Approach Question- Published Missed Can't be flown?

[Brad Z]

Question for the gallery-

Refer to the FCI ILS 33 Approach
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/06066I33.PDF

The published missed approach requires tracking to the flatrock VOR (FAK).
For the past few months, the following notam has been published: FAK VOR
067-230 UNUSBL. So basically, you'd need to track an unusable radial
inbound to FAK. There is no additional notam na'ing the approach, or
providing alternate missed approach instructions.

1) Am I correct to assume that it is not legal to accept a clearance to fly
this approach without alternate missed approach instructions?

2) Should a notam be issued to change the missed approach instructions, or
"na" the approach?

Thanks!

Brad

[[email protected]]

Brad Z wrote:

> Question for the gallery-
>
> Refer to the FCI ILS 33 Approach
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/06066I33.PDF
>
> The published missed approach requires tracking to the flatrock VOR (FAK).
> For the past few months, the following notam has been published: FAK VOR
> 067-230 UNUSBL. So basically, you'd need to track an unusable radial
> inbound to FAK. There is no additional notam na'ing the approach, or
> providing alternate missed approach instructions.
>
> 1) Am I correct to assume that it is not legal to accept a clearance to fly
> this approach without alternate missed approach instructions?

If you have IFR GPS you can still plan to use this IAP, and use GPS for the
missed approach. If you don't have GPS, then you cannot plan to use this
approach but, once you arrive in the area and are in contact with approach
control, if they offer or agree to a vector missed approach then you can fly
the approach.

>
>
> 2) Should a notam be issued to change the missed approach instructions, or
> "na" the approach?

It's a policy call. So many aircraft have the ability to use GPS to substitute
for that VOR, it is no longer automatic to construct alternate missed approach
procedures. That practice itself is fraught with a history of Jeppesen
charting a supposedly "long term" alternate missed approach, and being sandbag
when it is suddenly cancelled by the feds.

So, with an ILS, they typically leave it going, and give you the responsibility
to not flight plan the approach if you don't have IFR GPS for the missed
approach.

[EDR]

In article <3s_kc.9238$TD4.984687@attbi_s01>, Brad Z
> wrote:

> Question for the gallery-
> Refer to the FCI ILS 33 Approach
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/06066I33.PDF
> The published missed approach requires tracking to the flatrock VOR (FAK).
> For the past few months, the following notam has been published: FAK VOR
> 067-230 UNUSBL. So basically, you'd need to track an unusable radial
> inbound to FAK. There is no additional notam na'ing the approach, or
> providing alternate missed approach instructions.
> 1) Am I correct to assume that it is not legal to accept a clearance to fly
> this approach without alternate missed approach instructions?
> 2) Should a notam be issued to change the missed approach instructions, or
> "na" the approach?

Sounds like a question for the montly Blue Sheet.
Have you filed an NASA 277 form with the ASRS?

[J Haggerty]

Brad Z wrote:
> Question for the gallery-
>
> Refer to the FCI ILS 33 Approach
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/06066I33.PDF
>
> The published missed approach requires tracking to the flatrock VOR (FAK).
> For the past few months, the following notam has been published: FAK VOR
> 067-230 UNUSBL. So basically, you'd need to track an unusable radial
> inbound to FAK. There is no additional notam na'ing the approach, or
> providing alternate missed approach instructions.
>
> 1) Am I correct to assume that it is not legal to accept a clearance to fly
> this approach without alternate missed approach instructions?
>
> 2) Should a notam be issued to change the missed approach instructions, or
> "na" the approach?

Not necessarily. A procedure can be authorized within an area deemed
unusable as long as the flight check pilot confirms that the specific
operation is OK.

Having said that, I'm sure the VA specialist will be checking the
procedure Monday, if they haven't already, just to be sure.

JPH

[Brad Z]

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> Sounds like a question for the montly Blue Sheet.
> Have you filed an NASA 277 form with the ASRS?

No I haven't. Forgive my ignorance, but what's the Blue sheet? Is that the
news letter that goes out with ASRS confirmation?

[Brad Z]

"J Haggerty" > wrote in message
news:LY6lc.12279$bS1.10864@okepread02...

> Not necessarily. A procedure can be authorized within an area deemed
> unusable as long as the flight check pilot confirms that the specific
> operation is OK.

I was wondering if that might be the case. While the radials are unsusable,
the signal is sufficient to track to the station. Perhaps if the missed
approach procedure required tracking a specific radial, then we'd have a
problem.

>
> Having said that, I'm sure the VA specialist will be checking the
> procedure Monday, if they haven't already, just to be sure.

Who's VA? Should I be calling someone?

>
> JPH

[EDR]

In article <hWhlc.13691$IG1.479926@attbi_s04>, Brad Z
> wrote:

> "EDR" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Sounds like a question for the montly Blue Sheet.
> > Have you filed an NASA 277 form with the ASRS?
>
> No I haven't. Forgive my ignorance, but what's the Blue sheet? Is that the
> news letter that goes out with ASRS confirmation?

The official name of the Blue Sheet is CALLBACK, the monthly newletter
published by the ASRS. It is a free subscription.

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/

[J Haggerty]

The VA specialist is just the specialist in Oklahoma City (AVN-110) that
works on procedures in Virginia. That person was not in today, but
someone from that section is checking.

JPH

Brad Z wrote:
> "J Haggerty" > wrote in message
> news:LY6lc.12279$bS1.10864@okepread02...
>
>
>>Not necessarily. A procedure can be authorized within an area deemed
>>unusable as long as the flight check pilot confirms that the specific
>>operation is OK.
>
>
> I was wondering if that might be the case. While the radials are unsusable,
> the signal is sufficient to track to the station. Perhaps if the missed
> approach procedure required tracking a specific radial, then we'd have a
> problem.
>
>
>>Having said that, I'm sure the VA specialist will be checking the
>>procedure Monday, if they haven't already, just to be sure.
>
>
> Who's VA? Should I be calling someone?
>
>
>>JPH
>
>
>

[Brad Z]

this answers my question...thanks!!

!FDC 4/3879 FCI FI/T CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, RICHMOND, VA.
ILS RWY 33, AMDT 1...
MISSED APPROACH: CLIMB TO 800 THEN CLIMBING LEFT
TURN TO 2000 DIRECT PUBBS NDB AND HOLD SE, LT, 330 INBOUND
ADF REQUIRED.


"J Haggerty" > wrote in message
news:Y6zlc.14581$bS1.14390@okepread02...
> The VA specialist is just the specialist in Oklahoma City (AVN-110) that
> works on procedures in Virginia. That person was not in today, but
> someone from that section is checking.
>
> JPH
>
> Brad Z wrote:
> > "J Haggerty" > wrote in message
> > news:LY6lc.12279$bS1.10864@okepread02...
> >
> >
> >>Not necessarily. A procedure can be authorized within an area deemed
> >>unusable as long as the flight check pilot confirms that the specific
> >>operation is OK.
> >
> >
> > I was wondering if that might be the case. While the radials are
unsusable,
> > the signal is sufficient to track to the station. Perhaps if the missed
> > approach procedure required tracking a specific radial, then we'd have a
> > problem.
> >
> >
> >>Having said that, I'm sure the VA specialist will be checking the
> >>procedure Monday, if they haven't already, just to be sure.
> >
> >
> > Who's VA? Should I be calling someone?
> >
> >
> >>JPH
> >
> >
> >