In article , Tim
wrote:

Ron Garret wrote:
snip



First, the regs explicitly sanction "making up your own stuff" (as you
put it) in emergency situations, which lost comm in IMC can easily give
rise to.

How is this an emergency?

I didn't say it was an emergency. I said it could easily give rise to
one.

Second, a lot of the regs were written before the advent of moving-map
GPS. Many procedures that make sense if you're navigating on a VOR make
less sense if you always know at a glance exactly where you are.

I don't see how with a gps you know where you are and with 2 VORs (for
example) you don't know where you are.

I didn't say that either. I said with moving map GPS you know EXACTLY
where you are AT A GLANCE. With VORs it takes time to twiddle knobs and
cross-reference the results against a chart, and the margin of error is
much larger.

Just because they were written before GPS does not mean they are no
longer valid.

I didn't say that they weren't valid. I said that procedures designed
for VORs make less sense when MMGPS is available.

Third, going by the book makes you do some overtly stupid things. The
classic example is going NORDO while flying from AVX to FUL. Going by
the book requires you to fly to SLI, reverse course, return to the exact
spot you just came from (which is over water BTW), and reverse course
again. This procedure is manifestly more dangerous than just flying the
approach straight in (because it involves more maneuvering, more time in
the air, more time over water). Moreover, under normal conditions the
approach is ALWAYS flown straight in (via vectors) and under NORDO
conditions the controllers expect you to fly the approach straight in (I
know because I asked them) notwithstanding that this technically
violates the regs.

If you already know the answer and were given instructions by
controllers to do this in the past, why pose it here?

That was for a completely different set of circumstances.

How does going to FUL require what you state? Cannot you pick which
approach and IAF?

It's a tangent, so if you really want to get into that you should start
a new thread. Or look up the old one. Or look at the charts.

Why do you choose the VOR procedure at FUL rather than the LOC/DME? In
that case it is easy to pick the approach with nopt.

Not as easy as you might think. The preferred routing (which is the one
you will invariably be assigned) from AVX to FUL is V21 SLI Direct.

And fourth, the regs leave a lot of stuff unspecified. If you go by the
regs in the current situation, you end up over KVNY at 11,000 feet, at
which point you're supposed to initiate your descent. But there's no
published hold at KVNY (to say nothing of the fact that KVNY is not an
IAF for any approach to KVNY) so you have no choice but to improvise at
that point.


So you are saying you don't know what you are supposed to do when you
reach a clearance limit and there is no published hold?

Are you sure direct VNY means KNVY and not eh vor or an iaf? Did the
controllers say "...SNS, direct" or "...SNS, direct KVNY?" there is a
difference I think.

The exact wording of my clearance was "Cleared to the Van Nuys airport
via left turn to heading 140 vectors to Salinas VOR then direct."

I've never heard a clearance that ended with anything other than an
unqualified "direct" or "then as filed".

VNY IS an IAF. So is FIM. Why not choose those as IAFs and follow a
published approach rather than your own vectors?

Because I've flown into LA from the north dozens if not hundreds of
times. Invariably my initial clearance ends with a direct leg to KVNY
which is unflyable at 9000 feet (which is the altitude I always file
for). Invariably my clearance is amended once I reach LA Center's
airspace to direct LHS, LYNXXN arrival, and then amended further to be
vectors for the ILS. This is more direct and therefore safer than any
"by the book" route.

But next time I'll try getting that route from the outset and see what
happens.

rg