When to descend II

"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)

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
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.

Because you said:

"But he wrote that he had been cleared for the visual."

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.

Apparently so. Nonetheless, the visual approach was not authorized
until *after* crossing ROYCE at or above 2,000.

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

Or, it could have been to assure MVA until ROYCE.

Bee wrote:




Or, it could have been to assure MVA until ROYCE.


That is definitely not the case. He was at a good altitude prior to
this clearance. Aircraft reports airport. Controller says cleared for
the visual. MVA now irrelevant as separation from the ground/obstacles
is now pilots responsibility.

"Bee" wrote in message
...

Apparently so. Nonetheless, the visual approach was not authorized until
*after* crossing ROYCE at or above 2,000.


Incorrect. No such restriction was issued. The clearance was effective the
instant it was issued.



Or, it could have been to assure MVA until ROYCE.


MVA is irrelevant once the visual approach clearance is issued.

"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.