If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I was 17 miles EAST of the airport, intercepting the localizer. I was at
5000 feet, and just got "cleared for the approach". I was IFR. Also, if he said cross HAIGS at or above 4,000 feet, is that a clearence to descend to 4,000 feet? Yes. Can you provide a reference for that fact? So if that is the case, when can the descent be initiated? Pilots discretion? "Newps" wrote in message ... "Chris Brooks" wrote in message ... We need more information. Exactly where were you and exactly what did the controller say? If you were VFR and practicing approaches while VFR then it doesn't matter what he said because the last thing he'll say is maintain VFR. When you are VFR it is not necessary for the controller to follow the regs as if you were IFR. When does a published part of the approach begin? On any thick black line. At HAIGS? Sure. Can you be considered on a published part of the approach before crossing HAIGS? While doing the procedure turn. Also, if he said cross HAIGS at or above 4,000 feet, is that a clearence to descend to 4,000 feet? Yes. Most of the time when shooting ILS's the controller will step you down to the altitude that is on the chart. Were you IFR at the time? If you were VFR then the controller does not ever have to mention an altitude. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris Brooks" wrote in message ... Also, if he said cross HAIGS at or above 4,000 feet, is that a clearence to descend to 4,000 feet? Yes. Can you provide a reference for that fact? What's the alternative? What else could you do? That clearance is essentially a pilots discretion descent. All you gotta do is make the crossing restriction which in this case is an at or above altitude. Most pilots in this situation would just stay at your previous altitude until intercepting the glideslope, then follow it down. So if that is the case, when can the descent be initiated? Right now if you want. Pilots discretion? Yes. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris Brooks" wrote in message ... I am training in the maryland area. I was cleared for an ILS approach to runway 27 at HGR the other day. Here is a plate: http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0406/05114I27.PDF I was about 17 miles out at 5000 feet when I got cleared for the approach. My question is, when can I descend to 4000 feet? Anyone? What was your previous clearance? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris Brooks" wrote in message ... I was 17 miles EAST of the airport, intercepting the localizer. I was at 5000 feet, and just got "cleared for the approach". I was IFR. You can descend to 4000 immediately. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Newps" wrote:
We need more information. Exactly where were you and exactly what did the controller say? If you were VFR and practicing approaches while VFR then it doesn't matter what he said because the last thing he'll say is maintain VFR. When you are VFR it is not necessary for the controller to follow the regs as if you were IFR. From a purely instructor-centric point of view, I would prefer that controllers treat VFR practice approaches *exactly* like IFR ones. It's a training exercise; the more things you do differently from real life, the less effective the training is. One thing I see fairly often is controllers not assigning altitudes on VFR practice approaches. You end up with one of two scenarios, neither of which is very useful: 1) You stay high until you're so far above the charted descent profile that you can't possibly make it down in time. 2) You ask the controller for lower and get back, "altitude your descretion, maintain VFR". A not so sharp student might start to think that the altitude is ALWAYS his discretion in a situation like this. In any case, you end up eating up brain cycles sorting out how high you should be, when the issue would never come up on an IFR flight. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Smith wrote in
: "Newps" wrote: We need more information. Exactly where were you and exactly what did the controller say? If you were VFR and practicing approaches while VFR then it doesn't matter what he said because the last thing he'll say is maintain VFR. When you are VFR it is not necessary for the controller to follow the regs as if you were IFR. From a purely instructor-centric point of view, I would prefer that controllers treat VFR practice approaches *exactly* like IFR ones. It's a training exercise; the more things you do differently from real life, the less effective the training is. One thing I see fairly often is controllers not assigning altitudes on VFR practice approaches. You end up with one of two scenarios, neither of which is very useful: 1) You stay high until you're so far above the charted descent profile that you can't possibly make it down in time. 2) You ask the controller for lower and get back, "altitude your descretion, maintain VFR". A not so sharp student might start to think that the altitude is ALWAYS his discretion in a situation like this. In any case, you end up eating up brain cycles sorting out how high you should be, when the issue would never come up on an IFR flight. Every region must have different operating pratices because around here VFR and IFR approaches are treated almost exactly the same except for the phrase "maintain VFR". |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Roy Smith" wrote in message ... From a purely instructor-centric point of view, I would prefer that controllers treat VFR practice approaches *exactly* like IFR ones. It's a training exercise; the more things you do differently from real life, the less effective the training is. I can understand that from the trainees point of view, but alas it isn't that way. In any case, you end up eating up brain cycles sorting out how high you should be, when the issue would never come up on an IFR flight. Yep. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message . 158... Every region must have different operating pratices because around here VFR and IFR approaches are treated almost exactly the same except for the phrase "maintain VFR". I would say it is facility by facility. Regions don't interpret the .65. Some facilities place stricter standards on their controllers. We do that to the tower controller. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Smith wrote in
: From a purely instructor-centric point of view, I would prefer that controllers treat VFR practice approaches *exactly* like IFR ones. It's a training exercise; the more things you do differently from real life, the less effective the training is. If you want it treated *exactly* like IFR, then file IFR. Controllers don't know if you're an instructor training a student, or just playing around, or what if you're VFR. If you're IFR, then they have to do everything by the IFR book, regardless of the weather. Do you feel that filing and flying IFR is really that difficult, or restrictive, when teaching? -- Regards, Stan |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 23:06:02 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
wrote: If you're vectored onto the approach course and cleared for the approach, how close to the FAF do you have to be to consider yourself on a published part of the course and thus permitted to descend to the charted intercept altitude? There are several issues here. But they are pretty well covered, in my opinion, in the AIM. In the instance of being vectored onto the final approach course by ATC, ATC should clear you for the approach only after you are established; or give you an altitude to maintain until established. If you are receiving vectors to final, (and ATC has certain requirements at their end in order to allow that), then you can descend when you are established (an admittedly somewhat fuzzy term, but I would interpret it as not more than 1/2 scale deflection and moving to center) on the localizer. If you are just receiving vectors on a random route, then you cannot descend until you are on a "hard, black line". However, in the situation being discussed, if it is not the specific "radar vectors to final" or a radar approach, then the AIM states that: "For this purpose, the procedure turn of a published IAP shall *NOT* be considered a segment of that IAP until the aircraft reaches the initial fix or navigation facility upon which the procedure turn is predicated." In the latter case, ATC's clearance should be to maintain a certain altitude until reaching that fix. If it is not worded that way, you must maintain the last assigned altitude until reaching (but I would clarify with ATC if I had any questions). Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A question on Airworthiness Inspection | Dave S | Home Built | 1 | August 10th 04 05:07 AM |
Question: DP altitude vs MCA/MEA | Doug Easton | Instrument Flight Rules | 7 | April 7th 04 03:29 AM |
Question | Charles S | Home Built | 4 | April 5th 04 09:10 PM |
Tecumseh Engine Mounting Question | jlauer | Home Built | 7 | November 16th 03 01:51 AM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |