HVN VOR-A -- why such a high MDA?

Steven P. McNicoll opined

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

Apples and oranges. You're comparing the straight-in MDA of the VOR RWY
2
to the MDA of the VOR-A. The VOR-A has only a circling MDA, which is 720
feet, the same as the circling MDA of the VOR RWY 2.


Yeah, but the point of my question was, "Why didn't they publish
straight-in minimums for the VOR-A and call it the VOR-32?"


I don't know, I'm no TERPS expert, but I'd wager it's because the MAP is
beyond the runway 32 threshold.

But HVN VOR-2 has a) a greater difference between the approach course and the
runway b) the same past the threshold MAP nd c) a very simular missed
prodedure.



-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

they can make the FAC intersect the extended centerline anywhere
they want.

In theory, yes.

However, I have called Flight Procedures to ask about approaches
similar to this, and the reason was the one I gave.

There are sometimes obstacles that can be avoided by aiming the FAC
towards the center of the airport, rather than the runway itself, and
the placement of the intersection becomes limited.

Unsatisfying, I know, because of its vagueness.

VOR-20 at BAF has straight-in minimums, and I believe the MAP is well
beyond the threshold.

I don't see why the MAP location would have anything to do with
straight in vs circling.






On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 01:14:09 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"

I don't know, I'm no TERPS expert, but I'd wager it's because the MAP is
beyond the runway 32 threshold.