If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NDB or GPS Rwy 33 EPM
This approach is marked radar required, and there is no charted feeder
route to the IAF. So one approaches via a random route under radar. ATC will not issue an approach clearance until within 15 miles of the NDB. In the past I was told this was due to their need to ensure the a/c was within the service volume for the facility. However, if the a/c is using GPS and executing the GPS Rwy 33 approach, what is the point of delaying clearance issuance until 15 miles out? Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Rosenfeld wrote: On Thu, 20 May 2004 02:38:59 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message .. . One reason for delaying the clearance when using the NDB might be that, although ATC may be radar monitoring, once one descends below 4000', there is no direct radio contact with ATC. Radar monitoring is required even if the aircraft is executing the GPS RWY 33 approach. Why do you think this delay in issuing the clearance is a policy at the Boston ARTCC? If it is not justified by the FAA published procedures, do you have a cite from the manual that I could present to the supervisor at the Boston ARTCC to support its elimination? Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) "RADAR REQUIRED" can be for any number of reasons. One of them is: 8260.19C, Para 855: Where radar is the only method for procedure entry from the en route environment, enter the following: Chart planview note: RADAR REQUIRED. You cannot use that NDB beyond 15 miles unless they see you on radar. You say they lose radar below 4,000, but presumably you're within 15 miles before they let that happen. The note is appropriate in view of the lack of facilities supporting the IAP. It is not Boston Center that is the final authority on that note, it is the IAP folks. The fact you're using GPS is beside the point because it is an overlay IAP. Perhaps it shouldn't be beside the point, but it is because it's an overlay. They don't make special notes for overlay use of a ground-based IAP. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Rosenfeld wrote: You cannot use that NDB beyond 15 miles unless they see you on radar. You say they lose radar below 4,000, No, they don't lose radar -- but they do lose direct radio communications. Communication is still possible, although cumbersome, through a FSS. If they can't talk to you they can't provide radar services. ;-) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... Why do you think this delay in issuing the clearance is a policy at the Boston ARTCC? I don't think there is a delay. If you're on a random route radar monitoring is required for all aircraft; course guidance is also required, as necessary, unless the aircraft is /E, /F, /G, or /R equipped. (Apparently non-advanced RNAV aircraft must be nudged back on course but advanced RNAV aircraft can be left to wander.) Implicit in the requirement for radar monitoring is the requirement for direct pilot-controller communications. If radio communication is lost below 4000' then any clearance that permits descent below that altitude must be withheld until the requirement for radar monitoring no longer applies. If you really want your approach clearance before you're within 15 miles of EPM ATC can easily issue it with a restriction to maintain 4000' until crossing EPM NDB, but I doubt that's a solution you'd be interested in. Another solution is to file a route that does not require radar monitoring as you approach EPM, but that may require you to add a fair distance to your flight. Princeton VOR/DME is an L class VOR 39 miles NNW of EPM, the A/FD shows no restrictions within the normal altitude/distance limitations, so PNN direct EPM is a perfectly good non-radar route. You could be cleared for the approach with a restriction to cross EPM at whatever the highest MIA is between the VOR and the NDB. Radar monitoring wouldn't be required so there'd be no reason to keep you on the ATC frequency or deny the approach clearance. One wonders why this wasn't charted as a feeder route. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... "RADAR REQUIRED" can be for any number of reasons. One of them is: 8260.19C, Para 855: Where radar is the only method for procedure entry from the en route environment, enter the following: Chart planview note: RADAR REQUIRED. Radar is not the only method for procedure entry from the en route environment in this case. You cannot use that NDB beyond 15 miles unless they see you on radar. That's true, but you could use another navaid until you're within 15 miles of that NDB. You say they lose radar below 4,000, but presumably you're within 15 miles before they let that happen. He didn't say that, he said they lose direct communications below 4000'. The Bucks Harbor ARSR is only 23 miles away, the St. Albans RCAG is about 100 miles away. The note is appropriate in view of the lack of facilities supporting the IAP. The note is inappropriate in view of the fact that this procedure can be flown without the use of any radar services. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 20 May 2004 17:22:30 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote: "Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message .. . Why do you think this delay in issuing the clearance is a policy at the Boston ARTCC? I don't think there is a delay. If you're on a random route radar monitoring is required for all aircraft; course guidance is also required, as necessary, unless the aircraft is /E, /F, /G, or /R equipped. (Apparently non-advanced RNAV aircraft must be nudged back on course but advanced RNAV aircraft can be left to wander.) Implicit in the requirement for radar monitoring is the requirement for direct pilot-controller communications. If radio communication is lost below 4000' then any clearance that permits descent below that altitude must be withheld until the requirement for radar monitoring no longer applies. If you really want your approach clearance before you're within 15 miles of EPM ATC can easily issue it with a restriction to maintain 4000' until crossing EPM NDB, but I doubt that's a solution you'd be interested in. Sometimes it's hard for me to follow your train of thought. But if I understand you correctly, in the situation we are discussing, you are saying that for a/c with non-advanced RNAV, clearance issuance *should* be delayed until within the SSV of the EPM NDB (unless one is held at an excessively high altitude). However, I was filed /G so I'm still wondering about my specific situation. Another solution is to file a route that does not require radar monitoring as you approach EPM, but that may require you to add a fair distance to your flight. Princeton VOR/DME is an L class VOR 39 miles NNW of EPM, the A/FD shows no restrictions within the normal altitude/distance limitations, so PNN direct EPM is a perfectly good non-radar route. You could be cleared for the approach with a restriction to cross EPM at whatever the highest MIA is between the VOR and the NDB. Radar monitoring wouldn't be required so there'd be no reason to keep you on the ATC frequency or deny the approach clearance. One wonders why this wasn't charted as a feeder route. I don't have a current AF/D to examine. However, the Princeton VOR has been flakey for a number of years. In addition, www.airnav.com shows VOR PORTION UNUSBL 113-158 (pnn--epm is 149°). Also, checking with the Bangor FSS, they tell me that restriction is published in the current A/FD. (I believe that many years ago there was a published feeder route.) So I guess that's not an option. Oh well. I'll see what the local procedure specialist has to say. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: wrote in message ... "RADAR REQUIRED" can be for any number of reasons. One of them is: 8260.19C, Para 855: Where radar is the only method for procedure entry from the en route environment, enter the following: Chart planview note: RADAR REQUIRED. Radar is not the only method for procedure entry from the en route environment in this case. What are the other methods? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: One wonders why this wasn't charted as a feeder route. Perhaps flight inspection issues? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote: Radar is not the only method for procedure entry from the en route environment in this case. Unless the NDB is part of the airway system, then Radar is the only way to legally and procedurally get to the IAF. You cannot use that NDB beyond 15 miles unless they see you on radar. That's true, but you could use another navaid until you're within 15 miles of that NDB. There are no other NAVAIDS that have been approved as feeders to the IAF. Yes, you could use another NAVAID to get there, but it would have to be with the assistance of the TRACON while they follow you on the Radar (i.e., Radar required) You say they lose radar below 4,000, but presumably you're within 15 miles before they let that happen. He didn't say that, he said they lose direct communications below 4000'. The Bucks Harbor ARSR is only 23 miles away, the St. Albans RCAG is about 100 miles away. The note is appropriate in view of the lack of facilities supporting the IAP. The note is inappropriate in view of the fact that this procedure can be flown without the use of any radar services. Not from a TERPS standpoint. JPH |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|