VOR approach requiring DME but approach not named as VORDME

J

John777

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 1, 2016
Messages
199
Display Name
Display name:
Louis
Here I post the link for VOR36 approach at KPIE.
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1612/00625V36.PDF

You may have noticed the text saying that DME required to fly this approach at KPIE.
Now, my question is why did not FAA just put VORDME 36 instead of VOR36 because one will need DME to identify the fixes including FAF.

John.
 
I'm sure others much smarter than me will be here with the correct answer in a few, but....

Who cares?

It states it right on the plate that DME is required to do the procedure- you can't identify the fixes otherwise (unless of course you have a IFR cert'd GPS).

Around the Boston area there are plenty of approaches that require RADAR contact to shoot the approach (such as the ILS 11 at KBED-as reference below). It is not called the ILS RADAR 11, and I've never bother to care as to why. Fly the approach if the chart and conditions say you can! Why over complicate things?


https://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1612/pdf/00626IL11.PDF
 
Probably used to have an OM beacon at BIGOO that they didn't deem it worthy of repairing.
 
Palmpilot said:
He does.

I do too. Knowing what the significance is of where notes appear on the chart is part of understanding the chart.
Click to expand...

Why? What significance does it play? Do you do something different or require different equipment if it is a VOR/DME approach or a VOR approach with a notation stating "DME Required"? I don't feel that learning why it is one way or the other would help me understand the chart any better.
 
The location of "DME Required" means something.
• “Required” on the Planview means needed to get to an IAF from the en route environment;
• “Required” in the Notes box means, needed for other segments of the approach,including the missed except for the final approach course;
• "Required" in the title means needed for the final approach course, typically for step-downs.

Discussed in AIM 3-4-5.

Edit: slight correction. The word "required" doesn't appear in the title, "DME" does. But you get the idea.
 
Last edited:
It is required for a step down in the final approach course. BLOOP is after BIGOO (the IAF and the FAF).
 
neilw2 said:
Why? What significance does it play? Do you do something different or require different equipment if it is a VOR/DME approach or a VOR approach with a notation stating "DME Required"? I don't feel that learning why it is one way or the other would help me understand the chart any better.
Click to expand...
Yes I do care, and I just grew to dig into it because if you see DME required there, it is more or less same as VORDME approach.
 
John777 said:
Here I post the link for VOR36 approach at KPIE.
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1612/00625V36.PDF

You may have noticed the text saying that DME required to fly this approach at KPIE.
Now, my question is why did not FAA just put VORDME 36 instead of VOR36 because one will need DME to identify the fixes including FAF.

John.
Click to expand...
New naming convention. DME is being removed from the title of XXX/DME approaches and replaced by the note "DME required."
 
neilw2 said:
Why? What significance does it play? Do you do something different or require different equipment if it is a VOR/DME approach or a VOR approach with a notation stating "DME Required"? I don't feel that learning why it is one way or the other would help me understand the chart any better.
Click to expand...
Why do I need a reason?
 
John777 said:
Are you sure? where did you find it out ?
Click to expand...
He reads each change order to the TERPS as it comes out (note his uers name).

Paragraph 161 used to have this:

If a procedure requires DME to fly the final approach, the suffix “DME” shall be added; e.g., LOC/DME RWY (number).

The entire paragraph was reworded late in the history of 8230.3B (change 26 I think, 2014). This became 1-6-2 in the current (8230.3C) version of the TERPS. This provision was deleted which means that DME is not added. They had removed it from ILS (there are no ILS/DMEs created anymore) several revisions earlier.
 
aterpster said:
New naming convention. DME is being removed from the title of XXX/DME approaches and replaced by the note "DME required."
Click to expand...
i understand there is also a move to either put all the notes in one pace and/or to make them more explanatory.

The theory of "all in one place" is that since "required" means "required" all the present system does is lead to confusion.

The theory of "more explanatory" is to allow waiver or alternatives. For example "DME required" for the missed is, practically speaking, easy enough to bypass with alternate missed instructions (I've heard that one but realize it's problematic).

What have you heard lately on that, Wally?
 
midlifeflyer said:
i understand there is also a move to either put all the notes in one pace and/or to make them more explanatory.

The theory of "all in one place" is that since "required" means "required" all the present system does is lead to confusion.

The theory of "more explanatory" is to allow waiver or alternatives. For example "DME required" for the missed is, practically speaking, easy enough to bypass with alternate missed instructions (I've heard that one but realize it's problematic).

What have you heard lately on that, Wally?
Click to expand...

That's the theory. "DME Required" as a note means just that. The pilot shouldn't be required to audit the chart.
 
Agreed. The second theory assumes "required" means "optional - that there is an "OR" the approach designers just didn't bother to put in.
Just wondered what the status of those discussions was.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Agreed. The second theory assumes "required" means "optional - that there is an "OR" the approach designers just didn't bother to put in.
Just wondered what the status of those discussions was.
Click to expand...
Alternate missed approaches are typically included where the missed approach goes to a nav aid different than that providing the final approach guidance. The other reason is at a towered airport where timed approaches are used. In the former case they are not supposed to use them unless the affected nav aid is OTS. In the latter case, which missed approach they use is for separation. In neither case are they a pilot option. That's one of the reason they are not charted. And, if for the first reason, often the facility doesn't even know how to find them.
 
Are there towered fields where timed approaches are used? I know there's lots of provisions for them in the regs and such, but I can't recall ever hearing one issued.
 
Just more trolling. Should I put mustard on the top bun or bottom bun? I just can't figure it out on my own. Help.
 
aterpster said:
Alternate missed approaches are typically included where the missed approach goes to a nav aid different than that providing the final approach guidance. The other reason is at a towered airport where timed approaches are used. In the former case they are not supposed to use them unless the affected nav aid is OTS. In the latter case, which missed approach they use is for separation. In neither case are they a pilot option. That's one of the reason they are not charted. And, if for the first reason, often the facility doesn't even know how to find them.
Click to expand...
...or, quite simply, "on the missed, turn left heading 120, climb and maintain 2,000." Very common where the published missed impinges on traffic flow to another airport nearby. Heard it many times.
 
flyingron said:
Are there towered fields where timed approaches are used? I know there's lots of provisions for them in the regs and such, but I can't recall ever hearing one issued.
Click to expand...
Timed approaches can only be done at an airport with an operating tower. There are still some around, but I don't know where.
 
aterpster said:
Timed approaches can only be done at an airport with an operating tower. There are still some around, but I don't know where.
Click to expand...

When I did Air Force ATC we practiced every so often. Never used it for real world though.
 
VOR-A at O27 uses a DME for the MAP. It can also be a timed approach. I had to do it, timed, partial panel, no GPS as DME, on my IR checkride. No tower at that airport.
 
Rykymus said:
VOR-A at O27 uses a DME for the MAP. It can also be a timed approach. I had to do it, timed, partial panel, no GPS as DME, on my IR checkride. No tower at that airport.
Click to expand...
Was that something ATC issued or was it something that the examiner wanted to see? I've not heard of timed approaches being used in over twenty years of flying. I suspect it's largely anachronistic. It was right up there with all the pablum about MLS the FAA insisted I needed to learn about.
 
KA550 said:
Just more trolling. Should I put mustard on the top bun or bottom bun? I just can't figure it out on my own. Help.
Click to expand...
It's an interesting discussion and I've learned from it, so I don't care whether he was trolling or not.
 
Last edited:
Rykymus said:
VOR-A at O27 uses a DME for the MAP. It can also be a timed approach. I had to do it, timed, partial panel, no GPS as DME, on my IR checkride. No tower at that airport.
Click to expand...

flyingron said:
Was that something ATC issued or was it something that the examiner wanted to see? I've not heard of timed approaches being used in over twenty years of flying. I suspect it's largely anachronistic. It was right up there with all the pablum about MLS the FAA insisted I needed to learn about.
Click to expand...

Are you guys talking about the same thing? Using time to determine the MAP is not a timed approach (AIM 5-4-10).
 
tsts4 said:
Are you guys talking about the same thing? Using time to determine the MAP is not a timed approach (AIM 5-4-10).
Click to expand...
Good catch. Wally and I are talking about timed approaches (i.e., commencing the approach from a holding fix at a specified time). I suspect you are right Rykymus was talking about using timing to find the MAP.
 
Two different things. Timing your approach to determine a MAP vs ATC conducting timed approached to a towered field where radar coverage doesn't exist. In the later, like Wally's example, ATC clears aircraft past the OM / FAF based on time. Generally 2 minute seperation or could be more for wake turb.
 
Velocity173 said:
Two different things. Timing your approach to determine a MAP vs ATC conducting timed approached to a towered field where radar coverage doesn't exist. In the later, like Wally's example, ATC clears aircraft past the OM / FAF based on time. Generally 2 minute seperation or could be more for wake turb.
Click to expand...
And the question was, have you heard of such approaches being used? I suspect that with fairly universal radar coverage in terminal areas and the implementation of centralized flow control, the thing is a dinosaur. It's rare that even terminal arrival holding is used.
 
flyingron said:
And the question was, have you heard of such approaches being used? I suspect that with fairly universal radar coverage in terminal areas and the implementation of centralized flow control, the thing is a dinosaur. It's rare that even terminal arrival holding is used.
Click to expand...

I agree, with radar coverage being what it is today, I can't imagine too many facilities using non radar timed approaches, unless it's a tower in a mountainous area.

But, the procedures are still written for facilities where either radar doesn't exist, or what mscard is getting at, you lose radar at your own facility. That's when you bust out your little non radar "cheat card" from your wallet and pray the techs get the radar back ASAP.
 
Velocity173 said:
I agree, with radar coverage being what it is today, I can't imagine too many facilities using non radar timed approaches, unless it's a tower in a mountainous area.

But, the procedures are still written for facilities where either radar doesn't exist, or what mscard is getting at, you lose radar at your own facility. That's when you bust out your little non radar "cheat card" from your wallet and pray the techs get the radar back ASAP.
Click to expand...

The airport that comes to mind is Helena, Montana (KHLN). It has a non-radar approach control. Salt Lake Center handles the arrivals, then parks them in an arrival holding pattern on the ILS and terminates radar. At times there is sufficient traffic that the tower/approach control has to use timed approach procedures.
 

Attachments

tsts4 said:
Are you guys talking about the same thing? Using time to determine the MAP is not a timed approach (AIM 5-4-10).
Click to expand...

Yup, what I thought right off. Carry on, good discussion.
 
aterpster said:
The airport that comes to mind is Helena, Montana (KHLN). It has a non-radar approach control. Salt Lake Center handles the arrivals, then parks them in an arrival holding pattern on the ILS and terminates radar. At times there is sufficient traffic that the tower/approach control has to use timed approach procedures.
Click to expand...
Now I want to fly to Helena for practice approach and a burger at Lewis & Clark Brewing Company. Thanks for pointing out that Montana has instrument approach dinosaurs as well as the regular kind. :)
 
iamtheari said:
Now I want to fly to Helena for practice approach and a burger at Lewis & Clark Brewing Company. Thanks for pointing out that Montana has instrument approach dinosaurs as well as the regular kind. :)
Click to expand...
Helena also has some nifty RNP AR approaches for the well-equipped operators.
 
aterpster said:
Helena also has some nifty RNP AR approaches for the well-equipped operators.
Click to expand...
I'm not one of those. I do want to go to one of the three Air Force bases in my general flying territory and practice some precision radar approaches, but first I want to build a lot more confidence working with ATC prior to aiming my plane at a military runway.
 
iamtheari said:
practice some precision radar approaches, but first I want to build a lot more confidence working with ATC prior to aiming my plane at a military runway.
Click to expand...

Just request a no gyro PAR, no need to aim. :D
 
iamtheari said:
I'm not one of those. I do want to go to one of the three Air Force bases in my general flying territory and practice some precision radar approaches, but first I want to build a lot more confidence working with ATC prior to aiming my plane at a military runway.
Click to expand...

Which Air Force bases in your area are providing PAR approaches?
 
Velocity173 said:
Which Air Force bases in your area are providing PAR approaches?
Click to expand...
I haven't got that far into it, but surely between Minot, Grand Forks, and Ellsworth there should be one. If not, at least they ought to be set up for ASR approaches which I understand are flown like PAR without vertical guidance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top