differences in loc/dme and loc with dme appch at KRUT?

Roy.. After reading yours and Stephen's reply.. I concede I am mistaken
and you are correct. Dang.. and to think I was trying to be extra
careful on this one too and figure out why the plate differences existed.

I am getting pretty frustrated with myself lately, since I appear to be
proven inaccurate more often than not with some of my replies on here,
even though my intent was to be helpful. I think I am going to sit back
and be a spectator for a while.. I dont want to be a resource if it ends
up being a BAD resource.

Dave

Roy Smith wrote:
In article .net,
Dave S wrote:


RUT LOC/DME 19
The DME is required.. and in this approach the DME is co-located with
the localizer for 19.



RUT LOC 19 (with DME)

DME optional, but the DME for use in THIS approach is co-located with
the VOR which is on-field, but sited differently from the Localizer.


It looks to me like other than the step-downs at FISER and MAUVE on the
feeder routes, all the DME callouts on both approaches reference I-RUT.
Are you seeing something I'm not?

In article .net,
Dave S wrote:
I am getting pretty frustrated with myself lately, since I appear to be
proven inaccurate more often than not with some of my replies on here,
even though my intent was to be helpful. I think I am going to sit back
and be a spectator for a while.

Don't get discouraged. If I had a nickle for every time I was wrong in
public, I'd be a rich man. I've learned more about aviation being an
instructor than I did as a student, and a lot of the best learning came
when I was proven wrong.

Correlary: just because somebody with lots of letters after their name
says something, don't think it must be true!

PS, I'm still stumped by these approaches. I really have no clue why
the LOC-DME version exists. For all the arguing back and forth about
details, I still don't see the big picture.

Someone said something about the missed approach portion having
something to do with it, particularly with all the terrain surrounding
the airport.

Dave

Roy Smith wrote:
In article .net,
Dave S wrote:

I am getting pretty frustrated with myself lately, since I appear to be
proven inaccurate more often than not with some of my replies on here,
even though my intent was to be helpful. I think I am going to sit back
and be a spectator for a while.


Don't get discouraged. If I had a nickle for every time I was wrong in
public, I'd be a rich man. I've learned more about aviation being an
instructor than I did as a student, and a lot of the best learning came
when I was proven wrong.

Correlary: just because somebody with lots of letters after their name
says something, don't think it must be true!

PS, I'm still stumped by these approaches. I really have no clue why
the LOC-DME version exists. For all the arguing back and forth about
details, I still don't see the big picture.

"Dave S" wrote in message
link.net...

RUT LOC/DME 19
The DME is required.. and in this approach the DME is co-located with
the localizer for 19.


RUT LOC 19 (with DME)
DME optional, but the DME for use in THIS approach is co-located with
the VOR which is on-field, but sited differently from the Localizer.


No, the DME used in this approach is the same as the LOC/DME approach, if it
was from the VOR/DME the identifier by the DME fixes would show RUT instead
of I-RUT.

"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
t...

Can anyone point out why the following approaches have minor differences
(specifically the minimums and the MAP):

RUT LOC/DME 19
RUT LOC 19 (with DME)


It looks like the missed approach procedure is the culprit. The procedure
for the LOC RWY 19 uses the RUT VOR/DME while the procedure for the LOC/DME
RWY 19 does not. Apparently not using the VOR/DME for the procedure pushes
the MAP 1.5 miles further out and bumps up the MDA and minima a bit. The
LOC RWY 19 is a better approach, but would be NOTAMed NA if the RUT VOR/DME
is out of service.

Right, but why should that force the odd differences in the final segments
of the approaches?
e.g. - the "Fly visual 2.5 nm" on the LOC/DME 19 and the 1600 and 2 (loc/dme
19) vs the 1580 and 1 1/4 minima (loc 19 with dme)?

I suppose there is no good reason for the differences (the different minima
and MAPs)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
t...

Can anyone point out why the following approaches have minor differences
(specifically the minimums and the MAP):

RUT LOC/DME 19
RUT LOC 19 (with DME)


It looks like the missed approach procedure is the culprit. The procedure
for the LOC RWY 19 uses the RUT VOR/DME while the procedure for the
LOC/DME
RWY 19 does not. Apparently not using the VOR/DME for the procedure
pushes
the MAP 1.5 miles further out and bumps up the MDA and minima a bit. The
LOC RWY 19 is a better approach, but would be NOTAMed NA if the RUT
VOR/DME
is out of service.

"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
et...

Right, but why should that force the odd differences in the final segments
of the approaches?
e.g. - the "Fly visual 2.5 nm" on the LOC/DME 19 and the 1600 and 2
(loc/dme
19) vs the 1580 and 1 1/4 minima (loc 19 with dme)?

I suppose there is no good reason for the differences (the different
minima
and MAPs)


I'm not a TERPS expert, I'm pretty much just guessing. There is higher
terrain to the south, southwest, and west of KRUT. Climbing to 2600 via the
RUT VOR/DME 221 radial allows you to avoid these rocks until you're above
them. Without the positive course guidance provided by RUT VOR/DME you're
left with climb gradient requirements that can't be met with the MAP at
I-RUT 1.9 DME so the MAP must be pushed back to 3.4 DME.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

I'm not a TERPS expert, I'm pretty much just guessing. There is higher
terrain to the south, southwest, and west of KRUT. Climbing to 2600 via
the
RUT VOR/DME 221 radial allows you to avoid these rocks until you're above
them. Without the positive course guidance provided by RUT VOR/DME you're
left with climb gradient requirements that can't be met with the MAP at
I-RUT 1.9 DME so the MAP must be pushed back to 3.4 DME.


A portion of the New York sectional showing the area can be viewed he

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z2A616C27

Thanks - I will have to look into that later - it is the best answer I have
seen yet.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
et...

Right, but why should that force the odd differences in the final
segments
of the approaches?
e.g. - the "Fly visual 2.5 nm" on the LOC/DME 19 and the 1600 and 2
(loc/dme
19) vs the 1580 and 1 1/4 minima (loc 19 with dme)?

I suppose there is no good reason for the differences (the different
minima
and MAPs)


I'm not a TERPS expert, I'm pretty much just guessing. There is higher
terrain to the south, southwest, and west of KRUT. Climbing to 2600 via
the
RUT VOR/DME 221 radial allows you to avoid these rocks until you're above
them. Without the positive course guidance provided by RUT VOR/DME you're
left with climb gradient requirements that can't be met with the MAP at
I-RUT 1.9 DME so the MAP must be pushed back to 3.4 DME.