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.

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:36:41 -0500, J Haggerty
wrote:

then it would be up to ATC to indicate that the course reversal
was not necessary by stating that to the pilot.

By what authority can ATC do this, on this particular approach?

Chip has already indicated that ATC could not issue vectors to final for
this approach; and I am not aware of any authority given ATC to modify
published SIAP's by eliminating required course reversals, absent VTF or
timed approaches.



--ron

I didn't find any written authority that directly authorizes this. It
would be more a compilation of bits and pieces from several regulations.
Unfortunately, there's not much out there in the books that relates
directly to GPS overlay procedures.

Example; FAAH 7110.65 Para 4-8-1 b. "For aircraft operating on
unpublished routes, issue the approach clearance only after the aircraft
is:
3. Established on a heading or **course** that will intercept the
initial segment at the initial approach fix, or intermediate segment at
the intermediate fix when no initial approach fix is published, for a
GPS or RNAV instrument approach procedure at an angle not greater than
90 degrees. Angles greater than 90 degrees may be used when a hold in
lieu of procedure turn pattern is depicted at the fix for the instrument
approach procedure. (See FIG 4-8-2.)"
EXAMPLE- Aircraft 1 can be cleared direct to CENTR. The intercept
angle at that IAF is 90 degrees or less. The minimum altitude for IFR
operations (14 CFR Section 91.177) along the flight path to the IAF is
3,000 feet. "Cleared direct CENTR, maintain at or above three thousand
until CENTR, cleared R-NAV Runway One Eight approach."

In this example, they are talking about RNAV procedures, but the UH-60
was navigating to the IAF using the GPS. If he didn't have GPS, he would
not have been on an unpublished non-radar route to the IAF and this
paragraph would not apply.

On the procedure in question, the only purpose of the "hold in lieu of
PT" is to allow an aircraft on the feeder from HCH to complete a course
reversal so that he can align himself with the final approach course. It
is not used to get a lower altitude and consequent descent gradient as
it might be on some course reversal procedures. The UH-60 was already
aligned within the parameters of the TERPS criteria (90 degrees). If the
route that the UH-60 flew just magically appeared as a published route
on this procedure, it would be required to be published as NoPT.

JPH

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:36:41 -0500, J Haggerty
wrote:


then it would be up to ATC to indicate that the course reversal
was not necessary by stating that to the pilot.


By what authority can ATC do this, on this particular approach?

Chip has already indicated that ATC could not issue vectors to final for
this approach; and I am not aware of any authority given ATC to modify
published SIAP's by eliminating required course reversals, absent VTF or
timed approaches.

J Haggerty wrote:

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 were, and would be, of significant operational benefit at this location.


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.

Do you know of any ARC intitial approach segments that require a course reversal? The
ARCs would have certainly had "NoPT" on them with a hold-in-lieu, not "probably."



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.

By what authority?