VOR/DME Approach Question

FAAO 8260.19 requires any arcs in a radar environment to be removed
unless they are operationally required. It appears that someone deemed
that they were not needed back in 1992, when they were removed from the
procedure. GPS was overlayed later, so had nothing to do with removal of
the arcs.
The arcs probably had the annotation "NoPT" on them, since a course
reversal would not have been required from the arcs based on the TERPS
criteria in effect back in 1992.
An interesting point that might help ATC understand the PT/NoPT question
is that anytime a route is published that allows elimination of the
course reversal, then the procedure specialist must indicate that by
publishing "NoPT" on that route segment. Otherwise, the PT is expected.
Since ATC was substituting radar flight following (not vectors) combined
with center's MIA to protect the GPS equipped aircraft on his flight to
MINES, then it would be up to ATC to indicate that the course reversal
was not necessary by stating that to the pilot.
In the case of the UH-60, though, once he asked for the "full approach"
it would have alerted me that he wanted a little more than a quick
straight-in, and I would have queried him further to confirm exactly
what he wanted, (hold-in lieu, clearance to Hinch Mountain for the
feeder, or what?).
We used to routinely vector military aircraft to intercept the final,
but whenever one requested the full procedure, that was our clue to
clear them via non-radar routes to the IAF, even if it was 20 miles
further out.

JPH

wrote:
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.