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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|