HVN VOR-A -- why such a high MDA?

The VOR-A at New Haven
(http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...s/00671VG2.PDF) has an
MDA of 720, which is about 300 feet higher than the towers in the area.
The VOR-2
(http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...s/00671VG2.PDF) gets
you down to 380, and has to deal with the same towers. Why does it get
to have an MDA 340 feet lower than the VOR-A?

In fact, the VOR-A is almost perfectly lined up with runway 32; I don't
see why it couldn't have been the VOR-32 with an MDA about 300 feet
lower. Any of you TERPs-heads out there understand what's going on here?

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

The VOR-A at New Haven
(http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...s/00671VG2.PDF) has an
MDA of 720, which is about 300 feet higher than the towers in the area.
The VOR-2
(http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...s/00671VG2.PDF) gets
you down to 380, and has to deal with the same towers. Why does it get
to have an MDA 340 feet lower than the VOR-A?

In fact, the VOR-A is almost perfectly lined up with runway 32; I don't
see why it couldn't have been the VOR-32 with an MDA about 300 feet
lower. Any of you TERPs-heads out there understand what's going on here?


Apples and oranges. You're comparing the straight-in MDA of the VOR RWY 2
to the MDA of the VOR-A. The VOR-A has only a circling MDA, which is 720
feet, the same as the circling MDA of the VOR RWY 2.

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

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

The VOR-A at New Haven
(http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...s/00671VG2.PDF) has an
MDA of 720, which is about 300 feet higher than the towers in the area.
The VOR-2
(http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...s/00671VG2.PDF) gets
you down to 380, and has to deal with the same towers. Why does it get
to have an MDA 340 feet lower than the VOR-A?

In fact, the VOR-A is almost perfectly lined up with runway 32; I don't
see why it couldn't have been the VOR-32 with an MDA about 300 feet
lower. Any of you TERPs-heads out there understand what's going on here?


Apples and oranges. You're comparing the straight-in MDA of the VOR RWY 2
to the MDA of the VOR-A. The VOR-A has only a circling MDA, which is 720
feet, the same as the circling MDA of the VOR RWY 2.

Yeah, but the point of my question was, "Why didn't they publish
straight-in minimums for the VOR-A and call it the VOR-32?"

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

Apples and oranges. You're comparing the straight-in MDA of the VOR RWY
2
to the MDA of the VOR-A. The VOR-A has only a circling MDA, which is 720
feet, the same as the circling MDA of the VOR RWY 2.


Yeah, but the point of my question was, "Why didn't they publish
straight-in minimums for the VOR-A and call it the VOR-32?"


I don't know, I'm no TERPS expert, but I'd wager it's because the MAP is
beyond the runway 32 threshold.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
link.net:


"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

Apples and oranges. You're comparing the straight-in MDA of the VOR
RWY 2
to the MDA of the VOR-A. The VOR-A has only a circling MDA, which
is 720 feet, the same as the circling MDA of the VOR RWY 2.


Yeah, but the point of my question was, "Why didn't they publish
straight-in minimums for the VOR-A and call it the VOR-32?"


I don't know, I'm no TERPS expert, but I'd wager it's because the MAP
is beyond the runway 32 threshold.




But there are straight-in approaches with the MAP well past the runway
threshold. Look at VOR24@RID for example.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
...

But there are straight-in approaches with the MAP well past the runway
threshold. Look at VOR24@RID for example.


Interesting. One wonders why this isn't a VOR-A approach.

Steven P. McNicoll opined

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

Apples and oranges. You're comparing the straight-in MDA of the VOR RWY
2
to the MDA of the VOR-A. The VOR-A has only a circling MDA, which is 720
feet, the same as the circling MDA of the VOR RWY 2.


Yeah, but the point of my question was, "Why didn't they publish
straight-in minimums for the VOR-A and call it the VOR-32?"


I don't know, I'm no TERPS expert, but I'd wager it's because the MAP is
beyond the runway 32 threshold.

But HVN VOR-2 has a) a greater difference between the approach course and the
runway b) the same past the threshold MAP nd c) a very simular missed
prodedure.



-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

VOR-20 at BAF has straight-in minimums, and I believe the MAP is well
beyond the threshold.

I don't see why the MAP location would have anything to do with
straight in vs circling.






On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 01:14:09 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"

I don't know, I'm no TERPS expert, but I'd wager it's because the MAP is
beyond the runway 32 threshold.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:34:19 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:

The VOR-A at New Haven
(http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...s/00671VG2.PDF) has an
MDA of 720, which is about 300 feet higher than the towers in the area.
The VOR-2
(http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...s/00671VG2.PDF) gets
you down to 380, and has to deal with the same towers. Why does it get
to have an MDA 340 feet lower than the VOR-A?

In fact, the VOR-A is almost perfectly lined up with runway 32; I don't
see why it couldn't have been the VOR-32 with an MDA about 300 feet
lower. Any of you TERPs-heads out there understand what's going on here?

I'm not sure, but I wonder if it has something to do with the Missed
Approach path. The MA segment for the VOR-A seems to come a lot closer to
the 400+' towers than does the MA segment for the VOR-2.


--ron

In fact, the VOR-A is almost perfectly lined up with runway 32;

In addition to the runway alignment issue, there are two other
criteria used for issuing straight in minimums: descent gradients
cannot exceed 400 ft/nm and the course must intersect the runway
center line within a certain distance of the of the runway threshold,
3000-5200 ft in this instance.

The descent gradients seem OK here, so my guess would be the point of
course intersection was out of tolerance.