VOR/DME Approach Question

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
k.net...
[snipped]

My question concerns the course reversal at MINES. If you were flying
this
approach from due east of MINES, "cleared approach", what do you do at
MINES
to get on the approach course?

Thanks,

Chip, ZTL


Thanks everyone. When I learned this IAP back in the day, it had a DME arc
off of HCH Vor to get to the IAF, and then you turned down the approach
course. When they slipped GPS into the system, they changed the IAP and
eliminated the arc. Of course, no one told the controllers about the
change- as usual they just published it. I never thought about the
difference. Looks like I need some refresher training...

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote
My question concerns the course reversal at MINES. If you were flying
this
approach from due east of MINES, "cleared approach", what do you do at
MINES
to get on the approach course?

Thanks everyone. When I learned this IAP back in the day, it had a DME arc
off of HCH Vor to get to the IAF, and then you turned down the approach
course. When they slipped GPS into the system, they changed the IAP and
eliminated the arc. Of course, no one told the controllers about the
change- as usual they just published it. I never thought about the
difference. Looks like I need some refresher training...

Chip, not to be argumentative, but IMO the change to the procedure
makes absolutely no difference here.

What the pilot did was absolutely correct. Had the DME arc been
charted as before, his actions would still have been correct provided
the hold-in-lieu was still charted. Removal of the DME arc is not a
function of adding the GPS overlay; there are VOR/DME approaches with
GPS overlays out there that include a DME arc as an option. UTS
VOR/DME or GPS-A (http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0408/05813VDGA.PDF) is
one example, though it's NoPT all the way around.

The key here is this - if you're vectoring the guy to the FAC, no
procedure turn. If you've cleared him direct to the IAF, he does the
PT. It's just that simple.

I guess my question is this - why was this a problem? The pilot asked
for the full procedure, and your traineed cleared him for it. The
phraseology was not quite perfect, but well within the range of
variation, at least based on my experience. What am I missing?

Michael

On 24 Aug 2004 13:33:47 -0700, (Michael)
wrote:

The key here is this - if you're vectoring the guy to the FAC, no
procedure turn. If you've cleared him direct to the IAF, he does the
PT. It's just that simple.

I agree with you.

In addition, Chip should be aware that there are cut-and-dried requirements
in his 7110.65 in order for him to be able to give legal radar vectors to
the FAC so that the pilot will not do the PT. (7110.65 5-9-1)

It does not seem to me as if the requirements were met.






--ron

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On 24 Aug 2004 13:33:47 -0700, (Michael)
wrote:

The key here is this - if you're vectoring the guy to the FAC, no
procedure turn. If you've cleared him direct to the IAF, he does the
PT. It's just that simple.

I agree with you.

In addition, Chip should be aware that there are cut-and-dried
requirements
in his 7110.65 in order for him to be able to give legal radar vectors to
the FAC so that the pilot will not do the PT. (7110.65 5-9-1)

It does not seem to me as if the requirements were met.


I wasn't vectoring to the FAC. I do not/cannot/would not vector to the FAC
at this airport anyway because nothing of this approach is depicted on the
radar scope except for the airport. None of the fixes on the approach even
exist in the ATC database. I had no intention of vectoring for the FAC. My
mistake was in misunderstanding the procedure.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote:
I wasn't vectoring to the FAC. I do not/cannot/would not vector to the FAC
at this airport anyway because nothing of this approach is depicted on the
radar scope except for the airport. None of the fixes on the approach even
exist in the ATC database.

This brings me back to something you mentioned in your original post,
that got my attention. You said:

There is a large thunderstorm sweeping south
over the Knoxville airport and the TYS controllers are busy holding their
own arrivals for the storm to pass. To ease their workload, TYS calls my
trainee and begs him to work the approach into RKW.

How does this work? Can two facilities really swap airspace back and
forth between themselves with something as informal as a phone call?
There's a reason I ask...

A while back, I was flying into MMK (Meriden, CT) on a training flight
with a student. We were IFR, conditions were night, but clear skies.
The approach chart says Bradley Approach runs the approach control, but
my experience has been that radio contact with Bradley is usually pretty
poor. MMK is right on the edge between Bradley and New York Approach.
That night was no exception, and we lost contact completely with Bradley
while on a vector downwind. This was actually a good thing, because it
gave me the opportunity to hold an impromptu lesson on lost comm
procedures.

We tried calling Bradley a few times, and then got a message relayed by
another flight in the area to call Bradley on a different freq. No joy
on that freq either, and by that time we were out of radio contact with
the other aircraft. I decided to try one more trick and punch up
"Nearest ARTCC" on the GPS. Wonderful feature, that. It put us in
contact with Boston Center, loud and clear. It took just a moment to
explain the situation to the center guy, and he quickly got us a new
freq for NY Approach (by now we were probably pretty deep into NY's
airspace).

I expected the NY controller would give us vectors back towards MMK and
then hand us off to Bradley again, but that's not what happened. To my
surprise, he gave us vectors to final, cleared us for the approach, and
issued instructions to contact Bradley on the missed (the missed takes
you deeper into Bradley territory and radio comm is usually much better
on that side of the airport). We flew the approach, called Bradley on
the missed, and the controller acted like nothing strange had happened.

So, could you fill me in on what was happening behind the scenes? Once
I went lost comm, how did ATC deal with that? Did the Bradley guy just
hand me off to NY when he saw me leaving his airspace? And, most
interesting to me, how was the NY controller able to clear us for an
approach to an airport that he didn't own?

Roy Smith wrote:


How does this work? Can two facilities really swap airspace back and
forth between themselves with something as informal as a phone call?
There's a reason I ask...

Yes. Pretty much anything can be done with coordination over the landline.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
"Chip Jones" wrote:
[snipped]

This brings me back to something you mentioned in your original post,
that got my attention. You said:

There is a large thunderstorm sweeping south
over the Knoxville airport and the TYS controllers are busy holding
their
own arrivals for the storm to pass. To ease their workload, TYS calls
my
trainee and begs him to work the approach into RKW.

How does this work? Can two facilities really swap airspace back and
forth between themselves with something as informal as a phone call?
There's a reason I ask...

ATC is flexible in everything but basic separation minima. Two controllers
can work out all kinds of thngs with a simple phone call between them,
including swapping airspace. We do this a lot here in ZTL and I'm sure it
happens all over the country. It's all in the name of efficiency. I can
think of six airports in or near my airspace for which I might swap
approach/departure control service with an adjacent sector or facility.
Sometimes it makes more sense for me to work you into an airport just across
a boundary than for me to hand you off to the controlling sector facility.
All of this can be done with a simple coordination land line call between
controllers.

Controllers can even swap separation standards between terminal and Center,
or between non-radar and radar. Here's a quick example of one aspect of
this:

Tracon: "Hey Center, can ya give me a higher on Air Wisconsin? I need to
top this ATR I'm shipping you at ten..."

Center: "You can have higher on the Air Wisconsin if you use your radar to
separate him from the Mooney on a code of 0735 at 11,000 crossing five miles
off his nose. Reference the Mooney, give AWI FL180."

Tracon: "Mooney traffic observed, show it..."

In this quickie, the terminal guy is using 3 miles separation with his local
ASR radar to top traffic in the Center, where the Center controller needs 5
miles minima using Center ARSR. With a quick phone call, ATC applies
terminal separation minima using terminal radar to aircraft in Center
airspace.


A while back, I was flying into MMK (Meriden, CT) on a training flight
with a student. We were IFR, conditions were night, but clear skies.

[snipped]


So, could you fill me in on what was happening behind the scenes? Once
I went lost comm, how did ATC deal with that? Did the Bradley guy just
hand me off to NY when he saw me leaving his airspace? And, most
interesting to me, how was the NY controller able to clear us for an
approach to an airport that he didn't own?

When you went lost comm, the Bradley controller probably cursed out loud
before he did anything else. But he wasn't cursing you, he was likely
cursing the FAA radio coverage for the area. I betcha that the BDL
controller knows that aircraft into MMK at certain altitudes on certain
approaches may lose comm. That is also probably the controller's
experience. Probably happens fairly often at MMK and he wonders why his
radios still suck after all the reports he has filed to AF. Like you said,
your experience is that comm with BDL has been pretty poor into this
airport. He was likely prepared with a Plan B and also a Plan C for comm.

BDL loses you, they probably played musical ATC transmitters/receivers on
the frequency to get you back. In the Center, I can toggle between primary,
secondary and back-up transmitters and receivers. I imagine BDL has the
same capability with their comm equipment. After he BDL fails to get you
with his in-house radio tricks, he resorts to an air to air relay. The air
to air relay is a failure. The BDL guy, realizing that you are still
tooling downwind on his vector, calls up his buddy at N90 and explains the
situation. Most likely, if the BDL/N90 boundary is so close to MMK, this is
not the first time this exact scenario has played out.

The N90 controller likely had either taken a "point-out" from BDL on your
aircraft or else N90 was doing a simple airspace block for your approach.
If it was a point out, it meant that the N90 controller was already watching
you and protecting your target from his own traffic as BDL vectored you near
the facility boundary. If N90 was blocking the airspace around MMK for you,
then they had simply sterilized N90 airspace that conflicts with your
approach into MMK. Either way, the BDL guy probably called his N90 partner
on the land line and explained that you were NORDO. The N90 guy then tagged
your target up and watched you come his way, lost comm.

Meanwhile, the ARTCC controller who took your radio transmission had to call
either N90 or BDL, most likely N90. From his perch in the Center airspace
above the lowly tracons, the Center controller probably saw you down below,
inside N90 airspace. The New York controller probably told Boston Center to
"put him on me" when Center called to say you'd come up on Center freq.
ARTCC switched you to N90. Meanwhile, the N90 guy called the BDL guy and
said that N90 was working you now in good comm. Since BDL couldn't talk to
you anyway, they released the airspace at MMK to N90, in essence reversing
the tactical situation at MMK between N90 and BDL. For the time it took you
to make the approach, N90 controlled the airspace around MMK and BDL was
blocking for you.

Because the BDL guy released the airspace to N90, the N90 guy could clear
you in. The New York Approach controllers are among the best in the
business anywhere, and this guy probably had a working knowledge of MMK
since it was so close by. Once you were cleared to the CTAF and given the
comm instructions for the Missed, N90 was done with you. N90 called BDL and
gave them your approach clearance time and the details. They probably kept
a tag on you just in case your comm problems with Bradley continued after
the miss. BDL resumed control of MMK once you got cleared for approach and
both facilities had to block the airspace until you missed. Once you got
back into two-way comm with BDL after the missed, BDL called N90 and told
them to cancel the block at MMK. N90 dropped their tag on you and life went
on.

Chip, ZTL

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:43:33 GMT, "Chip Jones"
wrote:

I wasn't vectoring to the FAC. I do not/cannot/would not vector to the FAC
at this airport anyway because nothing of this approach is depicted on the
radar scope except for the airport. None of the fixes on the approach even
exist in the ATC database. I had no intention of vectoring for the FAC. My
mistake was in misunderstanding the procedure.

I understand.

But others have brought that up that possibility in this thread and I
thought it worthwhile that the point be absolutely clear to everyone (not
just to you).


--ron

"Michael" wrote in message
m...
"Chip Jones" wrote
My question concerns the course reversal at MINES. If you were flying
this
approach from due east of MINES, "cleared approach", what do you do at
MINES
to get on the approach course?

Thanks everyone. When I learned this IAP back in the day, it had a DME
arc
off of HCH Vor to get to the IAF, and then you turned down the approach
course. When they slipped GPS into the system, they changed the IAP and
eliminated the arc. Of course, no one told the controllers about the
change- as usual they just published it. I never thought about the
difference. Looks like I need some refresher training...

Chip, not to be argumentative, but IMO the change to the procedure
makes absolutely no difference here.

Obviously it made a difference to me. :-)


What the pilot did was absolutely correct. Had the DME arc been
charted as before, his actions would still have been correct provided
the hold-in-lieu was still charted. Removal of the DME arc is not a
function of adding the GPS overlay; there are VOR/DME approaches with
GPS overlays out there that include a DME arc as an option. UTS
VOR/DME or GPS-A (http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0408/05813VDGA.PDF) is
one example, though it's NoPT all the way around.

I have no doubt that the pilot made no mistake.


The key here is this - if you're vectoring the guy to the FAC, no
procedure turn. If you've cleared him direct to the IAF, he does the
PT. It's just that simple.

No kidding...


I guess my question is this - why was this a problem? The pilot asked
for the full procedure, and your traineed cleared him for it. The
phraseology was not quite perfect, but well within the range of
variation, at least based on my experience. What am I missing?


No one said this was a problem. I posted this to gain personal insight, and
nothing more. I don't think you're missing a thing.

Chip, ZTL

As a procedures sort of guy I think it was stupid to remove the DME ARC,
especially since it is a VOR/DME IAP. If the system worked the way it should,
AVN-100 would not have removed the ARC because GPS overlay was added; rather,
they would have removed it because your airspace staff for that area asked for
it to be removed. Or, in the alternative the DME ARC might have failed a
periodic flight inspection, which is more common these days as the VORs get old.

Chip Jones wrote:

"Michael" wrote in message
m...
"Chip Jones" wrote
My question concerns the course reversal at MINES. If you were flying
this
approach from due east of MINES, "cleared approach", what do you do at
MINES
to get on the approach course?

Thanks everyone. When I learned this IAP back in the day, it had a DME
arc
off of HCH Vor to get to the IAF, and then you turned down the approach
course. When they slipped GPS into the system, they changed the IAP and
eliminated the arc. Of course, no one told the controllers about the
change- as usual they just published it. I never thought about the
difference. Looks like I need some refresher training...

Chip, not to be argumentative, but IMO the change to the procedure
makes absolutely no difference here.

Obviously it made a difference to me. :-)


What the pilot did was absolutely correct. Had the DME arc been
charted as before, his actions would still have been correct provided
the hold-in-lieu was still charted. Removal of the DME arc is not a
function of adding the GPS overlay; there are VOR/DME approaches with
GPS overlays out there that include a DME arc as an option. UTS
VOR/DME or GPS-A (http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0408/05813VDGA.PDF) is
one example, though it's NoPT all the way around.

I have no doubt that the pilot made no mistake.


The key here is this - if you're vectoring the guy to the FAC, no
procedure turn. If you've cleared him direct to the IAF, he does the
PT. It's just that simple.

No kidding...


I guess my question is this - why was this a problem? The pilot asked
for the full procedure, and your traineed cleared him for it. The
phraseology was not quite perfect, but well within the range of
variation, at least based on my experience. What am I missing?


No one said this was a problem. I posted this to gain personal insight, and
nothing more. I don't think you're missing a thing.

Chip, ZTL