BillJ wrote:
I had a surprise reaction from approach controller while entering the
GPS 23 at UCP:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0709/05842R23.PDF
I was doing a final pre-checkride lesson, and about 25 NW of UCP. In
IMC, assigned heading 250 at 4000. I expected the next word would be
"advise when you have the New Castle weather" and then "what approach
would you like?" But instead we got proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23
approach. OK, so student stayed at 4000, entered the procedure in the
530W and headed to Zarto, no problem.
Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all
agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no
sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.)
Anyway I thought the student might get to Zarto still at 4000 realize
there was time to descend to 2600 before Wobut and just turn inbound the
few degrees required. The 530 asks "do you want to hold at Zarto" and I
saw him pause and think about it and he selected "yes", which seemed
like a good answer (the only really correct answer I thought).
So as we turned outbound for the hold the controller comes on rather
gruffly and says "1234X, where are you going?" I got on and said
"...entering the hold as published " and he says "why, that is not
authorized, if you want to do it you have to ask.." I pointed out that
the only NoPT enteries were from the airways, and anyway we needed to
loose altitude in the hold.
So controller says "...that is incorrect. All entries in the arc from
Volan to Mercy are NoPT!! So where does that come from? Do controllers
have a different plate that we use? Also you would think the typo about
Volan would have been discovered and corrected. I have pointed out this
to NACO, controllers, etc. but it stays in the book. I am sure there
have been numerous arrivals at Volan westbound cleared for the approach,
which is common sense but violates the plate.
The controller was almost certainly applyin the provision where he is
authorized to clear you directly to an RNAV IAP's intermediate fix. If
he told you to expect clearance direct to ZARTO at least 5 miles from
ZARTO then you were expected to proceed straight-in in accordance with
AIM 5-4-7 i:
"i. ATC may clear aircraft that have filed an Advanced RNAV equipment
suffix to the intermediate fix when clearing aircraft for an instrument
approach procedure. ATC will take the following actions when clearing
Advanced RNAV aircraft to the intermediate fix:
1. Provide radar monitoring to the intermediate fix.
2. Advise the pilot to expect clearance direct to the intermediate fix
at least 5 miles from the fix.
NOTE-
This is to allow the pilot to program the RNAV equipment to allow the
aircraft to fly to the intermediate fix when cleared by ATC.
3. Assign an altitude to maintain until the intermediate fix.
4. Insure the aircraft is on a course that will intercept the
intermediate segment at an angle not greater than 90 degrees and is at
an altitude that will permit normal descent from the intermediate fix to
the final approach fix."
So can anyone help to clairfy my understanding and/or straighten out the
published word? Would you have entered the hold?
No, you were required to go straight-in IAW AIM 5-4-7-i. That is,
unless he did it really quick and did not give you at least 5 miles to
delete the hold-in-lieu. Then it was up to up to suspect 5-4-7-i was
being applied and say "unable straight in, we will need a turn in the
hold at ZARTO."
By the way I queried the student later about why he did the hold and he
said he didn't want to intercept the glide slope (LNAV+V...will be LPV
soon) from above in a descent. He thought there might be a "false lobe"
or phantom glideslope above as in ILS. We talked about that, so all in
all it was a good learning experience for him.
Well, at 4,000 the descent gradient from ZARTO to WOBUT is well under 3
degrees; 2.09 degrees actually.
You're right about the airway entry note at VOLAN, but that had nothing
to do about your handling.
Seems like pilots as a group have been very slow to understand AIM
5-4-7-1, which came into effect in February, 2006.