Question on VOR 7 approach at KART

R

rookie1255

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
108
Display Name
Display name:
rookie1255
From the north we cross the VOR, do the procedure turn and come back in on 043. From the south we go north and turn in towards the 053 radial, changing to 043 after crossing the FAF.

My question is, why doesn’t the plate just have you turn in on the 043 instead of the 053? There are no obstacles that would pose a hazard. Just seems weird to have this difference. Thanks in advance for the responses.
 
Don't know why it was designed that way but hopefully you've seen the NOTAM that the route from SYR is NA:

!FDC 9/9526 ART IAP WATERTOWN INTL, Watertown, NY. VOR RWY 7, AMDT 14A... TERMINAL ROUTE FROM SYR VORTAC TO WUMSO INT NA. 1903201449-2103201449EST
 
Rookie are you based at KART? I fly up every November to go deer hunting. It'd be nice to meet a fellow POA member.
 
rookie1255 said:
From the north we cross the VOR, do the procedure turn and come back in on 043. From the south we go north and turn in towards the 053 radial, changing to 043 after crossing the FAF.

My question is, why doesn’t the plate just have you turn in on the 043 instead of the 053? There are no obstacles that would pose a hazard. Just seems weird to have this difference. Thanks in advance for the responses.
Click to expand...
No idea. Fort Drum is on the other side of the airport, so maybe they're trying to keep you clear of some airspace the military likes to use for training (even though it's outside the MOA).

About 10 years ago, passing ART on my way from Ottawa to New York, I noticed a military helicopter (Blackhawk???) shadowing me a couple of miles away at my 5 o'clock high. I was talking to Wheeler-Sack approach at the time, and managed to resist the temptation to say over the radio "tell the helicopter practicing shadowing me that it needs to be at my 5 o'clock low for a Cherokee, so that it's hidden by my wings." :)
 
No IR rating here, and just starting to learn this stuff, so don't believe any of this.. just thinking out loud, and would appreciate any correction to missteps in my logic...

There's a defined intersection, WUMSO, of ART R-233 and SYR R-010, 10nm from ART. There is not one at the intersection of ART R-223 and SYR R-010. That may be part of the reason?

Secondly, the PT on R-223 is to be done w/in 10nm of ART. The intersection of ART R-223 and SYR R-010 is farther than 10nm from ART; perhaps there is a reason (VOR reception? Clearance issues not readily seen on the chart?) that turns towards ART are not indicated until the 10nm point, hence the continued flight north on SYR R-010 until WUMSO at 10nm from ART?

Just trying to learn... does any of that ring true?
 
The SYR VOR is listed in the A/FD as unusable between 010 and 025, so you can’t come east to intercept the ART 223 at 10 miles. I’m guessing there’s a 10 mile restriction for an IAP, so closest place you can get within 10 miles of ART on the SYR 010 radial is at ART 233.

Took me a while to find that, it was a good learning experience.
 
MuseChaser said:
No IR rating here, and just starting to learn this stuff, so don't believe any of this.. just thinking out loud, and would appreciate any correction to missteps in my logic...

There's a defined intersection, WUMSO, of ART R-233 and SYR R-010, 10nm from ART. There is not one at the intersection of ART R-223 and SYR R-010. That may be part of the reason?

Secondly, the PT on R-223 is to be done w/in 10nm of ART. The intersection of ART R-223 and SYR R-010 is farther than 10nm from ART; perhaps there is a reason (VOR reception? Clearance issues not readily seen on the chart?) that turns towards ART are not indicated until the 10nm point, hence the continued flight north on SYR R-010 until WUMSO at 10nm from ART?

Just trying to learn... does any of that ring true?
Click to expand...

Dog legs at unnamed fixes is not uncommon, they are identified with an x. There is often a Computer Fix there like (CFFFC). They all start with CF and are in parentheses on the Chart. They are there so GPS Navigators don’t get confused, they need fixes. The CF fix ‘name’ is not used in ATC communications. While controllers may know they are there, they have no need to.
 
bluesky74656 said:
The SYR VOR is listed in the A/FD as unusable between 010 and 025, so you can’t come east to intercept the ART 223 at 10 miles. I’m guessing there’s a 10 mile restriction for an IAP, so closest place you can get within 10 miles of ART on the SYR 010 radial is at ART 233.

Took me a while to find that, it was a good learning experience.
Click to expand...

The unusable radials of ART do not prevent an interception of the 223r. I see no problem with that segment being longer than 10 miles.
 
luvflyin said:
The unusable radials of ART do not prevent an interception of the 223r. I see no problem with that segment being longer than 10 miles.
Click to expand...

And you can use GPS for that part.
 
It’s SYR that has the radials unusable. It’s surprising to me that they would publish an approach that relies on unusable radials. It basically turns into a crappy GPS approach.

BA227D7F-9A88-4285-BFC2-713A0D85CD2B.jpeg
 
Last edited:
bluesky74656 said:
It’s SYR that has the radials unusable. It’s surprising to me that they would publish an approach that relies on unusable radials. It basically turns into a crappy GPS approach.
View attachment 75307
Click to expand...

Another good reason to have WAAS. No more crappy VOR approaches. With the spread of GPS approaches, the FAA isn't real diligent about flight-checking VOR approaches, so if they find one out of tolerance and mark it NA, it may be a while, if ever, before it's reinstated. The VOR-A at KVGC has been NA a long time after being intermittently available for a few years, and since the VOR (GGT) is scheduled for decommisioning in 2021 (I think) I doubt it will ever be available again.
 
There’s a juicy tower right after FAF that looks like it’ll get your attention if you fly that sloppy.
 
I agree with you - it looks weird, there is no way to second guess why they designed it this way.
For your checkride you may have to do a VOR approach (I didn't have to) but after the checkride I suggest you liberate yourself from VOR approaches.
Get WAAS capable airplane like someone above stated.
I just had a 6-month instrument refresher and told me instructor - please no VOR approaches since I am not going to use them and he complied.
 
Interesting that they moved WUMSO to deal with this. The older chart looks like it allows for a radial intercept using vectors on the 043, without having to undergo the course change, and that the WUMSO entry is to keep people off the approach course prior to the FAF. That's the only thing I can think of in this case, given that they don't appear to be having you avoid another airport's traffic pattern.

chemgeek said:
Another good reason to have WAAS. No more crappy VOR approaches. With the spread of GPS approaches, the FAA isn't real diligent about flight-checking VOR approaches, so if they find one out of tolerance and mark it NA, it may be a while, if ever, before it's reinstated. The VOR-A at KVGC has been NA a long time after being intermittently available for a few years, and since the VOR (GGT) is scheduled for decommisioning in 2021 (I think) I doubt it will ever be available again.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Other than sometimes flying an ILS, I have no intent on flying radio based approaches for anything but practice again.
 
bluesky74656 said:
It’s SYR that has the radials unusable. It’s surprising to me that they would publish an approach that relies on unusable radials. It basically turns into a crappy GPS approach.

View attachment 75307
Click to expand...

I think the Unusable Radials on SYR will change by the time this Approach is published. That they are even considering changing this Approach tells me that SYR is part of the MON and a little work is going to be done to reduce the amount of Radial unusability.
 
luvflyin said:
I think the Unusable Radials on SYR will change by the time this Approach is published. That they are even considering changing this Approach tells me that SYR is part of the MON and a little work is going to be done to reduce the amount of Radial unusability.
Click to expand...

You're right, both SYR and ART are on the MON list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top