When to descend II

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:32:46 -0000, John Godwin
wrote:

Ron Rosenfeld wrote in
:

You can certainly navigate TO ROYCE without being established on
the localizer, however.

Vectored, maybe but not navigating.

Why not navigating?

Even without a GPS, you should be able to navigate from 4mi SW of ROYCE to
ROYCE using VOR/LOC and DME (and situational awareness).

With a GPS, there is no problem.

Without a GPS, what you will lack is positive course guidance. But I don't
see where, in the definition of "navigation", that PCG is required.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"John Godwin" wrote in message
...

Vectored, maybe but not navigating.


Navigating. Think GPS.

"Bee" wrote:


I don't believe he can be 4 mi SW of ROYCE and also on the localizer for
Rwy 12. Or am I missing something?


He probably meant NW. You can't identify ROYCE unless you are on the
localizer.

No, I meant SW. I was on a vector to join, and then called the field in
sight.

I'm doing this from memory of 6 mos. ago. I might be missing a detail, but
the approach and tower clearances are essentially correct.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:

"Bee" wrote:


I don't believe he can be 4 mi SW of ROYCE and also on the localizer for
Rwy 12. Or am I missing something?


He probably meant NW. You can't identify ROYCE unless you are on the
localizer.


No, I meant SW. I was on a vector to join, and then called the field in
sight.

I'm doing this from memory of 6 mos. ago. I might be missing a detail, but
the approach and tower clearances are essentially correct.


Yes, memory is a fleeting thing. ;-)

If you were on vectors to the ILS, the final heading for intercept
couldn't be greater than 330 coming from that direction.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:27:37 -0700, Bee wrote:

If you were on vectors to the ILS,

But he wrote that he had been cleared for the visual.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:27:37 -0700, Bee wrote:


If you were on vectors to the ILS,


But he wrote that he had been cleared for the visual.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

It was cross ROYCE at or above 2,000, *then* cleared for the visual.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:29:07 -0700, Bee wrote:

It was cross ROYCE at or above 2,000, *then* cleared for the visual.

I don't understand your point.

The approach clearance is frequently/usually/always given after a
fix/crossing restriction.

He was NOT on vectors for an ILS approach.

I do not believe that to proceed direct ROYCE, from 4 miles SW of ROYCE,
for an ILS approach would even meet the requirements for proper ATC
handling.

So he was cleared via ROYCE as part of setting him up for a Visual
Approach.

My guess is that the altitude restriction and course specification was
traffic related. Perhaps there was conflicting traffic for the parallel
runway.

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Bee" wrote in message ...

It was cross ROYCE at or above 2,000, *then* cleared for the visual.


No it wasn't. It was, "Cessna '1GS,cross ROYCE at or above 2 thousand,
cleared visual
approach runwy 12R. Contact the tower on 118.7.", issue when the aircraft
was four miles southwest of ROYCE.

Bee wrote:


If you were on vectors to the ILS, the final heading for intercept
couldn't be greater than 330 coming from that direction.

Heading is not the limiting factor. Track is what the controller is
concerned with. If I could only give you a 30 degree intercept some
days you would never join.

Newps wrote:



Bee wrote:


If you were on vectors to the ILS, the final heading for intercept
couldn't be greater than 330 coming from that direction.


Heading is not the limiting factor. Track is what the controller is
concerned with. If I could only give you a 30 degree intercept some
days you would never join.

Oh, yes, I have seen that effect a few times.