Published Approach to a closed runway

sarangan

sarangan

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
1,904
Display Name
Display name:
Andrew, CFI-I
Looking at VOR 36@ARR I was curious about several strange things. First, it is a straight-in approach to a closed runway, but that may not be a big deal because the closure appears to be temporary and there is also a circling minimum. Second, its final approach course is 330, and the runway heading is 001 magnetic, so technically the it is outside of the 30-deg alignment tolerance. The weirdest thing is, why is it called an approach to runway 36 when it is nearly perfectly aligned with runway 33? Why is it not designated as VOR 33?
 
The approach also have circling minima.

Runway 36 is only notamed close until the end of the year (but as I always say, no matter what the NOTAM says, it's not open until the guy picking up the X gets off the runway).

As for the unusual angle and designation, you'd have to ask some TERPS expert.

Note that if you are intending to fly this, there is a NOTAM out raising the circling minimal as well as requiring dual VOR.
 
Also, there is no reg saying you may not land on a closed runway. :)
 
flyingron said:
Note that if you are intending to fly this, there is a NOTAM out raising the circling minimal as well as requiring dual VOR.
Click to expand...
The NOTAM does not require dual VORs. It simply applies to the line of minima that already requires dual VORs (COAST fix minimums).
 
I seem to remember looking this one up some years ago, for the same "why not runway 33?" question.

If I recall correctly, the situation was something like this:
1. Runway 15/33 did not exist yet.
2. A VOR RWY 36 approach was designed and published.
3. Years later, Runway 15/33 was built, and a VOR RWY 33 approach was published.
4. 10-ish years ago you will recall there was a VOR approach procedure cancellation program, where hundreds of VOR approaches were canceled. The general idea was that if there were other types of approaches to that runway, a VOR approach was a good candidate for cancellation. In ARR's case, there is a LOC RWY 33 and an RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, so the VOR RWY 33 was probably seen as redundant.
5. However, for runway 36, the VOR approach was the only approach, so it was not a candidate for cancellation.
6. So the VOR RWY 33 was canceled, leaving just the VOR RWY 36, even though it lines up almost exactly for runway 33.

Regarding the R-330 versus runway alignment of 001 not being within 30 degrees:
VOR radials are not updated to the current mag var until they are significantly out of tolerance. You see some that are 7 deg off. This is because any change to the VOR would require updating a lot of charts (all SIDS, STARS, crossing radials, departure procedure, approaches, anything using that VOR), and an extensive flight inspection. Since a VOR being off from the actual magnetic variation has virtually no effect on flying (the radial still takes you to the same place regardless of what it's called), this is not a high priority.

However, the AIRPORT mag var IS generally updated more often. So you could have a difference of 3-7 degrees difference in the mag var used for the runway alignment vs that used for the VOR radial. Therefore, if you were to measure them both in true, not mag, I'd bet they're within 30 degrees (well, they should be!)

(Edit - using the two-finger measuring technique in Foreflight, I get an offset of about 28 degrees.)
 
Last edited:
sarangan said:
Looking at VOR 36@ARR I was curious about several strange things. First, it is a straight-in approach to a closed runway, but that may not be a big deal because the closure appears to be temporary and there is also a circling minimum. Second, its final approach course is 330, and the runway heading is 001 magnetic, so technically the it is outside of the 30-deg alignment tolerance. The weirdest thing is, why is it called an approach to runway 36 when it is nearly perfectly aligned with runway 33? Why is it not designated as VOR 33?
Click to expand...
Jepp says Rwy 36 heading is 001. The Gov chart say’s 003.3. And yeah 30 degrees convergence is the limit to have straight in minimums. Maybe they got a waiver for this. It’s not designated as VOR 33 because it’s built to be an approach to 36. It wouldn’t surprise me if there once was a VOR 33 approach. Now if you want a straight in to 33 there is a LOC and an RNAV.
 
RussR said:
I seem to remember looking this one up some years ago, for the same "why not runway 33?" question.

If I recall correctly, the situation was something like this:
1. Runway 15/33 did not exist yet.
2. A VOR RWY 36 approach was designed and published.
3. Years later, Runway 15/33 was built, and a VOR RWY 33 approach was published.
4. 10-ish years ago you will recall there was a VOR approach procedure cancellation program, where hundreds of VOR approaches were canceled. The general idea was that if there were other types of approaches to that runway, a VOR approach was a good candidate for cancellation. In ARR's case, there is a LOC RWY 33 and an RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, so the VOR RWY 33 was probably seen as redundant.
5. However, for runway 36, the VOR approach was the only approach, so it was not a candidate for cancellation.
6. So the VOR RWY 33 was canceled, leaving just the VOR RWY 36, even though it lines up almost exactly for runway 33.

Regarding the R-330 versus runway alignment of 001 not being within 30 degrees:
VOR radials are not updated to the current mag var until they are significantly out of tolerance. You see some that are 7 deg off. This is because any change to the VOR would require updating a lot of charts (all SIDS, STARS, crossing radials, departure procedure, approaches, anything using that VOR), and an extensive flight inspection. Since a VOR being off from the actual magnetic variation has virtually no effect on flying (the radial still takes you to the same place regardless of what it's called), this is not a high priority.

However, the AIRPORT mag var IS generally updated more often. So you could have a difference of 3-7 degrees difference in the mag var used for the runway alignment vs that used for the VOR radial. Therefore, if you were to measure them both in true, not mag, I'd bet they're within 30 degrees (well, they should be!)

(Edit - using the two-finger measuring technique in Foreflight, I get an offset of about 28 degrees.)
Click to expand...
I went to the IFP Gateway. There is a VOR 33 under development, expected publish date 11/27/2025. That seems strange. The VOR 36 is awaiting cancellation.
 
ARR is working to decommission Rwy 18/36. Until the process is complete, it is still, technically, a runway.
 
RussR said:
I seem to remember looking this one up some years ago, for the same "why not runway 33?" question.

If I recall correctly, the situation was something like this:
1. Runway 15/33 did not exist yet.
2. A VOR RWY 36 approach was designed and published.
3. Years later, Runway 15/33 was built, and a VOR RWY 33 approach was published.
4. 10-ish years ago you will recall there was a VOR approach procedure cancellation program, where hundreds of VOR approaches were canceled. The general idea was that if there were other types of approaches to that runway, a VOR approach was a good candidate for cancellation. In ARR's case, there is a LOC RWY 33 and an RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, so the VOR RWY 33 was probably seen as redundant.
5. However, for runway 36, the VOR approach was the only approach, so it was not a candidate for cancellation.
6. So the VOR RWY 33 was canceled, leaving just the VOR RWY 36, even though it lines up almost exactly for runway 33.
Click to expand...

Hah! I did a little search and sure enough, this did come up a couple of years back and this is how I answered it then:

www.pilotsofamerica.com

Standard Rate Turns without Turn Coordinator?

Why isn't this called VOR 33? The best I can tell, this is what happened (this is a mix of fact and educated guesses): 1. There was both a VOR RWY 33 and VOR RWY 36 (fact). The courses were the same (fact). Pure accident of geometry that the same final could be used for two runways for...
www.pilotsofamerica.com www.pilotsofamerica.com

The best I can tell, this is what happened (this is a mix of fact and educated guesses):
1. There was both a VOR RWY 33 and VOR RWY 36 (fact). The courses were the same (fact). Pure accident of geometry that the same final could be used for two runways for straight-in minima.
2. As part of the VOR Approach Cancellation program several years ago, both procedures were identified for cancellation (fact).
3. The VOR RWY 36 was removed from the cancellation list (fact), presumably due to local user comments, since it was the only straight-in approach to that runway (guess).
4. The VOR RWY 33, however, was kept on the cancellation list (fact), presumably because there was (and is) a LOC RWY 33 - so the VOR RWY 33 was not necessary (guess).
5. And now it just looks weird (fact).
Click to expand...

At least I'm consistent, and my memory is half decent.
 
RussR said:
Regarding the R-330 versus runway alignment of 001 not being within 30 degrees:
VOR radials are not updated to the current mag var until they are significantly out of tolerance. You see some that are 7 deg off. This is because any change to the VOR would require updating a lot of charts (all SIDS, STARS, crossing radials, departure procedure, approaches, anything using that VOR), and an extensive flight inspection. Since a VOR being off from the actual magnetic variation has virtually no effect on flying (the radial still takes you to the same place regardless of what it's called), this is not a high priority.

However, the AIRPORT mag var IS generally updated more often. So you could have a difference of 3-7 degrees difference in the mag var used for the runway alignment vs that used for the VOR radial. Therefore, if you were to measure them both in true, not mag, I'd bet they're within 30 degrees (well, they should be!)

(Edit - using the two-finger measuring technique in Foreflight, I get an offset of about 28 degrees.)
Click to expand...

And here's what I posted on this part of the issue:

www.pilotsofamerica.com

Standard Rate Turns without Turn Coordinator?

Why isn't this called VOR 33? The best I can tell, this is what happened (this is a mix of fact and educated guesses): 1. There was both a VOR RWY 33 and VOR RWY 36 (fact). The courses were the same (fact). Pure accident of geometry that the same final could be used for two runways for...
www.pilotsofamerica.com www.pilotsofamerica.com

When you get to the edges of the limits here, you need to convert to True before doing the calculations, to account for differences between the magnetic variation of the airport and the declination of the VOR - which, since the VOR declination is set and not changed until it really needs to be, can be very different.

In this case:
KARR is 3.3W (from the airport diagram)
JOT VOR is 2E (from airnav.com).

So the final approach course is (330 (published value) + 2) = 332 True, and the runway 36 heading is 003.3 (from the airport diagram) - 3.3 = 360.0 True.

Although the final approach course could be anything from 329.50 to 330.49 due to rounding.
Click to expand...
 
Clip4 said:
Not recommending ADM.
Click to expand...
ADM is me circling over the closed runway in my glider, unable to climb, trying to decide if I should land on the closed runway or in the field next to the airport.
 
brcase said:
ADM is me circling over the closed runway in my glider, unable to climb, trying to decide if I should land on the closed runway or in the field next to the airport.
Click to expand...
When I worked at a glider port, my boss had a Nimbus III with an 86-foot wingspan. He picked the field whether the runway was closed or not. :rofl:
 
Navion 5327K, Runway 36 is closed. Proceed at your own risk.
 
brcase said:
ADM is me circling over the closed runway in my glider, unable to climb, trying to decide if I should land on the closed runway or in the field next to the airport.
Click to expand...

ADM would be not planning the airport as an alternate with a closed runway, glider or airplane.
 
Clip4 said:
ADM would be not planning the airport as an alternate with a closed runway, glider or airplane.
Click to expand...
Oh, I had already made that decision that landing in a field would be OK.

The actual scenario was that I just climbed up high enough from the field I thought I was going to land in to make it to the airport that I knew had a closed runway. What I didn't know, and Flight Service was of no help with, is how closed was it? Was there a useable portion of runway or taxi way, I didn't know and didn't want head for that airport only to find out I would still land in a field. It was a bit of deviation to go to that airport vs heading home. If I was going to land in a field I might as well landing in one closer to home. Ended up not being and issue as I climbed high enough to make it to the next airport pretty much on a direct line for home. I arrived there at about pattern altitude and found another thermal/climb that got me the last 5 miles to home, completing one of my longest flights at the time of 214 miles total (107 out and return). Interesting side note was, I had sent one of students on the same flight for his solo cross country in a C-150 on the same day. I just did it the sailplane with no engine, I even saw him pass underneath me while enroute. He did do it faster than me I think I only averaged about 60mph or so.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
brcase said:
Oh, I had already made that decision that landing in a field would be OK.

The actual scenario was that I just climbed up high enough from the field I thought I was going to land in to make it to the airport that I knew had a closed runway. What I didn't know, and Flight Service was of no help with, is how closed was it? Was there a useable portion of runway or taxi way, I didn't know and didn't want head for that airport only to find out I would still land in a field. It was a bit of deviation to go to that airport vs heading home. If I was going to land in a field I might as well landing in one closer to home. Ended up not being and issue as I climbed high enough to make it to the next airport pretty much on a direct line for home. I arrived there at about pattern altitude and found another thermal/climb that got me the last 5 miles to home, completing one of my longest flights at the time of 214 miles total (107 out and return). Interesting side note was, I had sent one of students on the same flight for his solo cross country in a C-150 on the same day. I just did it the sailplane with no engine, I even saw him pass underneath me while enroute. He did do it faster than me I think I only averaged about 60mph or so.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Click to expand...

Like you expected flight service to call the airport on a regular basis and get an update?
 
For what it's worth, the runway 36 in question has been closed for years. It won't reopen, no matter what the notam says.
 
Runway 36 has a true heading shown as 360 in NASR data. The magnetic course for the runway is based on the 1990 variation of 1 W. The VOR radial 330 is based on the 1965 magnetic variation of 2 E. The current magnetic variation in 2020 is about 4 W. The <= 30 degree alignment criteria is met because it is based on the true final approach radial course and the runway true heading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top