Mandatory Required Navaids for approach

[yonygg]

Hi there,

My question regards the mandatory required navaids for an approach.
I remember that as a student IFR pilot I was thought that the name of the approach (the one in the heading section of the Jepp. plate) denotes the mandatory required navids that have to be operating in order to execute that approach. For example if the name of the approach is KJFK ILS 13R it means that a DME is not required to be operating in order to execute the approach.

But that didn't make sense, because sometimes the charts state things like: "DME required".

So I read on the Jeppesen Airway Manual and I found a place that says that the mandatory required navaids are the ones that appear both on the heading and under the notes (such as "DME Required").

But this still doesn't make since. Take for example Amsterdam's chart EHAM NDB DME 18C. Under it's name the SPL VOR is not mentioned, nor under the notes. On the other hand the outbound leg for this approach is based of a radial (R-001) of that VOR, and also the MAP is defined as "R-264 SPL".

So according to the Jeppesen Airway Manual the approach can be executed if SPL VOR is unserviceable, but would you really execute this approach when the VOR is U/S under heavy IMC conditions?
I think not. I think I am missing something on the Airway Manual.

Can someone direct me to a legal document (ICAO/FAA/any other CAA) that clearly defines what the mandatory required navaids are for the execution of an instrument approach procedure?

Thank you!

[peekay4]

So according to the Jeppesen Airway Manual the approach can be executed if SPL VOR is unserviceable, but would you really execute this approach when the VOR is U/S under heavy IMC conditions?

VOR is a special case. Due to its historical role, all IFR aircraft is assumed to have at least one VOR receiver, or an acceptable substitute (e.g., a VOR fix on RNAV). Therefore a VOR requirement will not be listed in the notes, even if it is required (outside of the final approach segment; if the VOR is a primary instrument required for the final approach segment, then VOR will be included as part of the approach title).

So the equipment required to execute the approach is listed by: 1) the approach title/procedure name; plus 2) notes on the chart; plus 3) any VORs required to execute the approach.

Notes on the Plan View denote equipment required for procedure entry. Notes on the briefing strip denote equipment required to complete the approach.

For documentation see FAA Order 8260.19F (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8260.19F.pdf) (Flight Procedures and Airspaces) paragraph 8-6-6(h) and AIM Chapter 4 (http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/instrument_procedures_handbook/media/Chapter_4.pdf) (Approaches -- Equipment Requirements).

Technically, the title of the procedure is for identification purposes, not to list the required equipment. However, the first part of the title is the primary navaid providing lateral guidance for the final approach segment. This is documented in FAA Order 8260.3B (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8260.3B_Chgs_1-26_rev.pdf) TERPS Section 6.

Examples (using DME):

1. Title includes DME (e.g., ILS/DME) -- then DME is required to fly the final approach segment

2. Title doesn't include DME, but "DME Required" is noted in the plan view -- this means DME is required for entry into this procedure, though not necessarily used during the final approach

3. Neither the title nor the Plan View include DME, but "DME Required" is noted in the briefing strip -- this means DME is required elsewhere in the approach (e.g., during the missed approach segment)

4. In all cases, VOR may be required as well

[aterpster]

peekay4:

Good summation.

But, you left out ILS or LOC DME. :)

[aterpster]

That's a busy chart:

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/EHAMNDBDMERwy18C_zpsf6af85a6.jpg

[BOAC]

You certainly can manage without the VOR there.

[Amadis of Gaul]

Yikes! That approach looks like a lot of work.

[aterpster]

BOAC:

You certainly can manage without the VOR there.

You're the guy who flew mostly PANS-OPS procedure, so correct me if I am wrong:

Disregarding any radar vectors, don't the three terminal routes shown require entry into SPL VOR holding pattern for alignment with the track outbound to the base leg, since none of those three terminal routes is within 30 degrees of the 001 degree outbound track?

Also, those three terminal routes are predicated on SPL VOR.

[BOAC]

The key word/s was 'manage', not 'do not require'.

[yonygg]

VOR is a special case. Due to its historical role, all IFR aircraft is assumed to have at least one VOR receiver

The fact that a VOR receiver is required on every IFR airworthy aircraft, doesn't answer the question. The question was: is it legal to execute the approach if the VOR (the ground station or the VOR receiver)is inoperative (let's say you took off with a perfectly functioning VOR receiver, but enroute it, or the ground station stopped working)?.
Could you still, from the legal perspective, execute the approach in the example (the EHAM ILS 18C for example)?

[McBruce]

If an NPA approach requires a navaid and its NOTAM as U/S you could fly it as an RNAV approach if you have the required equipment and the approach is inside the RNAV limitations.