procedure turns revisited

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

It may be a real world problem, but it's not the problem I presented.

But it can be. You may be approaching the VOR and be lined up, or
almost lined up with the final approach course. Sure RADAR is
available, but ATC did not provide vectors. Technically you should go
around the hold once. But that doesn't make good sense unless you have
altitude to lose. And ATC doesn't like it. Why should the controller
be forced to provide vectors in this instance?

Clearance for the approach while proceeding direct to SJC VOR is clearance
for the procedure turn, there's no basis for ATC to chew anyone out.

Yeah, that's why pilots have complained and at least one received a
profuse apology from a supervisor at the TRACON. But that doesn't
change the fact that ATC would rather not deal with the procedure turn
and many controllers cut corners in trying to avoid it. And, yes, they
are wrong. But they still do it (it got better for a while after the
complaints, but lately they seem to have reverted to their old tricks).

Now let me ask a question. What if ATC clears you direct to the VOR
and then clears you for the "straight-in" approach? Isn't the
controller's instruction in conflict with the AIM? Who wins,
hypothetically speaking (say you can't contact him for clarification)?

wrote in message
oups.com...

But it can be. You may be approaching the VOR and be lined up, or
almost lined up with the final approach course. Sure RADAR is
available, but ATC did not provide vectors. Technically you should go
around the hold once. But that doesn't make good sense unless you have
altitude to lose. And ATC doesn't like it. Why should the controller
be forced to provide vectors in this instance?


Why doesn't ATC like it? Why wouldn't the controller provide vectors? You
make it sound like it's a burden on them. If you're almost lined with the
final approach course anyway it only takes a small heading change as you
near the IAF. "Turn ten degrees right, join the final approach course".



Yeah, that's why pilots have complained and at least one received a
profuse apology from a supervisor at the TRACON. But that doesn't
change the fact that ATC would rather not deal with the procedure turn
and many controllers cut corners in trying to avoid it. And, yes, they
are wrong. But they still do it (it got better for a while after the
complaints, but lately they seem to have reverted to their old tricks).


The way for them to avoid the procedure turn is to provide vectors to the
approach. The way for them to avoid providing vectors to the approach is to
accommodate the procedure turn. Those are the only options available, they
must choose one of them.



Now let me ask a question. What if ATC clears you direct to the VOR
and then clears you for the "straight-in" approach?


I suppose it depends on the angle of intercept. If it's 15 degree turn to
the FAC I'd go straight in, if it's a 150 degree turn to the FAC I'd fly a
procedure turn.



Isn't the controller's instruction in conflict with the AIM? Who wins,
hypothetically speaking (say you can't contact him for clarification)?


If a procedure turn was necessary I'd tell him "unable straight in". If he
didn't respond before I hit the VOR I'd squawk 7600 and fly the procedure
turn.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Why doesn't ATC like it?

Because it conflicts with San Jose's LOUPE ONE departure. The extra
three to four minutes hanging over the airport really ****es them off.
Especially since they're not expecting it.

Why wouldn't the controller provide vectors?

I don't know. Some of them are good about it and do provide vectors.
I suspect that the others aren't as familiar with the procedure turn
requirements as you are, so they don't see the need to do it.

You make it sound like it's a burden on them.

That's the impression I get. Its probably easier to give a one-time
instruction and then concentrate on talking to the airliners that are
getting vectors, than to make sure that the little single-engine
airplane doesn't get pushed around by the wind and correct the vectors,
then issue the turn to intercept at just the right time.

The way for them to avoid the procedure turn is to provide vectors to the
approach. The way for them to avoid providing vectors to the approach is to
accommodate the procedure turn. Those are the only options available, they
must choose one of them.

I agree with you, but in practice it doesn't always go that way.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Because it conflicts with San Jose's LOUPE ONE departure. The extra
three to four minutes hanging over the airport really ****es them off.
Especially since they're not expecting it.


Then they need to find other employment. Conflict resolution is the reason
we have ATC.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
nk.net:

Then they need to find other employment. Conflict resolution is the
reason we have ATC.

But they aren't going to resign over this. That's easy for you to say, but
it solves nothing, and will never solve anything. Ain't gonna happen, GI.
The way to solve it is to do away with the idiotic requirement to do a
precedure turn, but that ain't gonna happen, either.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

In article .com,
wrote:

Now let me ask a question. What if ATC clears you direct to the VOR
and then clears you for the "straight-in" approach? Isn't the
controller's instruction in conflict with the AIM? Who wins,
hypothetically speaking (say you can't contact him for clarification)?

I had almost exactly this same situation happen the other day with NY
Approach. We were coming into White Plains (HPN) from the north, IFR.
Controller gave us something like, "direct FARAN, cleared ILS-16". FARAN's
not an IAF, the route from FARAN inbound is not marked NoPT, we hasn't
giving us vectors. By strict interpretation of the rules, he gave us a bum
clearance. On the other hand, not only did I know that he wanted us to fly
the approach straight-in, but there was no practical reason why anything
else would make any sense, so we did it.

The bottom line is that the AIM just hasn't caught up with real life.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
I had almost exactly this same situation happen the other day with NY
Approach. We were coming into White Plains (HPN) from the north, IFR.
Controller gave us something like, "direct FARAN, cleared ILS-16".
FARAN's
not an IAF, the route from FARAN inbound is not marked NoPT, we hasn't
giving us vectors. By strict interpretation of the rules, he gave us a
bum
clearance. On the other hand, not only did I know that he wanted us to
fly
the approach straight-in, but there was no practical reason why anything
else would make any sense, so we did it.

The bottom line is that the AIM just hasn't caught up with real life.

If you regard the direct clearance as an implicit vector, then it was all
kosher. And I think the vector interpretation is reasonable: ATC was telling
you to fly the (off-airway) heading that takes you to FARAN (even though it
was left to you, or your equipment, to compute the numerical value of that
heading).

--Gary

ATC was telling
you to fly the (off-airway) heading that takes you to FARAN (even though it
was left to you, or your equipment, to compute the numerical value of that
heading).

Then it's not a vector. A vector is "go in this direction". What you
got was "go to this point".

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
ATC was telling you to fly the (off-airway) heading that takes you
to FARAN (even though it was left to you, or your equipment, to
compute the numerical value of that heading).

Then it's not a vector.

Correct. A vector is defined in the PCG as, "a heading issued to an
aircraft to provide navigational guidance by radar". Unfortunately,
there is no PCG defintion of "heading", so we need to fall back on the
conventional definition of "put this number at the top of your DG and
keep it there".

The problem is, it's obvious to everybody (i.e. to both ATC and to
pilots) that "direct FARAN, cleared approach" is a completely
reasonable, flyable, safe, and convenient clearance to issue to a /G
aircraft under radar surveillance. The fact that it's also against
the rules just points out how silly the rules are.

Roy Smith wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:


Now let me ask a question. What if ATC clears you direct to the VOR
and then clears you for the "straight-in" approach? Isn't the
controller's instruction in conflict with the AIM? Who wins,
hypothetically speaking (say you can't contact him for clarification)?


I had almost exactly this same situation happen the other day with NY
Approach. We were coming into White Plains (HPN) from the north, IFR.
Controller gave us something like, "direct FARAN, cleared ILS-16". FARAN's
not an IAF, the route from FARAN inbound is not marked NoPT, we hasn't
giving us vectors. By strict interpretation of the rules, he gave us a bum
clearance. On the other hand, not only did I know that he wanted us to fly
the approach straight-in, but there was no practical reason why anything
else would make any sense, so we did it.

The bottom line is that the AIM just hasn't caught up with real life.

Not exactly. The following was added to the AIM recently. Note that it
is limited to RNAV IAPs. There were lenghty discussions within FAA and
with industry. It was at first proposed to permit the practice for all
instrument approach procedures with an intermediate fix, and limit it to
GPS or advanced RNAV aircraft. FAA's ATC management nixed the idea
for conventional, ground-based IAPs.

So, it isn't really the AIM not staying up with the "real world," it's
the real world inventing its own rules.


5-4-7 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.