 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
An air carrier pilot reported two notes on the gpt ILS or localizer DME runway 32 approach plate might confuse pilots into accepting the approach when note 1 is referenced and radar but not DME are available while note 2 states gpt DME is always required.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 929960 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201101 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201-1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | GPT.TRACON |
| State Reference | MS |
| Environment | |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Commercial Fixed Wing |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Initial Approach |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Captain |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Deviation - Procedural Other / Unknown |
Narrative:
This is in reference to notes on the gpt ILS or localizer DME 32 in gpt dated 23 jan 09. Note 1 states; 'radar or DME required.' note 2 states; 'simultaneous reception of iuxi localizer and gpt VOR DME required.' these two notes appear to conflict. How can DME be optional in one note and not optional in another? When attempting to shoot this approach; the DME and the glideslope were out. Per our operations specs I didn't understand how I could use canpa procedures to shoot a localizer DME approach without DME. I refused the approach and shot the RNAV GPS instead. If I'm missing something here; please tell me. Otherwise; I think the notes need to be amended on this approach and controllers at gpt should stop using the approach while the DME is OTS until the ambiguity is resolved.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: An Air Carrier pilot reported two Notes on the GPT ILS or LOC DME Runway 32 approach plate might confuse pilots into accepting the approach when Note 1 is referenced and Radar but not DME are available while Note 2 states GPT DME is always required.
Narrative: This is in reference to notes on the GPT ILS or LOC DME 32 in GPT dated 23 JAN 09. Note 1 states; 'RADAR or DME required.' Note 2 states; 'Simultaneous reception of IUXI LOC and GPT VOR DME required.' These two notes appear to conflict. How can DME be optional in one note and not optional in another? When attempting to shoot this approach; the DME and the glideslope were out. Per our OPS Specs I didn't understand how I could use CANPA procedures to shoot a LOC DME approach without DME. I refused the approach and shot the RNAV GPS instead. If I'm missing something here; please tell me. Otherwise; I think the notes need to be amended on this approach and controllers at GPT should stop using the approach while the DME is OTS until the ambiguity is resolved.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.