Approach plate question.

fiveoboy01

fiveoboy01

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
2,321
Location
Madison, WI
Display Name
Display name:
Dirty B
http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1605/00245vdt32.pdf

Flying back "home" with foggles on today and my instructor throws this approach at me.

I had not seen it before, and it immediately stumped me. It's straightforward, but my confusion stemmed around getting to the IAF if perhaps the airport were closed... Not sure of the correct method here... Was coming in basically straight westbound in the vicinity of the 095-100ish radial.

Intercept the 130 radial inbound somewhere outside of 16 dme?

Go to the JVL 360 radial, turn right, and wait for the 130 MSN radial to almost center up then turn left?

I realize the simple answer is to load the approach into the 430W and use that guidance to SNPIT but I want to know the proper methodology if one was using two VORs and a DME.

I didn't actually have to do any of the aformentioned guesses... We were vectored onto the final approach course just outside QREEK but when I brought the plate up I stared at it slightly befuddled for a moment. Usually this type of approach has an IAF in the middle, with the airport on one side, and a course reversal of some type opposite that.
 
Last edited:
You answered it. The fix is defined as the point on the 130 radial from MSN at 16 DME. This is the definition as there is no intersection defined here.

On "legacy" equipment you'd establish on the 130 radial and wait for the DME box to show 16.
 
Hopefully you filed via JVL, which would give you a "feeder" to the IAF. Most of the time you're gonna either get vectored onto the 130R. Or, if you ask for it (GPS equipped) get cleared direct to the IAF. For lost comm, you'd proceed to JVL, then proceed outbound on the JVL 360R to intercept the approach course at the IAF.
 
Last edited:
I could be wrong, but the plate says ASR, so I would assume ATC would be vectoring you onto the 130 radial. I haven't seen an approach just like this. Interesting. Thank you for posting it.
 
somorris said:
You beat me to it, Wilkersk :).
Click to expand...
somorris said:
I could be wrong, but the plate says ASR, so I would assume ATC would be vectoring you onto the 130 radial. I haven't seen an approach just like this. Interesting. Thank you for posting it.
Click to expand...

Actually, I thought that at first. But, then I realized if that were true, it would say "RADAR REQUIRED" in the plan view. It turns out that "ASR" in the briefing notes means that there is published radar minimums for that airport. Meaning, if you have a problem and need ATC radar surveillance approach, it may be available there.
 
There is 24/7 radar approach control according to the A/FD. Chicago Center takes over when Madison Approach is closed. It's not just the VOR/DME IAF but the fact that JVL is not depicted as an IAF that makes it seem like this approach is designed to be used only when in radar contact, despite it not saying RADAR REQUIRED. It definitely seems weird when you take all that together.
 
Couple of ways (if not being vectored) ... Single VOR/DME intercept MSN R-130 (R-310 inbound) outside of MSN 16 DME or you can even 16 DME ARC it from the north or south to the inbound course or you can use the JVL R-360 to guide you towards MSN R-130/16 DME MSN.
 
wilkersk said:
Hopefully you filed via JVL, which would give you a "feeder" to the IAF. Most of the time you're gonna either get vectored onto the 130R. Or, if you ask for it (GPS equipped) get cleared direct to the IAF. For lost comm, you'd proceed to JVL, then proceed outbound on the JVL 360R to intercept the approach course at the IAF.
Click to expand...

JVL to the fix is not a feeder route. The radial is just to define the IAF from another VOR. You can not fly it (unless you're being vectored) as part of the approach.
 
There must be a way to navigate directly to the initial approach fix without radar vectors, RNAV equipment, etc. The only way I am seeing is to use two VORs to determine if you are east or west of the JVL 360 radial and if you are north or south of the MSN 130 radial, then steer accordingly.

The Procedure Turn NA annotation seems very odd when the procedure turn was invented precisely for this type of approach. I am guessing that ATC just does not clear people for this approach when they are unable to provide radar vectors to the approach course.
 
Are we all looking at the same approach? The MSN VOR/DME or TACAN RWY 32?

I ask because there is a very clearly designated feeder route, coming from the JVL VORTAC, minimum altitude 3000, course 360 degrees, segment length 24.3 nm. JVL does NOT make an intersection with the final approach course because the thin arrow does not extend through the intersection itself. As it is labeled with course, altitude, and distance, it's a feeder route.

So how does a /A airplane get from enroute to the approach without radar vectors? Simple, get to JVL via an airway of your choice, then fly the feeder route to the IAF and proceed inbound. Yes, it's long, and no, it's not convenient, but that's what you do. If you want a shorter routing, you need an IFR GPS or vectors.
 
RussR said:
I ask because there is a very clearly designated feeder route, coming from the JVL VORTAC, minimum altitude 3000, course 360 degrees, segment length 24.3 nm. JVL does NOT make an intersection with the final approach course because the thin arrow does not extend through the intersection itself. As it is labeled with course, altitude, and distance, it's a feeder route.
Click to expand...
Aha. I missed the altitude on the feeder route, as apparently did everyone else. Also learned something about radials crossing each other or not on the approach plate. Thanks.
 
stratobee said:
JVL to the fix is not a feeder route. The radial is just to define the IAF from another VOR. You can not fly it (unless you're being vectored) as part of the approach.
Click to expand...
I disagree. There's a radial and distance and altitude on the JVL to SNPIT. This is a published feeder. If it were just cross radial to define an intersection it would be marked in a thin line with only the radial, much as the R-090 to DRAHN line on that plate.
 
The CFI just through it at you. So I'm assuming you and him are VFR, not working with ATC. Realistically you're probably not going to get a clearance like that from ATC if your doing it for real. Ways to get to the IAF are well covered in previous posts. You could have said " ok, vector me to join the 130 radial." You coulda just turned direct to JVL, note the radial you're flying inbound to it on and the DME from MSN and make up a reasonable time to start you're turn inbound on the final approach course. Hell, scratch all that. You got DME. Get on an ARC, fly it clockwise, turn inbound. If getting to SNPIT is the exercise he wanted you to accomplish then get on at least the 16 mile ARC. 18 or so would be a little better.
 
stratobee said:
JVL to the fix is not a feeder route. The radial is just to define the IAF from another VOR. You can not fly it (unless you're being vectored) as part of the approach.
Click to expand...

It most definitely is a feeder fix, otherwise it wouldn't have 3,000 and (24.3) in the plan view.
 
iamtheari said:
There must be a way to navigate directly to the initial approach fix without radar vectors, RNAV equipment, etc. The only way I am seeing is to use two VORs to determine if you are east or west of the JVL 360 radial and if you are north or south of the MSN 130 radial, then steer accordingly.

The Procedure Turn NA annotation seems very odd when the procedure turn was invented precisely for this type of approach. I am guessing that ATC just does not clear people for this approach when they are unable to provide radar vectors to the approach course.
Click to expand...

I can't outguess IAP designers and air traffic facilities. They usually have valid reasons for their designs.
 
Bill, thanks for asking about this plate. I learned a lot from everybody's comments.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1605/00245vdt32.pdf

Flying back "home" with foggles on today and my instructor throws this approach at me.

I had not seen it before, and it immediately stumped me. It's straightforward, but my confusion stemmed around getting to the IAF if perhaps the airport were closed... Not sure of the correct method here... Was coming in basically straight westbound in the vicinity of the 095-100ish radial.

Intercept the 130 radial inbound somewhere outside of 16 dme?

Go to the JVL 360 radial, turn right, and wait for the 130 MSN radial to almost center up then turn left?

I realize the simple answer is to load the approach into the 430W and use that guidance to SNPIT but I want to know the proper methodology if one was using two VORs and a DME.

I didn't actually have to do any of the aformentioned guesses... We were vectored onto the final approach course just outside QREEK but when I brought the plate up I stared at it slightly befuddled for a moment. Usually this type of approach has an IAF in the middle, with the airport on one side, and a course reversal of some type opposite that.
Click to expand...

Airport open or closed, procedure entry is via JVL or radar vectors. You say when the airport is closed but I suspect you really mean when Madison approach is closed. When approach is closed Chicago center takes the airspace and has good radar coverage in this area.
 
stratobee said:
JVL to the fix is not a feeder route. The radial is just to define the IAF from another VOR. You can not fly it (unless you're being vectored) as part of the approach.
Click to expand...

JVL is a feeder route, if it was not the route would not have a minimum altitude and distance. No need for another means to define a DME fix on VOR/DME approach.
 
roncachamp said:
Airport open or closed, procedure entry is via JVL or radar vectors. You say when the airport is closed but I suspect you really mean when Madison approach is closed. When approach is closed Chicago center takes the airspace and has good radar coverage in this area.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I completely spaced that. Center indeed takes over and would likely just vector me. DOH.
 
roncachamp said:
Airport open or closed, procedure entry is via JVL or radar vectors. You say when the airport is closed but I suspect you really mean when Madison approach is closed. When approach is closed Chicago center takes the airspace and has good radar coverage in this area.
Click to expand...

Unusual airport in that it has ASR approaches. When the TRACON is closed can the center conduct ASR approaches? My guess would be only if the ASR is piped into the center.
 
The Radar Minimums section of the Terminal book says that ASR is NA when the tower is closed, so I'd take that to mean that no, center cannot conduct them.
 
aterpster said:
Unusual airport in that it has ASR approaches. When the TRACON is closed can the center conduct ASR approaches? My guess would be only if the ASR is piped into the center.
Click to expand...

I worked the North Area of Chicago ARTCC from 1983 through 1992, that includes Madison approach. Center had no feed on the Madison ASR so wouldn't be able to do surveillance approaches even if they'd been inclined to do so. That capability does exist today, Minneapolis ARTCC has had a feed on the SAW ASR since shortly after the USAF closed the base.
 
I got a kick out of reading this thread late, since I opened the plate and thought, "That's easy." Then I realized that I ONLY fly a /A airplane. Haha. Knowing that was a feeder route was nearly instinctive, considering I'm constantly watching for the FAA *REMOVING* them (like at my home airport) and slapping "RADAR REQUIRED" on everything in the GPS world these days.
 
denverpilot said:
I got a kick out of reading this thread late, since I opened the plate and thought, "That's easy." Then I realized that I ONLY fly a /A airplane. Haha. Knowing that was a feeder route was nearly instinctive, considering I'm constantly watching for the FAA *REMOVING* them (like at my home airport) and slapping "RADAR REQUIRED" on everything in the GPS world these days.
Click to expand...

Do you have many examples of that? Radar required is supposed to be used to a minimum.
 
"Airport" closed......very rarely, except when about to be bulldozed.

"Runway" closed.......yes, that happens all the time for maintenance, snow removal etc. etc.

roncachamp said:
Airport open or closed, procedure entry is via JVL or radar vectors. You say when the airport is closed but I suspect you really mean when Madison approach is closed. When approach is closed Chicago center takes the airspace and has good radar coverage in this area.
Click to expand...
 
denverpilot said:
I got a kick out of reading this thread late, since I opened the plate and thought, "That's easy." Then I realized that I ONLY fly a /A airplane. Haha. Knowing that was a feeder route was nearly instinctive, considering I'm constantly watching for the FAA *REMOVING* them (like at my home airport) and slapping "RADAR REQUIRED" on everything in the GPS world these days.
Click to expand...

I don't understand. Are you saying the FAA is removing feeder routes from IAPs based on traditional NAVAIDs? Are you saying the FAA is slapping "RADAR REQUIRED" on GPS approaches?
 
aterpster said:
Do you have many examples of that? Radar required is supposed to be used to a minimum.
Click to expand...

Nate is based at APA. The Denver area has problems since the VORs are nearly all proximate to DEN so they really don't want people going to them for standard routing. The folks building the approaches figured that out and things have changed a little bit. At FTG they have started including stuff we've been doing as a practical matter for years.
 
roncachamp said:
I don't understand. Are you saying the FAA is removing feeder routes from IAPs based on traditional NAVAIDs? Are you saying the FAA is slapping "RADAR REQUIRED" on GPS approaches?
Click to expand...

Not GPS approaches, ILS.

Clark1961 said:
Nate is based at APA. The Denver area has problems since the VORs are nearly all proximate to DEN so they really don't want people going to them for standard routing. The folks building the approaches figured that out and things have changed a little bit. At FTG they have started including stuff we've been doing as a practical matter for years.
Click to expand...

Clark has it. The only approach into KAPA that a non /G aircraft could fly without vectors had a feeder off of FQF and they decided to remove it. FQF is still there, and last I checked, it isn't on the "hit list" to remove it, but the feeder to navigate from enroute system to CASSE on the only approach a non-/G aircraft could file, was removed.

What's interesting is that nobody was using the feeders for standard routing anyway -- they were there in case you went NORDO. So, you go NORDO without (ironically) an ADF on board, you're not going to land at KAPA.

Something to watch out for if you're not /G these days, the magical disappearing published feeder route, if where the route would put you, is inconvenient for the bigger airport up the road.

Who uses VOR Nav anyway? ;)
 
You're talking about airports that underly a Class B. Even if there were published transitions that didn't require RADAR damned unlikely ATC would let you fly them as those transitions almost always conflict with the "big airport" traffic.
 
flyingron said:
You're talking about airports that underly a Class B. Even if there were published transitions that didn't require RADAR damned unlikely ATC would let you fly them as those transitions almost always conflict with the "big airport" traffic.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the transitions were there for nearly 20 years without a real problem.

Guess what? I just looked and the transition route is back.

Hahaha. Maybe my emails asking where they wanted a NORDO to go, had an effect.

Because basically if I had filed to APA when it was missing, I would have simply filed FTG as the alternate, since it still had the transitions off of FQF, and I'd have closed down a LOT more DEN airspace for longer, than simply toodling on south past FQF and getting out of everyone's way.

Having me flip a U-turn at FQF and head back to FTG would have been a total mess for them.

Other options weren't much better for them either... Head up to BJC? Or south to COS?

It was put back last summer looks like. Shows how long it's been since I flew the approach... LOL.

119636029fa7bf7b91bbd499a5c7a667.jpg


Nice to know I can once again navigate to my home airport. :)
 
Whoops, that was the FTG plate showing the transition route to there.

Here's APA.

a68ba88ab9461c1e5e4c5397e2b4d816.jpg
 
Oh hell, I got all excited there. Quickly looked and saw a line, and did the screen shot without looking closely.

That's not replacing the transition, that's just a radial for the hold. Haha.

The traffic mitigation change is still stuck on stupid. I'll still be headed to FTG if I ever go NORDO over FQF... Haha.

I'm sure the system won't bounce me filing it either.

Dumb dumb dumb. Stick a distance back on that line and I'm out of everyone's way a whole lot quicker, and a lot further from the airliners than heading to FQF and reversing course to FTG and seeing if Clark will come give me a ride back to my car at APA. Haha.
 
denverpilot said:
Sure, but the transitions were there for nearly 20 years without a real problem.

Guess what? I just looked and the transition route is back.

Hahaha. Maybe my emails asking where they wanted a NORDO to go, had an effect.

Because basically if I had filed to APA when it was missing, I would have simply filed FTG as the alternate, since it still had the transitions off of FQF, and I'd have closed down a LOT more DEN airspace for longer, than simply toodling on south past FQF and getting out of everyone's way.

Having me flip a U-turn at FQF and head back to FTG would have been a total mess for them.

Other options weren't much better for them either... Head up to BJC? Or south to COS?

It was put back last summer looks like. Shows how long it's been since I flew the approach... LOL.

119636029fa7bf7b91bbd499a5c7a667.jpg


Nice to know I can once again navigate to my home airport. :)
Click to expand...

That one is simple just dial 321 into your trusty ADF ;-)
 
fiveoboy01 said:
The Radar Minimums section of the Terminal book says that ASR is NA when the tower is closed, so I'd take that to mean that no, center cannot conduct them.
Click to expand...
Makes sense, but my question was more along the line of could they rather than would they.
 
denverpilot said:
So "trusty" it failed and was removed. :)
Click to expand...
It appears we're mixing airports and IAPs. 321 is the frequency for SKIPI, the LOM on the ILS RWY 26 at FTG. That IAP still shows a feeder route from FQF VOR.

The feeder route on the ILS RWY 35R at APA has been removed, but the CASSE LOM, frequency 260, still appears on charts and in the chart supplement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top