Quote:
Originally Posted by Planespotta
If you have an FMS or a GPS, the VOR will still be in the database even if it's been destroyed, as in the previous example, so I assume it would be fine to use. Or ask for alternate missed approach instructions before beginning the approach. Don't rule the whole approach out just b/c the VOR is OTS, it might still be perfectly safe to fly.
This is what I like about the forum. The discussion that a seemingly simple question can produce, and the way that it gets people to get back into the books, enhances understanding and safety for all.
I didn't quite understand the sentence bolded above, but actually based on different circumstance and more of a technicality. I asked the question around the office and some agreed with the statement above. A little more research though from the group revealed two sources though that would contradict the notion that you could legally fly the (using the given example of KJVY and ABB) VOR Rwy 18 approach using the 'overlay' philosophy.
First from the FAA's GNSS Q&As:
Quote:
(#21) GNSS Frequently Asked Questions - WAAS
Q. I have heard about flying an “overlay” approach, and that it is basically flying a VOR or other approach, but using the GPS instead of the VOR or ADF. Can I just use the GPS instead of the VOR?
A. No. Overlay approaches can use GPS instead of the primary designated navigational aid, but the approach must be designated for GPS and be in the current aircraft database. For example, it must say “VOR or GPS RWY 16.” You cannot just use GPS in lieu of VOR, Automatic Direction Finder (ADF) or other navigational source naming the approach. You can, however, use GPS to determine waypoints during the approach.
and then again in the AIM (para: 1-1-19, pg 1-1-32)
Quote:
g. GPS Approach Procedures
As the production of stand−alone GPS approaches has progressed, many of the original overlay
approaches have been replaced with stand−alone procedures specifically designed for use by GPS
systems. The title of the remaining GPS overlay procedures has been revised on the approach chart to “or GPS” (e.g., VOR or GPS RWY 24). Therefore, all the approaches that can be used by GPS now contain “GPS” in the title (e.g., “VOR or GPS RWY 24,”“GPS RWY 24,” or “RNAV (GPS) RWY 24”). During these GPS approaches, underlying ground based NAVAIDs are not required to be operational and associated aircraft avionics need not be installed, operational, turned on or monitored (monitoring of the underlying approach is suggested when equipment is available and functional). Existing overlay approaches may be requested using the GPS title, such as “GPS RWY 24” for the VOR or GPS RWY 24.
NOTE
Any required alternate airport must have an approved instrument approach procedure other than GPS that is anticipated to be operational and available at the estimated time of arrival, and which the aircraft is equipped to fly.
Therefore, technically the VOR Rwy 18 into KJVY could not be legally flown even if the facility was in the database unless the approach plate included the GPS in the title (e.g. VOR or GPS Rwy 18). As that co-worker pointed out though, why would they do that when there is already a stand-alone GPS approach to Rwy 18 (the standard T configured straight-in).
Thanks again for bringing up such a discussion item.
What say the group?
USMCFLYR
04-24-2024
