Why publish a plate for an OTS approach?

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

In article ,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

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?

There's probably less paperwork and red tape involved to just notam
something OTS than to get it revoked. "We don't have to make sense, we're
the FAA".

On 05/27/07 15:37, Roy Smith wrote:
In article ,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

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?

There's probably less paperwork and red tape involved to just notam
something OTS than to get it revoked. "We don't have to make sense, we're
the FAA".

Hmmm, I wonder. When they pulled the NDB approach at KSAC (Sacramento
Executive), it just went away -no more plate.

Maybe they think the SDF approach mentioned by the OP may come back at
some point, so they don't want to completely remove it from the system?


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

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

In a previous article, "Bob Gardner" said:
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.

You'd think that it would be a small change of procedure and a huge
improvement in safety if they would at least overprint the procedure with
"NAVAID OTS" or something.


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
To iterate is human; to recurse, is divine.

A good example of why one should always check the FDC NOTAMS for this
kind of information.

Having an approach chart does not mean the approach is authorized.

Why the controlling facility (who should have been aware) issued the
approach clearance is a reasonable question.



On Sun, 27 May 2007 22:20:13 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

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?

FDC NOTAMS are the vehicle to communicate changes to approach
procedures. If a pilot is unaware of an FDC NOTAM which applies to
his destination chart, he has not done adequate preflight.






On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:37:40 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:

In article ,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

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?

There's probably less paperwork and red tape involved to just notam
something OTS than to get it revoked. "We don't have to make sense, we're
the FAA".

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.


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
I mean, if went 'round saying I was a perl hacker, just because some
moistened bint lobbed a "Perl for Dummies" at me, they'd put me away!
-- Randy the Random

I don't think that either Jepp or NACO has the authority to do modify an
approach plate.

Bob

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Bob Gardner" said:
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.

You'd think that it would be a small change of procedure and a huge
improvement in safety if they would at least overprint the procedure with
"NAVAID OTS" or something.


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
To iterate is human; to recurse, is divine.

I don't think that either Jepp or NACO has the authority to do modify an approach plate.

They don't have the authority to modify an approach =procedure=.
However, they can chart the procedure any way they want. Overprinting
the words "Probably OTS, check notams", while raising questions that
probably should be raised, would be within their authority.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.