Brad Z
Final Approach
Why wouldn't the airport sponsor approve?
Requesting a New Approach To Be Made
- Thread starter NealRomeoGolf
- Start date
Since he won't return my questions, I don't know. I don't feel like I'm being honest answering yes when I don't have explicit support from the airport authority.
Brad Z
Final Approach
Go to the next Metropolitan Airport Authority of Peoria board of commissioners meeting and request a motion to support your effort to request an approach. The next meeting is 12/20/2021...it looks like you have time to get it on the agenda.
Www.flypia.com/airport/board/
Might have a better option. Just went to the airport and they are having a "State of the Airport" night with the director in 2 weeks. I'll be there.
RussR
En-Route
I'm not sure why the attestation of airport approval for Cats C and D, but then that part of the process all occurs well before I get involved.
You'll see a LOT of airports out there with shortish runways that have Cats C and D on the chart. That's because unless advised otherwise, I might as well design for Cat D. If the design works, why not?
From a procedure design standpoint, in the vast majority of cases, there are only a few things that are affected by the higher Categories, and it's pretty much just anything involving a turn - meaning a turning missed approach, leg length of a segment that begins or ends with a turn, Procedure Turn length (but only if you need less than a 10 nm length, which is rare), Circling minimums, and such. Because faster airplanes take longer to turn. There are glidepath angle limits too, but with most procedures at 3.00 degrees, that meets everything.
For a straightforward, generic, straight-in RNAV approach with a straight-out missed approach, none of these factors are likely to come into play. Okay, it's a 3000 ft runway. But hey, there's no reason to restrict Cat C or D, so why not publish it?
Cat C and D used to require a larger area to be evaluated for the "visual segment" of the approach (that portion below MDA or DA). This did cause some problems for the faster airplanes sometimes, but that larger area was done away with several years ago.
The main effect we're seeing in recent years is with Cat C and D circling MDAs. When the radii for the evaluated areas changed some years ago, this caused Cats B, C and D Circling MDAs to generally increase across the board. Especially for Cat D, sometimes this resulted in a dramatic increase, so Circling restrictions (like "Circling NA for Cat D N of RWY 9-27") may have been implemented. Or, in some cases, "Circling Cat D NA" entirely. But since there probably aren't a whole lot of Cat D aircraft doing circling maneuvers anyway, this effect is largely academic.
My only thought was that restricting c&d airplanes, who aren't using that airport anyway, would make the protected area smaller and less likely to conflict with PIA.
Well, at least I don't have trees like these in the approach path. That had to be my most intimidating tree yet in my short pilot life (landed there today). 1000 foot displaced threshold to deal with it. There's a reason why this airport (KDUH) doesn't have a straight in approach.
Just to update, I talked face to face with the airport director about the approach. He said the ATC facility wouldn't support it. I suspect he never even talked to them and doesn't want to deal with it. I had made a contact at the tracon who was supposedly going to ask up the chain. He has since stopped returning my emails.
The FAA terpster never emailed me back either.
I'm starting to think it's me....
The FAA terpster never emailed me back either.
I'm starting to think it's me....
I'm not going to let this die, btw. @RussR or @aterpster I have another question. If the main concern the tracon and airport authority have for making an RNAV 36 approach to 3MY is a conflict with the 31 RNAV or ILS to KPIA, is it allowed to piggy back approaches? The BGRAY FAF on the RNAV 31 and the TUNGG FAF on the ILS 31 are almost in the perfect spot to then turn inbound for a 6 mile initial segment into a 36 RNAV to 3MY. So conceivably, could you write the RNAV 36 with the same T as the RNAV 31 to KPIA but then have the approach turn north at BGRAY to the FAF on the new RNAV 36?
What I have below are the waypoints for the RNAV 31 in red, the ILS 31 in green and my original fictitious RNAV 36 in yellow. My proposal would be to build the RNAV now with the red T until BGRAY and then the plane would turn inbound on the yellow. It is 6.2nm from BGRAY to the FAF.
Then ATC would clear someone for the RNAV 36 to 3MY in sequence for anyone they'd clear for 31 to KPIA. Really no conflict. The missed for the RNAV 36 could go to the same spot the missed for the RNAV 18 goes to (straight north and hold). The only other thing you'd have to do is change the missed procedure for the RNAV 4 to mimic the missed for ILS 4. Have the missed do a left turn back to the IAF and hold instead of going straight out and crossing the 36 path for 3MY.
What I have below are the waypoints for the RNAV 31 in red, the ILS 31 in green and my original fictitious RNAV 36 in yellow. My proposal would be to build the RNAV now with the red T until BGRAY and then the plane would turn inbound on the yellow. It is 6.2nm from BGRAY to the FAF.
Then ATC would clear someone for the RNAV 36 to 3MY in sequence for anyone they'd clear for 31 to KPIA. Really no conflict. The missed for the RNAV 36 could go to the same spot the missed for the RNAV 18 goes to (straight north and hold). The only other thing you'd have to do is change the missed procedure for the RNAV 4 to mimic the missed for ILS 4. Have the missed do a left turn back to the IAF and hold instead of going straight out and crossing the 36 path for 3MY.
Here, I rolled my own approach. Assuming a survey would check out with obstacle clearance, you could then change the missed on RNAV 4 to KPIA to be the same as the missed for the ILS. I don't know if that covers conflicts for a Cat D airplane going missed but there would still be 1000 foot vertical separation from the RNAV 36 traffic and the RNAV 4 missed traffic. I really couldn't tell from the TERPS on what conflict avoidance is required from a missed approach that merges with another approach.
Anyway, the below is total fiction. It does not appear that the fix NEALO is used so the FAA is welcome to name this approach after me.
Anyway, the below is total fiction. It does not appear that the fix NEALO is used so the FAA is welcome to name this approach after me.
Last edited:
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
TERPS doesn't take other traffic into account. But there are many Approaches that have stuff in them that are at 'ATC Request'. If ATC wants something and it complies with the 'miss the rocks' stuff, they usually get it.
One of the gripes from the airport authority is that a 36 approach to my airport would conflict with the big airport. If TERPs doesn't address conflict like that, then at least the design would be giving the approach controllers the separation they need.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yeah. I haven't been following this thread all along. But I think I remember you saying ATC was against an Approach there at all. This might help them get on board with it. Good luck.
Airport director gave me his blessing to request the approach. I wore him down. 
kaiser
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2019
- Messages
- 2,441
- Location
- Chicagoland
- Display Name
Display name:
The pilot formerly known as Cool Beard Guy
One step closer… Fantastic! Once it’s published, we should have some sort of inaugural PoA event and all use it!Airport director gave me his blessing to request the approach. I wore him down.
I'll update this thread in about 3 years!
Perfect... that's about the time @masloki & I will have our planes back!I'll update this thread in about 3 years!
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
Gene O. sent you off on a fool’s errand, I’m afraid. How’re you gonna fund the survey?
Terry M - 3CK (Chicago)
Line Up and Wait
I was wondering if Dr C was going to pop in here given that was his home base for so long.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
Do like the folks at Alpine, WY. Hire Hughes to do the survey and design the procedure.
Fun little update. Got a note from a guy at the tracon that I had been emailing back and forth a little last year. He said they've been talking about my idea at work. According to him, I have support over there if the FAA asks them to weigh in. I sent him the copy of the approach I wrote up and he thought it was awesome. Perhaps he could be the first one to clear me for the inaugural approach when it comes to fruition......in 2030. I put the request into IFP back on Feb 19. As expected, nothing but crickets at this point.
I put the request into IFP back on Feb 19. As expected, nothing but crickets at this point.