Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Is this a good setup and execution for this approach? (KDUA VOR/DME RWY35)
- Thread starter AggieMike88
- Start date
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
way past time to lock the thread
dtuuri
Final Approach
I guess they might as well, since you've had plenty of time to answer my question:
Without specifics it just sounds like whining about a common IFR practice from Miami to Seattle. Radar is a tool that liberates us from constrictive non-radar procedures. You seem to see it as a "disconnect" that needs fixing, right?
dtuuri
denverpilot
Tied Down
Documented in other threads. Not my job to catch you up. Feel free to find them to correct your assumptions.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Right, that post you're responding to wasn't directed to you anyway. It's also not my job to do your research. If you feel there's a safety issue with radar vectoring in general or KAPA/KFTG in particular and want to open discussion the least you can do is provide a link. If you've got a Superstition Mountain type problem there, it would be interesting to hear both sides of the issue, but don't expect me or other people to read every thread on POA.
dtuuri
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
I don't live by your timetable, boy.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Well I sure have to hand it to ya. When you have nothing useful to say you become the master of clever insults.
"OP, you're about to leave my radar coverage, you're cleared to cruise six thousand to Durant, report cancellation to flight service on the ground, altimeter 29.92. Good day!"
The approach chart is in error by not providing a feeder route and the local missed approach procedures in Denver have no relationship whatsoever. Bye-bye.
dtuuri
Last edited:
denverpilot
Tied Down
Approach chart in error: Thanks, master of the obvious. What you don't realize is that there has been communication of that fact to FAA, and their answer was to slap "Radar Required" on the KAPA plate.
No relationship: Wrong. The relationship is that DEN TRACON wants nothing to do with maintaining a workable no-radar or NORDO environment, which as you've pointed out, *is* the intent of the overall system design.
I suspect one of the reasons radar vectors straight into dirt mounds are often done at FTG is a) they'd perhaps think they'll do something different and coordinate between the contract tower and DEN TRACON in IMC and VMC they don't want to coordinate anything, and b) they have zero concept of "train like you're going to fight".
It's also blatantly obvious that one of the reasons the old plates are getting hacked to shreds is the mass quantity of GPS / RNAV plates that were relatively recently introduced. Those plates have a different concept of "feeder route" because they're all attached to the massive number of RNAV SIDs and STARs also published around the same timeframe.
BJC "fixed" the problem by installing a terminal VOR years ago. APA didn't and is a mess with the slow "decommission when failed" attitude toward the LOM and aircraft pulling ADFs out. FTG has always been screwed by the proximity to DEN and probably to a lesser extent, that it's a contract tower. Who knows on that last one, but they sure seem keen on not coordinating climbs into DEN airspace whenever possible.
I'm pretty sure it was my communication personally with the assigned APA chart person at FAA that triggered the "Radar Required" tag when I specifically asked where the feeder route to the approach went for a /A non-ADF capable aircraft. The timing was too close to be a coincidence.
So smart guy. You're right. FAA screwed the APA ILS plate. FAA also demonstrated that they won't be fixing it. Similar problems in behavior exist for FTG. You assumption that they'll follow their own rules is quaint but not what's happening in the real world.
Do you see where as locals who know this and are clearly stating it, that your attitude isn't exactly helpful nor going to accomplish anything, therefore might be somewhat annoying to those trying to point out that this is very likely to happen elsewhere and frequently as the plate designers think more and more about RNAV plates and less and less about how to maintain the system design?
dtuuri
Final Approach
Do you have evidence this is happening anywhere else? It isn't related to the OP's situation at Durant, so, while interesting, isn't germane. I'd be surprised if Durant gets radar vectoring from Ft. Worth Center at all. As long as aircraft aren't required to have moving maps with MIAs and ATC service boundaries I can see no justification to remove all feeder routes to an airport. Doing so, rightly, ought to be cause to raise a stink.
Btw, drop the attitude please. It's not becoming.
dtuuri
denverpilot
Tied Down
I started with facts and observations. You responded with the bad attitude first, chief.
Pot meet kettle. I return "attitude" when talked down to by people with bad assumptions and even worse attitudes. Because it's all you understand. M
Note how you've dropped your original arguments, now that someone popped your bully ass in the nose, and started looking for something new to argue about?
Let's see...
So far you've accused me of not communicating with FAA about the problem: Wrong.
Not understanding why plates are supposed to have tradition routes, and the useless legalese the FAA publishes that they don't follow about it: Wrong.
That differences in local controller behavior have nothing to do with what's on plates nor affect anyone adversely: Wrong.
That general and personal observations that transition routes are disappearing off of plates at a fairly good clip whenever convenient: Wrong.
Etc. What is your point? You're arguing that plates should have proper transition routes and both myself and Clark say, "Hmm, that's interesting... Since they've all been disappearing here for years..." and you take some sort of weird personal offense to that and start telling us to contact FAA to follow their own rulebook???
The same people who've already done so when the routes started disappearing in our area?
ROFLMAO. What misunderstanding is going on in your head? You're angry at attitude from the people who followed your late (by years) instructions and got nowhere and are at least two or three years ahead of your "plan"?
Feel free to get the transition routes re-added to ANY of the example plates mentioned.
Wish you good luck on that one. Ain't happening. If you manage to get a real transition route for a /A aircraft re-added to the APA plate, I'll owe you a cold beverage. I've already tried.
You ASSUMED I had not. And then got huffy about it. Which I only point out to you out of boredom.
Not really my job to fix your predisposition to jumping to an incorrect conclusion.
denverpilot
Tied Down
P.S. Another minor assumption, just so you're aware of it... You think I care if I'm "becoming" to you? Ha.
That's cute, whatever you meant by that.
Not interested. Sell it somewhere else, to someone who finds value in PC platitudes.
That's cute, whatever you meant by that.
Not interested. Sell it somewhere else, to someone who finds value in PC platitudes.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
It's not just Denver. Look at the two ILS approaches to Addison, KADS. They are both RADAR REQUIRED.
http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1409/00768il15.pdf
http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1409/00768il33.pdf
The other two approaches are RNAV (GPS).
http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1409/00768il15.pdf
http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1409/00768il33.pdf
The other two approaches are RNAV (GPS).
dtuuri
Final Approach
While I admit it isn't pretty, from the FINGR FOUR ARRIVAL you can navigate a published route to MANOS for the RNAV (GPS) 15 approach. Radar isn't required for that, but it would be nice if they retained a feeder for one of the non-RNAV approaches just for the little guys.
dtuuri
dtuuri
Final Approach
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Right.
The main complaint of the folks posting from Denver is that there is no way for a NORDO airplane without GPS to do an approach at KAPA because there is no transition to the ILS. I pointed out that it is the same for KADS. You got all over some people here for not writing letters, etc, as if Denver was an exception. It is not. The fact that you have pointed out a published route to a RNAV(GPS) approach is irrelevant to pilots without GPS.
Last edited:
dtuuri
Final Approach
Who knows what their main complaint really is. I tried to find out and was insulted and attacked for my effort. There is no way for a NORDO airplane WITH GPS to do an approach at KAPA either, btw, since all charts are marked "RADAR REQUIRED".
KAPA=RADAR REQUIRED; KADS=GPS or RADAR REQUIRED. You can land at KADS without radar or comms, you can't at KAPA.
You folks keep accusing me of bad conduct: "arguing", "getting all over people" and worse. I've been called names in this thread, yet I've exercised restraint in my responses to it. I invite the mods to read each of my posts in context and point out where your combined criticisms are valid, if they are. All I'm trying to do is help a poor Texan pass his checkride and validate the advice given by a fellow Buckeye (who's also an IFR Procedures Specialist). The Denver connection (and NDB approaches), IMO, was a red herring from the get-go.
dtuuri
the400kid
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2013
- Messages
- 131
- Display Name
Display name:
FLAAV8R
I assume you would switch from GPS mode to the VOR receiver after passing HANOM. Right?
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
I do. Their (especially Nate's) main complaint is that there is no way for a NORDO non-GPS equipped airplane to do any of the approaches at KAPA. That would also be the case for KADS, and probably quite a few other places, but I'm not going to search for them. I know about these two because I am familiar with both airports.
So? That's not helpful for a non-GPS equipped airplane which is what we were discussing.
There are lost com procedures on some of the arrivals which will get you to the approach. The problem is that they are jet arrivals and require RNAV or GPS.
http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1409/05715dunnn_c.pdf
http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1409/05715puffr.pdf
Last edited:
dtuuri
Final Approach
Then you agree with me about KADS--that it is compliant with FAA policy re: feeder routes. "Probably quite a few other places" is not much evidence for a sea-change of FAA policy or conspiracy theory. I looked at LGA and ORD, both have one feeder (ORD has an IAF directly in the en route structure). You'll need more evidence than that to put it before the Aeronautical Charting Forum. That would be a last resort, since they only meet three times per year. Quicker results would be had by persistent local lobbying and diplomatic persuasion.
But that situation has nothing to do with the OP's Durant situation. It's a local access problem in Denver vs. a charting error at Durant. While I'm sympathetic to efforts to secure a feeder that everybody can use in a pinch at KAPA, not just RNAV-equipped jets, that problem has no bearing on this discussion and only confuses the issue, especially when they threw in NDB approaches and missed approach vectors for good measure. There's supposed to be at least one feeder where radar is required, if prcatical. Durant doesn't require radar, so even more can be expected there.
dtuuri
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
So is KAPA, as I pointed out. It just won't work for Nate, or many others here. They can meet the legalities by having one feeder route but if you don't have the required equipment it doesn't do you any good.
Feeder route are going away and many, many arrivals end in either a heading or radar vectors with no clear way to the IAF, so you need to come up with your own plan. Just because something is taught a certain way does not mean it will happen that way in real life. The regs have not caught up with technology and the changes in the airspace system.
Last edited:
dtuuri
Final Approach
Sorry, it's been this way for decades. Radar's been around for a long time and vectors after a STAR for as long as I can remember. "Real life", as you put it, is fully covered in the AIM and other FAA documents. Things aren't just made up--they have Orders for evvverything. It might be nice and easy to just say, "Oh, I don't really need to know the regs because they're all outdated anyway," but it's pure BS. Ask the Chief Counsel which regulations you can ignore and see what they say. You know the answer. If you've been taught right, you know the regs as well as the exceptions. You'd know what the rule states as well as how the Chief Counsel has interpreted it. You'd know that a lot of pilots don't do things the way they really should because they're lazy and odds are great they'll get away with it. Then it's up you to be either a good pilot or just another pilot.
dtuuri
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Done trying to explain anything to you. Others are right.
dtuuri
Final Approach
denverpilot
Tied Down
No one here is unfamiliar with the regs, nor needs to be told any of the above. You're assuming again. Trolling, more likely.
The regs are absolutely useless in this case.
Requiring a feeder route, and FAA only providing one on an RNAV or Jet plate for one of the busiest GA airports in the Country, is a direct indication of a serious "We don't give a crap about our own airway system design" message from FAA, and also shows how widespread the ineptitude is.
What the hell does your babble about the Chief Counsel have to do with any of this? Did the Chief Counsel suddenly start designing approach plates?
dtuuri
Final Approach
Again, the remarks weren't addressed to you. She and I had a discussion not long ago about reserve fuel as interpreted by the Chief Counsel.
Why do you need to use inflammatory language all the time, huh? Could it be the FAA blew you off because they just don't like dealing with a nasty person?
dtuuri
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Right. I disagreed with you and I still do. You do your fuel planning your way and I'll do it mine.
I was trying hard not to be as rude to you as others in this thread have been but I can see their point. Pretty soon you will be stalking me like you do to Clark61.
Last edited:
dtuuri
Final Approach
Hey where'd you come from? I thought you were out shopping for an old Learjet to take flying lessons in--or was that another J. Galt?
dtuuri
dtuuri
Final Approach
LOL! Check it out! I posted in that thread before he did. He was baiting me, had to be! It was too perfect of a setup.
dtuuri
Clark1961
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 17,737
- Display Name
Display name:
Display name:
LOL! Check it out! I posted in that thread before he did. He was baiting me, had to be! It was too perfect of a setup.
So how long have you believed that the world revolves around you?
denverpilot
Tied Down
Again, the remarks weren't addressed to you. She and I had a discussion not long ago about reserve fuel as interpreted by the Chief Counsel.
Why do you need to use inflammatory language all the time, huh? Could it be the FAA blew you off because they just don't like dealing with a nasty person?
Let's see... discussion forum... multiple people... you don't address anyone by name or nickname... and I'm supposed to assume you were having a private conversation in a public forum thread. Got it. ROFLMAO.
I find it interesting how all of your assumptions have the same theme... Everyone else is by nature, not as good a person as you. At anything. Ever.
It's cute.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Updates are scheduled for November providing lost comm instructions for non-GPS aircraft. See the Production Plan tab:
Here's a chance to add comments re: feeder routes and non-turbojet ops.
dtuuri
dtuuri
Final Approach
After waiting for a few days for a response to my "Reply all" complaint, I sent another email to an fAA employee I thought was in a position to help. He graciously did, but prefers not to be identified. He says action has been started and the Durant approach chart will now be revised with a feeder. He also said the questionable "Initial procedure" hyperlink is also used for making change requests. The response I received was not from a "cartographer" it was from a developer.
I also asked about the KAPA lack of a feeder for non-turbine, non-GPS aircraft and he said to use the same procedure initiation process to make that change request: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/ifp_initiation/
I'll cross post this to the other threads.
dtuuri
I also asked about the KAPA lack of a feeder for non-turbine, non-GPS aircraft and he said to use the same procedure initiation process to make that change request: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/ifp_initiation/
I'll cross post this to the other threads.
dtuuri