approaches to private fields?

S

shenanigans

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 13, 2010
Messages
178
Location
central iowa
Display Name
Display name:
Shen
Is there any way to have a private airport with an instrument approach? If so, how would that get set up?
 
shenanigans said:
Is there any way to have a private airport with an instrument approach? If so, how would that get set up?
Click to expand...

You can have private unpublished instrument approaches to airports that dont even exist :wink2:

http://skyvector.com/?ll=31.997,-90.842166667&chart=33&zoom=3


You notice that rectangular area of 700ft class E near Port Gibson, MS ? If you look closer, it is the location of the Grand Gulf nuclear power station. They have an unpublished heliport on the property and a 'point in space' type instrument approach procedure which gets airspace protection with its own class E cubicle.
 
Many public mountain airports also have "un-published" approaches, usually for the airlines.

Rocky Mountain Airways had MLS approaches where they owned, monitored, and maintained the ground-based equipment, long ago.

Ticked off the guys at Aspen Airways to no end when Rocky could get in and they couldn't. ;)
 
OKH is a privately owned airport and it has a GPS approach.. it's just a matter of money..
 
I've flown the Spruce Creek approach in actual. Not on the NACO charts but in the 430.
 
denverpilot said:
Many public mountain airports also have "un-published" approaches, usually for the airlines.

Rocky Mountain Airways had MLS approaches where they owned, monitored, and maintained the ground-based equipment, long ago.

Ticked off the guys at Aspen Airways to no end when Rocky could get in and they couldn't. ;)
Click to expand...

An FBO manager told me a baron crashed once trying different frequencies until something worked... didn't realize its something like a 5 degree GS designed for a Dash 7 .... couldn't pull up out of it once he had the runway. I fly for a cargo operation with many STIP's (Special Terminal Instrument Procedures) in the mountains.... some can e be interesting for sure
 
John Collins said:
If you have the money to pay for it, here is how you do it.

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/ifpinitiation/
Click to expand...

They are quite expensive. Several years ago they averaged $60,000. I am sure they are quite a bit more now. The FAA is too busy to design them, so an approved third party developer ($$$) would have to be hired. Then, the FAA would want $$$$ to approve the procedure by review and quality control, then flight inspection. Finally, Jeppesen would charge no small amount to design and issue the chart to only approved operators.
 
ScottM said:
10C is a private owned public access field with 2 published approaches. Not sure how it was done though.
Click to expand...

Those are public IAPs. A private strip that is open to the public can have those. It's all a matter of someone convincing the regional FAA that there is a public need.
 
You have Standard and Special IAP's. (instrument approach procedures).

Standard IAP's can be used by any user and you will find them batched in the NACA's and Jepps for public consumption.

More than a few private fields have special IAP's to them. Only select airmen are permitted to fly them. Sometimes all it takes to be a select airman is to be a member of the airport assn.
 
Yes many private airports have instrument approaches. I fly in and out of Horseshoe Bay Resort, TX frequently KDZB. They have a 6000' private strip with WAAS GPS approaches. Since it is a private airport the procedures are not published to the public. You have to get the plates directly through the Horseshoe Bay Jet Center. I recommend Horseshoe Bay for pilots that want a fine resort to fly to for a vacation.

M. Kavich
Corporate Pilot / A&P
Citation 550
 
Most of the people I know with private own, private use strips who have instrument approaches made them themselves. Legal? No. But it gets them in.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Most of the people I know with private own, private use strips who have instrument approaches made them themselves. Legal? No. But it gets them in.
Click to expand...

And because they are homegrown, they don't load in the GPS like an approach, and the gps sensitivity doesn't scale as the runway environment approaches. Not flight tested nor guaranteed to work.

Def not legal. Safe? Debatable.
 
Doggtyred said:
And because they are homegrown, they don't load in the GPS like an approach, and the gps sensitivity doesn't scale as the runway environment approaches. Not flight tested nor guaranteed to work.

Def not legal. Safe? Debatable.
Click to expand...

I never said it was a good idea, just that people do it.

Home grown approaches are pretty common (especially in the middle of nowhere), and the people do flight test them on their own (that's how they come up with them). They most likely don't meet all the requirements of a legal approach.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I never said it was a good idea, just that people do it.

Home grown approaches are pretty common (especially in the middle of nowhere), and the people do flight test them on their own (that's how they come up with them). They most likely don't meet all the requirements of a legal approach.
Click to expand...

How do you get cleared for an approach that theoretically doesn't exist? :dunno:

I guess what they're probably doing is canceling IFR to fly the approach. :nono:
 
Thanks everyone for the information. It seems that private approaches are much more common than I would have expected. I'm not really surprised that it's expensive to set one up.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
How do you get cleared for an approach that theoretically doesn't exist? :dunno:

I guess what they're probably doing is canceling IFR to fly the approach. :nono:
Click to expand...
Yes, obviously I'd say. BTW, another use for a homegrown "approach" is night landings over invisible obstacles. One airport owner (who shall remain nameless) taught me his private night approach technique over power lines to a runway where the PAPI was OTS for several years. The "FAF" was a church and the "FAC" was a timed leg flown level at 600 AGL, timings to be determined by trial and error beforehand during the day. To be flown only under VFR in good VMC, of course. As far as I can tell it's 100% legal -- but safe? I never felt confident enough to try it for real.
 
azure said:
Yes, obviously I'd say. BTW, another use for a homegrown "approach" is night landings over invisible obstacles. One airport owner (who shall remain nameless) taught me his private night approach technique over power lines to a runway where the PAPI was OTS for several years. The "FAF" was a church and the "FAC" was a timed leg flown level at 600 AGL, timings to be determined by trial and error beforehand during the day. To be flown only under VFR in good VMC, of course. As far as I can tell it's 100% legal -- but safe? I never felt confident enough to try it for real.
Click to expand...

That's legal. Safe? May or may not be. If constructed carefully it probably would be safe as well.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I never said it was a good idea, just that people do it.

Home grown approaches are pretty common (especially in the middle of nowhere), and the people do flight test them on their own (that's how they come up with them). They most likely don't meet all the requirements of a legal approach.
Click to expand...

Unless the guy is a trained TERPs designer and has a way to modify the database too include the approach (he would have to be a Garmin engineer as well, at least for RNAV) the approach most certainly does not meet any of the requirements of a legal approach.

Then there is:

1. VFR weather violations
2. Minimum safe altitude violations
3. Airspace violations
4. 91.175 violations

If the feds catch such an arrogant idiot he should be shot at sunrise.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I guess what they're probably doing is canceling IFR to fly the approach. :nono:
Click to expand...

You got it. Unless you're in uncontrolled airspace, in which case you're on your own anyway.

azure said:
Yes, obviously I'd say. BTW, another use for a homegrown "approach" is night landings over invisible obstacles. One airport owner (who shall remain nameless) taught me his private night approach technique over power lines to a runway where the PAPI was OTS for several years. The "FAF" was a church and the "FAC" was a timed leg flown level at 600 AGL, timings to be determined by trial and error beforehand during the day. To be flown only under VFR in good VMC, of course. As far as I can tell it's 100% legal -- but safe? I never felt confident enough to try it for real.
Click to expand...

That's a homegrown visual approach, though, and really what that is is a way to avoid obstacles at an airport when coming in at night. There's one airport I fly into that has power lines that you need to clear at roughly 700' MSL on pretty short final. That is 100% legal unless the airport prohibits night ops. I've been cleared to land "at my own risk" with the runway lights entirely out.

aterpster said:
If the feds catch such an arrogant idiot he should be shot at sunrise.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the arrogant idiots who make the approaches we use every day, and then check them once every couple of years?

I'm not saying it's smart or a good idea, but you're a little over the top there. Besides, if he or she is really such an arrogant idiot, the impact with cumulogranite will happen sooner or later.
 
aterpster said:
Unless the guy is a trained TERPs designer and has a way to modify the database too include the approach (he would have to be a Garmin engineer as well, at least for RNAV) the approach most certainly does not meet any of the requirements of a legal approach.

Then there is:

1. VFR weather violations
2. Minimum safe altitude violations
3. Airspace violations
4. 91.175 violations

If the feds catch such an arrogant idiot he should be shot at sunrise.
Click to expand...

Whatever dude. Because it's so hard to design a T with 5 mile segments when there's nothing to hit within 5 miles at a place like 6Y9.
 
EdFred said:
Whatever dude. Because it's so hard to design a T with 5 mile segments when there's nothing to hit within 5 miles at a place like 6Y9.
Click to expand...

Why make them five miles long at a place like 6Y9?
 
roncachamp said:
Why make them five miles long at a place like 6Y9?
Click to expand...

To lose altitude without being out of RADAR contact for any longer than necessary? I don't recall what ZMPs coverage is down to up there. I figure a GPS approach in there down to 1800' MSL puts you well under the scopes.
 
EdFred said:
Whatever dude. Because it's so hard to design a T with 5 mile segments when there's nothing to hit within 5 miles at a place like 6Y9.
Click to expand...

If you think that list is "whatever" I hope I never share the airspace with you.
 
aterpster said:
If you think that list is "whatever" I hope I never share the airspace with you.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Relatively flat terrain, no obstructions, and you think you need a PhD in Governmentese to design an approved approach? 20 minutes and I can have it on paper.

PS - I flew in there from SAW with ceilings less than 1000' for about 30 miles. Welcome to the class G world.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Seriously? Relatively flat terrain, no obstructions, and you think you need a PhD in Governmentese to design an approved approach? 20 minutes and I can have it on paper.

PS - I flew in there from SAW with ceilings less than 1000' for about 30 miles. Welcome to the class G world.
Click to expand...

I know all about Class G airspace. It gives you relaxed VFR weather minimums below 10,000 in the daytime. It also permits you to fly IMC without a clearance but 91.177 still applies. 91.177 working in concert with 91.175 prohibits a roll-your-own IAP.

The simplicity of a roll-your-own IAP is beside the point(s).
 
EdFred said:
PS - I flew in there from SAW with ceilings less than 1000' for about 30 miles. Welcome to the class G world.
Click to expand...

"Weather overcast 200'" "We'll take the visual."

As I heard from one pilot:

"If the weather's good, go VFR. If it's bad, go IFR. If it's really bad, go VFR."

Of course, there's a big difference between flight in the great flatlands with having local knowledge vs. flying in mountainous areas without.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
What, exactly, is your point? Other than needless executions.
Click to expand...

That us simple peasants are not capable of doing something safely without the government wiping our noses and putting talc on our bottoms.
 
Sec. 91.177

Minimum altitudes for IFR operations.

(a) Operation of aircraft at minimum altitudes. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft under IFR below--

If you land on something that is not an airport, e.g. the 'hay field' that conveniently runs next to your 'machine shed', 91.175 doesn't apply either.

If you are located somewhere in the land of 'high class G', you could go off airway, cancel IFR and find your way to your little field without goverment approved help.

Smart ? Probably not.
 
Hawkfire said:
They have a 6000' private strip with WAAS GPS approaches. Since it is a private airport the procedures are not published to the public. You have to get the plates directly through the Horseshoe Bay Jet Center.
Click to expand...
OK, this is something I don't understand.
You get the plates but what about loading it into your GPS-WAAS database? If it is not there as an approach (you can't key it in!) - it useless. There will bo no change of CDI sensitivity so no approach mode. I can only see one possibility it is non-WAAS (no glideslope) plain vanilla GPS approach, you load it manually and then select sensitivity manually.
 
Last edited:
olasek said:
OK, this is something I don't understand.
You get the plates but what about loading it into your GPS-WAAS database? If it is not there as an approach (you can't key it in!) - it useless. There will bo no change of CDI sensitivity so no approach mode. I can only see one possibility it is non-WAAS plain vanilla GPS approach, you load it manually and then select sensitivity manually.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there is a mechanism to get the approach data included on your database update, as many of the Special IAPs are GPS.
 
olasek said:
OK, this is something I don't understand.
You get the plates but what about loading it into your GPS-WAAS database? If it is not there as an approach (you can't key it in!) - it useless. There will bo no change of CDI sensitivity so no approach mode. I can only see one possibility it is non-WAAS (no glideslope) plain vanilla GPS approach, you load it manually and then select sensitivity manually.
Click to expand...

Most GPSs let you manually select sensitivity. For example, on my KLN94, I select 1.0 NM instead of 5.0 NM for en-route, because I like it better and it works better with my autopilot. The Garmin 530 I let stick to automatic.

In both cases, when you select an approach, it automatically goes to approach mode and scales down as appropriate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top