GPS-A for a straight in runway??

Walboy said:
I'm gonna guess it's because there is no straight in minimums, only circling. I'm not sure what the C symbol is on the circling line either.
Click to expand...

Right, the question is why doesn't it have straight in mins?
The C means it has the new enhanced circling distances.
 
Walboy said:
I'm gonna guess it's because there is no straight in minimums, only circling. I'm not sure what the C symbol is on the circling line either.
Click to expand...

But why?????

I'm curious to hear some opinions on this one....
 
I would guess that there is no official obstruction survey for the approach so it was the cheapest way to get them a GPS approach. Same reason why this one and many many more are N\A at night.

Our company does these surveys and there used to be statewide or FAA refionwide funded programs for these but now it's more on an individual airport basis.
 
Walboy said:
Maybe it's because of all them durn GPS NOTAMs we get out here.

Seriously, I'm wondering too. The RNAV approaches for the intersecting runway have LPV minimums of 200'. The straight in LNAV minimum for RWY 8 is 606'.
Click to expand...

I would be very tempted to do a "circling" approach to 26. *cough* I mean 8... :D
 
jheyen said:
I would guess that there is no official obstruction survey for the approach so it was the cheapest way to get them a GPS approach. Same reason why this one and many many more are N\A at night.

Our company does these surveys and there used to be statewide or FAA refionwide funded programs for these but now it's more on an individual airport basis.
Click to expand...

Now I know who to raise my fist at !! Darn company finding that one tree 2' too high....
 
jheyen said:
I would guess that there is no official obstruction survey for the approach so it was the cheapest way to get them a GPS approach. Same reason why this one and many many more are N\A at night.

Our company does these surveys and there used to be statewide or FAA refionwide funded programs for these but now it's more on an individual airport basis.
Click to expand...

I believe this. None of the "typical" critiera specified in the instrument procedures handbook would dictate a circling only approach.

Typically, circling only approaches are designed for one of the following reasons:

• The final approach course alignment with the runway centerline exceeds 30°.
• The descent gradient is greater than 400 feet per nautical mile (FPNM) from the FAF to the threshold crossing height (TCH). When this maximum gradient is exceeded, the circling only approach procedure may be designed to meet the gradient criteria limits. This does not preclude a straight-in landing if a normal descent and landing can be made in accordance with the applicable CFRs.
• A runway is not clearly defined on the airfield.​
 
jheyen said:
I would guess that there is no official obstruction survey for the approach so it was the cheapest way to get them a GPS approach. Same reason why this one and many many more are N\A at night.

Our company does these surveys and there used to be statewide or FAA refionwide funded programs for these but now it's more on an individual airport basis.
Click to expand...

Why would they do the survey for that side of the airport? Every runway has a straight in GPS besides this one and it's the newest I believe.

Wouldn't the missed approach survey for the RNAV 8 cover everything needed for the 26 corridor ?
 
Yes it seems rediculous to need something over there and yes the RNAV 8 probably covers what they need.

But that's not the point. There's not a piece of paper that specifically says 26 approach is clear. Crazy, but how it works.

That's my biggest takeaway from working with government agencies. It has less with doing the right thing, rather giving them the piece of paper that says what they are expecting to see.
 
jheyen said:
Yes it seems rediculous to need something over there and yes the RNAV 8 probably covers what they need.

But that's not the point. There's not a piece of paper that specifically says 26 approach is clear. Crazy, but how it works.

That's my biggest takeaway from working with government agencies. It has less with doing the right thing, rather giving them the piece of paper that says what they are expecting to see.
Click to expand...

Sadly that makes sense. It can't be as simple as retitling a 8 survey into the 26 survey.

I wonder if the guy who drew it up was thinking WTF???

Kinda like a friend of mine getting his registration renewal rejected because he forgot the A in one word. Why couldn't the dude type in the freaking A??? Lol
 
ARFlyer said:
I would be very tempted to do a "circling" approach to 26. *cough* I mean 8... :D
Click to expand...
Either I am rusty or I am not understanding something here, or both. I don't understand your joke. :(

What would be wrong with landing 26 after visually establishing the runway environment at or above the circling minimum? Assuming you can get it down quick enough.
 
Trying to answer seriously. Does the proper spacing between runway and taxiways for a GPS approach exist? If not, the circling approach would be the best you can hope for.

There's a ton of "stuff" that goes in to designing approaches. Much "stuff" doesn't make immediate sense. The person deciding what to do with all of that stuff works for the FAA. (not a condemnation of the FAA, but they do tend use CYA more than us dummies flying planes would like)
 
I think...and I am just spitballing here. The approach course also has to remain within 500 feet of centerline about 3,000 feet down the runway. I notice the magnetic heading of the runway is 260 but the true course heading is 270. I believe RNAV systems use true. So that may put the extended centerline of the approach outside the 500 foot mark 3,000 feet down. Cause the descent gradient is well less than 400 ft/nm.
 
The VOR 26 gets you down to 337 AGL... but the straight in GPS only to 506? The approach courses are not overlaid, the VOR being slightly offset, but I'm not sure I get this one either.. The runway markings would have to be adequate for the VOR 26 to have such low minimums.
 
Doggtyred said:
The VOR 26 gets you down to 337 AGL... but the straight in GPS only to 506? The approach courses are not overlaid, the VOR being slightly offset, but I'm not sure I get this one either.. The runway markings would have to be adequate for the VOR 26 to have such low minimums.
Click to expand...
As I said, no way of telling without asking the FAA AIS staff.
 
mfisher said:
Either I am rusty or I am not understanding something here, or both. I don't understand your joke. :(

What would be wrong with landing 26 after visually establishing the runway environment at or above the circling minimum? Assuming you can get it down quick enough.
Click to expand...

Nothing
 
Why not just cancel when underneath the layer and/or ask for special?

Reminds me of a question I've been pondering. How do you get into Grand Prairie (GPM) when the field is IMC and wind is from the south? Does it matter if the Rangers are playing?
 
mfisher said:
Why not just cancel when underneath the layer and/or ask for special?

Reminds me of a question I've been pondering. How do you get into Grand Prairie (GPM) when the field is IMC and wind is from the south? Does it matter if the Rangers are playing?
Click to expand...

That is a funny one.
 
Last edited:
mfisher said:
Why not just cancel when underneath the layer and/or ask for special?

Reminds me of a question I've been pondering. How do you get into Grand Prairie (GPM) when the field is IMC and wind is from the south? Does it matter if the Rangers are playing?
Click to expand...

Same way as when the winds are from other directions. Know your tailwind limits. Rangers don't matter. If you get the clearance from ATC the sport TFR is a non issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top