Course reversal - how would you turn around?

[Teller1900]

I ran into this one a couple times last week looking at the VOR DME-2 RWY 16 at MMSD (San Jose Del Cabo), which I attached below. We came in from the north so the following scenario didn't have any effect on us, but it's still good conversation academically.

For arrivals from the south, the SJD VOR on the field is a published IAF, however there is no transition route to the arc or procedure turn (or HILO) listed. So how would you get turn around for this approach? (My vote was split-s, but that might spill the coffee).

On a related note, it took us entirely too long to figure out the initial altitude to fly to in the event of a missed approach.

 

[Ted]

Looks to me like vectors to intercept the DME Arc, or direct to one of the fixes to go into the arc.

Remember, this is Mexico we're talking about. Approach clearance? What? "Yeah, just go land."

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Interesting question, indeed. I am curious why SJD is charted as an IAF. I think if I was coming from the south and cleared direct SJD, I would request the VOR DME-1 RWY 16. It is Mexico, though.

I've attached both charts for reference.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

I am guessing that since there really is nothing to the south of Cabo, except the antarctic or maybe an a/c carrier, they have not provided any enroute transitions in that direction. The ones drawn to the SE provide transitions to southern Mexico and South America.
Interesting to contemplate, however.

 

[SCCutler]

Are they radar there? I think not.

If from south, I guess I'd go to the VOR, fly outbound on the 041 Radial, execute the hold at DME 13.0 and initiate the PT from that transition.

As for the altitude for the miss, I am guessing 5,000'?

 

[EdFred]

Are they radar there? I think not.

If from south, I guess I'd go to the VOR, fly outbound on the 041 Radial, execute the hold at DME 13.0 and initiate the PT from that transition.

As for the altitude for the miss, I am guessing 5,000'?

Aw, crap. Spike and I are thinking alike.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Are they radar there? I think not.

Yes, I believe they do have radar. Jeppesen publishes the Radar MVAs for the area.

 

[Teller1900]

Looks to me like vectors to intercept the DME Arc, or direct to one of the fixes to go into the arc.

Remember, this is Mexico we're talking about. Approach clearance? What? "Yeah, just go land."

That's what they seem to prefer, it's just interesting, as Jason notes, that they even bothered listing SJD as an IAF if they're not going to use it. They have plenty of other approaches and transitions to use. Incidentally, we were cleared direct MARUX, cleared the approach from 197nm N.

Interesting question, indeed. I am curious why SJD is charted as an IAF. I think if I was coming from the south and cleared direct SJD, I would request the VOR DME-1 RWY 16. It is Mexico, though.

I've attached both charts for reference.

Are they radar there? I think not.

If from south, I guess I'd go to the VOR, fly outbound on the 041 Radial, execute the hold at DME 13.0 and initiate the PT from that transition.

As for the altitude for the miss, I am guessing 5,000'?

Yes, I believe they do have radar. Jeppesen publishes the Radar MVAs for the area.

They do have radar. I'm not confident they know how to turn it on, but they they say they have "radar contacto."

Aw, crap. Spike and I are thinking alike.

But the 041 outbound isn't a transition route. By the way, change your damn avatar! The whole time I'm reading the forum I have to have my hand over the left side of the screen.

 

[Teller1900]

As for the altitude for the miss, I am guessing 5,000'?

You are correct on the altitude. It's like Where's Waldo to find it, though, when you're so used to having it in the icons at the bottom.

 

[EdFred]

What's wrong with my avatar?

OK, Changed just for you!

 

[poadeleted20]

If they cleared me direct to the VOR for the VOR-DME-2 approach, I think I'd ask ATC for either the VOR-DME-1 approach or a clearance to one of the other IAF's. And when I got back, I'd ask Jeppesen whether the (IAF) over the VOR box on the -2 approach was an error.

 

[Everskyward]

Remember, this is Mexico we're talking about. Approach clearance? What? "Yeah, just go land."

Mexico, the only place I have gotten a vector for a descending 360 to intercept final, in IMC. This after we reminded them we were coming up on the VOR (and airport) and were still pretty high. I was glad we had just gotten TAWS (terrain) installed in the airplane.

 

[Teller1900]

What's wrong with my avatar?

OK, Changed just for you!

MUCH better, thank you.

If they cleared me direct to the VOR for the VOR-DME-2 approach, I think I'd ask ATC for either the VOR-DME-1 approach or a clearance to one of the other IAF's. And when I got back, I'd ask Jeppesen whether the (IAF) over the VOR box on the -2 approach was an error.

That's the only answer we could come up with. I don't suppose you know where to get a non-Jepp plate to see if this is a Jeppesen anomaly?

Mexico, the only place I have gotten a vector for a descending 360 to intercept final, in IMC. This after we reminded them we were coming up on the VOR (and airport) and were still pretty high. I was glad we had just gotten TAWS (terrain) installed in the airplane.

Have you ever been into MMSL? The other (much smaller) Cabo airport. The approach starts direct to the SJD VOR, then outbound to an arc. That's where it gets fun. There is no final approach course to arc to...the arc is the final segment. And you're arcing around a mountain. And the arc drops you at 80* to the runway, so you still have to circle. And the last half of the thing is on the non-radar side of the hill. Good fun.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

The DME arcs in Nassau and Cozumel were fun when I flew them <g>
I got all set up to do things right in Nassau and got vectors to final.
In Cozumel, I was number seven for the DME arc when I noticed I was in the bottom of clouds. I asked for 1,000 feet lower, broke below the layer and was cleared number one for the visual <g>
Getting weather was also interesting <g> When I asked Merida Approach for weather while crossing the Gulf headed to Cozumel, I was asked to stand by while they got some. About ten minutes later I got information that bore not relationship to what it was like at Cozumel when I got there.
Ahhh, fond memories <g>

Best,

Dave

 

[Ted]

Mexico, the only place I have gotten a vector for a descending 360 to intercept final, in IMC. This after we reminded them we were coming up on the VOR (and airport) and were still pretty high. I was glad we had just gotten TAWS (terrain) installed in the airplane.

Yeah, Cancun approach actually gave me good vectors for getting into Cozumel, but it was still a pretty sketchy approach. Mexican controllers are the reason why situational awareness is very, very important.

The DME arcs in Nassau and Cozumel were fun when I flew them <g>
I got all set up to do things right in Nassau and got vectors to final.
In Cozumel, I was number seven for the DME arc when I noticed I was in the bottom of clouds. I asked for 1,000 feet lower, broke below the layer and was cleared number one for the visual <g>
Getting weather was also interesting <g> When I asked Merida Approach for weather while crossing the Gulf headed to Cozumel, I was asked to stand by while they got some. About ten minutes later I got information that bore not relationship to what it was like at Cozumel when I got there.
Ahhh, fond memories <g>

Yeah, that sounds like mine. I've been cleared for a visual approach in solid IMC. Vectored to final on the VOR into Cozumel. Weather? Ha. Good luck. It's look out the window, and try to figure it out.

 

[Everskyward]

Have you ever been into MMSL? The other (much smaller) Cabo airport.

No, but I've noticed that the Mexicans really love their arcs.

 

[AdamZ]

If coming from the south why not just go to SIBAU as the IAF and follow the ARC

 

[Teller1900]

No, but I've noticed that the Mexicans really love their arcs.

Very, very much, I'm learning.

If coming from the south why not just go to SIBAU as the IAF and follow the ARC

Well if you want to ruin the fun and do it the EASY way..gahh.

 

[poadeleted20]

If coming from the south why not just go to SIBAU as the IAF and follow the ARC

If you're doing it by the book, that would not be kosher if your clearance was to the VOR, so obtaining an amended clearance to SIBAU would be a better answer. Of course, it's Mexico, and Lord only knows if anyone would even notice.

 

[ajstoner21]

Is Mexico really THAT bad??

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

This must truly be solely an intellectual exercise, no?

a) this is Cabo. It is almost never ifr!
b) there is no arriving from the south, there is nothing to the south!

What did I miss? Be gentle. It's true, sometimes I am a little too pragmatic, you may also tell me that.

 

[Teller1900]

This must truly be solely an intellectual exercise, no?

a) this is Cabo. It is almost never ifr!
b) there is no arriving from the south, there is nothing to the south!

What did I miss? Be gentle. It's true, sometimes I am a little too pragmatic, you may also tell me that.

a) True, except when it's 1)monsoon season, or 2)there's a hurricane just to the south (as was the case last week.
b) Generally no, but there are points in mainland Mexico (eg: Puerto Vallarta, Mazatlan, Manzanillo) from whence there could be northbound arrivals at the VOR.

But yes, this was mostly an intellectual exercise seeing as there are other IAFs on this approach (as Adam pointed out) that would serve better, and indeed other approaches (as Jason pointed out) that would be superior choices.

But none of that answers why SJD is an IAF, or how you proceed from it. :-D

 

[Henning]

I vote for half a Cuban 8...
That IAF label has to be a mistake.

 

[Everskyward]

Is Mexico really THAT bad??

It must not be that bad because you don't hear about ATC related accidents in Mexico, and some places can actually be pretty busy, Cabo for instance.

I think part of it is the language barrier. The controllers speak English, sort of, at least if you start out in English. Otherwise they speak Spanish. But their terminology can be a little different so there can be a question in your mind about what they really meant.

 

[nosehair]

First, I would simply ask for the VOR DME-1 approach, ...but for the academic exercise, if the VOR DME-2 were the only approach available, I would track outbound on the 347 radial to D-9.0, turn 45 degrees to the right, fly about a minute, at a minimum of 3600', turn left 180 degrees to intercept the 167 inbound at about the D-11.0, and start stepping down.

 

[Ted]

It must not be that bad because you don't hear about ATC related accidents in Mexico, and some places can actually be pretty busy, Cabo for instance.

I think part of it is the language barrier. The controllers speak English, sort of, at least if you start out in English. Otherwise they speak Spanish. But their terminology can be a little different so there can be a question in your mind about what they really meant.

The language barrier may be part of it. However, it could also be that pilots with good situational awareness make up for their lack of care.

To be fair, I've had some really bad controllers in the states who I thought were accidents waiting to happen. Whenever I get one of those, I pay even closer attention to where I am.

 

[poadeleted20]

First, I would simply ask for the VOR DME-1 approach, ...but for the academic exercise, if the VOR DME-2 were the only approach available, I would track outbound on the 347 radial to D-9.0, turn 45 degrees to the right, fly about a minute, at a minimum of 3600', turn left 180 degrees to intercept the 167 inbound at about the D-11.0, and start stepping down.

IOW, you'd "roll your own" approach procedure? Without obtaining an amended clearance? As I said, you can probably get away with that in Mexico, but the FAA wouldn't be happy if they caught you doing that here in the USA.

 

[EdFred]

IOW, you'd "roll your own" approach procedure? Without obtaining an amended clearance? As I said, you can probably get away with that in Mexico, but the FAA wouldn't be happy if they caught you doing that here in the USA.

That's why you'd only do it in a non-radar environment.

 

[Palmpilot]

If they cleared me direct to the VOR for the VOR-DME-2 approach, I think I'd ask ATC for either the VOR-DME-1 approach or a clearance to one of the other IAF's. And when I got back, I'd ask Jeppesen whether the (IAF) over the VOR box on the -2 approach was an error.

Since it was established in posts #7 and 8 that they have radar, if you were in a /A airplane could they vector you to the DME arc?

 

[Teller1900]

Since it was established in posts #7 and 8 that they have radar, if you were in a /A airplane could they vector you to the DME arc?

Sure. From the south, if you were going to fly the SIBAU transition, they'd just vector you to join the 120* radial. Track it inbound to 13DME and join the arc. Off you go. So long as you have a VOR receiver and a DME unit (and remember how to arc the old fashioned way), nothing else is required. Even the radar isn't technically required.

 

[jesse]

Are they radar there? I think not.

If from south, I guess I'd go to the VOR, fly outbound on the 041 Radial, execute the hold at DME 13.0 and initiate the PT from that transition.

As for the altitude for the miss, I am guessing 5,000'?

Aw, crap. Spike and I are thinking alike.

That's not a published segment of the approach so there is no way you'd be able to do that if you were cleared to start the approach at SJD. It *looks* like 041 at 13 DME is an initial approach fix. So if you wanted to do as you wrote then you'd need to be cleared to SJD, then cleared to 13DME at the 041, and cleared from the approach at that point. Once you are cleared for an approach, and start at the published IAF, you need to stay on a published portion.

If I *had* to start at SJD and could just make up my own approach, I'd just fly outbound from SJD for 2 minutes. Then I'd make a standard-rate turn 80 degrees to the right, and then a 260 turn back to the left rolling out on the inbound course.

If you're going to make something up - might as well make up the easiest thing.

But if you want to make up something complicated...you could fly to SJD, then outbound on 347, fly the arc in reverse, turn around at the 13DME hold, then come back inbound

 

[poadeleted20]

Since it was established in posts #7 and 8 that they have radar, if you were in a /A airplane could they vector you to the DME arc?

I don't know what the rules are about that in Mexico.

 

[Palmpilot]

I don't know what the rules are about that in Mexico.

What if it were in the United States?

 

[COFlyBoy]

OK, I want to add another approach to the discussion. The LOC approach at KOWD, Norwood, MA.
Along the localizer barb it says 1400 NoPT. What the heck does that apply to? Does it assume you used the compass locator to get onto course?

 

[Teller1900]

What if it were in the United States?

Sure. From the south, if you were going to fly the SIBAU transition, they'd just vector you to join the 120* radial. Track it inbound to 13DME and join the arc. Off you go. So long as you have a VOR receiver and a DME unit (and remember how to arc the old fashioned way), nothing else is required. Even the radar isn't technically required.

Works in Canada, too.

 

[Teller1900]

OK, I want to add another approach to the discussion. The LOC approach at KOWD, Norwood, MA.
Along the localizer barb it says 1400 NoPT. What the heck does that apply to? Does it assume you used the compass locator to get onto course?

That'd be my guess. If you're coming in from the north to OW, you'd have to fly the PT, but if you're coming up from the south, I suppose you could just join the course S of OW (at or outside of IF CURLE) and fly it as a transition leg inbound to the IAF at OW.

Good one.

 

[poadeleted20]

What if it were in the United States?

I can find nothing in 7110.65 authorizing a controller to issue vectors to join a DME arc initial or intermediate segment inside the IAF, and last time I asked AFS-400, they told me that vectors to join a DME arc like that are not authorized. However, there are controllers who will do it anyway, and I've heard unconfirmed rumors that there are changes in work to allow it within various not-yet-defined limiting parameters. I've got another request for a written answer on point in with them now -- look for my article on approaches with DME arcs coming up in the Sept or Oct issue of IFR Refresher.

 

[poadeleted20]

OK, I want to add another approach to the discussion. The LOC approach at KOWD, Norwood, MA.
Along the localizer barb it says 1400 NoPT. What the heck does that apply to? Does it assume you used the compass locator to get onto course?

The NoPT there seems to be superfluous. The only two ways you could get on that intermediate segment from CURLI to STOGL other than via the PT would be via the PVD 052, which is already marked NoPT, or via vectors to final, which by definition is NoPT. Since there's no "GPS" in the approach name, the controller is not authorized to let GPS-equipped aircraft proceed direct to CURLI for a straight-in approach. Thus, deleting that NoPT on the CURLI-STOGL segment wouldn't change anything, and to me, that makes it superfluous.

 

[Palmpilot]

What about the positioning of the angled portion of the PT on the plan view? Does that mean that you have to fly the turning portion of the PT outside the 057 degree radial, or is that positioning just coincidence?

(I think I know the answer because of another thread in the past six months, but I want to see what others have to say.)

 

[Teller1900]

What about the positioning of the angled portion of the PT on the plan view? Does that mean that you have to fly the turning portion of the PT outside the 057 degree radial, or is that positioning just coincidence?

(I think I know the answer because of another thread in the past six months, but I want to see what others have to say.)

I'm not sure what you're referring to by the 057 radial, but the bar for the PT is simply saying that that direction (W of the final course) is the protected side. It's recommending an initial turn to 215 degrees outbound, then 035 back inbound, but you can do what ever type of course reversal you want so long as you're within 10nm of OW and on the protected side.

That I see, the 057* radial is just there to identify the transition route from PVD and to use as a cross radial to identify CURLE without DME.