Yet another "Radar Required" question.

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.

!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/...dfs/05533R16.p
df
http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...dfs/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

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.

"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/...s/05533R16.pdf
http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...s/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

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).