NDB or GPS Rwy 33 EPM

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

Sometimes it's hard for me to follow your train of thought. But if I
understand you correctly, in the situation we are discussing, you are
saying that for a/c with non-advanced RNAV, clearance issuance
*should* be delayed until within the SSV of the EPM NDB (unless
one is held at an excessively high altitude).


No, having or not having advanced RNAV makes no difference in this case. I
was just pointing out a quirk in the requirements. Exceeding normal navaid
distances requires radar regardless how you're equipped nav-wise. The
difference is those not equipped with advanced RNAV also require course
guidance, as necessary. If ATC observed someone that had filed /A veering
off course to high terrain they'd have to nudge him back on course. If ATC
observed someone that had filed /G doing the same they could just let him
fly into the rocks.



I don't have a current AF/D to examine. However, the Princeton
VOR has been flakey for a number of years. In addition,
www.airnav.com shows VOR PORTION UNUSBL 113-158
(pnn--epm is 149°). Also, checking with the Bangor FSS, they
tell me that restriction is published in the current A/FD.


I was working from an old directory, if FSS says there's now a restriction
on the required radial I'll certainly take their word for it.



(I believe that many years ago there was a published feeder route.)


Many years ago? The current plate says "Orig". I have an NE-1 book dated
26 Feb 1998, there's no feeder route on it, it's the same approach as today.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:



No, having or not having advanced RNAV makes no difference in this case. I
was just pointing out a quirk in the requirements. Exceeding normal navaid
distances requires radar regardless how you're equipped nav-wise.


Unless a particular radial, loalizer, or bearing is documented by AVN-100 as
having extended service volume (ESV).

wrote in message ...

What are the other methods?


The other method is a route that does not require radar monitoring. In a
previous post I described an arrival over PNN, but Ron Rosenfeld tells me
there is now a restriction on the sector the applicable radial is in. I was
using an old A/FD.

But there are still others. A flight from Lubec to Eastport would not
require radar as it's less than 5 miles away. A flight from Machias Valley
to Eastport would not require radar. The distance is 24 miles but there's
an NDB on the field.

wrote in message ...

Perhaps flight inspection issues?


Apparently so. I'm told there is now a restriction on that radial.

"J Haggerty" wrote in message
news:vQdrc.35351$bS1.29635@okepread02...

Unless the NDB is part of the airway system, then Radar is the
only way to legally and procedurally get to the IAF.


Please cite the applicable law.



There are no other NAVAIDS that have been approved as feeders
to the IAF.


They don't have to be approved as feeders, they just have to exist.



Yes, you could use another NAVAID to get there, but it would have
to be with the assistance of the TRACON while they follow you on the
Radar (i.e., Radar required)


Negative. Radar monitoring is required only when operating beyond navaid
distance limitations.



Not from a TERPS standpoint.


Irrelevant. Pilots are governed by the FARs and ATC by FAA Order 7110.65.

wrote in message ...

Unless a particular radial, loalizer, or bearing is documented by
AVN-100 as having extended service volume (ESV).


If it had been would it be a secret to the regular operators in the
applicable area? Another exception is a route that is an MTR, but I saw no
point in listing exceptions that obviously don't apply.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

What are the other methods?


The other method is a route that does not require radar monitoring. In a
previous post I described an arrival over PNN, but Ron Rosenfeld tells me
there is now a restriction on the sector the applicable radial is in. I was
using an old A/FD.

But there are still others. A flight from Lubec to Eastport would not
require radar as it's less than 5 miles away. A flight from Machias Valley
to Eastport would not require radar. The distance is 24 miles but there's
an NDB on the field.

By policy, at a location like this, AVN-100 would have established a feeder
route had any of the area nav aids permitted it. They work pretty hard at what
they do to avoid radar required under these types of circumstances (as opposed
to a TRACON that wants mandatory vectors-to-final).