Standard Rate Turns without Turn Coordinator?

[RussR]

Why isn't this called VOR 33?

The best I can tell, this is what happened (this is a mix of fact and educated guesses):
1. There was both a VOR RWY 33 and VOR RWY 36 (fact). The courses were the same (fact). Pure accident of geometry that the same final could be used for two runways for straight-in minima.
2. As part of the VOR Approach Cancellation program several years ago, both procedures were identified for cancellation (fact).
3. The VOR RWY 36 was removed from the cancellation list (fact), presumably due to local user comments, since it was the only straight-in approach to that runway (guess).
4. The VOR RWY 33, however, was kept on the cancellation list (fact), presumably because there was (and is) a LOC RWY 33 - so the VOR RWY 33 was not necessary (guess).
5. And now it just looks weird (fact).

 

[RussR]

Its got straight in minimums and the approach course is 330. Runway 36 has a magnetic alignment to 001 - so more than 30 degrees.

When you get to the edges of the limits here, you need to convert to True before doing the calculations, to account for differences between the magnetic variation of the airport and the declination of the VOR - which, since the VOR declination is set and not changed until it really needs to be, can be very different.

In this case:
KARR is 3.3W (from the airport diagram)
JOT VOR is 2E (from airnav.com).

So the final approach course is (330 (published value) + 2) = 332 True, and the runway 36 heading is 003.3 (from the airport diagram) - 3.3 = 360.0 True.

Although the final approach course could be anything from 329.50 to 330.49 due to rounding.

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

Its got straight in minimums and the approach course is 330. Runway 36 has a magnetic alignment to 001 - so more than 30 degrees.

Could one reason be that Runway 36 is closed at KARR?

 

[kaiser]

Thanks for the thoughtful answers @RussR

@NealRomeoGolf one can have approaches to closed runways (just can't land). I suppose I was just confused by the naming convention. VOR 33 or VOR-A sure, but was struggling with it being called VOR 36.

 

[RussR]

Could one reason be that Runway 36 is closed at KARR?

Runway 36 is only closed by NOTAM, it's not permanently closed (at least not officially). Procedure names aren't affected by temporary runway closures.

However, if it is permanently closed, then the procedure could change to a VOR-A (or in this weird case, could change to a VOR RWY 33, but that procedure was already canceled due to the reasons discussed above). Or, the procedure could be canceled.

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

Runway 36 is only closed by NOTAM, it's not permanently closed (at least not officially). Procedure names aren't affected by temporary runway closures.

However, if it is permanently closed, then the procedure could change to a VOR-A (or in this weird case, could change to a VOR RWY 33, but that procedure was already canceled due to the reasons discussed above). Or, the procedure could be canceled.

It has been NOTAMd closed for years.

 

[Greg263]

I have only flown steam. Dumb q: On a glass panel how do you do std rate turns.

Standard rate turn in aircraft below 250 knots is 15 percent of airspeed. 120 knots is 18 degrees, 12 + 6 = 18.

 

[Pinecone]

Here’s one in your neighborhood

View attachment 110401

Uuh, not. The MAP is also identified by DME. JOT 15 miles.

Find one that is ONLY timing.

 

[luvflyin]

Uuh, not. The MAP is also identified by DME. JOT 15 miles.

Find one that is ONLY timing.

You said “I don't know of any VOR timed approaches any more, but there were a couple during my training and they were fun too.” I said here’s one and showed the the VOR RWY 36 at KARR. It is a VOR Timed Approach. If you’d said had ‘only’ had the the Timing Table and no other means to identify the MAP, I wouldn’t have given that Approach as an example. @RussR , is there something that says VOR Approaches with timing as the only means can’t be constructed anymore? Do you know of any that still exist?

 

[RussR]

You said “I don't know of any VOR timed approaches any more, but there were a couple during my training and they were fun too.” I said here’s one and showed the the VOR RWY 36 at KARR. It is a VOR Timed Approach. If you’d said had ‘only’ had the the Timing Table and no other means to identify the MAP, I wouldn’t have given that Approach as an example. @RussR , is there something that says VOR Approaches with timing as the only means can’t be constructed anymore? Do you know of any that still exist?

No, there is no rule prohibiting them. It is still the "default". But if some other means to identify the MAP is available, it will be charted too. So you'd have to find a VOR approach based on a VOR ONLY, not a VOR/DME or VORTAC. And it can’t be on the airport, because then the facility would be the MAP, and no timing is required in that situation.

There are some I'm sure. I'd have to look. And there are LOC procedures that are only timing as well.

 

[luvflyin]

No, there is no rule prohibiting them. It is still the "default". But if some other means to identify the MAP is available, it will be charted too. So you'd have to find a VOR approach based on a VOR ONLY, not a VOR/DME or VORTAC.

There are some I'm sure. I'd have to look. And there are LOC procedures that are only timing as well.

Ok. I'm not sure why that would have mattered to him. Maybe he thinks that if DME is available he has to use it for some reason. @Pinecone ???

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

@luvflyin how about the VOR23 at KRZT?

 

[RussR]

On second thought, examples of a VOR approach having only timing for the MAP are going to be very few, at least in the U.S. It’s perfectly fine by criteria, but you have to have several conditions align for it to happen:
- has to be a VOR only, no DME source or the DME happens to be unusable at the MAP
- the VOR has to be off the airport, or it would be the MAP and therefore not require timing
- the VOR can’t be too far off airport, or there would need to be a way to create a FAF. This could be done with a crossing radial from a facility that doesn’t work at the MAP, but still narrows it down
- and, it would have to have not been canceled during the VOR approach cancellation program several years back.

So it’s not real common or likely, but I hope someone can find an example.

LOC procedures with a timing-only MAP are reasonably common, at any airport large enough to have a Loc but not a collocated DME. For example, Ames IA, ILS OR LOC RWY 1 has only timing for the LOC.

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2209/05307IL1.PDF

 

[RussR]

@luvflyin how about the VOR23 at KRZT?

Perfect example and meets all of my criteria above. Good find.

 

[luvflyin]

@luvflyin how about the VOR23 at KRZT?

There's one. Wasn't me who was looking for one though. @Pinecone , here ya go. You can accomplish what you wanted to though with the VOR RWY 36 at KAAR though. Get a plane without DME. Or put a post it over the DME saying out to lunch, gone fishin' or sumpin. Or just turn it off.

 

[aterpster]

DME is optional at KEMT VOR-A. Always has been this way since 1970, or do.

 

[RussR]

DME is optional at KEMT VOR-A. Always has been this way since 1970, or do.

Yes, that is another good example. DME is optional, but since the MAP is not a DME fix, timing is required even with DME. I have to assume it's because the DME signal is unusable at the MAP, due to interference or signal blockage at low altitude.

 

[aterpster]

Yes, that is another good example. DME is optional, but since the MAP is not a DME fix, timing is required even with DME. I have to assume it's because the DME signal is unusable at the MAP, due to interference or signal blockage at low altitude.

Jepp shows D12.2 at the MAP. But, source doesn't support that.

 

[luvflyin]

Jepp shows D12.2 at the MAP. But, source doesn't support that.

Don’t seem like they should depict that like that. Could lead someone down the primrose path.

 

[RussR]

It appears the DME was removed from the MAP's fix makeup when the procedure was changed from VOR OR GPS-A to VOR-A and the revision numbers started over (with Orig). Whether this was intentional or not, or due to flight inspection/etc, is unable to be determined with the current forms. One way or the other, though, the current source does NOT have it as a DME fix, so the Jepp chart appears to be incorrect.

 

[aterpster]

Don’t seem like they should depict that like that. Could lead someone down the primrose path.

It is the primary IAP for the airport. Most airplanes these days would have the MAP CNF. If not, but they have DME, my recollection is that you don't lose DME until well below MDA.

 

[aterpster]

It appears the DME was removed from the MAP's fix makeup when the procedure was changed from VOR OR GPS-A to VOR-A and the revision numbers started over (with Orig). Whether this was intentional or not, or due to flight inspection/etc, is unable to be determined with the current forms. One way or the other, though, the current source does NOT have it as a DME fix, so the Jepp chart appears to be incorrect.

It's been a very long time since I last flew it. Having said that the VOR is about 1,000 feet higher than El Monte Airport. My hunch: form completion rather than flight inspection.