JFK Tower--VOR/DME Approach, Pilots not happy!

[CantPutt9]

I was listening to JFK Tower at around 6pm EST last evening.  They were using the VOR/DME approach.  Many pilots were complaining that this approach was nearly impossible given the weather conditions. 

Can someone explain to an aviation enthusiast (non-pilot) why this approach would be so difficult to fly?  Also, would they change to the ILS?  I couldn't listen more to find out what happened.  Thanks!

TH

[jmcmanna]

Looking at the JFK weather last evening, the visibility at 6PM was about 1SM.  Throughout the evening the weather was poor with low ceilings and visibility.  A VOR/DME approach is a less precise approach than, say, an ILS approach, which requires the pilot(s) to see the runway from higher up and farther out than an ILS approach.  Considering the weather conditions at the time, it may have been very difficult.

As to why they were doing the VOR/DME approach and not the ILS approach, I don't know.  Part of the ILS may have been out of service for part of last night.

[cessna157]

Which VOR approach are we talking?  22L or the 13L/R circle?  I might be able to provide some insight

[david2006]

Runway 22L was in use, although the wind was 100/7kts ( is rwy 13L out of service due to maintenance?).

PS- by 2000EST they were back to using the ILS.

[cessna157]

Runway 22L was in use, although the wind was 100/7kts ( is rwy 13L out of service due to maintenance?).

PS- by 2000EST they were back to using the ILS.

I'm not sure why they were complaining about this being a difficult approach.  It is quite easy.  It's just offset from the runway centerline a little, but nothing major (it's still considered a straight-in approach).  The tailwind isn't high enough to cause any problems.  The left quartering wind would make the turn to the runway a little harder than calm wind, but at 7 knots, it wouldn't be very noticeable.

I'm not entirely sure why they use the VOR into 22.  I'm sure it is offset for airspace utilization purposes, probably for LGA or HPN.

But, to answer your question:  I don't have an answer as to why they were complaining.  Unless the cloud/visibility were starting to get too low for the approach.  But in that case, they wouldn't use it.

[tyketto]

But, to answer your question:  I don't have an answer as to why they were complaining.  Unless the cloud/visibility were starting to get too low for the approach.  But in that case, they wouldn't use it.

This would have to be why. Looking at the chart, minimums for the approach are 500' ceilings and 1/2SM visibility. Going off the OP, they were only close to minimums on the visibility. We'd need to know the cloud conditions for this to see what the full story is. But other than that, it is pretty much a straight-in; easily treated like a LOC approach.

BL.