Where is the IAF for LOC BC RWY 03R at LUK?

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

I never was very good in grammar, but what is the parsing order in the
above. Is it "DME or (RADAR and ADF)" or "(DME or RADAR)
and ADF?" I'm assuming English has an order of evaluation as does
mathematics, I'm just not familiar with what it is.


I don't know anything about orders of evaluation for English. RADAR or DME
is required, you must also have ADF. That's clear from a brief examination
of the procedure.



I would have read this as requiring
either DME or requiring RADAR and ADF, but that isn't how you
interpreted it and I frankly don't know which is correct from a language
perspective.


I conclude the same as you. Remember, these notes are not regulatory,
they're just reminders.

"J Haggerty" wrote in message
news:Qm%yc.16248$1L4.10836@okepread02...

So, if you don't have DME, how do you identify the LOC FAF? It isn't
identified as a RADAR fix or an Intersection, just a DME fix.
Seems like the title should be LOC/DME BC RWY 3R, since, as published,
DME is required to fly the final approach.


You identify it by radar. Approach can call the FAF as long as it's
depicted on the scope, it doesn't have to be designated on the plate.

J Haggerty wrote:

So, if you don't have DME, how do you identify the LOC FAF? It isn't
identified as a RADAR fix or an Intersection, just a DME fix.
Seems like the title should be LOC/DME BC RWY 3R, since, as published,
DME is required to fly the final approach.


They could have done a better job by including "RADAR" at the FAF, as well. But,
the procedure wouldn't say "RADAR or DME," nor woult the intermediate fix have
"RADAR" unless ATC is set up to call the FAF as well.

As an aside, you won't see new LOC procedures with DME in the title any longer,
even when it is mandatory. Instead, a note will say "DME required," with no
conditions. This is a database limitation issue; thus the naming convention was
changed to fix avionics issues, not make it any easier for you to understand.

No IAF is designated.

No matter where you are coming from, Cincy approach will vector you to
the SHILA FAC fix.

You will always get RADAR vectors, as you will be in Cincy's Class B
airspace to perform this approach.

Sandy Mustard

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

I can't seem to find the IAF for the LOC BC RWY 03R at LUK. Any ideas why?

"Sandy Mustard" wrote in message
...

No IAF is designated.

No matter where you are coming from, Cincy approach will vector you to
the SHILA FAC fix.

You will always get RADAR vectors, as you will be in Cincy's Class B
airspace to perform this approach.


Cincy approach isn't going to vector you if they are without radar, but this
approach can be flown without it. Falmouth VOR/DME should have been
designated as an IAF. Note that the FLM 338R has the heavy line of a
procedure track, not the lighter line of a feeder route. Chart error. You
can fly this approach via FLM if you've got DME and ADF, or appropriate GPS.

I believe Steve is right.

In addition, they would not put NoPT on a feeder route, only on the approach
route. NoPT on a feeder route does not make sense.

Kevin

True, but Cincy approach may not let you into their class B airpspace
without their radar working.

Shila could have been the IAF, no reason FLM needs to be it.

The Jepp charts for all LUK approaches show no difference in the line
thicknesses so I guess everyone charted it wrong.

Sandy

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Sandy Mustard" wrote in message
...

No IAF is designated.

No matter where you are coming from, Cincy approach will vector you to
the SHILA FAC fix.

You will always get RADAR vectors, as you will be in Cincy's Class B
airspace to perform this approach.



Cincy approach isn't going to vector you if they are without radar, but this
approach can be flown without it. Falmouth VOR/DME should have been
designated as an IAF. Note that the FLM 338R has the heavy line of a
procedure track, not the lighter line of a feeder route. Chart error. You
can fly this approach via FLM if you've got DME and ADF, or appropriate GPS.

Sandy Mustard wrote:

True, but Cincy approach may not let you into their class B airpspace
without their radar working.

Shila could have been the IAF, no reason FLM needs to be it.

Nope. Shila is the intermediate fix. An intermediate fix cannot also be an IAF
unless it is a course reversal fix.

"Sandy Mustard" wrote in message
...

True, but Cincy approach may not let you into their class B airpspace
without their radar working.

No radar, no class B, they would revert to a class D facility.

No radar, no class B, they would revert to a class D facility.

Interesting! Where is the provision for this in the regs? I know
that some class C's revert to class E at night, but there's some
escape clause in the FAAO that creates the airspace, saying something
to the effect that NOTAM's can change the airspace.