NoPT Poll

[aterpster]

Following is a proposed ILS approach for KTVR Runway 36. Note that the terminal route from BARNE intersection to the TKH NDB is not annotated “NoPT” even though its alignment and altitude easily meets NoPT criteria.

As you near BARNE on the airway to the south, Memphis Center say, “Piper 1234C, radar service terminated, cleared from over BARNES for the Tallulah ILS Runway 36 approach.”

 

[write-stuff]

Since you aren't on radar vectors the course reversal would be required although you could probably be granted the straight in if you asked.

 

[Ravioli]

Expect to fly it as published. Maybe vector to final would be granted.

Is this a busy airport?

 

[Bonchie]

Is this a busy airport?

Not in the least. Sleepy field with one government jet (Army Corp Engineers) and a bunch of vintage stuff (there's a museum there with a P-51, Yak in the next hanger, and other stuff that still fly). Several T-6's that are part of the AeroShell team base there as well.

The ILS must be new. Last I was there it was only a LOC approach.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Note that the terminal route from BARNE intersection to the TKH NDB is not annotated “NoPT” even though its alignment and altitude easily meets NoPT criteria?

Is there something besides alignment and altitude that prevent it from being a NoPT transition, or is somebody in government just being a jerk?

 

[RotorDude]

What bothers me is the 85' penalty the GPS 36 has over the proposed ILS. Is there a known reason for that?

 

[Velocity173]

Voted # 3 to be different. Also, unless the radar coverage is particularly bad there, no point in terminating radar with the clearance.

 

[MauleSkinner]

What bothers me is the 85' penalty the GPS 36 has over the proposed ILS. Is there a known reason for that?

My guess would be that the ILS GS is coincident with the VGSI, where the RNAV GS isn't, causing some misalignment or obstruction issue.

 

[RotorDude]

My guess would be that the ILS GS is coincident with the VGSI, where the RNAV GS isn't, causing some misalignment or obstruction issue.

Not sure how that could be, since AFAIK the RNAV is a virtual line in space which could be situated anywhere.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Not sure how that could be, since AFAIK the RNAV is a virtual line in space which could be situated anywhere.

"How" is easy...that's where they put the virtual line.

"Why" is the harder question.

 

[midlifeflyer]

"None of the above"?

I'm inclined to say "None of the above" and that my read back of the approach clearance would be "Cleared for the ILS Runway 36 approach. Request straight in." With no rationale for the route (as opposed to the reg) requiring a PT, the only important consideration is that the pilot and ATC are on the same page.

Which brings me to the return question: Is there a valid reason why it is not labeled NoPT? I have seen similar situations with real approach charts, have brought them to the charting office' attention, and have seen a NoPT NOTAM issued within 24 hours.

 

[Everskyward]

I don't think the angle is too steep but it intersects the approach at the GS intercept/FAF. Is this allowed according to TERPS? Many systems will not capture the GS until the LOC is already captured.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Voted # 3 to be different. Also, unless the radar coverage is particularly bad there, no point in terminating radar with the clearance.

I didn't understand that. Hearing "radar services terminated" pretty much means the approach is going below radar coverage and you are on your own. It's not matter of choice to be accepted or rejected.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I don't think the angle is too steep but it intersects the approach at the GS intercept/FAF. Is this allowed according to TERPS? Many systems will not capture the GS until the LOC is already captured.

From aterpser's original post:

its alignment and altitude easily meets NoPT criteria.

 

[RotorDude]

"How" is easy...that's where they put the virtual line.

"Why" is the harder question.

Terps software infiltrated by Chinese hackers?

 

[Everskyward]

From aterpser's original post:

The alignment may meet the criteria, but is there a problem with the location of the intercept?

 

[Clark1961]

The alignment may meet the criteria, but is there a problem with the location of the intercept?

What? You don't like IAF=FAF with noPT?

 

[Everskyward]

What? You don't like IAF=FAF with noPT?

I don't think the plane would like it...

 

[bobmrg]

Following is a proposed ILS approach for KTVR Runway 36. Note that the terminal route from BARNE intersection to the TKH NDB is not annotated “NoPT” even though its alignment and altitude easily meets NoPT criteria.

As you near BARNE on the airway to the south, Memphis Center say, “Piper 1234C, radar service terminated, cleared from over BARNES for the Tallulah ILS Runway 36 approach.”

Considering the width of the localizer at that distance, an own-nav intercept should be possible. The clearance was not DIRECT Barnes, but OVER Barnes, so I would maintain 2100 and set up a localizer intercept south of Barnes. YMMV.

Bob Gardner

 

[bobmrg]

Following is a proposed ILS approach for KTVR Runway 36. Note that the terminal route from BARNE intersection to the TKH NDB is not annotated “NoPT” even though its alignment and altitude easily meets NoPT criteria.

As you near BARNE on the airway to the south, Memphis Center say, “Piper 1234C, radar service terminated, cleared from over BARNES for the Tallulah ILS Runway 36 approach.”

Considering the width of the localizer at that distance (one mile plus?), an own-nav intercept should be possible.

Bob Gardner

 

[Everskyward]

Considering the width of the localizer at that distance (one mile plus?), an own-nav intercept should be possible.

Bob Gardner

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. Are you suggesting that you turn a little farther west than the depicted course so that you intercept the LOC before the GS? You could certainly do that but would it be technically following the approach?

 

[RotorDude]

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. Are you suggesting that you turn a little farther west than the depicted course so that you intercept the LOC before the GS? You could certainly do that but would it be technically following the approach?

Why would you need to turn farther west? You can just wait for the LOC to center, and as it starts coming in, you turn right 12 degrees, and correct as needed. As the needle centers, you start descending and tracking the GS. I don't see an issue there, but I stand to be corrected.

 

[Everskyward]

Why would you need to turn farther west? You can just wait for the LOC to center, and as it starts coming in, you turn right 12 degrees, and correct as needed. As the needle centers, you start descending and tracking the GS. I don't see an issue there, but I stand to be corrected.

Some systems will not capture the GS until the LOC is captured. Granted this does not apply if you are using raw data to fly the approach. If you are capturing the LOC and GS at the same as you would on this approach I think it could fool the system. No way to know without actually doing it.

Note that I am not the one suggesting a more westerly heading. I was only trying to figure out what the previous poster meant.

 

[eetrojan]

I notice on Google Earth that the little town to the southeast of the airport is called "Mound." Maybe that freaked somebody out because it sounded like an obstacle.

 

[eetrojan]

On a serious note, if flying from BARNE intersection to the TKH NDB you turn on course just prior to the TKH NDB, aren't you already returning to the fix on the inbound course such that you shouldn't loop around?

 

[Velocity173]

I didn't understand that. Hearing "radar services terminated" pretty much means the approach is going below radar coverage and you are on your own. It's not matter of choice to be accepted or rejected.

Because unless this area has poor radar coverage, there's no point in including that in the clearance. In this case, clear the aircraft for the approach. Monitor the aircraft as they proceed inbound on the feeder. Then, "Piper 34C, you can cancel the IFR with me in the air or De Ridder FSS on the ground." If he wants to cancel on the ground then "Piper 34C, radar services terminated, change to advisory frequency approved." Even then, that phraseology is optional because the instruction to change to CTAF automatically terminates radar service.

 

[Clark1961]

I don't think the plane would like it...

Well your plane is a Cezzna, maybe a Cirrus or Boing would like it?

It would take some manipulation to get the Century IIIc to do it and there would be a deviation from the charted procedure. It would have to be transitioned from heading mode to Loc mode early enough to allow capture of the GS at the FAF. It might do weird stuff when switched to Loc mode since it wants a 45 degree intercept...

Hand flying, probably not too much of a problem but high workload. Taking the HILO would give a minute to square things away...

 

[Velocity173]

Changing my vote to the first option.

 

[Everskyward]

Well your plane is a Cezzna, maybe a Cirrus or Boing would like it?

Perhaps. The Cezzna seems a little handicapped at times...

It would take some manipulation to get the Century IIIc to do it and there would be a deviation from the charted procedure. It would have to be transitioned from heading mode to Loc mode early enough to allow capture of the GS at the FAF. It might do weird stuff when switched to Loc mode since it wants a 45 degree intercept...

Hand flying, probably not too much of a problem but high workload. Taking the HILO would give a minute to square things away...

We could make it work too. If the flight director/autopilot didn't capture the GS we could descend using pitch or vertical speed until it did. Or we could hand fly it.

 

[MAKG1]

On a serious note, if flying from BARNE intersection to the TKH NDB you turn on course just prior to the TKH NDB, aren't you already returning to the fix on the inbound course such that you shouldn't loop around?

No. You aren't allowed to skip the hold in lieu of procedure turn unless cleared for the straight in or vectored to final, as this approach is annotated.

You can skip the PT/hold if:

1. NoPT is on the plate for the route being flown,
2. When being vectored to final,
3. When cleared straight-in, or
4. When you're on a timed approach from a holding fix (does anyone do that anymore?).

Otherwise, you must fly it.

I wonder if that hold might be there for #4. Seems kinda weird for a sleepy airport. Does it not have radar?

 

[NoHeat]

Why do they indicate the waypoint CFBXL on the approach course? There's no distance or radials to identify where it is.

 

[azure]

"Memphis Center, request straight-in clearance, 34C".

 

[azure]

It would take a little trickery to make the 480 sequence past the HILPT to the FAS at TKH, but since you aren't supposed to be using it for primary guidance at that point anyway, it's not essential. The main issue is making sure the GPS has the FAS as the current leg when you reach DA, in order to ensure sequencing to the missed at the right time. A flyleg should do that, and you have plenty of time to do it.

At least, I *think* it would do it.

The *easiest* way to fly that approach with the 480 would be to do the HILPT, so whether I would ask for a straight-in clearance would really depend on whether I felt up for fiddling with the 480 on my way down the GS.

 

[gasfiltered]

Is a clearance like that common in areas of poor radar coverage? I fly mostly on the east coast and I can't remember ever not being given a "....xxx heading, join the localizer, cleared for the ILSXX approach".
I have to admit I would scratch my head for a minute and call approach back for a straight-in on that one.

 

[bobmrg]

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. Are you suggesting that you turn a little farther west than the depicted course so that you intercept the LOC before the GS? You could certainly do that but would it be technically following the approach?

I believe that the airspace is protected 4nm on either side of the HEZ transition radial. I might be off of the black line by a tad, but who cares so long as I maintain 2100 until localizer intercept... and I would be beneath the GS at the intercept. As I said, that is what I would do and YMMV.

Bob

 

[Everskyward]

Is a clearance like that common in areas of poor radar coverage? I fly mostly on the east coast and I can't remember ever not being given a "....xxx heading, join the localizer, cleared for the ILSXX approach".
I have to admit I would scratch my head for a minute and call approach back for a straight-in on that one.

They can't vector you to final if there is no radar coverage...

It might not be common on the east coast but in other parts of the country it can happen more often and you are required to do the full procedure.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

This thread was designed to bring Ron back, admit it.
And by the time you guys have done chatting about the legality of it, I would have landed and been in the bar starting my 2nd!

 

[azure]

Is a clearance like that common in areas of poor radar coverage? I fly mostly on the east coast and I can't remember ever not being given a "....xxx heading, join the localizer, cleared for the ILSXX approach".

In New England there are many areas where radar coverage is only available down to 5000 MSL or so, and the GS intercept might be below that altitude. Try the ILS 17 at KMPV sometime. The last time I flew that approach in actual conditions, I was told "radar services terminated" maybe not along with the approach clearance, but well before reaching the GS intercept.

 

[Everskyward]

This thread was designed to bring Ron back, admit it.
And by the time you guys have done chatting about the legality of it, I would have landed and been in the bar starting my 2nd!

Notice that we are not chatting so much about the legality as the practicality.

And it's the airplanes with the more sophisticated avionics which are more likely to have a brain fart at that intercept... unless it's cheated.

The way the approach is now, in it's preliminary state, you would need to do the PT unless you asked to do it straight in. I don't think anyone would argue differently. I guess the question would be if they could legally make the entry a NOPT. I don't know the answer to that.

 

[Palmpilot]

Aside from the lack of "cleared straight-in" in the clearance, I would not want to be figuring out my crosswind correction inside the final approach point while descending on the glide slope.