Why an NDB approach with a miss to an intersection?

Some aircraft only have an NDB and VOR and do not have DME. In that
case, the NDB procedure makes sense, because that's the only straight in
procedure available to a pilot with NDB and VOR but without DME. The VOR
that doesn't require DME is a Circling procedure with 1400 MDA and the
other 2 VOR straight-in procedures both require DME.
As far as alternate missed approach instructions, the TERPS folks build
procedures with the expectation that everyone has an operable VOR on
board and the missed is supposed to let you get back to the enroute
environment, so the missed approach to an airway fix would be appropriate.

JPH

wrote:

Ben Jackson wrote:


What's the point of the CVO NDB 17? It's an off-airport NDB approach
to a runway that also has ILS, VOR and GPS approaches, all with lower
minimums. Like all but one other approach (a GPS approach from the
south) it has a missed approach that takes you to an intersection hold
about 9 miles to the east.

So if all you have is an NDB, you still can't shoot this approach without
alternate missed instructions. Why wouldn't they just put the missed
approach hold at the NDB?


Your points are well taken. Sometimes, when the FAA designs backup for
backup approaches they don't think it all through. If the CVO VOR is OTS you
are, indeed, SOL. Alternate missed approaches (if published for ATC) or
radar vector missed approaches, are not supposed to be used before you're
with approach control.

But, then again, only 'da Shadow really know.