What do you do in the real world?

In article , Tim
wrote:

Ron Garret wrote:
snip



First, the regs explicitly sanction "making up your own stuff" (as you
put it) in emergency situations, which lost comm in IMC can easily give
rise to.

How is this an emergency?

I didn't say it was an emergency. I said it could easily give rise to
one.

Second, a lot of the regs were written before the advent of moving-map
GPS. Many procedures that make sense if you're navigating on a VOR make
less sense if you always know at a glance exactly where you are.

I don't see how with a gps you know where you are and with 2 VORs (for
example) you don't know where you are.

I didn't say that either. I said with moving map GPS you know EXACTLY
where you are AT A GLANCE. With VORs it takes time to twiddle knobs and
cross-reference the results against a chart, and the margin of error is
much larger.

Just because they were written before GPS does not mean they are no
longer valid.

I didn't say that they weren't valid. I said that procedures designed
for VORs make less sense when MMGPS is available.

Third, going by the book makes you do some overtly stupid things. The
classic example is going NORDO while flying from AVX to FUL. Going by
the book requires you to fly to SLI, reverse course, return to the exact
spot you just came from (which is over water BTW), and reverse course
again. This procedure is manifestly more dangerous than just flying the
approach straight in (because it involves more maneuvering, more time in
the air, more time over water). Moreover, under normal conditions the
approach is ALWAYS flown straight in (via vectors) and under NORDO
conditions the controllers expect you to fly the approach straight in (I
know because I asked them) notwithstanding that this technically
violates the regs.

If you already know the answer and were given instructions by
controllers to do this in the past, why pose it here?

That was for a completely different set of circumstances.

How does going to FUL require what you state? Cannot you pick which
approach and IAF?

It's a tangent, so if you really want to get into that you should start
a new thread. Or look up the old one. Or look at the charts.

Why do you choose the VOR procedure at FUL rather than the LOC/DME? In
that case it is easy to pick the approach with nopt.

Not as easy as you might think. The preferred routing (which is the one
you will invariably be assigned) from AVX to FUL is V21 SLI Direct.

And fourth, the regs leave a lot of stuff unspecified. If you go by the
regs in the current situation, you end up over KVNY at 11,000 feet, at
which point you're supposed to initiate your descent. But there's no
published hold at KVNY (to say nothing of the fact that KVNY is not an
IAF for any approach to KVNY) so you have no choice but to improvise at
that point.


So you are saying you don't know what you are supposed to do when you
reach a clearance limit and there is no published hold?

Are you sure direct VNY means KNVY and not eh vor or an iaf? Did the
controllers say "...SNS, direct" or "...SNS, direct KVNY?" there is a
difference I think.

The exact wording of my clearance was "Cleared to the Van Nuys airport
via left turn to heading 140 vectors to Salinas VOR then direct."

I've never heard a clearance that ended with anything other than an
unqualified "direct" or "then as filed".

VNY IS an IAF. So is FIM. Why not choose those as IAFs and follow a
published approach rather than your own vectors?

Because I've flown into LA from the north dozens if not hundreds of
times. Invariably my initial clearance ends with a direct leg to KVNY
which is unflyable at 9000 feet (which is the altitude I always file
for). Invariably my clearance is amended once I reach LA Center's
airspace to direct LHS, LYNXXN arrival, and then amended further to be
vectors for the ILS. This is more direct and therefore safer than any
"by the book" route.

But next time I'll try getting that route from the outset and see what
happens.

rg

Second, a lot of the regs were written before the advent of moving-map
GPS. Many procedures that make sense if you're navigating on a VOR make
less sense if you always know at a glance exactly where you are.

I don't see how with a gps you know where you are and with 2 VORs (for
example) you don't know where you are.


I didn't say that either. I said with moving map GPS you know EXACTLY
where you are AT A GLANCE. With VORs it takes time to twiddle knobs and
cross-reference the results against a chart, and the margin of error is
much larger.


Why is that relevant?


Just because they were written before GPS does not mean they are no
longer valid.


I didn't say that they weren't valid. I said that procedures designed
for VORs make less sense when MMGPS is available.

You imply that you can do something better than what the regs say and
your justification seemed to be that it is because the regs were written
before gps. I apologize for misunderstanding your meaning.



Third, going by the book makes you do some overtly stupid things. The
classic example is going NORDO while flying from AVX to FUL. Going by
the book requires you to fly to SLI, reverse course, return to the exact
spot you just came from (which is over water BTW), and reverse course
again. This procedure is manifestly more dangerous than just flying the
approach straight in (because it involves more maneuvering, more time in
the air, more time over water). Moreover, under normal conditions the
approach is ALWAYS flown straight in (via vectors) and under NORDO
conditions the controllers expect you to fly the approach straight in (I
know because I asked them) notwithstanding that this technically
violates the regs.

If you already know the answer and were given instructions by
controllers to do this in the past, why pose it here?


That was for a completely different set of circumstances.

Again, I misunderstood then. I only quoted you and responded based on
what you wrote.



How does going to FUL require what you state? Cannot you pick which
approach and IAF?


It's a tangent, so if you really want to get into that you should start
a new thread. Or look up the old one. Or look at the charts.

How is that a tangent? You can choose any IAF and any approach that
you are able to do when the clearance ends in "direct" - and the airport
is the clearance limit.



Why do you choose the VOR procedure at FUL rather than the LOC/DME? In
that case it is easy to pick the approach with nopt.


Not as easy as you might think. The preferred routing (which is the one
you will invariably be assigned) from AVX to FUL is V21 SLI Direct.

Again, "direct" does not mean direct to the airport. Direct means you
go to an IAF then get to the airport. How are you supposed to land?
You can;t just go to the airport and circle down to land - that is the
whole reason for having defined instrument approaches.



And fourth, the regs leave a lot of stuff unspecified. If you go by the
regs in the current situation, you end up over KVNY at 11,000 feet, at
which point you're supposed to initiate your descent. But there's no
published hold at KVNY (to say nothing of the fact that KVNY is not an
IAF for any approach to KVNY) so you have no choice but to improvise at
that point.


So you are saying you don't know what you are supposed to do when you
reach a clearance limit and there is no published hold?

Are you sure direct VNY means KNVY and not eh vor or an iaf? Did the
controllers say "...SNS, direct" or "...SNS, direct KVNY?" there is a
difference I think.


The exact wording of my clearance was "Cleared to the Van Nuys airport
via left turn to heading 140 vectors to Salinas VOR then direct."

I've never heard a clearance that ended with anything other than an
unqualified "direct" or "then as filed".

Right. See above regarding what that last "direct" means. It does not
mean go froom the penultimate fix to the airport. It means go to an
IAF then fly the approach.



VNY IS an IAF. So is FIM. Why not choose those as IAFs and follow a
published approach rather than your own vectors?


Because I've flown into LA from the north dozens if not hundreds of
times. Invariably my initial clearance ends with a direct leg to KVNY
which is unflyable at 9000 feet (which is the altitude I always file
for). Invariably my clearance is amended once I reach LA Center's
airspace to direct LHS, LYNXXN arrival, and then amended further to be
vectors for the ILS. This is more direct and therefore safer than any
"by the book" route.

But next time I'll try getting that route from the outset and see what
happens.

rg

My initial (and I guess overzealous) reaction to your post was that it
seemed like you just didn;t care what "the book" said or what you are
supposed to do based on part 91 regs for ifr flight. That is scary to me.

I'll just drop it here.

In article , Tim
wrote:


Second, a lot of the regs were written before the advent of moving-map
GPS. Many procedures that make sense if you're navigating on a VOR make
less sense if you always know at a glance exactly where you are.

I don't see how with a gps you know where you are and with 2 VORs (for
example) you don't know where you are.


I didn't say that either. I said with moving map GPS you know EXACTLY
where you are AT A GLANCE. With VORs it takes time to twiddle knobs and
cross-reference the results against a chart, and the margin of error is
much larger.


Why is that relevant?

Because the standard procedures involve compromises to compensate for
the delays and errors inherent in VOR navigation. When those delays and
errors do not exist the compromises can make the flight less safe than
it would have been under different procedures.

Third, going by the book makes you do some overtly stupid things. The
classic example is going NORDO while flying from AVX to FUL. Going by
the book requires you to fly to SLI, reverse course, return to the exact
spot you just came from (which is over water BTW), and reverse course
again. This procedure is manifestly more dangerous than just flying the
approach straight in (because it involves more maneuvering, more time in
the air, more time over water). Moreover, under normal conditions the
approach is ALWAYS flown straight in (via vectors) and under NORDO
conditions the controllers expect you to fly the approach straight in (I
know because I asked them) notwithstanding that this technically
violates the regs.

If you already know the answer and were given instructions by
controllers to do this in the past, why pose it here?


That was for a completely different set of circumstances.

Again, I misunderstood then. I only quoted you and responded based on
what you wrote.

You must not be reading very carefully. I say right there in the part
you quoted that I was talking about a different trip (AVX-FUL).


How does going to FUL require what you state? Cannot you pick which
approach and IAF?


It's a tangent, so if you really want to get into that you should start
a new thread. Or look up the old one. Or look at the charts.

How is that a tangent?

Because it's a different route. The circumstances are different. What
one does when flying to FUL may or may not apply when flying to VNY. I
only brought up FUL because it's a data point where I've had occasion to
ask controllers for their input, and they unequivocally told me NOT to
follow the regs. (Yes, I know that what controllers say doesn't matter.
Nonetheless, it's a data point.)

You can choose any IAF and any approach that
you are able to do when the clearance ends in "direct" - and the airport
is the clearance limit.

Yes, but by the book you have to fly to the clearance limit first.
91.181(b) is quite clear about this.

Why do you choose the VOR procedure at FUL rather than the LOC/DME? In
that case it is easy to pick the approach with nopt.


Not as easy as you might think. The preferred routing (which is the one
you will invariably be assigned) from AVX to FUL is V21 SLI Direct.

Again, "direct" does not mean direct to the airport.

That's news to me. Where in the regs does it say that?

Direct means you
go to an IAF then get to the airport. How are you supposed to land?

My reading of 91.185(c)(3)(ii) seems to imply that you have to fly to
the airport first, then to an IAF.

You can;t just go to the airport and circle down to land - that is the
whole reason for having defined instrument approaches.

If you're saying that it's stupid to fly to the airport first, I agree
with you. Hence my question.

Right. See above regarding what that last "direct" means. It does not
mean go froom the penultimate fix to the airport. It means go to an
IAF then fly the approach.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that.

My initial (and I guess overzealous) reaction to your post was that it
seemed like you just didn;t care what "the book" said or what you are
supposed to do based on part 91 regs for ifr flight. That is scary to me.

Of course I care. But that doesn't mean that I blindly follow the rules
without thinking.

rg

Ron Garret wrote:

Again, I misunderstood then. I only quoted you and responded based on
what you wrote.


You must not be reading very carefully. I say right there in the part
you quoted that I was talking about a different trip (AVX-FUL).

I was trying to just use your examples.




How does going to FUL require what you state? Cannot you pick which
approach and IAF?


It's a tangent, so if you really want to get into that you should start
a new thread. Or look up the old one. Or look at the charts.

How is that a tangent?


Because it's a different route. The circumstances are different. What
one does when flying to FUL may or may not apply when flying to VNY. I
only brought up FUL because it's a data point where I've had occasion to
ask controllers for their input, and they unequivocally told me NOT to
follow the regs. (Yes, I know that what controllers say doesn't matter.
Nonetheless, it's a data point.)

So you are saying that one has to change operating rules based on the
route of the flight. That is exactly why we are having difficulty
understanding each other. The rules are in place to define what to do
under all circumstances. Saying that something applies in one instance
and not another is bad. What are the criteria then for defining which
set of our own rules that deviate from the FARs is necessary? The ONLY
one i am aware of the the one regarding emergencies.



You can choose any IAF and any approach that
you are able to do when the clearance ends in "direct" - and the airport
is the clearance limit.


Yes, but by the book you have to fly to the clearance limit first.
91.181(b) is quite clear about this.


It is your clearance limit because that is where you filed to and where
you want to land. You cannot commence your approach until your
clearance limit time/time on your flight plan.


Why do you choose the VOR procedure at FUL rather than the LOC/DME? In
that case it is easy to pick the approach with nopt.


Not as easy as you might think. The preferred routing (which is the one
you will invariably be assigned) from AVX to FUL is V21 SLI Direct.

Again, "direct" does not mean direct to the airport.


That's news to me. Where in the regs does it say that?


When you don't lose comms and you file and fly to an airport and do not
get vectors, where do you go to? You go to an IAF, right? Or do you
always go to the airport, then to a navaid that defines an IAF?


Direct means you
go to an IAF then get to the airport. How are you supposed to land?


My reading of 91.185(c)(3)(ii) seems to imply that you have to fly to
the airport first, then to an IAF.


You can;t just go to the airport and circle down to land - that is the
whole reason for having defined instrument approaches.


If you're saying that it's stupid to fly to the airport first, I agree
with you. Hence my question.


Right. See above regarding what that last "direct" means. It does not
mean go froom the penultimate fix to the airport. It means go to an
IAF then fly the approach.


I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that.


My initial (and I guess overzealous) reaction to your post was that it
seemed like you just didn;t care what "the book" said or what you are
supposed to do based on part 91 regs for ifr flight. That is scary to me.


Of course I care. But that doesn't mean that I blindly follow the rules
without thinking.

I misunderstood your initial question and I apologize for any demeaning
statements. It appeared to me that you were not aware of what the FARs
stated. Again, my apologies.


rg

In article ,
Tim wrote:

So you are saying that one has to change operating rules based on the
route of the flight.

No, I am not saying that. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

It is your clearance limit because that is where you filed to and where
you want to land.

No, it was my clearance limit because that is where I was cleared to.

I am beginning to suspect that MX is right and you don't actually have a
clue.

Again, "direct" does not mean direct to the airport.


That's news to me. Where in the regs does it say that?


When you don't lose comms and you file and fly to an airport and do not
get vectors, where do you go to? You go to an IAF, right?

Not usually. Usually I get vectors to the FAF. I fly in pretty
congested airspace where full approaches are quite rare.

I misunderstood your initial question and I apologize for any demeaning
statements. It appeared to me that you were not aware of what the FARs
stated. Again, my apologies.

Well, it's possible I'm missing something. We seem to have a difference
of opinion about what a direct clearance means. I'm still waiting for a
citation to support your position.

rg

Ron Garret wrote:
In article ,
Tim wrote:


So you are saying that one has to change operating rules based on the
route of the flight.


No, I am not saying that. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?


I don't have to - they are right he
"Because it's a different route. The circumstances are different. What
one does when flying to FUL may or may not apply when flying to VNY."

If you did not mean that, then please explain to my why you have two
different examples and two different scenarios? I would imagine that
the regulations provide a good description of what has to happen for all
circumstances.

All I tried to point out was the fallacy of your suggestions in your
examples.


It is your clearance limit because that is where you filed to and where
you want to land.


No, it was my clearance limit because that is where I was cleared to.


Yes, I understand that. And they gave you that clearance limit because
that is what you requested from them - when you filed. That is the end
of your flight and they gave you a clearance to there. It is not a
clearance to hold there is it? Because what you are arguing is that you
really only have a clearance to circle the airport every time you get
a clearance that starts with "cleared to xxx airport" and ends in
"...direct." You are expecting that every time you fly to an airport
you are going to fly to the airport, but somewhere along the line a
controller is going to lead you to an IAF, the final approach course, or
some other way get you to land.

If your clearance limit is an airport, what makes you think you can't
execute an IAP and land? Why would you think that the clearance limit
for your airport is at some altitude other than 0 AGL?

I am beginning to suspect that MX is right and you don't actually have a
clue.

That is fine with me.



Again, "direct" does not mean direct to the airport.


That's news to me. Where in the regs does it say that?


When you don't lose comms and you file and fly to an airport and do not
get vectors, where do you go to? You go to an IAF, right?


Not usually. Usually I get vectors to the FAF. I fly in pretty
congested airspace where full approaches are quite rare.


I misunderstood your initial question and I apologize for any demeaning
statements. It appeared to me that you were not aware of what the FARs
stated. Again, my apologies.


Well, it's possible I'm missing something. We seem to have a difference
of opinion about what a direct clearance means. I'm still waiting for a
citation to support your position.

rg

In article ,
Tim wrote:

Ron Garret wrote:
In article ,
Tim wrote:


So you are saying that one has to change operating rules based on the
route of the flight.


No, I am not saying that. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?


I don't have to - they are right he
"Because it's a different route. The circumstances are different. What
one does when flying to FUL may or may not apply when flying to VNY."

Do you speak English as your native language? Do not you understand the
difference between "one HAS TO change the [general] operating rules"
and "[the specifics of] what one does [in situation X] MAY OR MAY NOT
apply [in situation Y]"?

If you did not mean that, then please explain to my why you have two
different examples and two different scenarios?

The first scenario is the one I am interested in. I raised the second
merely to point out that there is not a universal consensus that blindly
following the rules is always the right thing to do.

It is your clearance limit because that is where you filed to and where
you want to land.


No, it was my clearance limit because that is where I was cleared to.


Yes, I understand that. And they gave you that clearance limit because
that is what you requested from them - when you filed. That is the end
of your flight and they gave you a clearance to there. It is not a
clearance to hold there is it? Because what you are arguing is that you
really only have a clearance to circle the airport every time you get
a clearance that starts with "cleared to xxx airport" and ends in
"...direct."

No, that is not what I am arguing. I have never said any such thing
(because that's clearly ridiculous).

I am beginning to lose my patience with you.

You are expecting that every time you fly to an airport
you are going to fly to the airport, but somewhere along the line a
controller is going to lead you to an IAF, the final approach course, or
some other way get you to land.

No. In fact, the only reason I'm asking the question is because I'm NOT
expecting what you say I am expecting.

If your clearance limit is an airport, what makes you think you can't
execute an IAP and land?

Probably the same thing that makes you think that the moon is made of
green cheese. (You don't think the moon is made of green cheese? That
would be my point.)

rg