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.