VOR aproach at LIML

[CTLHC]

Attn LIML based crew.

Can anyone advise me how to fly the VOR ONLY (no DME) approaches at LIML using the Jepp charts.

There are no timing values from a fix and yet there is a minima stated. Unusually the vertical profile doesn't indicate at which point the MDA is valid.

(I notice the VOR/DME minima are conditional on having the DME)

[9.G]

CTLHC, I'd simply fly it out of the box using the DME OUT mins as CDFA. you still can identify all the way points by using other DME like ILNT or TZO. :ok:

[aterpster]

Here is the Jepp and the Italian IAP source:

No doubt it is less than crystal clear. Jepp follows the source just fine.

The last fix that doesn't require DME is D5.0. It seems that without DME you would be free to descend to the VOR MDA of 1050 after passing the TZO R-264. But, I would feel less than comfortable doing that.

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/LIMLVOR18Jepp.jpg


http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/LIMLVOR18Source.jpg

[aterpster]

9.G

CTLHC, I'd simply fly it out of the box using the DME OUT mins as CDFA. you still can identify all the way points by using other DME like ILNT or TZO. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

I believe the premise of the OP's question is an airplane without DME aboard.

If not, that is the premise I am using.:)

[9.G]

I assume he's talking about the case based on minima VOR 1050 thus without primary DME "LIN". This approach must be flown as CDFA only, no free diving at any point is possible. It's labeled as STANDARD and DA instead of MDA. Indeed it's not very clear which constellation the author refers to. Let's wait for his elaboration. :ok:

[9.G]

an IFR approved aircraft must be equipped with at least 1 DME, from what I remember, that should clarify the presumption. :ok:

[aterpster]

9.G

an IFR approved aircraft must be equipped with at least 1 DME, from what I remember, that should clarify the presumption. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

I always presume the lowest denominator with hypotheticals like this one. A not-for-hire airplane in the U.S. does not have to have any airborne DME to fly IFR below FL 240.

It may be different in Italy. But, if so, why did they include the non-DME minimums for VOR 18 but not for VOR 34?

In any case the VOR 18 requires the LIN 5.0 DME for the missed approach so the designers screwed this one up.

[9.G]

But, if so, why did they include the non-DME minimums for VOR 18 but not for VOR 34? because VOR 36 requires LIN DME as noted on the briefing strip. Without it NO VOR 36 is possible. :ok:

MAP for VOR 18 is LIN VOR itself I don't see where 5 DME plays any role in determining MAP? Care to elaborate? Thanx.

[BOAC]

I don't see where 5 DME plays any role -hrrmph! Read the post?

Aterp - that will be the Berlusconi DME -" Ah one-ah - ah two - ah - ah three ah - ah four -ah - ah cinque - ah - 'eer we go":)

[9.G]

OK saw it now but here it's the same game again:

5 DME LIN or 3,5 ILNT thus alternate use of ILNT is possible.:ok:

[aterpster]

9.G:

OK saw it now but here it's the same game again:

5 DME LIN or 3,5 ILNT thus alternate use of ILNT is possible...

But, that presumes that the airplane must have DME installed.

[9.G]

DME is a must under EU OPS at least:
EU-OPS 1.865 - Communication and navigation equipment for operations under IFR, or under VFR over routes not navigated by reference to visual landmarks

Navigation equipment.
An operator shall ensure that navigation equipment Comprises not less than:
(i)one VOR receiving system, one ADF system, one DME except that an ADF system need not be installed provided that the use of the ADF is not required in any phase of the planned flight;
:ok:

[Gulfstreamaviator]

any reason why DME is not operationallly providing input.

the chart provides the option, of no DME, and thus should be flyable.

also i like the italians designation of the tourist runway......

glf

[aterpster]

9.g

So, DME is required in that part of the world. That makes the VOR MDA of 1050 problematic, especially since the procedure can't be flown unless one of the two referenced DME facilities is used.

That is the real crux of assessing this particular IAP. :)

I put in a "trouble ticket" with Jeppesen in Denver and asked them to pass it along to their Frankfurt office, which charts that part of the world. Frankfurt should then ask their Italian AIP contact.

[9.G]

That makes the VOR MDA of 1050 problematic, especially since the procedure can't be flown unless one of the two referenced DME facilities is used. Agreed but the odds of'em both failing are fairly slim, I'd say.
Yet it'd be far more easier if it was declared as overlay IMHO. Btw I find the US regs regarding DME far more practical once again. :ok:

[aterpster]

9.g

[/quote]Agreed but the odds of'em both failing are fairly slim, I'd say.[/quote]

Which raises the question: Why did they chart the non-DME minimums if one of the two DMEs is likely to be in service? And, essentially the OP's question, how do you safely fly to the non-DME minimums (1050 MDA) without either DME?

Finally, why didn't they chart non-DME minimums to Runway 36, since the same or similar circumstances appear to exist?

[9.G]

Why did they chart the non-DME minimums if one of the two DMEs is likely to be in service? It's based on primary NAV aid philosophy in case of VOR 18 primary NAV AID is LIN with the associated DME. ILNT DME is supplemental only. The minima is based on usage of primary NAV AID.
And, essentially the OP's question, how do you safely fly to the non-DME minimums (1050 MDA) without either DME? This NON DME or VOR min is based on LIN DME OUT condition ONLY. Even though one will be able to identify all the waypoints by using ILNT DME the applicable minima in case of LIN DME OUT is 1050. Alas, the question of plausibility is irrelevant. To answer your question: it's not possible to fly VOR 18 in case both DME out. The only reason why the briefing strip doesn't say LIN DME required is due to the availability of backup ILNT therefore providing sufficient redundancy. That's also a reason why VOR 36 says LIN DME required and therefore no DME OUT mins are available. IOW you cant fly VOR 36 in case of DME OUT. Hope that makes somewhat sense. However the whole approach to construction of this kinda approaches only proves impracticability of European mindset, I'm afraid. :ok: