Narrative:

I have attached a report I received this morning from one of our experimental test pilots with regard to the new ict GPS runway 14 approach. This concern is quite clear. At first glance, the temptation is to be dismissive, citing approach clearance criteria. However, after review, you have to satisfy yourself that the incremental benefit to safety during the transition from a straight-in approach overshadows the probability of an early letdown causing a potential catastrophic collision with the towers. In fact, during training we have seen procedural errors including early dscnts at cepga to the MDA. Should you decide to forward this concern on to the FAA, a discussion of the missed approach procedure for the ict GPS runway 32 may be appropriate. The straight ahead climb, if not established for whatever reason, has the same potential for a catastrophic collision with towers. This problem is exacerbated by the heavy reliance of FMS/GPS guidance in modern aircraft. The FMS/GPS will take you to the waypoint without regard to obstacle clearance unless equipped with egpws. I don't know if you've had the opportunity to fly the GPS runway 14 at ict or not. This is a new approach that just came out a few months ago. I have flown it many times during all of our training flts on the BD100. If you have not had the opportunity to fly this, you need to see it from a safety perspective, not just for bftc, but for all users. On paper, this approach looks like an improvement over the VOR runway 14 or the old GPS overlay over the VOR runway 14 which brings you in at about a 30 degree angle to the runway, where the new GPS runway 14 is a straight in. The fly in the ointment is that the approach brings you almost directly over the highest obstacle in the state, the colwich towers. You descend from the cepga waypoint at 3600 ft down to 3100 ft at the FAF (closer to the towers). The towers are maybe 1000 ft off to your left. It is amazing how close to the towers you are. I'm sure you are the required minimum away from the towers, or the approach could never have been certified, but I think the risk of hitting those towers is higher with this approach than any benefit gained by this approach being a straight in. It is inevitable that someone is going to be killed on this approach by running into the colwich towers. There is not much margin for error, for someone misreading the chart and descending at cepga assuming this is the FAF (I've seen it done) or being slightly off course to the left, or both. I think that this approach needs to be reviewed by the FAA or the NTSB before there is an accident.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTR IS CONCERNED WITH ALT MINIMUMS AS DEPICTED ON ICT RNAV (GPS) RWY 14 APCH PROC.

Narrative: I HAVE ATTACHED A RPT I RECEIVED THIS MORNING FROM ONE OF OUR EXPERIMENTAL TEST PLTS WITH REGARD TO THE NEW ICT GPS RWY 14 APCH. THIS CONCERN IS QUITE CLR. AT FIRST GLANCE, THE TEMPTATION IS TO BE DISMISSIVE, CITING APCH CLRNC CRITERIA. HOWEVER, AFTER REVIEW, YOU HAVE TO SATISFY YOURSELF THAT THE INCREMENTAL BENEFIT TO SAFETY DURING THE TRANSITION FROM A STRAIGHT-IN APCH OVERSHADOWS THE PROBABILITY OF AN EARLY LETDOWN CAUSING A POTENTIAL CATASTROPHIC COLLISION WITH THE TWRS. IN FACT, DURING TRAINING WE HAVE SEEN PROCEDURAL ERRORS INCLUDING EARLY DSCNTS AT CEPGA TO THE MDA. SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO FORWARD THIS CONCERN ON TO THE FAA, A DISCUSSION OF THE MISSED APCH PROC FOR THE ICT GPS RWY 32 MAY BE APPROPRIATE. THE STRAIGHT AHEAD CLB, IF NOT ESTABLISHED FOR WHATEVER REASON, HAS THE SAME POTENTIAL FOR A CATASTROPHIC COLLISION WITH TWRS. THIS PROB IS EXACERBATED BY THE HVY RELIANCE OF FMS/GPS GUIDANCE IN MODERN ACFT. THE FMS/GPS WILL TAKE YOU TO THE WAYPOINT WITHOUT REGARD TO OBSTACLE CLRNC UNLESS EQUIPPED WITH EGPWS. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO FLY THE GPS RWY 14 AT ICT OR NOT. THIS IS A NEW APCH THAT JUST CAME OUT A FEW MONTHS AGO. I HAVE FLOWN IT MANY TIMES DURING ALL OF OUR TRAINING FLTS ON THE BD100. IF YOU HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO FLY THIS, YOU NEED TO SEE IT FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE, NOT JUST FOR BFTC, BUT FOR ALL USERS. ON PAPER, THIS APCH LOOKS LIKE AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE VOR RWY 14 OR THE OLD GPS OVERLAY OVER THE VOR RWY 14 WHICH BRINGS YOU IN AT ABOUT A 30 DEG ANGLE TO THE RWY, WHERE THE NEW GPS RWY 14 IS A STRAIGHT IN. THE FLY IN THE OINTMENT IS THAT THE APCH BRINGS YOU ALMOST DIRECTLY OVER THE HIGHEST OBSTACLE IN THE STATE, THE COLWICH TWRS. YOU DSND FROM THE CEPGA WAYPOINT AT 3600 FT DOWN TO 3100 FT AT THE FAF (CLOSER TO THE TWRS). THE TWRS ARE MAYBE 1000 FT OFF TO YOUR L. IT IS AMAZING HOW CLOSE TO THE TWRS YOU ARE. I'M SURE YOU ARE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM AWAY FROM THE TWRS, OR THE APCH COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED, BUT I THINK THE RISK OF HITTING THOSE TWRS IS HIGHER WITH THIS APCH THAN ANY BENEFIT GAINED BY THIS APCH BEING A STRAIGHT IN. IT IS INEVITABLE THAT SOMEONE IS GOING TO BE KILLED ON THIS APCH BY RUNNING INTO THE COLWICH TWRS. THERE IS NOT MUCH MARGIN FOR ERROR, FOR SOMEONE MISREADING THE CHART AND DSNDING AT CEPGA ASSUMING THIS IS THE FAF (I'VE SEEN IT DONE) OR BEING SLIGHTLY OFF COURSE TO THE L, OR BOTH. I THINK THAT THIS APCH NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE FAA OR THE NTSB BEFORE THERE IS AN ACCIDENT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.