required.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Roy Smith]

Stan Gosnell <me@work> wrote:
> It appears to me that they made a mistake on the GPS Rwy 16 by
> not making radar required.

OK, that makes sense.

> There is no way to fly the approach
> if you're coming from the south, since it's marked PT NA.

My first reaction was "What do you mean it's marked PT NA?". Then I saw
the notation on the vertical profile view. There's no "NoPT" on the
plan view. Another charting error?

Hmm, the 34 doesn't have either NoPT on the plan view or PT NA on the
profile. I guess that also makes sense since the only way to fly it on
vectors.

I just did some hunting around, and it looks like NACO takes chart
corrections via email, . I guess I'll drop them
a line and see what they say.

[Richard Hertz]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Stan Gosnell <me@work> wrote:
> > It appears to me that they made a mistake on the GPS Rwy 16 by
> > not making radar required.
>
> OK, that makes sense.
>
> > There is no way to fly the approach
> > if you're coming from the south, since it's marked PT NA.
>
> My first reaction was "What do you mean it's marked PT NA?". Then I saw
> the notation on the vertical profile view. There's no "NoPT" on the
> plan view. Another charting error?
>
> Hmm, the 34 doesn't have either NoPT on the plan view or PT NA on the
> profile. I guess that also makes sense since the only way to fly it on
> vectors.
>

There is no PT identified on the chart so it needs no "NoPT" to tell you not
to PT. The NoPT is (I think) only shown on segments of an approach that
have PTs (the approach has PT) but where some IAF do not require a PT and
some do.

As for the Radar required - check the 2 NM and 1.1 NM points on the chart -
it looks like they have it there for that? (Though I suppose your GPS might
be able to tell you that but it probably is not a waypoint).

> I just did some hunting around, and it looks like NACO takes chart
> corrections via email, . I guess I'll drop them
> a line and see what they say.

[[email protected]]

Richard Hertz wrote:

>
> There is no PT identified on the chart so it needs no "NoPT" to tell you not
> to PT. The NoPT is (I think) only shown on segments of an approach that
> have PTs (the approach has PT) but where some IAF do not require a PT and
> some do.
>

Jeppesen doesn't chart "Procedure Turn N/A" which is quite different than
"NoPT." "NoPT" is used only on segments of an IAP that has a course reversal
and a segment so marked does not require the course reversal. Jeppesen's view
is that the lack of a course reversal (PT or HIL) makes it self-evident that the
course reversal is not authorized.


>
> As for the Radar required - check the 2 NM and 1.1 NM points on the chart -
> it looks like they have it there for that? (Though I suppose your GPS might
> be able to tell you that but it probably is not a waypoint).

Yes, your GPS can tell you and, no, it is not a waypoint. It is an Along Track
Distance (ATD) fix, which is like a DME stepdown fix.


AIM 1-1-19-13

"13. Unnamed stepdown fixes in the final approach segment will not be coded in
the waypoint sequence of the aircraft's navigation database and must be
identified using ATD. Stepdown fixes in the final approach segment of RNAV (GPS)
approaches are being named, in addition to being identified by ATD. However,
since most GPS avionics do not accommodate waypoints between the FAF and MAP,
even when the waypoint is named, the waypoints for these stepdown fixes may not
appear in the sequence of waypoints in the navigation database. Pilots must
continue to identify these stepdown fixes using ATD."

[Richard Hertz]

Is this any different than what I wrote?

I agree, NoPT is not the same as PT not authorized, but I was trying to
correct what I thought was an error in Roy's reasoning...

Perhaps I did not make myself clear.

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> >
> > There is no PT identified on the chart so it needs no "NoPT" to tell you
not
> > to PT. The NoPT is (I think) only shown on segments of an approach that
> > have PTs (the approach has PT) but where some IAF do not require a PT
and
> > some do.
> >
>
> Jeppesen doesn't chart "Procedure Turn N/A" which is quite different than
> "NoPT." "NoPT" is used only on segments of an IAP that has a course
reversal
> and a segment so marked does not require the course reversal. Jeppesen's
view
> is that the lack of a course reversal (PT or HIL) makes it self-evident
that the
> course reversal is not authorized.
>
>
> >
> > As for the Radar required - check the 2 NM and 1.1 NM points on the
chart -
> > it looks like they have it there for that? (Though I suppose your GPS
might
> > be able to tell you that but it probably is not a waypoint).
>
> Yes, your GPS can tell you and, no, it is not a waypoint. It is an Along
Track
> Distance (ATD) fix, which is like a DME stepdown fix.
>
>
> AIM 1-1-19-13
>
> "13. Unnamed stepdown fixes in the final approach segment will not be
coded in
> the waypoint sequence of the aircraft's navigation database and must be
> identified using ATD. Stepdown fixes in the final approach segment of RNAV
(GPS)
> approaches are being named, in addition to being identified by ATD.
However,
> since most GPS avionics do not accommodate waypoints between the FAF and
MAP,
> even when the waypoint is named, the waypoints for these stepdown fixes
may not
> appear in the sequence of waypoints in the navigation database. Pilots
must
> continue to identify these stepdown fixes using ATD."
>

[[email protected]]

Here are the NOTAMS they issued today:

FDC 4/3343 - FI/T CARROLL COUNTY REGIONAL/JACK B. POAGE FIELD, WESTMINSTER,
MD RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, ORIG... UNYTS WP: CHANGE FIX DESCRIPTION FROM (IAF) TO
(IF). RADAR REQUIRED. WIE UNTIL UFN


FDC 4/3344 - FI/T CARROLL COUNTY REGIONAL/JACK B. POAGE FIELD, WESTMINSTER,
MD RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, ORIG... FOUST WP: CHANGE FIX DESCRIPTION FROM (IAF) TO
(IF). WIE UNTIL UFN

[Roy Smith]

In article >, wrote:

> Here are the NOTAMS they issued today:
>
> FDC 4/3343 - FI/T CARROLL COUNTY REGIONAL/JACK B. POAGE FIELD, WESTMINSTER,
> MD RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, ORIG... UNYTS WP: CHANGE FIX DESCRIPTION FROM (IAF) TO
> (IF). RADAR REQUIRED. WIE UNTIL UFN
>
>
> FDC 4/3344 - FI/T CARROLL COUNTY REGIONAL/JACK B. POAGE FIELD, WESTMINSTER,
> MD RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, ORIG... FOUST WP: CHANGE FIX DESCRIPTION FROM (IAF) TO
> (IF). WIE UNTIL UFN

Cool! I sent them mail on Saturday. Either this is a coincidence, or
they're really on the ball about dealing with customer feedback. Of
course, now I need to go hit the AIM to figure out how an IF differs
from an IAF :-)

FWIW, we flew the GPS-34 yesterday. It was a little weird. About 20
miles out we started getting vectors for the approach. We set up the
GPS in "VTF" mode, and then, closer in, we got "direct FOUST, cleared
approach", so we got to do a little frantic button-pushing to get the
right procedure back in the box, which was fine considering this was a
training mission in VMC.

[Eric Brown]

!FDC 4/3343 DMW FI/T CARROLL COUNTY REGIONAL/JACK B. POAGE FIELD,
WESTMINSTER, MD
RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, ORIG...
UNYTS WP: CHANGE FIX DESCRIPTION FROM (IAF) TO (IF).
RADAR REQUIRED.

"Stan Gosnell" <me@work> wrote in message
...
> Roy Smith > wrote in
> :
>
> > There's two GPS approaches into KDMW; the RNAV (GPS) RWY 16
> > and the RNAV (GPS) RWY 32.
> >
> > http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05533R16.p
> > df
> > http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05533R34.p
> > df
> >
> > Both start from off-airway IAF's, with no feeder routes.
> > Both use the same missed approach fix. Yet, one is marked
> > "Radar Required" and the other isn't. Anybody have any
> > clue why?
>
> It appears to me that they made a mistake on the GPS Rwy 16 by
> not making radar required. There is no way to fly the approach
> if you're coming from the south, since it's marked PT NA.
>
> > Secondary question -- I thought the concept of these pure
> > GPS approaches was to lay out 3 IAF's in a T pattern. Why
> > no outside IAF's, and no PT? Both of these seem kind of
> > ugly if you start them from a course 180 degrees off the
> > FAC.
>
> Yabbut, lots of them don't have that. All the GPS approaches to
> Scholes Field, Galveston, TX are without a T, and all are marked
> radar required. They are too close to HOU and EFD to have
> people flying long procedure turns, so they just have a
> straight-in approach, with radar required to get to the FAC.
> The approaches you referenced look the same, but I don't have
> any charts handy to see what else is near. I think both
> approaches should have radar required.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Stan

[Stan Prevost]

That has been my experience with NACO. Very responsive and prompt to
emailed issues. Sometimes it has been followed up with email correspondence
with the procedure designer.

Stan

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, wrote:
>
> > Here are the NOTAMS they issued today:
> >
> > FDC 4/3343 - FI/T CARROLL COUNTY REGIONAL/JACK B. POAGE FIELD,
WESTMINSTER,
> > MD RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, ORIG... UNYTS WP: CHANGE FIX DESCRIPTION FROM
(IAF) TO
> > (IF). RADAR REQUIRED. WIE UNTIL UFN
> >
> >
> > FDC 4/3344 - FI/T CARROLL COUNTY REGIONAL/JACK B. POAGE FIELD,
WESTMINSTER,
> > MD RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, ORIG... FOUST WP: CHANGE FIX DESCRIPTION FROM
(IAF) TO
> > (IF). WIE UNTIL UFN
>
> Cool! I sent them mail on Saturday. Either this is a coincidence, or
> they're really on the ball about dealing with customer feedback. Of
> course, now I need to go hit the AIM to figure out how an IF differs
> from an IAF :-)
>
> FWIW, we flew the GPS-34 yesterday. It was a little weird. About 20
> miles out we started getting vectors for the approach. We set up the
> GPS in "VTF" mode, and then, closer in, we got "direct FOUST, cleared
> approach", so we got to do a little frantic button-pushing to get the
> right procedure back in the box, which was fine considering this was a
> training mission in VMC.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> There's two GPS approaches into KDMW; the RNAV (GPS)
> RWY 16 and the RNAV (GPS) RWY 32.
>
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05533R16.pdf
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/05533R34.pdf
>
> Both start from off-airway IAF's, with no feeder routes.
>

Actually, the IAF for the RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, UNYTS, does happen to fall
smack dab in the middle of an airway.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?C13124518

[[email protected]]

Stan Prevost wrote:

> That has been my experience with NACO. Very responsive and prompt to
> emailed issues. Sometimes it has been followed up with email correspondence
> with the procedure designer.

It had nothing to do with NACO, and everything to due with a little birdie
bringing them to the attention of the National Flight Procedures Office
(AVN-100).