Does anyone have an example of such an approach plate?
That one's far enough off that I don't see why anyone would be tempted to leave the VOR course.
That looks like a fun one. Go outbound on the MZB 076R at 7300 to BARET at 27.7 DME make your right turn to a heading of 134 for the PT for 1 min then back inbound on a heading 314 and once established inbound on the final approach course drop down to 5900 untill 15.8 DME (if inside of WOPOS)
And a DME (required for this approach).
It's OK, as long as you use your double secret minimums.
Fly the feeder route to the IAF then start the approach, works for all feeder routes. Procedure turn required unless transition or quadrant is marked NOPT
If the VOR in your plane is off the allowable 4°and takes you immediately across the localizer because of it—are you going to stick to your guns and follow the radial or take the localizer to WEBVE?
When you're more than half scale off?
Yes, of course, but truly I have never done one that I remember nor am I aware of anyone else. VOTs and one versus the other are the usual methods. But your point is a good one. I'd have to wonder if you followed the radial six degrees east of published combined with a crossing radial six degrees north of where WEBVE ought to be—you might be waiting a while to cross the localizer so as to begin timing for the teardrop entry. That might put you too far north for protected airspace in some aircraft.
They use +/- 4.5 degrees for the on course radial, 3.6 for crossing radial and .5 miles or 3% of distance from station for DME to figure the ‘fix displacement area.’ How they reconcile this with the fact that airborne VOR checks can be +/- 6, I dunno, but that’s what they use. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/Order_8260.3D_vs3.pdf
Don't think DME is required for WEBVE, but it's needed for JUGBA and ECEPO. Looks like you and I and maybe Palmpilot are on the same page though.
At 60 NM one degree is 1 NM, so at 20 NM it's 1/3 of 1 NM or 2000 ft. Multiplied by 6 it's up to 12,000 ft or two miles, so a tad under two miles @ 18.3.
It was.
Yeah, but that's still a bit of a nonsequitor. You could probably dead recon it with the same accuracy but that's not what the procedure calls for.
I do know trig, but I used the same 1 NM per degree at 60 NM from the VOR that dtuuri did, since arithmetic is easier than trig.
It is clear, alright, that the "back course" is on the opposite end of the runway.
We're talking about the front course here, going backwards. They aren't the same thing.
Then, is that in addition to the six degrees I used for an airborne checkpoint adding still yet another error mile to the perceived position?
The only question about that in my mind is why a DPE wouldn't think it an example of superior airmanship over dogmatically disregarding the more accurate localizer position information readily available.
Think you got the wrong link posted.
I don't see it.
Well, if I understand what you're saying, you're adding the allowable transmission error for the NAVAID to the actual location. On top of that, I'm adding the allowable receiver error for an airborne checkpoint, so the two ought to be additive, no? Then of course there's the ability of the pilot to keep the needle centered on top of that... another advantage for following the localizer due to it's better sensitivity.
I got it now, must have been a browser glitch. You can navigate to an IAF without ADF, so it isn't required. But if I have ADF and use it to locate the LOM, you can bet I'm flying the localizer outbound to YUCSU. I wonder what the ones saying they'd follow the VOR to WEBVE would do?
The attachment is the plate for the ILS at Port Angeles (CLM). That's the approach I'm talking about.
The trouble with the IAF at TOU is the note that says you can't use it if you're coming to it on V4. That is currently the only victor airway that goes to TOU!