Welcome Guest. Sign in or Signup

6 Answers

MHK VOR/DME-F

Asked by: 2994 views Instrument Rating

I was reviewing approaches at MHK with a student and was not able to explain why the VOR/DME-F was a circling only approach.  The final approach course is within 30 degrees of rwy 21 and the descent angle from FAF to MDA doesn't seem too steep.  The only thing I could think of were the obstacles between the FAF and the runway.  Am I missing another requirement buried in the TERPS that resulted in this one being circling only?   

6 Answers



  1. EAD on Jun 11, 2016

    Look where the Missed Approach point is (MHK VOR/DME), assuming you broke out right over the MAP at minimums, would you be in a normal position for landing?

    -1 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 1 Votes



  2. Ken White on Jun 11, 2016

    No you definitely wouldn’t but that same statement holds true for most, if not all non precision approaches I’ve seen.

    -1 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 1 Votes



  3. Steve Butler on Jun 12, 2016

    There are two towers near the approach course that are within 300 ft. of the circling minimums which makes me think that the straight in minimums are just the same as the circling minimums so they just published circling.

    -1 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 1 Votes



  4. John D Collins on Jun 12, 2016

    Steve,

    It is common to have Straight In and Circling minimums the same and both published. This same runway has an LPV with a DH of 200 feet.

    In order for a VOR approach with the facility on the airport to have a straight in minimum published, the extended final approach course must intersect the extended runway centerline within 3000 feet outward from the threshold. That can be waived up to 5200 feet. I estimate the intersection at around 5800 feet, so this approach does not qualify for a straight in minimums because it does not meet the criteria.

    +3 Votes Thumb up 3 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  5. Ken White on Jun 12, 2016

    Thanks for the response John. I have a follow up question, do you think that not showing the MHK VOR as an IAF is simply a charting error? I don’t see an IAF that would result in using the published procedure turn.

    0 Votes Thumb up 0 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  6. John D Collins on Jun 12, 2016

    Ken MHK is on an airway and there is a feeder route from MHK to the IAF at CAVWU which requires the PT.

    +1 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes


Answer Question

Our sincere thanks to all who contribute constructively to this forum in answering flight training questions. If you are a flight instructor or represent a flight school / FBO offering flight instruction, you are welcome to include links to your site and related contact information as it pertains to offering local flight instruction in a specific geographic area. Additionally, direct links to FAA and related official government sources of information are welcome. However we thank you for your understanding that links to other sites or text that may be construed as explicit or implicit advertising of other business, sites, or goods/services are not permitted even if such links nominally are relevant to the question asked.