Vor- A approach? -approach gate ,no pt, e
08-04-2010, 11:10 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: right seat
Posts: 238
Vor- A approach? -approach gate ,no pt, e
At the risk of getting flamed and I hope not I admit flying very few no pt approaches ever ..nor do I claim to know everything aviation.......This is the approach in question 20N VOR A
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1008/09137VGA.PDF
While flying practice approaches and to save a bunch of time( rather than fly to PWL and track all the way inbound...) I flew a 020 degree radial from IGN intercepting the PWL 320 radial ( final approach course) inbound this put me about 4 miles from the FAF . My safety pilot did not believe it would be a valid approach in real IFR if I requested this particular entry for whatever reason . I think it would be in actual because of the 2000 no pt 320 * and the fact that I was still more than 1 mile from the approach gate and more than 5 miles from TDZE as well as the fact that the intercept angle was appropriate What say you folks ??? Thanks
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1008/09137VGA.PDF
While flying practice approaches and to save a bunch of time( rather than fly to PWL and track all the way inbound...) I flew a 020 degree radial from IGN intercepting the PWL 320 radial ( final approach course) inbound this put me about 4 miles from the FAF . My safety pilot did not believe it would be a valid approach in real IFR if I requested this particular entry for whatever reason . I think it would be in actual because of the 2000 no pt 320 * and the fact that I was still more than 1 mile from the approach gate and more than 5 miles from TDZE as well as the fact that the intercept angle was appropriate What say you folks ??? Thanks
08-04-2010, 11:18 AM
#2
Does NOT get weekends off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: ERJ - 145
Posts: 1,631
Thats sort of an interesting approach. I say that because there is a PT charted (the race track) but the final approach course says NoPT. The race track is charted as an actual PT and not as a missed-holding point (Although it is also your missed-holding point). I don't see any other reason to use JOEYL as a holding point other than a missed approach since there is no way to do a PT
The question I always ask my students is "When do you have to do a PT?" The answer is ALWAYS - unless you are being vectored to final or your segment says "NoPT."
If you start the approach at PWL or JOEYL, both give a "NoPT" so you would not have to do that.
Taking the 020 radial to intercept that final approach course would not be considered a legal move - you would need to find some way to navigate to the IAF.
You are talking about "Intercept angle" and approach gate, but none of those things have to do with when a PT is required to be flown. Approach gate is simply an ATC term where they try to vector you. Also, if you start talking how the intercept angle is appropriate and that you are 5 miles from TDZE and don't have to do a PT (regardless of the approach, especially this one) you'll get yourself into trouble. Remember: When do you have to do a PT? ALWAYS (unless vectored or says NoPT/PT-NA)
Bonus question: Why is it a VOR-A as opposed to a VOR-33?
The question I always ask my students is "When do you have to do a PT?" The answer is ALWAYS - unless you are being vectored to final or your segment says "NoPT."
If you start the approach at PWL or JOEYL, both give a "NoPT" so you would not have to do that.
Taking the 020 radial to intercept that final approach course would not be considered a legal move - you would need to find some way to navigate to the IAF.
You are talking about "Intercept angle" and approach gate, but none of those things have to do with when a PT is required to be flown. Approach gate is simply an ATC term where they try to vector you. Also, if you start talking how the intercept angle is appropriate and that you are 5 miles from TDZE and don't have to do a PT (regardless of the approach, especially this one) you'll get yourself into trouble. Remember: When do you have to do a PT? ALWAYS (unless vectored or says NoPT/PT-NA)
Bonus question: Why is it a VOR-A as opposed to a VOR-33?
08-04-2010, 11:30 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: right seat
Posts: 238
I was reading http://www.terps.com/ifrr/feb98c.pdf I got the impression it was legal if you requested a vector inside the IAF and met the criteria regarding the approach gate .
In the real world I would obviously do as advised by ATC . The PDF file confused me .
In the real world I would obviously do as advised by ATC . The PDF file confused me .
Soft ball question
08-04-2010, 02:41 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 450
Originally Posted by snippercr
The question I always ask my students is "When do you have to do a PT?" The answer is ALWAYS - unless you are being vectored to final or your segment says "NoPT."
-mini
08-04-2010, 03:08 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: A-300 F/O
Posts: 281
The approach is a Holding In Lieu Of a procedure turn or a HILO, so the only course reversal allowed at the IAF is using holding rules/procedures/techniques.
What you are doing is making up your own vector. OK in VMC and if you are doing the approach VFR just to practice the final approach portion. In IMC you would have to be IFR and the only way to do this approach is via radar vectors to final inside the IAF, but before the IAF, or by doing the full procedure.
I think the NoPT published between the IAF and FAF is to denote there is not a procedure turn authorized at the IAF, so if you were coming opposite direction, you would overfly the FAF and make your reversal at the IAF in the holding pattern published.
There is no missed approach holding shown in the usual format because the HILO is a published holding pattern so if you go missed, go there and hold in the published holding pattern.
The three rules that make a straight in a straight in (except localizer) are: 1. final approach course within 30 degrees of runway 2. Max descent gradient between FAF and a point 50 feet over the threshold with no PAPI/VASI, or to the PAPI/VASI touchdown point on the runway of 400 feet per nautical mile 3. The final approach course must cross the runway threshold prior to the centerline.
This approach might be too steep to qualify depending on how far down the runway the Visual Glidepath touch down is from the missed approach point. 4.6 nms as a w.a.g. using the 4.5 published plus a .1 guess equals a descent gradient of 402 feet per nautical mile. The arrow depicting the path the course brings you in on also looks like it could be just enough offset to not cross prior to threshold, but it is definitely within 30 degrees.
What you are doing is making up your own vector. OK in VMC and if you are doing the approach VFR just to practice the final approach portion. In IMC you would have to be IFR and the only way to do this approach is via radar vectors to final inside the IAF, but before the IAF, or by doing the full procedure.
I think the NoPT published between the IAF and FAF is to denote there is not a procedure turn authorized at the IAF, so if you were coming opposite direction, you would overfly the FAF and make your reversal at the IAF in the holding pattern published.
There is no missed approach holding shown in the usual format because the HILO is a published holding pattern so if you go missed, go there and hold in the published holding pattern.
The three rules that make a straight in a straight in (except localizer) are: 1. final approach course within 30 degrees of runway 2. Max descent gradient between FAF and a point 50 feet over the threshold with no PAPI/VASI, or to the PAPI/VASI touchdown point on the runway of 400 feet per nautical mile 3. The final approach course must cross the runway threshold prior to the centerline.
This approach might be too steep to qualify depending on how far down the runway the Visual Glidepath touch down is from the missed approach point. 4.6 nms as a w.a.g. using the 4.5 published plus a .1 guess equals a descent gradient of 402 feet per nautical mile. The arrow depicting the path the course brings you in on also looks like it could be just enough offset to not cross prior to threshold, but it is definitely within 30 degrees.
08-04-2010, 03:18 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,408
It would be valid if ATC had vectored you over the same course. Pilot nav, the answer is no. The give away on that is that there's no published altitude on your homemade transition.
Originally Posted by featheredprop
At the risk of getting flamed and I hope not I admit flying very few no pt approaches ever ..nor do I claim to know everything aviation.......This is the approach in question 20N VOR A
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1008/09137VGA.PDF
While flying practice approaches and to save a bunch of time( rather than fly to PWL and track all the way inbound...) I flew a 020 degree radial from IGN intercepting the PWL 320 radial ( final approach course) inbound this put me about 4 miles from the FAF . My safety pilot did not believe it would be a valid approach in real IFR if I requested this particular entry for whatever reason . I think it would be in actual because of the 2000 no pt 320 * and the fact that I was still more than 1 mile from the approach gate and more than 5 miles from TDZE as well as the fact that the intercept angle was appropriate What say you folks ??? Thanks
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1008/09137VGA.PDF
While flying practice approaches and to save a bunch of time( rather than fly to PWL and track all the way inbound...) I flew a 020 degree radial from IGN intercepting the PWL 320 radial ( final approach course) inbound this put me about 4 miles from the FAF . My safety pilot did not believe it would be a valid approach in real IFR if I requested this particular entry for whatever reason . I think it would be in actual because of the 2000 no pt 320 * and the fact that I was still more than 1 mile from the approach gate and more than 5 miles from TDZE as well as the fact that the intercept angle was appropriate What say you folks ??? Thanks
08-04-2010, 04:19 PM
#8
APC co-founder
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: B777
Posts: 5,853
Two things to think about: Radar, or no Radar.
If ATC is providing terrain separation, you could possibly get clearance to "fly heading 020, maintain 3000' till established...."
Without radar, you wouldn't have to fly the PT if you transitioned off the airway via PWL, otherwise the charted course reversal is JOEYL. Look at your MSAs (3000', 3700'), it looks like the terrain SW, and North of the airport is what's driving driving that procedure.
In IMC, you can't roll your own approach - there's a reason that they are charted. The TERPS will survey terrain and obstacles and chart a safe arrival.
If ATC is providing terrain separation, you could possibly get clearance to "fly heading 020, maintain 3000' till established...."
Without radar, you wouldn't have to fly the PT if you transitioned off the airway via PWL, otherwise the charted course reversal is JOEYL. Look at your MSAs (3000', 3700'), it looks like the terrain SW, and North of the airport is what's driving driving that procedure.
In IMC, you can't roll your own approach - there's a reason that they are charted. The TERPS will survey terrain and obstacles and chart a safe arrival.
08-05-2010, 10:22 AM
#10
Flying Farmer
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Turbo-props' and John Deere's
Posts: 3,160
The bridge off the approach end of 33 is what I think is the motivating factor to the Circling vs. Straight in approach, which is why you have that wonderful circling minimum(plus other terrain in the general area).
Is there a DA-40 based there with "ER" at the end of the tail-number? I delivered it there, just wondering if the guy still owned it. Really enjoyed flying into there!
Is there a DA-40 based there with "ER" at the end of the tail-number? I delivered it there, just wondering if the guy still owned it. Really enjoyed flying into there!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
