VOR/DME Approach Question

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Chip Jones" wrote
The trainee and I did discuss where the "full approach" began. Since we
rarely work aircraft approaching RKW from the east, it was a legitimate
question in my mind.

Chip, I'm honestly not trying to be a pain, but while the question was
a legitimate one in your mind, it wasn't legitimate regulatorily. In
other words, I think the source of the confusion is a less-than-ideal
understanding of the applicable rules. Don't feel too bad - I just
saw the same level of understanding in a 1500+ hour multi/IFR pilot I
flew with recently.

Hey man, I don't feel bad at all and I don't see you being a pain. I was
the guy who posted the question, and I'm the guy who was supposed to know
the answer before hand. The question shouldn't even come up, hehehe. I
imagine my "IFR" time is around 16,000 hours of live air traffic control.
I'd say I still do have a less than ideal understanding of the applicable
rules pertaining to certain IAP's. That's why I drop in here from time to
time.


This aircraft had GPS, so I said
I though the full approach in this case begins at the IAF (MINES)

The full approach ALWAYS begins at the IAF (or an IAF if there is more
than one) regardless of how the aircraft is equipped.

and we could clear him to MINES via GPS-direct.

There's the difference. Since the aircraft had RNAV (not necessarily
GPS - any kind of approved RNAV would be fine, since the approach does
not start until the IAF is crossed) you could clear him direct to
MINES. Without RNAV, you would need an alternate plan.

Because of ATC workload, without RNAV equipment the *pilot* would need an
alternate plan in this case. We were busy. We have no obligation to vector
non-Rnav aircraft on an unpublished route. In this particular event, he'd
have likely been sent direct HCH because it was the easy thing for the
trainee to do. HCH is on the plate.

[snipped]

Now I'm wondering what I could have done with this UH-60 if it had been
a /A
instead of a /G. We don't clear /A's direct to intersections. Where
does
the "full approach" begin for a non-RNAV on this procedure. I can't
vector
to final at this location.

I'm pretty sure you can vector an aircraft to intercept an airway -
can you do the same for a random VOR radial? How about "Fly heading
XXX, intercept the HCH-060 radial, track the radial to MINES, cleared
for the full approach, report procedure turn inbound?"



I can vector to a random VOR radial, but I cannot vector to the final
approach course. The HCH-060R is also the final approach course inside of
MINES. MINES (and the HCH 27 DME) is not depicted on the scope. Vectors
are workload permitting, and we were busy elsewhere. Therefore, I don't
know whether I would have vectored here or not in the event.

If the Army had crashed and burned (say the tail rotor fell off, nothing
related to the approach), how would I explain to the rules lawyers that I
was merely vectoring to a random radial that also happened to define the
FAC? I cannot clear aircraft operating on non-published routes (like a
random vector to join the 060R) for approach until they are established on
a segment of the IAP or a published route or I assign an altitude to
maintain until they are so established (or they are doing a GPS or RNAV
approach). These rules exist as a result of other ATC screw-ups in the
past. A vector to intercept the FAC radial, followed by an approach
clearance to an aircraft with a horrible UHF radio to read it back with
could end up being misconstrued as a vector to final (although the "Report
procedure turn inbound" should eliminate the possibility of a
misunderstanding).

All that aside, I do believe that your example is basically legal (I'd have
to clean up the phraseology a little bit to CYA). I may try it next time I
work one into RKW from the east, assuming I get to him far enough away from
MINES to make a vector workable.

I appreciate the insight,

Chip, ZTL

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 04:00:48 GMT, "Chip Jones"
wrote:

All that aside, I do believe that your example is basically legal (I'd have
to clean up the phraseology a little bit to CYA). I may try it next time I
work one into RKW from the east, assuming I get to him far enough away from
MINES to make a vector workable.

How about something like:

"Fly heading of 270 until intercepting the HCH 060 radial, then direct
Mines. Maintain 5000 (or your MIA/MVA for the area, if higher) until
MINES; cleared for the approach"?

I would not interpret such a clearance as being a "vector-to-final"




--ron

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 04:00:48 GMT, "Chip Jones"
wrote:

All that aside, I do believe that your example is basically legal (I'd
have
to clean up the phraseology a little bit to CYA). I may try it next time
I
work one into RKW from the east, assuming I get to him far enough away
from
MINES to make a vector workable.

How about something like:

"Fly heading of 270 until intercepting the HCH 060 radial, then direct
Mines. Maintain 5000 (or your MIA/MVA for the area, if higher) until
MINES; cleared for the approach"?

I would not interpret such a clearance as being a "vector-to-final"


Ron, that sounds basically good to me. I would "chunk" that information so
it didn't all go out in the same transmission. My stab at it:

"Fly heading 270 to intecept the HCH060R, direct MINES when able."

Followed by:

"Maintain 5000 until MINES, cleared VOR/DME approach Rockwood, report
procedure turn inbound."

With the PT language there is no doubt that I didn't vector to final.

Chip, ZTL

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:10:56 GMT, "Chip Jones"
wrote:

Ron, that sounds basically good to me. I would "chunk" that information so
it didn't all go out in the same transmission. My stab at it:

"Fly heading 270 to intecept the HCH060R, direct MINES when able."

Followed by:

"Maintain 5000 until MINES, cleared VOR/DME approach Rockwood, report
procedure turn inbound."

With the PT language there is no doubt that I didn't vector to final.

Yes, it's probably more difficult for the pilot to screw things up when you
"chunk" it.

And when he got to MINES, absent a further clearance (radio congestion or
whatever) there'd be no question that he should go into the hold, until
cleared for the approach.


--ron