KRMN ILS 33- Interesting Approach

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/09743IL33.PDF

I haven't come across an approach with two separate missed approach
procedures before. Is this even remotely common?

I think I'll add this to my instrument students' training regiment due to
some additional interesting features- teardrop course reversal, intersection
identification using ndb bearings (not using DME), and a lot of stuff to
brief. Some of the approaches down here in central VA are pretty boring.

Brad Z wrote:

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/09743IL33.PDF

I haven't come across an approach with two separate missed approach
procedures before. Is this even remotely common?

I think I'll add this to my instrument students' training regiment due to
some additional interesting features- teardrop course reversal, intersection
identification using ndb bearings (not using DME), and a lot of stuff to
brief. Some of the approaches down here in central VA are pretty boring.

There are lots of IAPs with alternate, non-radar missed approach procedures.
But, the alternate procedure is normally provided only to the controlling ATC
facility. You've come across one of the first, if not the first, IAPs to
include the text of the alternate missed approach procedure on the chart. There
is some resistance to charting the alternate, even just textually, so this
concept may or may not take hold.

FAA has been adding alternate missed approach procedures to ILS
approaches to allow the ILS procedure to still be flyable even when the
VOR or VORTAC used in the procedure is INOP. They don't normally publish
this on the procedure though. I like it though, because then a NOTAM
doesn't need to be sent listing the alternate missed approach procedure
when BRV is INOP.
If there are a lot of military TACAN equipped aircraft that use this
particular procedure, then having the other missed approach procedure
published is required, since TACAN aircraft cannot hold directly over a
VORTAC or TACAN (unless they also have a VOR). In that case, it would
normally be published as shown on this procedure at Chippewa MI;
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/00810I16.PDF

Brad Z wrote:

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/09743IL33.PDF

I haven't come across an approach with two separate missed approach
procedures before. Is this even remotely common?

I think I'll add this to my instrument students' training regiment due to
some additional interesting features- teardrop course reversal, intersection
identification using ndb bearings (not using DME), and a lot of stuff to
brief. Some of the approaches down here in central VA are pretty boring.

J Haggerty wrote:
TACAN aircraft cannot hold directly over a
VORTAC or TACAN (unless they also have a VOR).

Why not?

Roy Smith wrote:

J Haggerty wrote:
TACAN aircraft cannot hold directly over a
VORTAC or TACAN (unless they also have a VOR).

Why not?

He's right in the case of a TACAN, wrong in the case of a VORTAC.

wrote in message ...


Roy Smith wrote:

J Haggerty wrote:
TACAN aircraft cannot hold directly over a
VORTAC or TACAN (unless they also have a VOR).

Why not?

He's right in the case of a TACAN, wrong in the case of a VORTAC.


Why? What difference does it make to a TACAN-only aircraft if the navaid is
a TACAN or a VORTAC?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...


Roy Smith wrote:

J Haggerty wrote:
TACAN aircraft cannot hold directly over a
VORTAC or TACAN (unless they also have a VOR).

Why not?

He's right in the case of a TACAN, wrong in the case of a VORTAC.


Why? What difference does it make to a TACAN-only aircraft if the navaid is
a TACAN or a VORTAC?

I misread it; I thought it was a VOR aircraft.

Has something to do with the cone of ambiguity, or no-course signal
zone. It gets wider the higher the TACAN aircraft is. There's a chart in
the holding pattern manual that shows the distance vs. altitude, and a
DME fix can't even be used if it's within the specified distance,
because the TACAN-only aircraft won't ever receive it while he's in that
cone.

JPH

Roy Smith wrote:
J Haggerty wrote:

TACAN aircraft cannot hold directly over a
VORTAC or TACAN (unless they also have a VOR).


Why not?

The text "DME or ADF required" is a lot smaller than I'm used to seeing it
and in a different place..
I had just glanced at the chart wondering how one would identify RMN
until I found the text. Great chart--thanks for posting it.
Max T, CFI


Brad Z wrote in message news:NT9rc.85411$536.14236711@attbi_s03...
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/09743IL33.PDF

I haven't come across an approach with two separate missed approach
procedures before. Is this even remotely common?

I think I'll add this to my instrument students' training regiment due to
some additional interesting features- teardrop course reversal, intersection
identification using ndb bearings (not using DME), and a lot of stuff to
brief. Some of the approaches down here in central VA are pretty boring.