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.