![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
where to ask question about approach? | J Haggerty | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | August 17th 04 06:30 AM |
Canadian holding procedures | Derrick Early | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | July 22nd 04 04:03 PM |
Approach Question- Published Missed Can't be flown? | Brad Z | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | May 6th 04 04:19 AM |
Why is ADF or Radar Required on MFD ILS RWY 32 Approach Plate? | S. Ramirez | Instrument Flight Rules | 17 | April 2nd 04 11:13 AM |
Established on the approach - Checkride question | endre | Instrument Flight Rules | 59 | October 6th 03 04:36 PM |