Aurora GPS RWY 17 Question

The GPS RWY 17 approach at Aurora State (UAO), Aurora, Oregon, contains a
note near the top left:

http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://...4/05722R17.PDF

"Procedure NA for arrivals at UBG VOR/DME on airway radials 013 CW 085."

There are two Victor airways to UBG, one on the 013 radial and the other on
the 085 radial.

What exactly does that note mean and why is that an issue? It sounds like
the note prohibits use of this approach if you are arriving from the
northeast (between the UBG 013 and 085 radials). But I can't see any
obstruction issue or interference with another airport's traffic pattern,
since the minimum altitude is 4,000' in an area near sea level. If you
overflew UBG for 5 miles and then turned back to UBG, would that make the
approach legal to fly?

Dennis Johnson

"Dennis Johnson" wrote:

The GPS RWY 17 approach at Aurora State (UAO), Aurora, Oregon, contains a
note near the top left:

http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://...4/05722R17.PDF

"Procedure NA for arrivals at UBG VOR/DME on airway radials 013 CW 085."


Could it be because the Portland airport is in that direction?

Ron Lee

On 5/7/2007 1:48:08 PM, "Dennis Johnson" wrote:

If you
overflew UBG for 5 miles and then turned back to UBG, would that make the
approach legal to fly?

Lake Placid, NY, has these types of restrictions on their GPS approaches.

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...fs/09371RA.PDF

Upon preparing for the flight to LKP a few years ago I had seen the note on
the above chart and asked a more experienced IFR pilot about it. He told me
that these types of notes are common when the required course direction
change after the IAF is too great. TERPS doesn't want aircraft making that
large a course change in the clouds, presumably in this case due to the
nearby mountains.

I was told that if you do not have the option to choose a more aligned IAF
based on arrival direction (and that radar vectors are not available), then
file to a VOR, intersection, or GPS fix that does provide a more direct
arrival to the IAF and plan on jumping off the airway sooner to fly direct to
that point.


--
Peter

Peter R. wrote:
On 5/7/2007 1:48:08 PM, "Dennis Johnson" wrote:


If you
overflew UBG for 5 miles and then turned back to UBG, would that make the
approach legal to fly?


Lake Placid, NY, has these types of restrictions on their GPS approaches.

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...fs/09371RA.PDF

Upon preparing for the flight to LKP a few years ago I had seen the note on
the above chart and asked a more experienced IFR pilot about it. He told me
that these types of notes are common when the required course direction
change after the IAF is too great. TERPS doesn't want aircraft making that
large a course change in the clouds, presumably in this case due to the
nearby mountains.

I was told that if you do not have the option to choose a more aligned IAF
based on arrival direction (and that radar vectors are not available), then
file to a VOR, intersection, or GPS fix that does provide a more direct
arrival to the IAF and plan on jumping off the airway sooner to fly direct to
that point.


And sometimes they just get it wrong.
http://myairplane.com/databases/appr...s/05842R23.PDF
shows such a restriction, but the NA from VOLAN is backwards. Should
read approach NA from VOLAN eastbound, not westbound.

On 2007-05-07, Dennis Johnson wrote:
The GPS RWY 17 approach at Aurora State (UAO), Aurora, Oregon, contains a
note near the top left:

http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://...4/05722R17.PDF

"Procedure NA for arrivals at UBG VOR/DME on airway radials 013 CW 085."

There seems to be a similar prohibition on the GPS 35. Both restrictions
look like they are trying to avoid "U turns" at UBG. The LOC 17 actually
uses BTG as the IAF, or maybe it would have a similar note?

--
Ben Jackson AD7GD

http://www.ben.com/