Narrative:

I regularly fly the jfk VOR 13L approach; and did so on my last trip. Fortunately; this latest approach was conducted in VMC. I have done this approach to minimums in IMC; and that is when I realized the deficiencies in not just the FMC programming; but in the understanding of how this approach is to be conducted; and whether or not proper authority/authorized for deviation from approved flight procedures exists. Apparently; our company has special dispensation to fly the approach as charter. Pilots are usually provided written authority/authorized when allowed to deviate from normal procedure. I cannot find any such authority/authorized in our manuals. My first concern with this procedure has to do with the chart. The FMC has a crossing altitude at dmyhl at 1220 ft. This is 420 ft higher than the published MDA of 800 ft. Secondly; the FMC has a conditional waypoint following dmyhl that consists of a level fly-off for 1 NM with an altitude restraint at or above 1220 ft. I understand the logic behind the approach plate instructions recommending a 1 NM fly-off past dmyhl prior to descent below MDA. If you cross dmyhl at 800 ft; you are below a desired constant descent approach (cdap) glide path to the runway. What I don't understand is why the FMC would have the pilot level off at 1220 ft; which is 370 ft above the cdap minimum (of 800 ft plus 50 ft). No fly-off is necessary if the aircraft crosses dmyhl at 1220 ft. Because this fly-off altitude of 1220 ft is based on a conditional waypoint; it cannot be modified by the pilot. I would suggest that this particular approach would be enhanced if it gave the pilot at least some accurate vertical guidance. As it stands; it gives the pilot none. In addition; because VOR approachs do not usually have the runway end programmed in the FMC as part of the approach; pilots cannot access progress page 2 to verify vertical track error. In most VOR approachs; this doesn't represent a real issue; as the approach qualifies as a straight-in. But; in the case of the VOR 13L; the pilot does not acquire the VASI's or vertical guidance until well through the 094 degree turn to final. And; exacerbating the pilot's vertical track challenge is the fact that; much of the time this approach is performed; the pilot has a quartering tailwind (overshooting crosswind) on the turn to final. It can be quite a challenge to get down when the pilot turns final and sees he is high on the VASI's. This brings me to a quibble I have with the designation of this approach. Every approach in our fom idents itself as either a straight-in or a circling approach; with commensurate approach categories and minimums. The jfk VOR 13L is one which idents itself as neither. It idents itself as a lead-in light (ldin) approach. The fom narrowly defines only 2 types of non-precision instrument approachs. It says 'straight-in minimums are shown on the instrument approach chart if the following criteria are met: 1) the instrument approach final approach courses is within 30 degrees of landing runway alignment. 2) a normal descent can be made from the published minimum IFR altitude to the landing runway. 3) if either of these requirements is not met; straight-in minimums are usually not shown and circle to land minimums apply.' since the VOR 13L meets none of the above criteria; (with its 094 degree turn to final from VOR course guidance; and its recommended 1 mi level fly-off at the MDA); I can see why straight-in minimums are not published. But; neither are company circling minimums published; of 1000 and 3. Instead; we have the 800 ft MDA. The fom under circle-to-land minimums says; 'if the instrument approach final approach course differs by more than 30 degrees from the landing runway alignment; a circle-to-land maneuver is required unless straight-in minimums are published for the landing runway (e.g.; dca; hnl; vmmc).' if a circle-to-land maneuver is required; both ceiling and visibility minimums must be met to initiate the approach. Reported ceiling must be at or above published circle-to-land MDA; but not less than 1000 ft haa. 4) reported visibility must be at or above the published visibility minimum; but not less than 3 mi. As a pilot with VMC circling only restrs on my B757/767 type rating; I have to believe our company has a special dispensation to conduct what is essentially a circling approach when below circling minimums.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757-200 FO BELIEVES THE VOR/GPS 13L/R (ROUTINELY REFERRED TO AS THE 'CANARSIE VISUAL') APPROACH FAILS TO COMPLY WITH HIS COMPANY'S OWN OPERATIONAL LIMITATIONS; IN PARTICULAR THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH MDAS FOR CIRCLING APPROACHES.

Narrative: I REGULARLY FLY THE JFK VOR 13L APCH; AND DID SO ON MY LAST TRIP. FORTUNATELY; THIS LATEST APCH WAS CONDUCTED IN VMC. I HAVE DONE THIS APCH TO MINIMUMS IN IMC; AND THAT IS WHEN I REALIZED THE DEFICIENCIES IN NOT JUST THE FMC PROGRAMMING; BUT IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THIS APCH IS TO BE CONDUCTED; AND WHETHER OR NOT PROPER AUTH FOR DEV FROM APPROVED FLT PROCS EXISTS. APPARENTLY; OUR COMPANY HAS SPECIAL DISPENSATION TO FLY THE APCH AS CHARTER. PLTS ARE USUALLY PROVIDED WRITTEN AUTH WHEN ALLOWED TO DEVIATE FROM NORMAL PROC. I CANNOT FIND ANY SUCH AUTH IN OUR MANUALS. MY FIRST CONCERN WITH THIS PROC HAS TO DO WITH THE CHART. THE FMC HAS A XING ALT AT DMYHL AT 1220 FT. THIS IS 420 FT HIGHER THAN THE PUBLISHED MDA OF 800 FT. SECONDLY; THE FMC HAS A CONDITIONAL WAYPOINT FOLLOWING DMYHL THAT CONSISTS OF A LEVEL FLY-OFF FOR 1 NM WITH AN ALT RESTRAINT AT OR ABOVE 1220 FT. I UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC BEHIND THE APCH PLATE INSTRUCTIONS RECOMMENDING A 1 NM FLY-OFF PAST DMYHL PRIOR TO DSCNT BELOW MDA. IF YOU CROSS DMYHL AT 800 FT; YOU ARE BELOW A DESIRED CONSTANT DSCNT APCH (CDAP) GLIDE PATH TO THE RWY. WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS WHY THE FMC WOULD HAVE THE PLT LEVEL OFF AT 1220 FT; WHICH IS 370 FT ABOVE THE CDAP MINIMUM (OF 800 FT PLUS 50 FT). NO FLY-OFF IS NECESSARY IF THE ACFT CROSSES DMYHL AT 1220 FT. BECAUSE THIS FLY-OFF ALT OF 1220 FT IS BASED ON A CONDITIONAL WAYPOINT; IT CANNOT BE MODIFIED BY THE PLT. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS PARTICULAR APCH WOULD BE ENHANCED IF IT GAVE THE PLT AT LEAST SOME ACCURATE VERT GUIDANCE. AS IT STANDS; IT GIVES THE PLT NONE. IN ADDITION; BECAUSE VOR APCHS DO NOT USUALLY HAVE THE RWY END PROGRAMMED IN THE FMC AS PART OF THE APCH; PLTS CANNOT ACCESS PROGRESS PAGE 2 TO VERIFY VERT TRACK ERROR. IN MOST VOR APCHS; THIS DOESN'T REPRESENT A REAL ISSUE; AS THE APCH QUALIFIES AS A STRAIGHT-IN. BUT; IN THE CASE OF THE VOR 13L; THE PLT DOES NOT ACQUIRE THE VASI'S OR VERT GUIDANCE UNTIL WELL THROUGH THE 094 DEG TURN TO FINAL. AND; EXACERBATING THE PLT'S VERT TRACK CHALLENGE IS THE FACT THAT; MUCH OF THE TIME THIS APCH IS PERFORMED; THE PLT HAS A QUARTERING TAILWIND (OVERSHOOTING XWIND) ON THE TURN TO FINAL. IT CAN BE QUITE A CHALLENGE TO GET DOWN WHEN THE PLT TURNS FINAL AND SEES HE IS HIGH ON THE VASI'S. THIS BRINGS ME TO A QUIBBLE I HAVE WITH THE DESIGNATION OF THIS APCH. EVERY APCH IN OUR FOM IDENTS ITSELF AS EITHER A STRAIGHT-IN OR A CIRCLING APCH; WITH COMMENSURATE APCH CATEGORIES AND MINIMUMS. THE JFK VOR 13L IS ONE WHICH IDENTS ITSELF AS NEITHER. IT IDENTS ITSELF AS A LEAD-IN LIGHT (LDIN) APCH. THE FOM NARROWLY DEFINES ONLY 2 TYPES OF NON-PRECISION INST APCHS. IT SAYS 'STRAIGHT-IN MINIMUMS ARE SHOWN ON THE INST APCH CHART IF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA ARE MET: 1) THE INST APCH FINAL APCH COURSES IS WITHIN 30 DEGS OF LNDG RWY ALIGNMENT. 2) A NORMAL DSCNT CAN BE MADE FROM THE PUBLISHED MINIMUM IFR ALT TO THE LNDG RWY. 3) IF EITHER OF THESE REQUIREMENTS IS NOT MET; STRAIGHT-IN MINIMUMS ARE USUALLY NOT SHOWN AND CIRCLE TO LAND MINIMUMS APPLY.' SINCE THE VOR 13L MEETS NONE OF THE ABOVE CRITERIA; (WITH ITS 094 DEG TURN TO FINAL FROM VOR COURSE GUIDANCE; AND ITS RECOMMENDED 1 MI LEVEL FLY-OFF AT THE MDA); I CAN SEE WHY STRAIGHT-IN MINIMUMS ARE NOT PUBLISHED. BUT; NEITHER ARE COMPANY CIRCLING MINIMUMS PUBLISHED; OF 1000 AND 3. INSTEAD; WE HAVE THE 800 FT MDA. THE FOM UNDER CIRCLE-TO-LAND MINIMUMS SAYS; 'IF THE INST APCH FINAL APCH COURSE DIFFERS BY MORE THAN 30 DEGS FROM THE LNDG RWY ALIGNMENT; A CIRCLE-TO-LAND MANEUVER IS REQUIRED UNLESS STRAIGHT-IN MINIMUMS ARE PUBLISHED FOR THE LNDG RWY (E.G.; DCA; HNL; VMMC).' IF A CIRCLE-TO-LAND MANEUVER IS REQUIRED; BOTH CEILING AND VISIBILITY MINIMUMS MUST BE MET TO INITIATE THE APCH. RPTED CEILING MUST BE AT OR ABOVE PUBLISHED CIRCLE-TO-LAND MDA; BUT NOT LESS THAN 1000 FT HAA. 4) RPTED VISIBILITY MUST BE AT OR ABOVE THE PUBLISHED VISIBILITY MINIMUM; BUT NOT LESS THAN 3 MI. AS A PLT WITH VMC CIRCLING ONLY RESTRS ON MY B757/767 TYPE RATING; I HAVE TO BELIEVE OUR COMPANY HAS A SPECIAL DISPENSATION TO CONDUCT WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A CIRCLING APCH WHEN BELOW CIRCLING MINIMUMS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.