Is this a good setup and execution for this approach? (KDUA VOR/DME RWY35)
- Thread starter AggieMike88
- Start date
I think the point by DTuuri is extremely important: "What would your route be (including altitude) be if you had lost comms?" Imagine if you were cleared, and lost comms in IMC well before getting to URH. (I am going back to the original approach now. VOR/DME 35 into DUA) You have no assigned altitude, and no MEA. I was too quick to rely on ATC to provide the missing altitude. I see now what my problem was.
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
You are being argumentative. That's your option.
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
Yes, the tower comment is inappropriate. I said that all that is needed is a way to get to the IAP and ATC can provide that and gave examples. Anything else is assumptions or your or Dave's part.
Now with that said, thanks for sharing some of your TERPS knowledge. I don't know how the plates are constructed so that information is always interesting. Certainly the need for a course reversal may not be obvious by the rulebook and practical operation would require it. I'd certainly rather fly a reversal than get vectored halfway across the county just to get lined up with a final course (or worse - slammed into a tight intercept vectors).
Last edited:
denverpilot
Tied Down
It's becoming popular in contested areas to just stamp the plate RADAR REQUIRED and leave it to the controller and the MVA to get you to the FAF.
Kinda makes planning an alternate for lost comm suddenly important in some areas.
Be interesting to ask some controllers where they think a NORDO is going to go if it becomes NORDO in the enroute portion of the flight to a filed airport with no published feeder to get to it and a RADAR REQUIRED stamp on the plate, and no filed alternate. Obviously the usual choices for NORDO apply but what airspace are they really going to clear?
The sad part about direct routing is that it's breaking an integrated *system* designed to fail gracefully by removing the previously obvious options.
I bet the younger the controller the more likely to say the aircraft will continue to the original destination, assuming that most aircraft are /G or iPad /G-minus (minus being legal for navigation).
It's an interesting side effect for sure.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
I don't see how this makes much difference as far as the controller is concerned. If you lose coms in the enroute portion there's no way for ATC to know what approach you are going to try, if you're going to divert to a VFR airport, or if you have lost part or all of you nav ability too.
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
It seems there may be a growing disconnect between the way plates are built and the way they may be used. The NDB approaches are one example. Lost comms planning is low priority.
I tend to file for an IAF and airport rather than just the airport. But ATC doesn't seem to care one way or the other.
You've seen what ATC does for missed approach at FTG...so why don't they make the plates conform with practice? I've been given the exact same missed approach in actual IMC that you and I got that day while doing practice approaches. Was I just supposed to fly a 110 heading forever if the radio died?
We get STARs going into the Denver area and when ya ask ATC what the real routing is (cause I know they don't want me overhead DEN) they just tell me to stand by. Lost comms would get real interesting to say the least...
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
It seems there may be a growing disconnect between the way plates are built and the way they may be used. The NDB approaches are one example. Lost comms planning is low priority.
I tend to file for an IAF and airport rather than just the airport. But ATC doesn't seem to care one way or the other.
You've seen what ATC does for missed approach at FTG...so why don't they make the plates conform with practice? I've been given the exact same missed approach in actual IMC that you and I got that day while doing practice approaches. Was I just supposed to fly a 110 heading forever if the radio died?
We get STARs going into the Denver area and when ya ask ATC what the real routing is (cause I know they don't want me overhead DEN) they just tell me to stand by. Lost comms would get real interesting to say the least...
dtuuri
Final Approach
It shouldn't require going to a different airport as long as you can make use of the provided feeder(s) and related approaches:
"Non-Radar Routes. Since radar vectoring is an approved method of providing procedure entry, limit the number of non-radar routes where radar vectoring is provided on a 24-hour basis. Where practical, provide at least one non-radar route to ensure transition from the en route structure in the event of radar/communications failure." [Chapter 8, Order 8260.19F]
It's hard to imagine where it wouldn't be practical to provide at least one feeder.dtuuri
AggieMike88
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 20,804
- Location
- Denton, TX
- Display Name
Display name:
The original "I don't know it all" of aviation.
This concept was recently shared with me. And wasn't emphasized by either of my instructors. Once I heard it and the logic behind doing it it, it make sense and will likely be something I'd add to my methods.Clark1961 said:
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
The Denver area and APA in particular has a problem since all the useable VORs are fairly close to DEN. Most of the IAPs used the Falcon VOR and that would totally screw up all of DEN's traffic. Of course in practice nobody ever went to Falcon...
dtuuri
Final Approach
I post this not to argue with you, but to correct your advice on the chance it should influence newbies--no need to rebut on your part.
Lost comms is the most primary essential step in preflight planning. Knowing you're able to complete the entire flight without any reliance on ATC removes considerable amounts of apprehension running under the surface of your emotions, "Yes! I can DO this!" It puts you ahead of the game, when ATC stumbles, in situational awareness respects too. That's why the FAA's Instrument Flying Handbook says this:
Communication/Navigation System
Malfunction
Avionics equipment has become very reliable, and the
likelihood of a complete communications failure is remote.
However, each IFR flight should be planned and executed in
anticipation of a two-way radio failure. At any given point
during a flight, the pilot must know exactly what route to fly,
what altitude to fly, and when to continue beyond a clearance
limit.
Malfunction
Avionics equipment has become very reliable, and the
likelihood of a complete communications failure is remote.
However, each IFR flight should be planned and executed in
anticipation of a two-way radio failure. At any given point
during a flight, the pilot must know exactly what route to fly,
what altitude to fly, and when to continue beyond a clearance
limit.
dtuuri
dtuuri
Final Approach
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
While it may seem logical in one sense, it raises other questions. How do you know which IAF fix to file to? You don't know which approach will be in use at the time. Many times it depends on the winds. If you file a STAR, many of them end in radar vectors or a heading. I've also been given "direct destination" at times, from halfway across the country. This usually changes once you get closer, but there is always the chance you will lose coms during the portion you were direct to the airport.
I know this is another one of the holy debates with people on one side or another. File what you want but don't think that filing to the IAF is going to necessarily make things easier for ATC or yourself.
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
That's nice....and it doesn't explain why most of the IAPs included FQF...and why the solution is "via vectors" and "radar required"
dtuuri
Final Approach
File to the one you want to use if NORDO.
"Direct destination" implies "via an SIAP", IMO. How else do you suppose you're going to get below the clouds? If it was meant only to the airport and no further, they'd have to give you holding instructions there with an EFC, which they can't because "airports" aren't authorized "holding fixes".
dtuuri
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
"Direct destination" does not mean direct to the IAF. It means direct to the airport. I think they ATC sometimes says "direct destination" because they don't immediately recognize the identifier. Many other times I have been cleared direct to the airport specifically. If you lose coms then you do what you need to do.
dtuuri
Final Approach
First of all, the word "airport" must follow "destination", FWIW. Before RNAV was invented you could be cleared to the destination airport via airways--which go over VORs not over airports, so how would you have expected to get to the airport back in those days unless via an IAP? Why would the ability to find the geographic center of an airport with modern navigation equipment change the meaning of "cleared <destination> airport"? You can't hold there or actually reach the airport without the IAP, which begins at an IAF.
You don't "do what you need to do" unless you mean follow 91.185.
dtuuri
Last edited:
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
No, it does not. They say "direct destination".
"Direct destination" does not mean via airways or fixes you filed. It means exactly what it sounds like. It does not matter what they did before RNAV was invented. It is available now.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Silence implies consent. If I were based there, I'd want to be able to get home even when the radar goes out.
dtuuri
dtuuri
Final Approach
I'm merely quoting from Order 7110.65.
I didn't say that.
A controller half way across the country doesn't know or care what the SFO controllers want. Like you said, you'll be taken off that route long before you reach the airport--they can't even clear you for an approach until they do (again, from 7110.65). And if you lose comms, as per your scenario, YOU don't want to go over the airport either, you want to go to a point where an IAP begins, so you can commence your descent and get out of everybody's hair ASAP, not to mention to avoid running out of fuel after that long cross country trek into a stiff wind.
dtuuri
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Sure, if you lose coms you will want to go to the IAF, and you find your way there, if you can, using whatever nav capability you have. But that doesn't mean that you need to file your flight plan that way. In any case, many times the original flight plan would be negated by subsequent clearances. As I said, this is an argument people have had over and over on this board, so file what you want and use common sense if you have a com failure.A controller half way across the country doesn't know or care what the SFO controllers want. Like you said, you'll be taken off that route long before you reach the airport--they can't even clear you for an approach until they do (again, from 7110.65). And if you lose comms, as per your scenario, YOU don't want to go over the airport either, you want to go to a point where an IAP begins, so you can commence your descent and get out of everybody's hair ASAP, not to mention to avoid running out of fuel after that long cross country trek into a stiff wind.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Clark1961 said he "tends to" file that way. AggieMike88 said he will add that technique to his "methods" (plural). Nobody said you "need" to file that way. Then you asked how to know which IAF to file to, so I said "File to the one you want to use if NORDO." At the very least I'll say you should have one in mind from your flight planning in the event of lost comms, but I'm hardly claiming you "need" to file an IAF. Sometimes, it accurately communicates your needed/desired routing though.
dtuuri
denverpilot
Tied Down
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
You argue against me then you reference me? That is weird....weird to like the 12th power.
dtuuri
Final Approach
What would you recommend I use in a /A aircraft without an ADF?
I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Feeder routes exist or not, they aren't made up by the pilot. If radar is required because there are no feeder routes, then you need radar, period. Now if a user group or persistent letter writer were to lobby for some--maybe pilots won't have to land elsewhere the next time the radar goes tango uniform.
dtuuri
dtuuri
Final Approach
I didn't cite you as a reference. Try to humble yourself a little, being quoted doesn't make you an authority.
dtuuri
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
Last edited:
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
No, but you were strongly suggesting it. At least that is what I got out of your posts. In case you haven't figured it out by now, I don't file to an IAF. But it really doesn't matter because, as I said, some do it one way and some do it the other.
As I said before, you don't necessarily know what that will be, especially at airports with many runways and approaches. I also mentioned that subsequent clearances could negate what you filed anyway.
denverpilot
Tied Down
You need to go back and read my post about this all originally being designed as a SYSTEM and Clark's comments about the feeder routes slowly DISAPPEARING.
The point has been, and you know it, you're just arguing for no reason, that the SYSTEM was designed to have feeders off of the enroute structure to IAFs. The plates are slowly losing those and that forces pilots to have to decide how they're going to file vs what's going to happen in the real world.
It's dumb to remove them. Leave them intact and vector 99.99999% of the time, but retain the integrity of the intended and well-engineered design that includes a pre-printed plan, right there on the plate, for equipment failures.
Stamping the plate "RADAR Required" is a lazy cop-out and seems to indicate a distinct lack of understanding by the so-called experts who've forgotten why the regs and charts used to match up.
The concept of First Principals is what we are pointing out here. Taken to the extreme, one might say, "Get back to your original solid infrastructure engineering."
I suspect it's a sign of younger folk creating the plates who really don't remember that it was the Airway SYSTEM, all cozy and compartmentalized inside a giant bureaucracy, who grew up with ubiquitous GPS everywhere, who aren't paying any attention to how a non-/G aircraft navigates said system. Especially NORDO.
They know by looking at it that having FQF be the starting point for a feeder to any Denver airport makes a hell of an operational mess for DEN TRACON, so instead of designing a better route, they just bail and say "RADAR Required".
Minimum effort to meet minimum requirement.
Clark: Wasn't that higher terrain they vectored us toward, just about where the Cirrus guy who got disoriented popped his chute in Actual at night?
That 110 heading they give for a missed at FTG is one of those that if you went NORDO right thereafter and didn't know it yet, you'd have been vectored right into the ground before you knew it, if you weren't careful to look at the VFR sectional and were unfamiliar with the terrain around FTG.
We were definitely a lot lower AGL out there than I'd ever want to go in IMC, that's for sure. I wasn't even that happy with how low they vectored us for VFR really. Definitely an interesting problem over there wedged up against DEN.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Last edited:
dtuuri
Final Approach
Not. I simply answered your question, and am about to answer it once more...
It doesn't matter when you're planning for a NORDO arrival--the airspace is all yours. You might only be equipped for certain approaches or performance issues may dictate certain ones, so you want to know if you can still land there if radar goes out or you arrive with an engine inop and can only hold MEA along a certain route. It's a basic planning step I'm advocating, not that I'm saying you should "always" file to an IAF. You should have one you can rely on in the back of your mind.
dtuuri
Last edited:
dtuuri
Final Approach
I'm trying to explain the "SYSTEM" to those who don't or should know better. That's why I quoted this reference earlier (w/my em):
"Non-Radar Routes. Since radar vectoring is an approved method of providing procedure entry, limit the number of non-radar routes where radar vectoring is provided on a 24-hour basis. Where practical, provide at least one non-radar route to ensure transition from the en route structure in the event of radar/communications failure." [Chapter 8, Order 8260.19F]
The "SYSTEM" requires feeder routes (where practical) and KAPA is certainly practical. If you fly there, you owe yourself a civic duty to demand at least one. I checked KLGA and KORD where "RADAR REQUIRED" is the norm--both have at least one feeder (or you can arrive directly off the en route structure). KAPA has no excuse.
You're preaching to the choir.
I checked all the published missed approaches at KFTG and saw none for a 110° heading. A glance at the Denver sectional didn't scare me, although maybe studying it closer might have, so I'm at a loss for what your concern there is. If there's a legit concern, again, you need to raise it with ATC. "Silence implies consent".
dtuuri
Last edited:
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
Wake up! I've already pointed this out in this thread. The plates for FTG say one thing, ATC's practice is different. In IMC the missed approach is an instruction to fly southeast. Got it now?
Silence implies consent? You've typed this a couple times...and your insinuations are inappropriate each time. You don't know what has been communicated to ATC and are deliberately being rude.
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
Terrain to south of FTG is higher and there are a few towers out there. The higher ground elevation is subtle and folks may not realize it because they looked at the sectional and didn't see any significant topography. ATC has tried to get me to descend below 1,000' agl out there so there is at least one controller with an awareness issue out there.
IFR into FTG in IMC is a problem. Obviously the larger problem of incompatibility between the plates and practical day-to-day operations has existed since DEN opened. Maybe Dave or Russ can get it fixed since they are so wonderful...
dtuuri
Final Approach
Oh my, imagine that.
Welcome to insrument flying. For your information it's that way everywhere there's radar not just FTG. It's all the more reason to heed my advice at www.AvClicks.com re: an IFR pilot's mindset. Never rely solely on ATC for obstruction avoidance.Ok, what have you written them and what has been their response? There's two sides to everything and so far I know neither yours nor theirs (simply being radar vectored instead of flying the published missed approach is standard procedure for missed approaches and IFR departures). What are your specific concerns?
dtuuri
Last edited:
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
Oh my, imagine that.
Ok, what have you written them and what has been their response. There's two sides to everything and so far I know neither yours nor theirs (simply being radar vectored instead of flying the published missed approach is standard procedure for missed approaches and IFR departures). What are your specific concerns?
Drop the attitude and read the thread Dave. Denver approach doesn't want anyone to go to FQF but that's what most of the IAPs show. Think it through now and understand what a com loss means...and it's been that way since DEN opened...think about what that means. Only a delusional arrogant ass would think they can change it.
dtuuri
Final Approach
You're concerned that 91.185(c)(1)(ii) would be unsafe to comply with during comm loss on a missed approach at KFTG (you prefer to go to FQF)? What about radar vectors during an IFR departure then? Aren't they about the same?
dtuuri
Last edited:
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Right. I never said you shouldn't have one in the back of your mind but you were initially advocating filing it, even if you didn't "need" to file it. Those are two different things. I just pointed out scenarios where filing it wouldn't make any difference and you started arguing.
dtuuri
Final Approach
No, ma'am. I never said I advocate always filing to an IAF. I only explained, in answer to your question, which IAF to file to if you were filing like Clark1961 and AggieMike88 proposed. And I'm not here to argue with anybody, just trying to set the record straight when I happen to see bad or confusing advice being dispensed to newbies by folks who don't or should know better--which is my modus operandi.
dtuuri