Why publish a plate for an OTS approach?

First of all, no strawmen, please.


The statement I made (more than once) was that anyone who was unaware
of a deauthorized approach at his destination, given the availability
of preflight FDC NOTAM information, was guily of inadequate preflight
preparation. I stand by that statement, notwithstanding any feeble
and logically fallacious attempts to refute it.


Apparently, you favor one single source of all approach information
that is updated in real time in the cockpit.


Undoubtedly this will become a reality some day. In the meantime, I
would like to hear your ideas for implementing and maintaining such a
system with readily available and affordable resources and
capabilitues.



On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 06:30:26 -0700, Michael
wrote:

On Jun 2, 5:04 am, wrote:
Actually, thge more I think about it the more I am convinced I am
right.

Of course you're convinced. Now answer me this question - do you
always know where you are going to land (or can you always narrow it
down to a short list, just a few airports) before you ever start the
engines? If you say yes, you're not getting much capability out of
the airplane.

In the real world of flying GA IFR, things don't work that way.
Headwinds and ATC delays force landings short of the intended
destination (or fuel stop). Weather systems that turn out worse than
forecasts or move differentl than forecast (thunderstorms, ice,
widespread below-mins conditions) cause diversions around weather, and
thus landings dozens (or even hundreds) of miles off the intended
course. Landing sites in such cases are chosen by consulting printed
publications in the cockpit to select appropriate facilities and
consultation with FSS (by radio) to confirm weather. Time is at a
premium because FSS frequencies in such weather tend to be tied up -
everyone is doing this. Even if the first diversion landing is fine,
planning for the next leg is done wherever you landed - not
necessarily a place with internet access. So what are you suggesting
now - what everyone who actually uses the airplane for transportation
should have a printed copy of the published NOTAM's in the cockpit to
deal with this issue?

Michael

On Jun 4, 1:17 pm, wrote:
First of all, no strawmen, please.

Not a strawman at all. The situation I describe is real.

The statement I made (more than once) was that anyone who was unaware
of a deauthorized approach at his destination, given the availability
of preflight FDC NOTAM information, was guily of inadequate preflight
preparation. I stand by that statement, notwithstanding any feeble
and logically fallacious attempts to refute it.

Nonsense again. Unless you are making your preflight preparation at a
place where internet access is available, published NOTAM's are not
generally accessible. You won't find the publication at the average
FBO - in fact, I think I only ever saw it on sale ONCE. If the
internet can be assumed to be available, then why do we bother to have
telephone briefings available at all? Think of the money we could
save by eliminating those.

Unfortunately, exactly the weather that makes this sort of accident
most likely is the weather that is most likely to put you in that
position on any flight that can't easily be completed within the IFR
range of your airplane. Of course none of this is an issue for
recently deauthorized approaches, because they are covered by current
NOTAM's.

Apparently, you favor one single source of all approach information
that is updated in real time in the cockpit.

That would be ideal, but it's not happening at a price most pilots can
afford. What I really favor is approach information that is as
logical and intuitive as practical. Every time you move away from
that, you make an accident more likely. The accident under discussion
is one example of this.

The simple change I advocate costs essentially nothing, and makes an
accident less likely for those of us who routinely fly beyond easy IFR
range of the airplane in instrument conditions.

Michael

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:09:44 -0700, Michael
wrote:

On Jun 4, 1:17 pm, wrote:
First of all, no strawmen, please.

Not a strawman at all. The situation I describe is real.

The statement I made (more than once) was that anyone who was unaware
of a deauthorized approach at his destination, given the availability
of preflight FDC NOTAM information, was guily of inadequate preflight
preparation. I stand by that statement, notwithstanding any feeble
and logically fallacious attempts to refute it.

Nonsense again. Unless you are making your preflight preparation at a
place where internet access is available, published NOTAM's are not
generally accessible.


Published NOTAMS are as accessible as the nearest telephone.


From the book:

"Current NOTAMs are available from Flight Service Stations at
1-800-WX-BRIEF. Notices, restrictions, and advisories may change at
any time and without notice. Do not attempt any operation in the
National Airspace System without first obtaining and understanding a
thorough pre-flight briefing. "

Just ask a briefer to check the published NOTAMS, and your problem is
solved...



You won't find the publication at the average
FBO - in fact, I think I only ever saw it on sale ONCE. If the
internet can be assumed to be available, then why do we bother to have
telephone briefings available at all? Think of the money we could
save by eliminating those.





Unfortunately, exactly the weather that makes this sort of accident
most likely is the weather that is most likely to put you in that
position on any flight that can't easily be completed within the IFR
range of your airplane. Of course none of this is an issue for
recently deauthorized approaches, because they are covered by current
NOTAM's.

Apparently, you favor one single source of all approach information
that is updated in real time in the cockpit.

That would be ideal, but it's not happening at a price most pilots can
afford. What I really favor is approach information that is as
logical and intuitive as practical. Every time you move away from
that, you make an accident more likely. The accident under discussion
is one example of this.



The simple change I advocate costs essentially nothing, and makes an
accident less likely for those of us who routinely fly beyond easy IFR
range of the airplane in instrument conditions.



Michael

Michael wrote:

[...] Unless you are making your preflight preparation at a place
where internet access is available, published NOTAM's are not
generally accessible. You won't find the publication at the average
FBO - in fact, I think I only ever saw it on sale ONCE. [...]

OK, but if I read correctly the NTSB writeup of this particular
accident (2000-01-18, NYC00FA067) then the A/FD did mention that the
approach was out of service. (There also wasn't an ident signal on
the SDF frequency, the radar track indicates that the pilot failed to
intercept *any* of the approaches.)

- FChE

What part of your butt did you pull that BS out of?

Congress has nothing to do with the federal register.

Bob Gardner wrote:

An instrument approach is, in effect, an act of Congress. Although they
do it through obscure references to Part 97, each approach must be
published in the Code of Federal Regulations and, as you might imagine,
it literally takes an act of Congress to revoke one. Jepp and NACO
probably have some kind of contractual obligation to publish all
existing approaches.

Bob Gardner

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

I'm just reading IFR Refresher, and it has a report on an accident that
happened after a King Air was cleared for an SDF approach at KSME.
According to the article, at the time the A/FD and NTAP listed the SDF as
"Out of Service (OTS) - Indefinitely", and had been for four years, but
the plate was still being published with no mention that the SDF was OTS.
Why the hell would they continue to publish an approach plate in a
situation like that?

--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you recognize a
mistake when you make it again. -- F. P. Jones

wrote:

What part of your butt did you pull that BS out of?

Congress has nothing to do with the federal register.

Bob Gardner wrote:

An instrument approach is, in effect, an act of Congress. Although
they do it through obscure references to Part 97, each approach must
be published in the Code of Federal Regulations and, as you might
imagine, it literally takes an act of Congress to revoke one. Jepp and
NACO probably have some kind of contractual obligation to publish all
existing approaches.

Bob Gardner

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

I'm just reading IFR Refresher, and it has a report on an accident that
happened after a King Air was cleared for an SDF approach at KSME.
According to the article, at the time the A/FD and NTAP listed the
SDF as
"Out of Service (OTS) - Indefinitely", and had been for four years, but
the plate was still being published with no mention that the SDF was
OTS.
Why the hell would they continue to publish an approach plate in a
situation like that?

--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
Experience is that marvelous thing that enables you recognize a
mistake when you make it again. -- F. P. Jones

On 2007-05-27 15:20:13 -0700, (Paul Tomblin) said:

I'm just reading IFR Refresher, and it has a report on an accident that
happened after a King Air was cleared for an SDF approach at KSME.
According to the article, at the time the A/FD and NTAP listed the SDF as
"Out of Service (OTS) - Indefinitely", and had been for four years, but
the plate was still being published with no mention that the SDF was OTS.
Why the hell would they continue to publish an approach plate in a
situation like that?

The FAA did not remove the approach from the database because Pulaski
County, which controls the field, did not ask them to. FAA requires
that the controlling agency ask them to remove an IP. Pulaski County
did not want to remove the procedure because if they ever wanted to
reactivate the approach they would have had to go through the entire
approval and certification process of a new approach if the old one was
removed. Another example of this is the VOR at McChord AFB which was
OTS for several years.

I suppose one could question whether it is a good idea to make
recertification so onerous that it becomes a safety hazard because of
OTS navaids and procedures still being in the database for years, but
that is the current state of affairs.

From the accident report:

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The investigation revealed that Somerset
Airport and its instrument approaches were under the control of Pulaski
County, Commonwealth of Kentucky. FAA procedures required that any
request for removal of the instrument approach be initiated by the
controlling agency for the instrument approach. Once the instrument
approach was removed from the system, it could not be reinstated
without going through the same procedure required for the certification
of a new approach. In case the instrument approach did not pass a
flight check, and it was not desired to permanently remove it, a NOTAM
would be issued indicating it was out of service. Once the NOTAM had
been in effect through one complete cycle (56 days), it was removed
from the list of active NOTAMS, and the data transferred to the airport
facility directory, also on a 56-day cycle. Even though the SDF RWY 4
approach was carried as out of service in the airport facility
directory, no warning or advisory was printed on the approach procedure
to indicate that status, nor was it required. If the approach had been
returned to service, a NOTAM would have been issued, and the NOTAM
would have been carried until the airport facility directory had been
changed. 

A flight check was conducted of the instrument approaches at
Somerset. The flight check crew reported that no signal was received
when they tuned their navigation radios to the listed frequency for the
SDF RWY 4 approach. However, signals were received for the other
approaches, and they passed the flight check.

According to the
Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM): Section 1-1-12:

"During periods
of routine or emergency maintenance, coded identification (or code and
voice, where applicable) is removed from certain FAA
NAVAID's."

"Removal of identification serves as a warning to pilots
that the facility is officially off the air for tune-up or repair and
may be unreliable even though intermittent or constant signals are
received."

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2007-05-30 15:46:21 -0700, "KP" nospam@please said:

wrote in message
...
I think if there is anything that is subject to criticism here it is
that the pilot was apparently cleared for a deauthorized approach by
ATC. It seems to me that they should have known of its status.

It's not "apparent" the aircraft was "cleared for a deauthorized approach by
ATC" at all.

If the controller used the phraseology "CLEARED APPROACH" it was up to the
pilot to select the instrument approach.

That doesn't include an approach that was known (or should have been known
through a proper pre-flight) to be OTS.

It would probably help if you guys read the accident report instead of
speculating.

For example, the report notes that controller should not have cleared
the aircraft for an OTS approach, but faults the pilot as the primary
error for

1) Not following the published approach courses and altitudes.
2) Not identifying the navaid for the approach -- no identifier was
being broadcast, so the pilots should have known that the approach was
OTS, notam or no notam.

Checking notams on the ground is a good idea, but things change while
you are in the air. Actually tuning and identifying a navaid is a
pretty good idea. You never know what might have happened in the last
few minutes.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2007-05-30 09:14:03 -0700, said:

I have no idea of the current status of the SDF approach in question.
It may be in service, or it may be decommissioned.

If I wanted current status, however, I would check a) the current
approach chart, along with b) DUATS FDC NOTAMS, and c) the NOTAM
piublication.

All this information is available on the internet at no cost, easily
looked up.


My point is the same point I made twice now. With all available
information available on the internet at no cost, anyone who is not
aware of a deauthorized approach at his destination has not done
adequate preflight.

That may be, but no identifier was being broadcast, either. Suppose the
approach had been only out of service for the last half hour -- no
notam would have told them that. You still need to tune and check
identifiers for navaids. If the pilots had done that they might still
be alive today.


--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell writes:
On 2007-05-30 09:14:03 -0700, said:

I have no idea of the current status of the SDF approach in question.
It may be in service, or it may be decommissioned.

If I wanted current status, however, I would check a) the current
approach chart, along with b) DUATS FDC NOTAMS, and c) the NOTAM
piublication.

All this information is available on the internet at no cost, easily
looked up.


My point is the same point I made twice now. With all available
information available on the internet at no cost, anyone who is not
aware of a deauthorized approach at his destination has not done
adequate preflight.

That may be, but no identifier was being broadcast, either. Suppose the
approach had been only out of service for the last half hour -- no
notam would have told them that. You still need to tune and check
identifiers for navaids. If the pilots had done that they might still
be alive today.

Which raises a related question: How quickly do ATC controllers
receive the info that a facility is OTS for maintenance or other
such activity?