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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Hertz" wrote in message et... 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) I'm not a TERPS expert, I'm pretty much just guessing. There is higher terrain to the south, southwest, and west of KRUT. Climbing to 2600 via the RUT VOR/DME 221 radial allows you to avoid these rocks until you're above them. Without the positive course guidance provided by RUT VOR/DME you're left with climb gradient requirements that can't be met with the MAP at I-RUT 1.9 DME so the MAP must be pushed back to 3.4 DME. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net... I'm not a TERPS expert, I'm pretty much just guessing. There is higher terrain to the south, southwest, and west of KRUT. Climbing to 2600 via the RUT VOR/DME 221 radial allows you to avoid these rocks until you're above them. Without the positive course guidance provided by RUT VOR/DME you're left with climb gradient requirements that can't be met with the MAP at I-RUT 1.9 DME so the MAP must be pushed back to 3.4 DME. A portion of the New York sectional showing the area can be viewed he http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z2A616C27 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "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. As long as the VOR portion is working, you can. The status of the DME portion is immaterial to this approach. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Roy Smith" wrote in message ... As long as the VOR portion is working, you can. The status of the DME portion is immaterial to this approach. No ****. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Roy.. After reading yours and Stephen's reply.. I concede I am mistaken
and you are correct. Dang.. and to think I was trying to be extra careful on this one too and figure out why the plate differences existed. I am getting pretty frustrated with myself lately, since I appear to be proven inaccurate more often than not with some of my replies on here, even though my intent was to be helpful. I think I am going to sit back and be a spectator for a while.. I dont want to be a resource if it ends up being a BAD resource. Dave Roy Smith wrote: 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? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
In article .net,
Dave S wrote: I am getting pretty frustrated with myself lately, since I appear to be proven inaccurate more often than not with some of my replies on here, even though my intent was to be helpful. I think I am going to sit back and be a spectator for a while. Don't get discouraged. If I had a nickle for every time I was wrong in public, I'd be a rich man. I've learned more about aviation being an instructor than I did as a student, and a lot of the best learning came when I was proven wrong. Correlary: just because somebody with lots of letters after their name says something, don't think it must be true! PS, I'm still stumped by these approaches. I really have no clue why the LOC-DME version exists. For all the arguing back and forth about details, I still don't see the big picture. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks - I will have to look into that later - it is the best answer I have
seen yet. "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net... "Richard Hertz" wrote in message et... 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) I'm not a TERPS expert, I'm pretty much just guessing. There is higher terrain to the south, southwest, and west of KRUT. Climbing to 2600 via the RUT VOR/DME 221 radial allows you to avoid these rocks until you're above them. Without the positive course guidance provided by RUT VOR/DME you're left with climb gradient requirements that can't be met with the MAP at I-RUT 1.9 DME so the MAP must be pushed back to 3.4 DME. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The naming convention was changed in TERPs.
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... The naming convention was changed in TERPs. What name are you referring to? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Someone said something about the missed approach portion having
something to do with it, particularly with all the terrain surrounding the airport. Dave Roy Smith wrote: In article .net, Dave S wrote: I am getting pretty frustrated with myself lately, since I appear to be proven inaccurate more often than not with some of my replies on here, even though my intent was to be helpful. I think I am going to sit back and be a spectator for a while. Don't get discouraged. If I had a nickle for every time I was wrong in public, I'd be a rich man. I've learned more about aviation being an instructor than I did as a student, and a lot of the best learning came when I was proven wrong. Correlary: just because somebody with lots of letters after their name says something, don't think it must be true! PS, I'm still stumped by these approaches. I really have no clue why the LOC-DME version exists. For all the arguing back and forth about details, I still don't see the big picture. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|