Major approach changes to ORH ILS 29 and 11

Regarding the design of the approach. First, it appears to me that on the Gov't charts the charted IAF at the new PUMPP Int is missing. I will send a message to Flight Procedures to look into it. I would expect to see a NOTAM on it. But in fact the IAF or at least one of them will be PUMPP. In a radar environment, the IAF doesn't have the same effect as in non radar, therfore I would not place much stock in it not being depicted, nonetheless it needs to be charted.

Third, the procedure is annotated with

Second, the redesign of the procedures were a result of the FAA's initiative to establish CASTprocedures. CAST is Civil Aviation Safety Team. The intent is to sync up the RNAV and precision approach procedures, in other words, sync the intermediate and final approach segments with the same altitudes, and fixes. Also make the glideslope intercept altitudes identical to the intermediate segment altitude. That is why the crossing altitude at the FAF is the same altitude as the intermediate segment atitude. This is occuring all throughout the country as changes occur. This action negated the need of the GOZZR and DUNCA LOM's since the FAF's were moved away from the locations where the LOM's were physically located. In order to retain a pronounable name for the FAF I elected to move PUMPP to the FAF location. The flight procedures office selected RILOC in lieu of DUNCA.

DME required soley because the GRIPE missed approach point at 3000 can techincally only be identifed by using the GDM DME because the BOS R-268 did not pass flight check at 3000. The alternitive was to require all aircraft to climb to 4000 in order to identify the BOS radial to identify the fix. Something we did not want. Someone commented that if DME is required it would be bold in the title of the procedure., In this case, it is not required to fly the approach or to identify the fixes on the procedure, only to identify the Missed approach holding point, hence it is not in the title.

Lastly, There was a comment as to why the procedure now says ILS or LOC Ry 29. This is due to a policy change within FAA. The purpose is to enable controllers to issue an approach clearance that contains the word Localizer. Up until this point if the glideslope was not in service, or if the pilot informed a controller they wanted a localizer approach, the controller could not clear an aircraft for a Localizer approach, because it was not in the title of the procedure. The old phraseology was Cleared ILS approach, Glideslope unusable. This did not accurately convey the intent in all cases.

Support Specialist for Airspace/Procedures
Bradley TRACON