Where is the IAF for LOC BC RWY 03R at LUK?

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

I can't seem to find the IAF for the LOC BC RWY 03R at LUK. Any ideas why?

Charting error. Falmouth is the IAF. They most likely failed to designate it
on the source document. Stuff like that happens.

No IAF is designated.

No matter where you are coming from, Cincy approach will vector you to
the SHILA FAC fix.

You will always get RADAR vectors, as you will be in Cincy's Class B
airspace to perform this approach.

Sandy Mustard

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

I can't seem to find the IAF for the LOC BC RWY 03R at LUK. Any ideas why?

"Sandy Mustard" wrote in message
...

No IAF is designated.

No matter where you are coming from, Cincy approach will vector you to
the SHILA FAC fix.

You will always get RADAR vectors, as you will be in Cincy's Class B
airspace to perform this approach.


Cincy approach isn't going to vector you if they are without radar, but this
approach can be flown without it. Falmouth VOR/DME should have been
designated as an IAF. Note that the FLM 338R has the heavy line of a
procedure track, not the lighter line of a feeder route. Chart error. You
can fly this approach via FLM if you've got DME and ADF, or appropriate GPS.

I believe Steve is right.

In addition, they would not put NoPT on a feeder route, only on the approach
route. NoPT on a feeder route does not make sense.

Kevin

True, but Cincy approach may not let you into their class B airpspace
without their radar working.

Shila could have been the IAF, no reason FLM needs to be it.

The Jepp charts for all LUK approaches show no difference in the line
thicknesses so I guess everyone charted it wrong.

Sandy

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Sandy Mustard" wrote in message
...

No IAF is designated.

No matter where you are coming from, Cincy approach will vector you to
the SHILA FAC fix.

You will always get RADAR vectors, as you will be in Cincy's Class B
airspace to perform this approach.



Cincy approach isn't going to vector you if they are without radar, but this
approach can be flown without it. Falmouth VOR/DME should have been
designated as an IAF. Note that the FLM 338R has the heavy line of a
procedure track, not the lighter line of a feeder route. Chart error. You
can fly this approach via FLM if you've got DME and ADF, or appropriate GPS.

Sandy Mustard wrote:

True, but Cincy approach may not let you into their class B airpspace
without their radar working.

Shila could have been the IAF, no reason FLM needs to be it.

Nope. Shila is the intermediate fix. An intermediate fix cannot also be an IAF
unless it is a course reversal fix.

"Sandy Mustard" wrote in message
...

True, but Cincy approach may not let you into their class B airpspace
without their radar working.

No radar, no class B, they would revert to a class D facility.

No radar, no class B, they would revert to a class D facility.

Interesting! Where is the provision for this in the regs? I know
that some class C's revert to class E at night, but there's some
escape clause in the FAAO that creates the airspace, saying something
to the effect that NOTAM's can change the airspace.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

No radar, no class B, they would revert to a class D facility.


The status of the radar does not affect the Class of airspace.

"Newps" wrote in message
...

"Sandy Mustard" wrote in message
...

True, but Cincy approach may not let you into their class B airpspace
without their radar working.

No radar, no class B, they would revert to a class D facility.




There is no provision in FAR 71 for revision of Class B airspace to Class D
in the event of a radar outage. The definition of the CVG Class B airspace
in FAAO 7400.9 makes no reference to reversion to any other class under any
event. The Class B airspace remains Class B under conditions of radar
outage.

Stan