A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

differences in loc/dme and loc with dme appch at KRUT?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 24th 04, 01:00 AM
Richard Hertz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default differences in loc/dme and loc with dme appch at KRUT?

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)


  #2  
Old January 24th 04, 01:46 AM
Roy Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Richard Hertz" wrote:

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)



Beats me. All the minimums for the LOC w/DME are as good or better than
the corresponding values for the LOC/DME. I can't see any reason
anybody would ever want to fly the LOC-DME.

I can only see one possible reason for the LOC-DME to exist, and I'll
admit it's grasping at straws. In the LOC-DME, you start the missed
further out, which may be of some operational advantage to ATC? But
since this is an untowered airport, it's almost certainy "one-in,
one-out", so I can't get too excited about that idea.
  #3  
Old January 24th 04, 02:22 AM
Dave S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


RUT LOC/DME 19

The DME is required.. and in this approach the DME is co-located with
the localizer for 19.


RUT LOC 19 (with DME)

DME optional, but the DME for use in THIS approach is co-located with
the VOR which is on-field, but sited differently from the Localizer.

I GUESS it gives you the option of using either DME if one happens to be
inop on the ground. the DME mins are in the 800 ft range agl (with
plenty of tall obstructions within 10 miles..) Might make it a little
easier for the commuters to get in there when the weather is bad.. I dunno.

Dave





  #4  
Old January 24th 04, 04:37 AM
Roy Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .net,
Dave S wrote:

RUT LOC/DME 19

The DME is required.. and in this approach the DME is co-located with
the localizer for 19.


RUT LOC 19 (with DME)

DME optional, but the DME for use in THIS approach is co-located with
the VOR which is on-field, but sited differently from the Localizer.


It looks to me like other than the step-downs at FISER and MAUVE on the
feeder routes, all the DME callouts on both approaches reference I-RUT.
Are you seeing something I'm not?
  #5  
Old January 24th 04, 06:05 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #6  
Old January 24th 04, 06:12 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

Beats me. All the minimums for the LOC w/DME are as good or better than
the corresponding values for the LOC/DME. I can't see any reason
anybody would ever want to fly the LOC-DME.


Not want to, but may have to if RUT VOR/DME is out of service. The missed
approach procedure for the LOC RWY 19 uses RUT VOR/DME, the procedure for
the LOC/DME RWY 19 does not.



I can only see one possible reason for the LOC-DME to exist, and I'll
admit it's grasping at straws. In the LOC-DME, you start the missed
further out, which may be of some operational advantage to ATC? But
since this is an untowered airport, it's almost certainy "one-in,
one-out", so I can't get too excited about that idea.


No advantage to ATC in that. If you don't have GPS and the RUT VOR/DME is
out of service, the LOC/DME RWY 19 is your only approach.


  #7  
Old January 24th 04, 06:17 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dave S" wrote in message
link.net...

RUT LOC/DME 19

The DME is required.. and in this approach the DME is co-located with
the localizer for 19.


RUT LOC 19 (with DME)

DME optional, but the DME for use in THIS approach is co-located with
the VOR which is on-field, but sited differently from the Localizer.


No, the DME used in this approach is the same as the LOC/DME approach, if it
was from the VOR/DME the identifier by the DME fixes would show RUT instead
of I-RUT.


  #8  
Old January 24th 04, 06:26 AM
Roy Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

The missed approach procedure for the LOC RWY 19 uses RUT VOR/DME,


Does it? Yes, it mentions "via RUT VOR/DME" in the missed text, but
there aren't actually any fixes that use DME from RUT. The only DME
callout I see in the missed is GITEW, which is I-RUT 16.4.

I can't see any reason this approach wouldn't be flyable with the RUT
DME out of service, as long as the VOR azimuth was still operating.
  #9  
Old January 24th 04, 06:46 AM
Richard Hertz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.




  #10  
Old January 24th 04, 02:09 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

Does it? Yes, it mentions "via RUT VOR/DME" in the missed text, but
there aren't actually any fixes that use DME from RUT. The only DME
callout I see in the missed is GITEW, which is I-RUT 16.4.

I can't see any reason this approach wouldn't be flyable with the RUT
DME out of service, as long as the VOR azimuth was still operating.


I didn't say the procedure used DME information from RUT VOR/DME. The
navaid is called a VOR/DME. The missed approach procedure includes a climb
to 2600 via direct to the VOR/DME and then the 221 radial from it. You
can't do that if the navaid is out of service.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.