VOR/DME Approach Question

Chip, even if he had been coming in from the northeast, tracking HCH R-060,
he would still have had to turn around at MINES and fly the course reversal,
if he were cleared direct MINES rather than being given Vectors To Final.

Stan


"Chip Jones" wrote in message
k.net...
I'm hoping one or more of you instrument pilots (or controllers) could
help
me with an IAP question. The airport involved is RKW, which is Rockwood,
Tennessee. The IAP in question is the VOR/DME RWY 22 into Rockwood. If
you
have the plate or know the procedure, I hope you can help me out.

RKW airport lies about 2 miles west of the common Atlanta (ZTL)
ARTCC/Knoxville (TYS) Tracon boundary. Center owns the airport, but
because
of the close proximity to TYS airspace, Center has to coordinate with
Tracon
for clearances in and out of RKW unless the aircraft is arriving from the
east. TYS coordinates with Center for RKW arrivals from the east, and TYS
issues the approach clearance, as most of the IAP lies within TYS
airspace.

Here's the situation. I'm instructing a newbie on the radar. We're
working
combined sectors and we're busy working the main bang out of Atlanta on
our other freq. We have a RKW arrival from the east, an Army UH60/G.
Route
of flight is Asheville NC direct RKW, a 30 minute delay at RKW, and then
on
to Fort Campbell KY. The aircraft whopping along at 6,000 and "PLA RKW"
is
in remarks on his flightplan. There is a large thunderstorm sweeping
south
over the Knoxville airport and the TYS controllers are busy holding their
own arrivals for the storm to pass. To ease their workload, TYS calls my
trainee and begs him to work the approach into RKW. The trainee agrees
(good training experience). Good experience for me too, as I don't get to
work east arrivals into this airport very often.

The aircraft checks on at 6000 with a request. We issue the CSV altimeter
and take the request. The request is "Center, Army 569 would like to
shoot
the full VOR/DME 22 into Rockwood, followed by a missed approach and a ten
minute hold at MINES and then on to Campbell." My guy and I do a quick
huddle as we dig out the chart.

Normally I would have keyed the mic and asked the pilot what he was going
to do when he asked for the "full" approach, but I sit behind my trainee
when he works the radio. I can over-ride him, but he's a Yank from
Pennsylvania and I'm from the Low Country of SC. Our accents are as
different as night and day, and the last thing I wanted to do was let all
of
the Delta pilots on our other freq know they were dealing with a trainee.
Like dogs, they work in packs, smell fear and love to shred new meat. I
try
to stay off the radio when I train.

The MIA for the area is 5000. The trainee clears the aircraft to "Descend
and Maintain 5000, cleared direct MINES, I have your request for the
approach". This is followed a minute later with:

"Army 569, twelve miles northeast of Rockwood, cross MINES at 5000
inbound,
cleared VOR/DME Runway 22 approach Rockwood, report established on the
approach."

Look at the plate. The aircraft is approaching MINES on about a 270
heading. He's maybe ten miles due east from MINES when he checks on with
his request for the approach and we clear him -MINES. I am expecting the
aircraft to proceed to MINES at 5000, turn left to intercept the HCH 060R
inbound, and fly down the approach on a 240 track towards the airport,
doing
a drive and dive. In the event, the aircraft proceeds to MINES, turns
left
all the way around to a 060 heading, and flies one turn in the published
holding pattern at MINES. Somewhere in the trip around the pattern, he
calls established on the approach. We put him on the CTAF, he does his
thing, later misses as planned and life goes on.

My question concerns the course reversal at MINES. If you were flying
this
approach from due east of MINES, "cleared approach", what do you do at
MINES
to get on the approach course?

Thanks,

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
k.net...
[snipped]

My question concerns the course reversal at MINES. If you were flying
this
approach from due east of MINES, "cleared approach", what do you do at
MINES
to get on the approach course?

Thanks,

Chip, ZTL


Thanks everyone. When I learned this IAP back in the day, it had a DME arc
off of HCH Vor to get to the IAF, and then you turned down the approach
course. When they slipped GPS into the system, they changed the IAP and
eliminated the arc. Of course, no one told the controllers about the
change- as usual they just published it. I never thought about the
difference. Looks like I need some refresher training...

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote
My question concerns the course reversal at MINES. If you were flying
this
approach from due east of MINES, "cleared approach", what do you do at
MINES
to get on the approach course?

Thanks everyone. When I learned this IAP back in the day, it had a DME arc
off of HCH Vor to get to the IAF, and then you turned down the approach
course. When they slipped GPS into the system, they changed the IAP and
eliminated the arc. Of course, no one told the controllers about the
change- as usual they just published it. I never thought about the
difference. Looks like I need some refresher training...

Chip, not to be argumentative, but IMO the change to the procedure
makes absolutely no difference here.

What the pilot did was absolutely correct. Had the DME arc been
charted as before, his actions would still have been correct provided
the hold-in-lieu was still charted. Removal of the DME arc is not a
function of adding the GPS overlay; there are VOR/DME approaches with
GPS overlays out there that include a DME arc as an option. UTS
VOR/DME or GPS-A (http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0408/05813VDGA.PDF) is
one example, though it's NoPT all the way around.

The key here is this - if you're vectoring the guy to the FAC, no
procedure turn. If you've cleared him direct to the IAF, he does the
PT. It's just that simple.

I guess my question is this - why was this a problem? The pilot asked
for the full procedure, and your traineed cleared him for it. The
phraseology was not quite perfect, but well within the range of
variation, at least based on my experience. What am I missing?

Michael

On 24 Aug 2004 13:33:47 -0700, (Michael)
wrote:

The key here is this - if you're vectoring the guy to the FAC, no
procedure turn. If you've cleared him direct to the IAF, he does the
PT. It's just that simple.

I agree with you.

In addition, Chip should be aware that there are cut-and-dried requirements
in his 7110.65 in order for him to be able to give legal radar vectors to
the FAC so that the pilot will not do the PT. (7110.65 5-9-1)

It does not seem to me as if the requirements were met.






--ron

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On 24 Aug 2004 13:33:47 -0700, (Michael)
wrote:

The key here is this - if you're vectoring the guy to the FAC, no
procedure turn. If you've cleared him direct to the IAF, he does the
PT. It's just that simple.

I agree with you.

In addition, Chip should be aware that there are cut-and-dried
requirements
in his 7110.65 in order for him to be able to give legal radar vectors to
the FAC so that the pilot will not do the PT. (7110.65 5-9-1)

It does not seem to me as if the requirements were met.


I wasn't vectoring to the FAC. I do not/cannot/would not vector to the FAC
at this airport anyway because nothing of this approach is depicted on the
radar scope except for the airport. None of the fixes on the approach even
exist in the ATC database. I had no intention of vectoring for the FAC. My
mistake was in misunderstanding the procedure.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote:
I wasn't vectoring to the FAC. I do not/cannot/would not vector to the FAC
at this airport anyway because nothing of this approach is depicted on the
radar scope except for the airport. None of the fixes on the approach even
exist in the ATC database.

This brings me back to something you mentioned in your original post,
that got my attention. You said:

There is a large thunderstorm sweeping south
over the Knoxville airport and the TYS controllers are busy holding their
own arrivals for the storm to pass. To ease their workload, TYS calls my
trainee and begs him to work the approach into RKW.

How does this work? Can two facilities really swap airspace back and
forth between themselves with something as informal as a phone call?
There's a reason I ask...

A while back, I was flying into MMK (Meriden, CT) on a training flight
with a student. We were IFR, conditions were night, but clear skies.
The approach chart says Bradley Approach runs the approach control, but
my experience has been that radio contact with Bradley is usually pretty
poor. MMK is right on the edge between Bradley and New York Approach.
That night was no exception, and we lost contact completely with Bradley
while on a vector downwind. This was actually a good thing, because it
gave me the opportunity to hold an impromptu lesson on lost comm
procedures.

We tried calling Bradley a few times, and then got a message relayed by
another flight in the area to call Bradley on a different freq. No joy
on that freq either, and by that time we were out of radio contact with
the other aircraft. I decided to try one more trick and punch up
"Nearest ARTCC" on the GPS. Wonderful feature, that. It put us in
contact with Boston Center, loud and clear. It took just a moment to
explain the situation to the center guy, and he quickly got us a new
freq for NY Approach (by now we were probably pretty deep into NY's
airspace).

I expected the NY controller would give us vectors back towards MMK and
then hand us off to Bradley again, but that's not what happened. To my
surprise, he gave us vectors to final, cleared us for the approach, and
issued instructions to contact Bradley on the missed (the missed takes
you deeper into Bradley territory and radio comm is usually much better
on that side of the airport). We flew the approach, called Bradley on
the missed, and the controller acted like nothing strange had happened.

So, could you fill me in on what was happening behind the scenes? Once
I went lost comm, how did ATC deal with that? Did the Bradley guy just
hand me off to NY when he saw me leaving his airspace? And, most
interesting to me, how was the NY controller able to clear us for an
approach to an airport that he didn't own?

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:43:33 GMT, "Chip Jones"
wrote:

I wasn't vectoring to the FAC. I do not/cannot/would not vector to the FAC
at this airport anyway because nothing of this approach is depicted on the
radar scope except for the airport. None of the fixes on the approach even
exist in the ATC database. I had no intention of vectoring for the FAC. My
mistake was in misunderstanding the procedure.

I understand.

But others have brought that up that possibility in this thread and I
thought it worthwhile that the point be absolutely clear to everyone (not
just to you).


--ron

"Michael" wrote in message
m...
"Chip Jones" wrote
My question concerns the course reversal at MINES. If you were flying
this
approach from due east of MINES, "cleared approach", what do you do at
MINES
to get on the approach course?

Thanks everyone. When I learned this IAP back in the day, it had a DME
arc
off of HCH Vor to get to the IAF, and then you turned down the approach
course. When they slipped GPS into the system, they changed the IAP and
eliminated the arc. Of course, no one told the controllers about the
change- as usual they just published it. I never thought about the
difference. Looks like I need some refresher training...

Chip, not to be argumentative, but IMO the change to the procedure
makes absolutely no difference here.

Obviously it made a difference to me. :-)


What the pilot did was absolutely correct. Had the DME arc been
charted as before, his actions would still have been correct provided
the hold-in-lieu was still charted. Removal of the DME arc is not a
function of adding the GPS overlay; there are VOR/DME approaches with
GPS overlays out there that include a DME arc as an option. UTS
VOR/DME or GPS-A (http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0408/05813VDGA.PDF) is
one example, though it's NoPT all the way around.

I have no doubt that the pilot made no mistake.


The key here is this - if you're vectoring the guy to the FAC, no
procedure turn. If you've cleared him direct to the IAF, he does the
PT. It's just that simple.

No kidding...


I guess my question is this - why was this a problem? The pilot asked
for the full procedure, and your traineed cleared him for it. The
phraseology was not quite perfect, but well within the range of
variation, at least based on my experience. What am I missing?


No one said this was a problem. I posted this to gain personal insight, and
nothing more. I don't think you're missing a thing.

Chip, ZTL

As a procedures sort of guy I think it was stupid to remove the DME ARC,
especially since it is a VOR/DME IAP. If the system worked the way it should,
AVN-100 would not have removed the ARC because GPS overlay was added; rather,
they would have removed it because your airspace staff for that area asked for
it to be removed. Or, in the alternative the DME ARC might have failed a
periodic flight inspection, which is more common these days as the VORs get old.

Chip Jones wrote:

"Michael" wrote in message
m...
"Chip Jones" wrote
My question concerns the course reversal at MINES. If you were flying
this
approach from due east of MINES, "cleared approach", what do you do at
MINES
to get on the approach course?

Thanks everyone. When I learned this IAP back in the day, it had a DME
arc
off of HCH Vor to get to the IAF, and then you turned down the approach
course. When they slipped GPS into the system, they changed the IAP and
eliminated the arc. Of course, no one told the controllers about the
change- as usual they just published it. I never thought about the
difference. Looks like I need some refresher training...

Chip, not to be argumentative, but IMO the change to the procedure
makes absolutely no difference here.

Obviously it made a difference to me. :-)


What the pilot did was absolutely correct. Had the DME arc been
charted as before, his actions would still have been correct provided
the hold-in-lieu was still charted. Removal of the DME arc is not a
function of adding the GPS overlay; there are VOR/DME approaches with
GPS overlays out there that include a DME arc as an option. UTS
VOR/DME or GPS-A (http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0408/05813VDGA.PDF) is
one example, though it's NoPT all the way around.

I have no doubt that the pilot made no mistake.


The key here is this - if you're vectoring the guy to the FAC, no
procedure turn. If you've cleared him direct to the IAF, he does the
PT. It's just that simple.

No kidding...


I guess my question is this - why was this a problem? The pilot asked
for the full procedure, and your traineed cleared him for it. The
phraseology was not quite perfect, but well within the range of
variation, at least based on my experience. What am I missing?


No one said this was a problem. I posted this to gain personal insight, and
nothing more. I don't think you're missing a thing.

Chip, ZTL

FAAO 8260.19 requires any arcs in a radar environment to be removed
unless they are operationally required. It appears that someone deemed
that they were not needed back in 1992, when they were removed from the
procedure. GPS was overlayed later, so had nothing to do with removal of
the arcs.
The arcs probably had the annotation "NoPT" on them, since a course
reversal would not have been required from the arcs based on the TERPS
criteria in effect back in 1992.
An interesting point that might help ATC understand the PT/NoPT question
is that anytime a route is published that allows elimination of the
course reversal, then the procedure specialist must indicate that by
publishing "NoPT" on that route segment. Otherwise, the PT is expected.
Since ATC was substituting radar flight following (not vectors) combined
with center's MIA to protect the GPS equipped aircraft on his flight to
MINES, then it would be up to ATC to indicate that the course reversal
was not necessary by stating that to the pilot.
In the case of the UH-60, though, once he asked for the "full approach"
it would have alerted me that he wanted a little more than a quick
straight-in, and I would have queried him further to confirm exactly
what he wanted, (hold-in lieu, clearance to Hinch Mountain for the
feeder, or what?).
We used to routinely vector military aircraft to intercept the final,
but whenever one requested the full procedure, that was our clue to
clear them via non-radar routes to the IAF, even if it was 20 miles
further out.

JPH

wrote:
As a procedures sort of guy I think it was stupid to remove the DME ARC,
especially since it is a VOR/DME IAP. If the system worked the way it should,
AVN-100 would not have removed the ARC because GPS overlay was added; rather,
they would have removed it because your airspace staff for that area asked for
it to be removed. Or, in the alternative the DME ARC might have failed a
periodic flight inspection, which is more common these days as the VORs get old.