On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 03:40:31 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
news

I would have assumed this was a "radar vectors to final" situation and
queried ATC to verify, since they didn't use the magic words that I
understand to be necessary for me to assume radar vectors.


Why would you have assumed it was a "radar vectors to final" situation if
they didn't use the magic words that you understand to be necessary to
assume radar vectors? You're not being vectored in this situation, that
should be clear.



But ATC has had
me lined up with the FAC for quite some distance; I've been in radar
contact; I've been assigned an appropriate altitude to intercept the GP
from below; I've not crossed any IAF prior to DEPRE.


The approach controller did nothing to line you up with the FAC. He simply
told you to intercept the FAC as your previous clearance of direct GRB
VORTAC crossed it some fifteen miles from the LOM at a shallow angle.



If that confirmation is not forthcoming, then I would inform ATC that I am
obliged to execute a procedure turn at DEPRE. I would maintain my last
assigned altitude of 3000' until crossing DEPRE.


And when they informed you that you weren't being vectored you'd proceed to
fly the PT turn, which upon completion you'd be in the exact same position.

Of course, that wouldn't happen. Upon informing ATC you felt obligated to
fly the PT they'd vector you out of the way of the following traffic. Then
they'd either vector you back to the FAC, which would prohibit flying the
PT, or send you direct to the IAF so you could happily fly your PT without
endangering anyone else.

Well, there are FAA facilities that do not follow the same rules as they
are published and interpreted by Washington. SoCal is another. There has
been a push to standardize these kinds of things.

There was an old (1977) legal opinion indicating that pilots could get
authorization from ATC to eliminate PT's when they were sort of lined up
with the FAC and at an appropriate altitude. This supposedly was
eliminated by the 1994 opinion; however, that 1994 opinion (which I quoted
before) referred specifically to non-radar environments and was mute on
radar environments.

There is no question in my mind that it would be safe to fly straight in
from the position you set up. Perhaps the simplest way of getting that ATC
facilities practice in line with the regulations would be to designate
SENNA as an IAF. The route from OSH, which includes the route from SENNA
to DEPRE, is a NoPT route, and ATC has placed me on that route crossing
SENNA.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)