Vor-Dme renamed to VOR

[A320_Lover]

Hi all, I have a doubt about an approach procedure recently changed and I would like some opinions.

The procedure in question (attached), shows a VOR approach (new procedure) and a VOR-DME (old procedure);
They have changed the name from VOR-DME to VOR, added the remark on the plan view "DME Required" and slightly raised the minimums.
Jeppesen says that the "identification procedure" (the title of the procedure, in this case VOR) determines the necessary equipment to fly the final segment of the procedure involved from the FAF/FAP to the MAP/DAH.

Ok, having said that, since the new procedure is named VOR only, it means that I only need the VOR to fly the final segment and not the DME. But there is a note on the plan view of the charts saying "DME Required".
At first sight I thought that i needed the DME until reaching our FAF and after the FAF no more DME, but if we look well, we can notice that the missed approach point is defined by a DME distance, and although we have a DA/H, this is only a non-precision approach and our missed approach segment can only be initiated by reaching the missed approach point and not reaching the DA/H.

Soooo

Do I need the DME during the final segment of the procedure ? (legally speaking, no common sense)
If I have a failure of DME during the final segment, keep going until DA/H or Go around?

Bye and thanks to all

Image Link (in case of invisible image above):
http://www.md80.it/bbforum/download/file.php?id=34603&mode=view

[OhNoCB]

My apologies as I cannot answer your question about the DME. I find it odd that Serra de Sintra has shrunk by 269' which seems an unusually large correction to a small hill.

Edit to add (in the interests of trying to be at least a little helpful) that with regard to this:

this is only a non-precision approach and our missed approach segment can only be initiated by reaching the missed approach point and not reaching the DA/H.

If the approach is flown with a CDFA then you can use the DH/DA as the point to start a missed approach.

[flarepilot]

thanks for posing an interesting question...one I have seen before in another location...and the resulting answer shows no one is to be trusted.

similiar answer from jepp

but, know this once and for all...JEPP does not make up the procedure, the local authority (like FAA in the USA) makes up a written description of the approach and JEPP just draws it out...USING THE INFO THEY ARE GIVEN.

so, it is my best guess that the local issuing authority screwed up something...I would call, yes TELEPHONE JEPP and mention this to them and they may, say again MAY contact the local authority to make sure.


but I wouldn't fly this approach without dme (ground and air)...after all, you might want to circle to land, how would you know the MAP...and there is no timing published so...

good luck, fly safe and if you fly safe, the legality shouldn't come into question

[pattern_is_full]

I would say that the name or title is irrelevant.

There are ILS approaches that have "RADAR REQUIRED" emblazoned on the plan view, while having no mention of "radar" in the name.

KLGA ILS OR LOC RWY 04 (IAP) ? FlightAware (http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KLGA/IAP/ILS+OR+LOC+RWY+04)

And in those cases, radar control is required, even though the plate/approach is not named, for example, "ILS-RADAR RWY 4."

So, similarly, in this case, the label "CAS DME required" means - "DME required." Whether the name mentions DME or not....

If "Jeppesen says that the "identification procedure" (the title of the procedure, in this case VOR) determines the necessary equipment...etc etc." - well, Jeppesen is not a legal authority, just a private company. So what they say is at best advisory in nature, not a legal rule.

[Dan Winterland]

And don't forget that the provider of your charts is just giving you their interpretation of the procedure that they have copied from the relevant AIP - and often, they are wrong. My company recently switched from Jepps to Navtech and there were a lot of discrepancies - apparent because the FMC database is still being provided by Jepps. Checking every procedure against the AIP (no small job!) showed there were about as many errors in Jepps as there were NAVTECs.

The only authoritative document is the AIP, so I suggest you go and check it there. Your Ops department should have a copy.

[Capn Bloggs]

If the chart says DME Required, then DME is required for the approach, full stop.

FWIW, all of our NPAs requiring DME only have a note about it. It used to be in the title. Obviously the naming convention has changed, similar to the FMS naming convention.

[RAT 5]

The chart attachment was lost and thus not visible. I would agree the the "DME required" statement is over-riding. After the FAF are there DME v ALT values given? If so that just re-enforces the fact of needing a DME.

I have seen other charts which e.g. say NDB ILS. The only reason I can find for the NDB is that the procedure starts outbound from the NDB. However, within ILS protection criteria it would be possible to establish straight-in for ILS at or above MSA, no radar. It's one of those 'airmanship' decisions if the NDB is U/S.

[A320_Lover]

i have reposted the chart; i don't know why it disappeared, anyway if this happens again follow this link:

http://www.md80.it/bbforum/download/file.php?id=34603&mode=view

[A320_Lover]

Jeppesen states this:

"The procedure identification includes the type of navigation aids which provide final approach guidance. If the approach is labeled VORTAC, VOR DME, ILS DME or LOC DME, DME must be used in addition to azimuth guidance. If DME is stated only in the plan and profile views, then its use is optional; however, the minimums may be adversely affected in such a case."

I do not doubt the fact that I need the DME to fly the procedure (it's clearly written DME required), but I'm not sure if the DME is required for the entire procedure.
From what I remember and confirmed by Jeppesen definition above, if the DME is not listed on the title of the procedure, then the DME it's not mandatory to fly the final segment of the procedure.

Why have they changed the name of the procedure from VOR-DME to VOR if the DME is still needed ?

They removed the DME from the title of the procedure and put a remark of dme required in the plan view. That's strange. Something must have changed otherwise they would't have published a new procedure.

I have also checked the procedure through the Portugal AIP and the procedure is identical; In the AIP the procedure is named as "DVOR RWY35" (Doppler VOR, not DME), and even there a remark is present on the plan view saying "DME required", moreover all the minimums (OCA) are reflecting the new DA and MDA for the new procedure published by Jeppesen. It seems that Jeppesen copied the procedure well.

Is that true that statements publishd by "OhNoCB" about the possibility to start the missed approach segment upon reaching the DA flying a CDFA ?

Thank's to all of you.

[A320_Lover]

The original image posted by me has been removed again; it seems that admins don't like it. Follow the link provided which is stable and permanently online.


I'm attaching here the link for the procedure from the Portugal AIP:

http://www.nav.pt/ais/cd/2013-07-26/graphics/eAIP/LP_AD_2_LPCS_IAC_10-1%20-%20DVOR%20RWY35%20CAT%20AB_20130627.pdf?

So, you can compare it and note that the two procedures are identical.

[aterpster]

A320 Lover:

So, you can compare it and note that the two procedures are identical.

Seems to me that "DVOR" in the source title would translate to VOR/DME.

[A320_Lover]

No, i'm sure about the meaning of DVOR.
DVOR means Doppler VOR. It has nothing to do with a dme; If it was a dme approach then a DME must be written in plain without abbreviations.

Take a look to this procedure that comes from the same AIP but for another aerodrome.

http://www.nav.pt/ais/cd/2013-07-26/graphics/eAIP/LP_AD_2_LPPT_IAC_10B3-1%20-%20DVOR%20DMR%20RWY35%20CAT%20ABCD_20130307.pdf?

It's a VOR-DME and DVOR is still present.

Moreover, taking a look at the GEN section of the AIP of this country in the section " abbreviations used in AIS publications" we can also see there the meaning of DVOR. I'm pasting here a little paragraph.

DUR Duration
DVOR Doppler VOR
DVORTAC * DVOR and TACAN Combination

I know, it's a tricky subject :) when one definitions doesn't apply, i always wonder why; we can only learn and gain more knowledge ;)

[aterpster]

A320 Lover:

Confusing, no doubt about it. In that case it seems the Jepp chart is following source.

[OhNoCB]

Is that true that statements publishd by "OhNoCB" about the possibility to start the missed approach segment upon reaching the DA flying a CDFA ?

Here is a quote.

EU Ops, 1.435.9 defines CDFA as, “A specific technique for flying the final-approach segment of a non-precision instrument approach procedure as a continuous descent, without level-off from an altitude/height at or above the Final Approach Fix altitude/height to a point approximately 15m (50ft) above the landing runway threshold or the point where the flare manoeuvre should begin for the type of aircraft shown”. Moreover, Appendix 1 (New) to OPS 1.430, states that, “the missed approach, after an approach has been flown using the CDFA technique, shall be executed when reaching the decision altitude..."

My bold.

Ops manual will tell you what to do.

[A320_Lover]

THANK YOUUUUU; that's resolve my question.

the missed approach segment will be started upon reaching the DA and doing so the DME is not required for the final segment. ;) I tried to look for this definition on doc 8168 but i found nothing.

Thank's again, to all of you.

[Capn Bloggs]

They removed the DME from the title of the procedure and put a remark of dme required in the plan view. That's strange. Something must have changed otherwise they would't have published a new procedure.
As I alluded to in my earlier post, the answer is probably quite simple; the name has been changed so that it fits better into the FMS naming convention. "VORDME 15" probably doesn't fit in the FMS, whereas "VOR 15" does.

As to why the chart itself was re-issued, they either wanted to change the name and/or change some other aspect such as the minimums.

As I also mentioned, all of our charts also changed some years ago to leaving the "DME" off the title, so it must be an ICAO thing.

[hvogt]

As I also mentioned, all of our charts also changed some years ago to leaving the "DME" off the title, so it must be an ICAO thing.Indeed, 'VOR DME Rwy 35' is not in line with 9.5.2 of PANS-OPS, Volume II, Part I, Section 4, Chapter 9, while 'VOR Rwy 35' is. I wonder if there has been a recent change to the rules, but I couldn't find an unamended copy of PANS-OPS.

[A320_Lover]

you are right, i didn't notice that change, thank you for posting.