Why publish a plate for an OTS approach?

On Mon, 28 May 2007 14:27:22 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

In a previous article, said:
A good example of why one should always check the FDC NOTAMS for this
kind of information.

And the whole process of moving 56 day old NOTAMs off the normal NOTAM
list onto that $115 publication that nobody subscribes to is just
incredibly stupid.

Keep in mind that this navaid had been OTS for 4 years at the time of the
accident.


Here are all the kentucky NOTAMS.

Looked them up in two minutes. Free.

I'll say it again. Anyone who is not aware of a NOTAM deauthorizing
an approach has not performed adequate preflight.





ASHLAND

Ashland Rgnl

FDC 6/9264 DWU FI/T ASHLAND REGIONAL, ASHLAND, KY. VOR OR GPS RWY 10,
AMDT 10A...TERMINAL ROUTE: ECB VORTAC TO YRK VORTAC MINIMUM ALTITUDE
3300. HOLD IN LIEU OF PT MINIMUM ALTITUDE 3300. MISSED APPROACH:
CLIMBING LEFT TURN TO 3300 DIRECT YRK VORTAC AND HOLD. MINIMUM SECTOR
ALTITUDE WITHIN 25NM OF YRK VORTAC 3300.

FDC 6/9263 DWU FI/T ASHLAND REGIONAL, ASHLAND, KY. SDF RWY 10, AMDT
6A...MINIMUM SECTOR ALTITUDE WITHIN 25NM OF YRK VORTAC 3300.

CAMPBELLSVILLE

Taylor County

FDC 6/2912 AAS FI/T TAYLOR COUNTY, CAMPBELLSVILLE, KY. VOR/DME OR
GPS-A, AMDT 5A...CIRCLING CAT A/B/C MDA 1480/HAA 559.

COVINGTON

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Intl

FDC 7/5621 CVG FI/T CINCINNATI/NORTHERN KENTUCKY INTL, COVINGTON, KY.
ILS OR LOC RWY 36L, ORIG-A...JIMUR FIX MINIMUMS: DME REQUIRED.

FDC 7/1437 CVG FI/P CINCINNATI/NORTHERN KENTUCKY INTL, COVINGTON, KY.
ILS OR LOC RWY 27 AMDT 16...DELETE ALL REFERENCE TO MM. THIS IS ILS OR
LOC RWY 27, AMDT 16A.

FDC 6/9638 CVG FI/T CINCINNATI/NORTHERN KENTUCKY INTL, COVINGTON, KY.
RNAV (GPS) RWY 36C, ORIG-A...LNAV/VNAV DA 1345/HAT 494 ALL CATS, VIS 1
1/4. CIRCLING VIS CAT ABC 1 3/4.

FDC 5/1862 CVG FI/T CINCINNATI/NORTHERN KENTUCKY INTERNATIONAL,
COVINGTON, KY. RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, ORIG....PROCEDURE NA.

FDC 5/0055 CVG FI/T CINCINNATI/NORTHERN KENTUCKY INTL, COVINGTON, KY.
RNAV (GPS) RWY 18L, ORIG. RNAV (GPS) RWY 18C, ORIG. TERMINAL ROUTE
CHARZ TO CEDOM NA.

FORT CAMPBELL/HOPKINSVILLE

Campbell AAF (Fort Campbell)

FDC 4/3865 HOP FI/T CAMPBELL AAF, FORT CAMPBELL, KY. RADAR-2,
ORIG...PAR-36 DA 808/HAT 250 ALL CATS ASR-5 VIS CATS D, E 1 1/4.
CEIL-VIS (400-1 1/4) ASR-23 CEIL-VIS CAT C/D/E (500-1 1/4) FIELD ELEV
571.

FRANKFORT

Capital City

FDC 6/2301 FFT FI/T CAPITAL CITY, FRANKFORT, KY. LOC RWY 24 AMDT
1...CIRCLING MINIMUMS: MDA 1260/HAA 454 CAT A.

HOPKINSVILLE

Hopkinsville-Christian County

FDC 6/2535 HVC FI/T HOPKINSVILLE-CHRISTIAN COUNTY, HOPKINSVILLE, KY.
LOC RWY 26 AMDT 3...NDB OR GPS RWY 26 AMDT 6...RADAR REQUIRED.

LEXINGTON

Blue Grass

FDC 6/8332 LEX FI/T LEXINGTON/BLUEGRASS, LEXINGTON, KY. RNAV (GPS) RWY
8, ORIG...RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, ORIG...LNAV MDA NA. CIRCLING TO RWY 8/26
NA.

FDC 6/1735 LEX FI/T BLUE GRASS, LEXINGTON, KY. ILS OR LOC RWY 4, AMDT
17...RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, AMDT 1...RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, AMDT 1...ILS RWY
22, AMDT 19...VOR A, AMDT 9...CIRCLING TO RWY 8/26 NA.

LOUISVILLE

Louisville Intl-Standiford Field

FDC 6/0291 SDF FI/T LOUISVILLE INTL-STANDIFORD FLD, LOUISVILLE, KY.
ILS RWY 17L, AMDT 2...DME MINIMUMS: S-LOC-17L MDA 960/HAT460 ALL CATS.
VIS CAT C RVR 4000. VIS CAT D RVR 5000. TEMPORARY CRANE 656 MSL 5365
FEET NNW OF RWY 17L THLD AND 1302 LEFT OF CENTERLINE.

FDC 6/0290 SDF FI/T LOUISVILLE INTL-STANDIFORD FLD, LOUISVILLE, KY.
TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES...TAKE-OFF RWY
35R: 300-2 1/2 OR STANDARD WITH A MINIMUM CLIMB OF 390 FPM TO 900.
TEMPORARY CRANE 656 MSL 5365 FEET NNW OF RWY 17L THLD AND 1302 FEET
LEFT OF CENTERLINE. NOTE: RWY 35R, TEMPROARY CRANE 5365 FEET FROM
DEPARTURE END OF RUNWAY. 1302 FEET LEFT OF CENTERLINE 170 FEET AGL/656
FEET MSL.

MOUNT STERLING

Mount Sterling-Montgomery County

FDC 6/6719 IOB FI/T MOUNT STERLING-MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MOUNT STERLING,
KY. NDB OR GPS RWY 3, AMDT 1C...MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDE WITHIN 25 NM
3600.

PIKEVILLE

Pike County-Hatcher Field

FDC 5/9844 PBX FI/T PIKE-COUNTY-HATHCER FILED, PIKEVILLE, KY. ILS RWY
27, ORIG. RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, ORIG. RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, ORIG. STRAIGHT-IN
MINIMA NA, ONLY CIRCLING MINIMA AUTHORIZED.

wrote:

Here are all the kentucky NOTAMS.

Looked them up in two minutes. Free.

I'll say it again. Anyone who is not aware of a NOTAM deauthorizing
an approach has not performed adequate preflight.

Does your list include the NOTAMS that are more than 56(?) days old but
are still in force, or is this just a DUAT dump?

DB

They are out of the online version of the Notices to Airmaen
Publication (faa.gov/ntap)



On Tue, 29 May 2007 13:51:59 -0400, Dave Butler wrote:

wrote:

Here are all the kentucky NOTAMS.

Looked them up in two minutes. Free.

I'll say it again. Anyone who is not aware of a NOTAM deauthorizing
an approach has not performed adequate preflight.

Does your list include the NOTAMS that are more than 56(?) days old but
are still in force, or is this just a DUAT dump?

DB

wrote:
They are out of the online version of the Notices to Airmaen
Publication (faa.gov/ntap)

Are you saying that your two minute lookup is adequate, then? Do the
NOTAMs you found include the NOTAM deauthorizing the SDF approach at
KSME that the original poster referred to? What's your point?

On Tue, 29 May 2007 13:51:59 -0400, Dave Butler wrote:

wrote:

Here are all the kentucky NOTAMS.

Looked them up in two minutes. Free.

I'll say it again. Anyone who is not aware of a NOTAM deauthorizing
an approach has not performed adequate preflight.
Does your list include the NOTAMS that are more than 56(?) days old but
are still in force, or is this just a DUAT dump?

DB

In a previous article, Dave Butler said:
wrote:
They are out of the online version of the Notices to Airmaen
Publication (faa.gov/ntap)

Are you saying that your two minute lookup is adequate, then? Do the
NOTAMs you found include the NOTAM deauthorizing the SDF approach at
KSME that the original poster referred to? What's your point?

The SDF was listed as OTS for four years before the accident (in 2000),
then for another year or so after the accident, and then it was
decomissioned and replaced by another approach.

The problem is that it's very hard to look up NOTAMs while in the air,
like when conditions force you to divert to an airport you hadn't planned
on. Or you might not remember which approaches are OTS while you're
bumping along in the dark. In my view, it would be a really great
improvement in safety if they either stopped publishing the plates while
the navaids were OTS, or overprinted them with "OTS DO NOT USE" or
something. (It would also be an improvement in safety if controllers
didn't clear you for OTS approaches, but they're human too and might miss
once in a while - the whole point of IFR flying is checks and cross
checks.)

--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
Alright. Talk. Don't make me reach over there and pull your still-pumping
heart out from the gaping hole you used to call a chest whilst breaking
your sternum and playing air guitar with your ribcage. -- Tai

Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, Dave Butler said:
wrote:
They are out of the online version of the Notices to Airmaen
Publication (faa.gov/ntap)
Are you saying that your two minute lookup is adequate, then? Do the
NOTAMs you found include the NOTAM deauthorizing the SDF approach at
KSME that the original poster referred to? What's your point?

The SDF was listed as OTS for four years before the accident (in 2000),
then for another year or so after the accident, and then it was
decomissioned and replaced by another approach.

OK, so there's probably no place to find that NOTAM today, and the NOTAM
is no longer in effect.

The problem is that it's very hard to look up NOTAMs while in the air,

It' even hard to look up NOTAMs while on the ground. Disregarding the
problem of sorting out the important ones from the unlighted tower
chaff, NOTAMs older than the current edition of the A/FD are transferred
to the A/FD and no longer published as NOTAMs.

like when conditions force you to divert to an airport you hadn't planned
on. Or you might not remember which approaches are OTS while you're
bumping along in the dark. In my view, it would be a really great
improvement in safety if they either stopped publishing the plates while
the navaids were OTS, or overprinted them with "OTS DO NOT USE" or
something. (It would also be an improvement in safety if controllers
didn't clear you for OTS approaches, but they're human too and might miss
once in a while - the whole point of IFR flying is checks and cross
checks.)

Agreed.

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.






On Wed, 30 May 2007 08:59:38 -0400, Dave Butler wrote:

wrote:
They are out of the online version of the Notices to Airmaen
Publication (faa.gov/ntap)

Are you saying that your two minute lookup is adequate, then? Do the
NOTAMs you found include the NOTAM deauthorizing the SDF approach at
KSME that the original poster referred to? What's your point?

On Tue, 29 May 2007 13:51:59 -0400, Dave Butler wrote:

wrote:

Here are all the kentucky NOTAMS.

Looked them up in two minutes. Free.

I'll say it again. Anyone who is not aware of a NOTAM deauthorizing
an approach has not performed adequate preflight.
Does your list include the NOTAMS that are more than 56(?) days old but
are still in force, or is this just a DUAT dump?

DB

When you think about it a bit, there is no real difference between an
approach deauthorized last week and one deauthorized last year or two
years ago.. The PIC still has to confirm the availability of the
approach by examining all current and published FDC NOTAMS. When a
NOTAM says "Approach NA", who cares how old the information is? The
fact that it is NA now is current information.

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.







On Wed, 30 May 2007 13:34:45 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

In a previous article, Dave Butler said:
wrote:
They are out of the online version of the Notices to Airmaen
Publication (faa.gov/ntap)

Are you saying that your two minute lookup is adequate, then? Do the
NOTAMs you found include the NOTAM deauthorizing the SDF approach at
KSME that the original poster referred to? What's your point?

The SDF was listed as OTS for four years before the accident (in 2000),
then for another year or so after the accident, and then it was
decomissioned and replaced by another approach.

The problem is that it's very hard to look up NOTAMs while in the air,
like when conditions force you to divert to an airport you hadn't planned
on. Or you might not remember which approaches are OTS while you're
bumping along in the dark. In my view, it would be a really great
improvement in safety if they either stopped publishing the plates while
the navaids were OTS, or overprinted them with "OTS DO NOT USE" or
something. (It would also be an improvement in safety if controllers
didn't clear you for OTS approaches, but they're human too and might miss
once in a while - the whole point of IFR flying is checks and cross
checks.)

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.

A good point.


On Wed, 30 May 2007 15:46:21 -0700, "KP" nospam@please wrote:

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.