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

Approach Question- Published Missed Can't be flown?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 2nd 04, 05:05 AM
Brad Z
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Approach Question- Published Missed Can't be flown?

Question for the gallery-

Refer to the FCI ILS 33 Approach
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/06066I33.PDF

The published missed approach requires tracking to the flatrock VOR (FAK).
For the past few months, the following notam has been published: FAK VOR
067-230 UNUSBL. So basically, you'd need to track an unusable radial
inbound to FAK. There is no additional notam na'ing the approach, or
providing alternate missed approach instructions.

1) Am I correct to assume that it is not legal to accept a clearance to fly
this approach without alternate missed approach instructions?

2) Should a notam be issued to change the missed approach instructions, or
"na" the approach?

Thanks!

Brad


  #2  
Old May 2nd 04, 10:37 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Brad Z wrote:

Question for the gallery-

Refer to the FCI ILS 33 Approach
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/06066I33.PDF

The published missed approach requires tracking to the flatrock VOR (FAK).
For the past few months, the following notam has been published: FAK VOR
067-230 UNUSBL. So basically, you'd need to track an unusable radial
inbound to FAK. There is no additional notam na'ing the approach, or
providing alternate missed approach instructions.

1) Am I correct to assume that it is not legal to accept a clearance to fly
this approach without alternate missed approach instructions?


If you have IFR GPS you can still plan to use this IAP, and use GPS for the
missed approach. If you don't have GPS, then you cannot plan to use this
approach but, once you arrive in the area and are in contact with approach
control, if they offer or agree to a vector missed approach then you can fly
the approach.



2) Should a notam be issued to change the missed approach instructions, or
"na" the approach?


It's a policy call. So many aircraft have the ability to use GPS to substitute
for that VOR, it is no longer automatic to construct alternate missed approach
procedures. That practice itself is fraught with a history of Jeppesen
charting a supposedly "long term" alternate missed approach, and being sandbag
when it is suddenly cancelled by the feds.

So, with an ILS, they typically leave it going, and give you the responsibility
to not flight plan the approach if you don't have IFR GPS for the missed
approach.

  #3  
Old May 2nd 04, 01:16 PM
EDR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article 3s_kc.9238$TD4.984687@attbi_s01, Brad Z
wrote:

Question for the gallery-
Refer to the FCI ILS 33 Approach
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/06066I33.PDF
The published missed approach requires tracking to the flatrock VOR (FAK).
For the past few months, the following notam has been published: FAK VOR
067-230 UNUSBL. So basically, you'd need to track an unusable radial
inbound to FAK. There is no additional notam na'ing the approach, or
providing alternate missed approach instructions.
1) Am I correct to assume that it is not legal to accept a clearance to fly
this approach without alternate missed approach instructions?
2) Should a notam be issued to change the missed approach instructions, or
"na" the approach?


Sounds like a question for the montly Blue Sheet.
Have you filed an NASA 277 form with the ASRS?
  #4  
Old May 2nd 04, 02:46 PM
J Haggerty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Brad Z wrote:
Question for the gallery-

Refer to the FCI ILS 33 Approach
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0405/06066I33.PDF

The published missed approach requires tracking to the flatrock VOR (FAK).
For the past few months, the following notam has been published: FAK VOR
067-230 UNUSBL. So basically, you'd need to track an unusable radial
inbound to FAK. There is no additional notam na'ing the approach, or
providing alternate missed approach instructions.

1) Am I correct to assume that it is not legal to accept a clearance to fly
this approach without alternate missed approach instructions?

2) Should a notam be issued to change the missed approach instructions, or
"na" the approach?


Not necessarily. A procedure can be authorized within an area deemed
unusable as long as the flight check pilot confirms that the specific
operation is OK.

Having said that, I'm sure the VA specialist will be checking the
procedure Monday, if they haven't already, just to be sure.

JPH
  #5  
Old May 3rd 04, 03:14 AM
Brad Z
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"EDR" wrote in message
...
Sounds like a question for the montly Blue Sheet.
Have you filed an NASA 277 form with the ASRS?


No I haven't. Forgive my ignorance, but what's the Blue sheet? Is that the
news letter that goes out with ASRS confirmation?


  #6  
Old May 3rd 04, 03:19 AM
Brad Z
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"J Haggerty" wrote in message
news:LY6lc.12279$bS1.10864@okepread02...

Not necessarily. A procedure can be authorized within an area deemed
unusable as long as the flight check pilot confirms that the specific
operation is OK.


I was wondering if that might be the case. While the radials are unsusable,
the signal is sufficient to track to the station. Perhaps if the missed
approach procedure required tracking a specific radial, then we'd have a
problem.


Having said that, I'm sure the VA specialist will be checking the
procedure Monday, if they haven't already, just to be sure.


Who's VA? Should I be calling someone?


JPH



  #7  
Old May 3rd 04, 04:26 AM
EDR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article hWhlc.13691$IG1.479926@attbi_s04, Brad Z
wrote:

"EDR" wrote in message
...
Sounds like a question for the montly Blue Sheet.
Have you filed an NASA 277 form with the ASRS?


No I haven't. Forgive my ignorance, but what's the Blue sheet? Is that the
news letter that goes out with ASRS confirmation?


The official name of the Blue Sheet is CALLBACK, the monthly newletter
published by the ASRS. It is a free subscription.

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/
  #8  
Old May 3rd 04, 10:48 PM
J Haggerty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The VA specialist is just the specialist in Oklahoma City (AVN-110) that
works on procedures in Virginia. That person was not in today, but
someone from that section is checking.

JPH

Brad Z wrote:
"J Haggerty" wrote in message
news:LY6lc.12279$bS1.10864@okepread02...


Not necessarily. A procedure can be authorized within an area deemed
unusable as long as the flight check pilot confirms that the specific
operation is OK.



I was wondering if that might be the case. While the radials are unsusable,
the signal is sufficient to track to the station. Perhaps if the missed
approach procedure required tracking a specific radial, then we'd have a
problem.


Having said that, I'm sure the VA specialist will be checking the
procedure Monday, if they haven't already, just to be sure.



Who's VA? Should I be calling someone?


JPH




  #9  
Old May 6th 04, 04:19 AM
Brad Z
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

this answers my question...thanks!!

!FDC 4/3879 FCI FI/T CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, RICHMOND, VA.
ILS RWY 33, AMDT 1...
MISSED APPROACH: CLIMB TO 800 THEN CLIMBING LEFT
TURN TO 2000 DIRECT PUBBS NDB AND HOLD SE, LT, 330 INBOUND
ADF REQUIRED.


"J Haggerty" wrote in message
news:Y6zlc.14581$bS1.14390@okepread02...
The VA specialist is just the specialist in Oklahoma City (AVN-110) that
works on procedures in Virginia. That person was not in today, but
someone from that section is checking.

JPH

Brad Z wrote:
"J Haggerty" wrote in message
news:LY6lc.12279$bS1.10864@okepread02...


Not necessarily. A procedure can be authorized within an area deemed
unusable as long as the flight check pilot confirms that the specific
operation is OK.



I was wondering if that might be the case. While the radials are

unsusable,
the signal is sufficient to track to the station. Perhaps if the missed
approach procedure required tracking a specific radial, then we'd have a
problem.


Having said that, I'm sure the VA specialist will be checking the
procedure Monday, if they haven't already, just to be sure.



Who's VA? Should I be calling someone?


JPH






 




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Procedure Turn Bravo8500 Instrument Flight Rules 65 April 22nd 04 03:27 AM
Where is the FAF on the GPS 23 approach to KUCP? Richard Kaplan Instrument Flight Rules 36 April 16th 04 12:41 PM
Missed approach procedure... [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 39 November 11th 03 04:46 PM
Established on the approach - Checkride question endre Instrument Flight Rules 59 October 6th 03 04:36 PM
Which of these approaches is loggable? Paul Tomblin Instrument Flight Rules 26 August 16th 03 05:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2023 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.