Approach Plate Question

[WiPilot]

So I'm training for my IR - hoping someone here can help clear my mental block on what I hope is an easy question.

I've attached 2 approach plates -- one for Rwy 16 and one for Rwy 34. They are the same physical piece of asphalt (pointing in different directions of course).

Can someone tell me why there is no published holding racetrack on the Rwy 34 approach plate at VECSU like there is for Rwy 16 at DUFOE?

 

[jaybee]

My guess is it doesn't have the required minimum obstacle clearance and/or distance from neighboring airspace (KISW)

EDIT - I say guess because the real answer lies in the TERPS and you don't need to worry yourself with that at your stage of the game.

 

[AggieMike88]

Can someone tell me why there is no published holding racetrack on the Rwy 34 approach plate at VECSU like there is for Rwy 16 at DUFOE?

Maybe because the depiction is located at the top of the plate on RWY 34 versus the bottom right for RWY 16?

 

[WiPilot]

So I've been learning to fly approaches by entering the hold, doing a circuit, and then lining up inbound and going in. How am I supposed to fly this approach? Fwiw, the racetrack does not appear on the GNS430 either, which makes things really difficult.

 

[sarangan]

You can also ask why does Rwy 16 have a holding racetrack? My guess is that the IAF for 34 is inside a MOA, but the IAF for 16 is not.

 

[AggieMike88]

So I've been learning to fly approaches by entering the hold, doing a circuit, and then lining up inbound and going in. How am I supposed to fly this approach? Fwiw, the racetrack does not appear on the GNS430 either, which makes things really difficult.

Sounds like your CFI is really setting you up for mucho confusion by teaching it this way.

My way? After turning back inbound to the holding fix, I'd ask ATC for vectors back to IAF.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I was going to say "maybe they don't want you holding in the MOA" but that can't be it since the IF for one side is the MAF for the other side, so there is a hold at VECSU on the Rwy 16 plate.

I'm going to have to call in @aterpster again on this one.

 

[Clark1961]

Why? because it says Procedure turn is NA. Why does it say that? dunno

 

[AggieMike88]

Why? because it says Procedure turn is NA. Why does it say that? dunno

D'oh!.... I think I misunderstood the OP's question. I was going at it from the Missed Approach view, versus a turn in the hold to get lined up for the inbound course.

 

[WiPilot]

Thanks for the input thus far guys. To further clarify what I'm looking for here, the question is:

How should I be flying this approach? 34 is the nice big primary runway here, so when I do my checkride, I can almost guarantee the examiner is going to want to do an approach on that one.

The last time we were practicing it we did the hold and then approach inbound on 16, then did a missed approach out to VECSU in order to setup for a practice on the 34 approach. Upon reaching VECSU, CFII had me make right turn to something like 284 deg (dont quote me on exact headings here) for a minute, then left turn back to something like 90 deg for another minute.

That all seemed very confusing to me because I was just flying around "out in the middle of nowhere" with no racetrack or anything on the 430 or my tablet to cross reference my position.

The older versions of this approach plate a few months back pictured a racetrack for VECSU, but it was pictured way off in a corner of the plate, not actually as part of the procedure. As of the new versions, they've now just taken it off of there completely. The 430 database matches the new version which is what I attached.

 

[AggieMike88]

How should I be flying this approach? 34 is the nice big primary runway here, so when I do my checkride, I can almost guarantee the examiner is going to want to do an approach on that one.

For runway 34, you are likely to get vectored until you are flying toward the IAF at an angle where you can safely make a stable turn to the inbound course.


Also, this should be a good conversation to have with your CFI-I versus SG'sOTI

 

[WiPilot]

Also, this should be a good conversation to have with your CFI-I versus SG'sOTI

Couldn't agree more. Been there. Done that. Didn't help...needed a second opinion. That's why I'm here

 

[AggieMike88]

Couldn't agree more. Been there. Done that. Didn't help...needed a second opinion. That's why I'm here

Makes me question if you have the right CFI-I for this point in your training.

But anyhow, as Clark said, you won't be doing any course reversals when doing the RNAV34 approach. You will be vectored to the initial approach fix.

How do you know that? Look in the profile view

 

[WiPilot]

Ah! Thank you!

To paraphrase and ensure I grasped that correctly -- ATC will always handle getting me to the IAF on that approach?

 

[EdFred]

Ah! Thank you!

To paraphrase and ensure I grasped that correctly -- ATC will always handle getting me to the IAF on that approach?

If by handling you mean "cleared for RNAV 34," or "...direct VECSU, cleared RNAV 34," yes. If by handling you mean are they are going to hold your hand by issuing vectors all the way to VECSU, probably not.

 

[WiPilot]

If by handling you mean "cleared for RNAV 34," or "...direct VECSU, cleared RNAV 34," yes. If by handling you mean are they are going to hold your hand by issuing vectors all the way to VECSU, probably not.

Is that the examiner textbook way, or the real world way? Trying to learn the textbook way first before I can be corrupted by how things are actually done.

So if I'm approaching like this they're just gonna say "direct VECSU, cleared RNAV 34"? What's a guy to do in that situation? Just left turn and fly to VECSU? I suppose that'd be technically acceptable if I were at the MSA of 3600 feet, but that would lead to a pretty aggressive descent once I get to the IAF wouldn't it?

Perhaps I'm over complicating this -- and if I am, don't hesitate to say so. Just trying to do some homework here on a very specific plate that has given me trouble from day 1.

 

[Coup de chat]

As to "why there is no published holding racetrack on the Rwy 34 approach plate at VECSU", consider what a procedure turn on this approach would look like.

VECSU is 8 miles from the northern edge of R-6904A. R-6904 is a live fire range (WI ANG's Hardwood Range), and a typical RNAV hold-in-lieu with four mile legs would bring you to within a couple miles of restricted airspace. I'm not a TERPS expert, nor do I know what the IFR separation requirements are between light aircraft and 0.50 caliber munitions, but to me this looks like a case of too-close-for-comfort.

If you need a course reversal, look at the SDF approach to the same runway. On that approach, a HILPT is permitted at CALIN / DU, which is several miles north of VECSU.

You can see similar effects on the RNAV Rwy 2 approach at KISW: the legs between HURST-JENUN-GIRLE bend the approach course over the east shore of Petenwell Lake to give a 3 mile buffer to the SE corner of 6904A.

 

[EdFred]

In that case you should get vectors from ZMP.

BTW, I fly into Marshfield a bit if you ever see a Comanche sitting on the ramp.

 

[AggieMike88]

Is that the examiner textbook way, or the real world way?

Likely the "real world way".

He will want you to know the textbook knowledge, but be able to apply it in a real world manner. And he is going to ask the questions in a scenario manner. Per the updated ACS, he won't be asking rote memorization questions.

 

[AggieMike88]

@WiPilot ... if you get a chance to fly with EdFred... do it!

It is an experience to be had and you'll learn some good stuff.

And afterwards, take him out for food/beverages and ask him to tell you stories about Nomex, Mike's Hard Lemonade, and how to drift a Piper Comanche on grass.

 

[Palmpilot]

...The last time we were practicing it we did the hold and then approach inbound on 16, then did a missed approach out to VECSU in order to setup for a practice on the 34 approach. Upon reaching VECSU, CFII had me make right turn to something like 284 deg (dont quote me on exact headings here) for a minute, then left turn back to something like 90 deg for another minute.

That all seemed very confusing to me because I was just flying around "out in the middle of nowhere" with no racetrack or anything on the 430 or my tablet to cross reference my position....

When the weather is VFR, it's not uncommon for an instructor to simulate ATC by giving you vectors to get you in an appropriate position to enter the approach. What were your last instructions from ATC at that point?

 

[Grum.Man]

For starters I think you mean why is there no procedure turn for 34 since both charts have a holding pattern for the missed approach. As for why there is no procedure turn, I suspect it isn't needed since the highest obstacle to the south is 1,900 so 2,900 gives you 1000 feet of obstacle clearance. To the north there is 3200 obstacle so a procedure turn keeps you away from it. If you don't get vectors to intercept the inbound course you would just fly to the IAF then make a turn to intercept the 339 inbound leg.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

@WiPilot, here's an article that should clear things up, complete with references to the AIM:

https://blog.aopa.org/aopa/2014/01/...approach-vectors-iaf-and-intermediate-fix-if/

Since VECSU is not part of the low enroute structure, and there are no transition routes, and the IF and IAF are at the same place, I think the "Direct to Intermediate Fix" method is the only way to fly this approach. As such, ATC would not be allowed to make you do more than a 90-degree turn at VECSU. So, if you're coming from the northwest, they'll have to get you to someplace southeast of VECSU, and then clear you direct to VECSU for the approach at an altitude that will allow you to make a normal descent.

Hope that helps.

 

[dmspilot]

The last time we were practicing it we did the hold and then approach inbound on 16, then did a missed approach out to VECSU in order to setup for a practice on the 34 approach. Upon reaching VECSU, CFII had me make right turn to something like 284 deg (dont quote me on exact headings here) for a minute, then left turn back to something like 90 deg for another minute.

Sounds like you were doing the Runway 16 missed approach hold at VECSU, which is a non-standard (left-turn) hold. It says 074°/254° inbound/outbound.

The older versions of this approach plate a few months back pictured a racetrack for VECSU

The chart you posted is current until June 21 and unless I am hallucinating, it depicts the missed approach hold at VESCU.

So if I'm approaching like this they're just gonna say "direct VECSU, cleared RNAV 34"?

You are not expected to try to read the minds of the people who designed the approach. You just do what it says to do and/or what ATC tells you to do. There is no procedure turn (or HILPT) at VESCU, so you don't do one. You fly to it and turn inbound.

 

[jaybee]

It seems to be pretty common thing that lots of people seem to get wrong.

Entering a hold and using a racetrack procedure turn are two separate things /rant off

 

[WiPilot]

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone for the input and help on this. I am now MUCH clearer on this topic!

 

[aterpster]

The Runway 34 procedure does not comply with criteria or policy. It either has to be tied to the en route structure or require ATC radar for procedure entry.

From FAA Order 8260.3D, TERPs:

2-3-1. Feeder Routes.

Establish non-radar feeder routes where the IAF is not part of the en route structure and where preferred over other options [for example, radar vectors, terminal arrival area (TAA)]. Limit the number of feeder routes where radar vectoring is provided on a 24-hour basis, but where practical provide at least one route per location to account for radar/communications failure. Feeder routes originate at a navigation facility or named fix on an airway and terminate at another feeder fix or at an IAF. The feeder route must not extend beyond the operational service volume of the facility which provides navigational guidance.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The Runway 34 procedure does not comply with criteria or policy. It either has to be tied to the en route structure or require ATC radar for procedure entry.

I thought so. This one reminded me of the old VOR/DME 32 into KMSN.

It seems like there are a lot of RNAV approaches that are this way, though. Is this requirement relatively new for RNAV approaches?

Older non-RNAV approaches would have made no sense without a way to get to them from the en route structure without radar.