Is this a good setup and execution for this approach? (KDUA VOR/DME RWY35)

[AggieMike88]

I’d like to see what the gallery says about how to get a good setup and execution on this approach. This is one of the non-precision approaches that could be on my check ride doing the missed approach.

Check out the VOR/DME RWY35 approach for Durant Regional, Durant OK (KDUA)

Arrival will be from the Southwest area of the plate.

My Radio setup will be

COM1: ZFW 124.75 (active), DUA CTAF 122.8 (standby)
NAV1: URH 114.3 (active), CDI Twisted to 004°
DME is shown on the GNS480

COM2: Same as Com1, as a back up should #1 go tango uniform
NAV2: BYP 114.6 (active), CDI Twisted to 321°; have URH 114.3 in standby

Being vectored to the IAF of HANOM, make sure I’m at 2500MSL and configured for approach (speed, flaps, etc). Identify HANOM by having (1) Having CDI#1 centered and the DME reading 10.0 and (2) CDI#1 centered and CDI #2 centered.

Cross HANOM, do the 5T’s and fly the published course reversal. On crossing HANOM again, announce crossing the fix and proceed to COSUM, descending to 2200.

Flip NAV2 to URH, re-twist CDI#2 to 344°

Crossing COSUM @ 5 DME, switch COM1 to CTAF when instructred by ATC, announce position/intention on CTAF, descend to MDA (1060 if landing on 35, or 1160 if circling to land on 17).

Motor along at MDA, watching DME to wind down to 0.6.

If still in the goo at 0.6 DME, go missed, climbing right turn to join the hold over URG, then climb in the hold to 2500 using CDI#2 as my reference instrument.

Don’t worry about twisting CDI#1 to match #2 since I may need that to return to HANOM.

 

[Clark1961]

Sounds about right. In the second to last line you typed something about holding over URG and I think you meant URH. Might be a long flight to URG, dunno.

If I were doing it I just ask Mari to ride along and show me how to work the 430w to fly it automagically...and then I'd screw it up by leaving the autopilot control in NAV instead of HDG. Maybe that wouldn't be so good on a check ride...

 

[AggieMike88]

Sounds about right. In the second to last line you typed something about holding over URG and I think you meant URH. Might be a long flight to URG, dunno.

Autocorrect got me. URH was the intended... URG is "United Auto Recyclers Group", the folks based in Denver that hold the conference in April that brings me into your back yard each year.

 

[AggieMike88]

In the real world, I'd be doing all of this with our very capable GNS/AP setup too. But the DPE hinted that while he does need to observe me using the setup, I need to be able to fly any approach without it.

So I'm doing homework to review all possible ones in the area. Get in my head all the possible ways to identify the fixes, what to tune, what to twist, etc.

 

[James331]

Not bad, I'd probably fly it with the GPS and have the VOR dialed in as well.

Only thing I'd change is I like to monitor CTAF on my other com,

I'll have approach active on com 1, monitor CTAF and AWOS STBY on com two.

That way if someone is doing something weird at the field I can monitor the situation as I get closer.

Also I'd dial in the missed altitude on your AP after the FAF, have the approach also loaded in the GPS and use the GPS to fly the missed.

 

[AggieMike88]

Also I'd dial in the missed altitude on your AP after the FAF, have the approach also loaded in the GPS and use the GPS to fly the missed.

Agree with having the entire approach with Missed procedures fully loaded into the Navigator and AP. And that's what I'd be doing in real world.

But since DPE said "I may ask you to do it all by hand with no iPad or panel GPS", I'm studying up on the details how to do just that.

 

[Marauder]

You should also look at it from a DPE perspective. In other words, what can he/she fail to make your life miserable?

You didn't mention the AWOS and Ardmore weather possibility. I would setup COM2 to the AWOS and Ardmore Wx. Once the weather is obtained, you can make the adjustments for the MDA and the loss of the VDP (if you are using Ardmore's barometric setting). After the weather has been obtained, I would then switch COM2 for the TU possibility.

Be prepared to work with one Nav radio if they decide to fail one of them.

 

[James331]

Agree with having the entire approach with Missed procedures fully loaded into the Navigator and AP. And that's what I'd be doing in real world.

But since DPE said "I may ask you to do it all by hand with no iPad or panel GPS", I'm studying up on the details how to do just that.

What GPS do you have?

 

[RussR]

You say you're being "vectored" to HANOM and then will fly the HILPT. This shouldn't happen - if you're being vectored, you'd usually be vectored to intercept final between COSUM and HANOM, then would fly straight in.

I suppose you could be vectored to join the BYP R-321 and then cleared, but then you wouldn't do the PT either (NoPT segment).

Actually, I'm at quite a loss as to why the HILPT at HANOM exists at all, it is not necessary based on how the procedure is currently published.

 

[Clark1961]

You say you're being "vectored" to HANOM and then will fly the HILPT. This shouldn't happen - if you're being vectored, you'd usually be vectored to intercept final between COSUM and HANOM, then would fly straight in.

I suppose you could be vectored to join the BYP R-321 and then cleared, but then you wouldn't do the PT either (NoPT segment).

Actually, I'm at quite a loss as to why the HILPT at HANOM exists at all, it is not necessary based on how the procedure is currently published.

V63 uses URH so V63 URH HANOM VOR/DME RWY 35 would require the HILPT.

 

[AggieMike88]

What GPS do you have?

CNX80/480.

Love it. Extremely capable and easy to use once you know the buttonology.

 

[AggieMike88]

You say you're being "vectored" ....

My bad... new to the terminology. Better wording would be "cleared to.."

 

[Clark1961]

My bad... new to the terminology. Better wording would be "cleared to.."

Russ has a good point and that is the HILPT may or may not be required. I had a controller ask me if I was going to do the hold on a GPS approach. Since it was a standard T config I just said that I wouldn't do the hold unless he demanded it. The important thing is for both you and the controller to know what you are going to be doing. The freq can get really busy on IMC days and the controller prolly won't have much time to sort you out so it's up to you to communicate intentions.

Denver approach seems to maybe be changing spam can handling a little bit but I still get either ignored/forgotten/slammed around most of the time when IFR or training.With IMC they get really busy with airliners going every which way so that spam cans around FTG are red-headed step children...anyway your DPE undoubtedly understands what you're in for and will want to see how you handle things with the controllers. You can make mistakes, just correct them and don't bust altitude. (kind of a long winded way to say that but good luck on the ride and don't sweat the details too hard - you'll have to be able to figure out approaches on the fly in IMC so you may as well do it on the ride).

 

[RussR]

V63 uses URH so V63 URH HANOM VOR/DME RWY 35 would require the HILPT.

That's not a valid clearance for a non-GPS-equipped aircraft, (and that's what the procedure is designed for). There is no published route from URH to HANOM. Yes, I know there's a published route from HANOM to URH, but that's not the same thing. Instrument procedures aren't meant to be flown backwards. A route from URH to HANOM would be properly identified by a thin line as a feeder route.

My bad... new to the terminology. Better wording would be "cleared to.."

No problem, I figured that, but still, how are you getting cleared to HANOM? Direct? That's possible with GPS of course, but the procedure design for a VOR approach isn't supposed to be predicated on use of GPS - in other words, there shouldn't be a HILPT at HANOM in the first place.

 

[PPC1052]

Just don't forget to identify the VOR stations by listening to the tone.

Also, be sure you get your weather from the awos. As someone said above, you might have that on Com 2, and with CTAF or Center on standby. I don't have standby on my antiquated radios, so I am not sure how I personally would have that all set up.

 

[flyingron]

I usually put my destination AWOS and CTAF in #2. This allows me to easily monitor them even while still on the horn to ATC on the #1. Unless it's hard IFR at the destination, I want to hear what's going on in the pattern even before "change to advisory frequency approved."

 

[Clark1961]

That's not a valid clearance for a non-GPS-equipped aircraft, (and that's what the procedure is designed for). There is no published route from URH to HANOM. Yes, I know there's a published route from HANOM to URH, but that's not the same thing. Instrument procedures aren't meant to be flown backwards. A route from URH to HANOM would be properly identified by a thin line as a feeder route.

Did you see the R-184 on the procedure?

 

[AggieMike88]

Just don't forget to identify the VOR stations by listening to the tone.

Good point. It's easy to get use to the 480 auto identing.

I need to add the "how to do this" to my study list.

With the KX155 as the 2nd radio, that's a simple task. But I'm not as familiar with the how to on the 480.

 

[AggieMike88]

No problem, I figured that, but still, how are you getting cleared to HANOM? Direct? That's possible with GPS of course, but the procedure design for a VOR approach isn't supposed to be predicated on use of GPS - in other words, there shouldn't be a HILPT at HANOM in the first place.

So did we stumble on an approach that's not correct?

 

[ajyeary]

Did you see the R-184 on the procedure?

I'm sure he did, but that R-184 just identifies the radial. Note that it has no attached altitude, nor does it really provide any useful information (e.g., distance) except the radial information. If there were a feeder from URH to HANOM, the feeder route would probably be displayed offset with additional information like the SGH > OHMEE segment on the SGH VOR RWY 24 approach.

I'm guessing it is indeed charted incorrectly. Has anyone emailed about it yet?

 

[Clark1961]

I'm sure he did, but that R-184 just identifies the radial. Note that it has no attached altitude, nor does it really provide any useful information (e.g., distance) except the radial information.

I've got a radial and a distance on a VOR/DME approach. What else is needed to define the fix? Altitude is depicted a couple different ways...

 

[ajyeary]

I've got a radial and a distance on a VOR/DME approach. What else is needed to define the fix? Altitude is depicted a couple different ways...

To define the fix, nothing else is required. To define the route, an altitude is required, is it not? I mean, you could infer it from the 2500' minimum on the holding pattern or the 3600' MSA, or the 3900' OROCA on the IFR Low chart.

Granted, I'm still pretty new at this, but I've never seen a feeder route that isn't marked directly with an altitude. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[peerlesscowboy]

I'm sure he did, but that R-184 just identifies the radial. Note that it has no attached altitude, nor does it really provide any useful information (e.g., distance) except the radial information. If there were a feeder from URH to HANOM, the feeder route would probably be displayed offset with additional information like the SGH > OHMEE segment on the SGH VOR RWY 24 approach.

I'm guessing it is indeed charted incorrectly. Has anyone emailed about it yet?

I'm guessing too there should be a charted feeder route from URH to HANOM. What does Cap't Jepp say?

 

[peerlesscowboy]

Coming in from the southwest equipped /A your enroute clearance will likely be to URH, from there you'll fly the (non-existant ) feeder route to HANOM (IAF) and the HILPT to get established inbound.
Forget about BYP, you're not coming in that way and you'll identify HANOM as 10 dme from URH.
There are different schools of thought about the Comm #1 & #2 and Nav #1 & #2 thing, whatever you're comfortable with. Personally I like to use Comm #1 for airborne ATC frequencies (center, app/dep, twr) and #2 for all else like (ATIS, AWOS, unicom, clearance delivery, ground, etc.) but I wouldn't say there's a right way or a wrong way here, just use a system and be consistent to avoid confusion.
On the Nav #1 & #2 thing? Again there are two schools of thought about that, personally I like to have both dialed to the same freq and radial to avoid confusion.

 

[RussR]

Did you see the R-184 on the procedure?

I'm sure he did, but that R-184 just identifies the radial. Note that it has no attached altitude, nor does it really provide any useful information (e.g., distance) except the radial information. If there were a feeder from URH to HANOM, the feeder route would probably be displayed offset with additional information like the SGH > OHMEE segment on the SGH VOR RWY 24 approach.

I'm guessing it is indeed charted incorrectly. Has anyone emailed about it yet?

I've got a radial and a distance on a VOR/DME approach. What else is needed to define the fix? Altitude is depicted a couple different ways...

AJ is spot on. Yes, you can certainly identify the intersection. BUT, while this is necessary to support flying from URH to HANOM, it is not sufficient. What is missing here is a charted, evaluated, and published route from URH to HANOM. Note that courses on instrument approaches are one-way, not two-ways like on an airway. This is why each segment of an approach has a directional arrow. AJ's example of SGH VOR RWY 24 is exactly how this procedure should be depicted if a route from URH to HANOM was the developer's intent - with a thin black line, course, distance, and altitude for the feeder route. You can't just "roll your own" segment of an approach, and the existence of a charted radial does not mean that it is a published segment.

For another example of that, observe another approach local to AJ - KMGY LOC/DME RWY 20: http://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1409/pdf/05042LD20.PDF

The 264 radial from the SGH VOR is NOT a segment of the approach. It is a crossing radial only - you can't legally enter this approach from the SGH VOR. Yes, it would not be hard to actually DO it, but it's not a published segment and therefore would not be a valid clearance.

So did we stumble on an approach that's not correct?

Yes. Fortunately this one is benign as far as effect on flight safety.

 

[denverpilot]

Autocorrect got me. URH was the intended... URG is "United Auto Recyclers Group", the folks based in Denver that hold the conference in April that brings me into your back yard each year.

Then we like URG.

 

[Clark1961]

AJ is spot on. Yes, you can certainly identify the intersection. BUT, while this is necessary to support flying from URH to HANOM, it is not sufficient. What is missing here is a charted, evaluated, and published route from URH to HANOM. Note that courses on instrument approaches are one-way, not two-ways like on an airway. This is why each segment of an approach has a directional arrow. AJ's example of SGH VOR RWY 24 is exactly how this procedure should be depicted if a route from URH to HANOM was the developer's intent - with a thin black line, course, distance, and altitude for the feeder route. You can't just "roll your own" segment of an approach, and the existence of a charted radial does not mean that it is a published segment.

Russ - The IAF is HANOM, the segment from URH to HANOM is not part of the approach. How one gets to HANOM depends on equipment, pilot, and controller. If one can go direct HANOM via GPS then one can get to HANOM based on the depicted radial and distance. I don't see this as either complicated or even a question.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

Russ - The IAF is HANOM, the segment from URH to HANOM is not part of the approach. How one gets to HANOM depends on equipment, pilot, and controller. If one can go direct HANOM via GPS then one can get to HANOM based on the depicted radial and distance. I don't see this as either complicated or even a question.

The only thing plain and simple here is that the omission of a feeder route from URH to HANOM is obviously a charting error.

 

[PPC1052]

Good point. It's easy to get use to the 480 auto identing.

I need to add the "how to do this" to my study list.

With the KX155 as the 2nd radio, that's a simple task. But I'm not as familiar with the how to on the 480.

There is a likely a button on your audio panel (probably labeled as "NAV") that lets you select NAV audio output from the 480 to hear, just like there is a button on your panel that is used for the KX155.

 

[PPC1052]

On the Nav #1 & #2 thing? Again there are two schools of thought about that, personally I like to have both dialed to the same freq and radial to avoid confusion.

As you said, this is personal. My preference is to have Nav 1 set for what I am tracking, and Nav 2 set for cross radials. But I don't have GPS other than my IPad for situational awareness.

 

[PPC1052]

Russ - The IAF is HANOM, the segment from URH to HANOM is not part of the approach. How one gets to HANOM depends on equipment, pilot, and controller. If one can go direct HANOM via GPS then one can get to HANOM based on the depicted radial and distance. I don't see this as either complicated or even a question.

I am with you. Assuming you are /A, wouldn't the control just assign the altitude, for example: "URH direct HANOM, cleared for the VOR/DME 35 approach, maintain 2500 until established inbound, report inbound on the procedure turn?"

 

[peerlesscowboy]

As you said, this is personal. My preference is to have Nav 1 set for what I am tracking, and Nav 2 set for cross radials. But I don't have GPS other than my IPad for situational awareness.

Yes, if I needed to identify a cross radial I'd do it that way too. In the OP's instance HANOM is ID'd by DME.

 

[AggieMike88]

There is a likely a button on your audio panel (probably labeled as "NAV") that lets you select NAV audio output from the 480 to hear, just like there is a button on your panel that is used for the KX155.

Yup. But I also need to read up on if that is all that I need to do, or if there is an additional button press or two for the 480 to open the NAV audio rx.

What ever the procedure, I'm gonna update my checklists to include a reminder of how to do this. I'd rather have that small crutch than get a frown from the examiner because I'm fumbling this task.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

I am with you. Assuming you are /A, wouldn't the control just assign the altitude, for example: "URH direct HANOM, cleared for the VOR/DME 35 approach, maintain 2500 until established inbound, report inbound on the procedure turn?"

As per my observation if an IAF isn't an airway fix then a feeder route will be provided as a published route from an airway fix to the IAF.

 

[AggieMike88]

In the OP's instance HANOM is ID'd by DME.

Looking at the plate again, I discovered an error in my original interpretation. I was going to use the radial off of BYP as a means to "cross identify". But since the line from BYP doesn't intersect the radial from URH, I don't think that's a permitted method.

So as Peerless says, I must use DME to ID HANOM

 

[PPC1052]

Yes, if I needed to identify a cross radial I'd do it that way too. In the OP's instance HANOM is ID'd by DME.

Yeah, but I think I would still have the cross radial as additional information and a check on the DME. Of course, you don't have the check on the primary track that way, so, I see the argument either way.

 

[AggieMike88]

To expand the discussion (and many good points have been raised), let's look at the same airport, but the VOR/DME RWY 17 approach.

If we were starting in the same SW quadrant of the plate, near where the ELEV and TDZE is shown, how would the approach be executed?

 

[PPC1052]

Looking at the plate again, I discovered an error in my original interpretation. I was going to use the radial off of BYP as a means to "cross identify". But since the line from BYP doesn't intersect the radial from URH, I don't think that's a permitted method.

So as Peerless says, I must use DME to ID HANOM

Given the title of the approach, I think DME is required. That being said, I am not sure what you mean by "the line from BYO doesn't intersect the radial from URH". It does, and I'm pretty sure it does so at URH.

 

[PPC1052]

To expand the discussion (and many good points have been raised), let's look at the same airport, but the VOR/DME RWY 17 approach.

If we were starting in the same SW quadrant of the plate, near where the ELEV and TDZE is shown, how would the approach be executed?

"URH direct NANDE, cleared for the VOR/DME 17 approach, maintain 2500 until established inbound, report inbound on the procedure turn?"

I suppose it could also be, "BYP direct NANDE, cleared for the VOR/DME 17 approach, maintain 2500 until established inbound, report inbound on the procedure turn?"

 

[peerlesscowboy]

Given the title of the approach, I think DME is required. That being said, I am not sure what you mean by "the line from BYO doesn't intersect the radial from URH". It does, and I'm pretty sure it does so at URH.

I assume you meant to say "...., and I'm pretty sure it does so at HANOM"?
I agree that BYP r321 intersects URH r184 at the same location as HANOM, OTOH HANOM isn't charted to be identified that way. As a practical matter I suppose it's a question of how to best utilize your single source of redundancy (#2 Nav)? If your #1 Nav craps out you can continue the approach with your #2, if your DME craps out you can't.