CFII question for Approach Gurus

In article , B wrote:

Ron Garret wrote:
In article , B wrote:


You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
effective February, 2006


5-5-7-i doesn't say anything about procedure turns. In fact, it says
nothing about pilot actions at all, only ATC actions. Now, it does
impose requirements on ATC that would make it possible to fly the
approach without the PT, which strongly implies that under these
circumstances one ought to fly the approach without a PT, but it doesn't
actually say so. Personally, if something went awry, I would much
rather stand up in front of the NTSB board and explain why I did fly the
PT than why I didn't.

In any case, it seems to me that an ASRS form is in order.

rg

I guess you mean 5-4-7-1, not 5-5-7-i.

Yes.

What part of number 4 do you not understand?

"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."

What part of number 4 do you think is at odds with what I said?

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

Geez, Steven, do your eyes ever get sore from picking at these
microscopic nits?


No.

Ron Garret wrote:

Geez, Steven, do your eyes ever get sore from picking at these
microscopic nits?

How is pointing us to the specific document where we can read the
controller's view picking nits?

Ron Garret wrote:
In article , B wrote:


Ron Garret wrote:

In article , B wrote:



You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
effective February, 2006


5-5-7-i doesn't say anything about procedure turns. In fact, it says
nothing about pilot actions at all, only ATC actions. Now, it does
impose requirements on ATC that would make it possible to fly the
approach without the PT, which strongly implies that under these
circumstances one ought to fly the approach without a PT, but it doesn't
actually say so. Personally, if something went awry, I would much
rather stand up in front of the NTSB board and explain why I did fly the
PT than why I didn't.

In any case, it seems to me that an ASRS form is in order.

rg

I guess you mean 5-4-7-1, not 5-5-7-i.


Yes.


What part of number 4 do you not understand?

"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."


What part of number 4 do you think is at odds with what I said?

rg
The hold-in-lieu-of procedure turn is an initital approach segment. The
segment inbound is the intermedaite segement. The language in #4 speaks
about intercepting the intermediate segment, not the course reversal
initial approach segment. In order to do that, it would be a straight-in.

BillJ wrote:


Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all
agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no
sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.)

NOTAM issued today:

FDC 7/5160 - FI/T NEW CASTLE MUNI, NEW CASTLE, PA. RNAV (GPS) RWY 23,
ORIG... CHANGE PLANVIEW NOTE TO READ: PROCEDURE NA FOR ARRIVALS AT MERCY
VIA V37 NORTHBOUND; AT VOLAN VIA V30-210-297 EASTBOUND. WIE UNTIL UFN

B wrote:
BillJ wrote:


Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all
agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no
sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.)


NOTAM issued today:

FDC 7/5160 - FI/T NEW CASTLE MUNI, NEW CASTLE, PA. RNAV (GPS) RWY 23,
ORIG... CHANGE PLANVIEW NOTE TO READ: PROCEDURE NA FOR ARRIVALS AT MERCY
VIA V37 NORTHBOUND; AT VOLAN VIA V30-210-297 EASTBOUND. WIE UNTIL UFN

WOW! Thank you if you instigated this. I have tried for two years with
email and phone calls, with no results.

Bill Zaleski wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:15:15 -0700, B wrote:


Bill Zaleski wrote:


On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:00:11 -0400, BillJ wrote:



Bill Zaleski wrote:


On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:07:34 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:




In article , B wrote:




Not the way the chart is drawn. Look at, for example, the ACY GPS 13;
that's got terminal arrival areas (I think that's the right name) charted.
If they're not charted that way, they don't exist. The controller is just
plain wrong.

You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
effective February, 2006

So it would seem. Color me embarrassed.



If the controller wants you to proceed straight in , and there is a
hold depicted at the IF, he must state to that effect when issuing the
approach clearance, It's not rocket science or guess work.


From the 7110.65:

If a hold in lieu of pattern is depicted and a straight-in area is not
defined
(e.g., "No PT" indicated at the fix), the aircraft must be
instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does
not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn."Cleared
direct CENTR, maintain at or above three thousand until
CENTR, cleared straight-in R-NAV Runway One Eight
approach."

If he did not state "straight in", then you were correct in making a
trip around the depicted hold. What did he say when issuing the
clearance?


He simply said "proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23 Approach...." What
you are saying is the way I understood it until "B" pointed out the AIM
section that seems to contradict and give a new twist to what happened.
In other words if you are cleared direct to an IF and the route/altitude
sets you up for straight in, you are to assume straight in is the way to
go.


No, I didn't say that at all. The controller is allowed to give you a
straight-in, if the turn at the IF is 90 degrees or less, but he must
state "straight-in" within the clearance verbiage. Otherwise, you
comply with what the approach procedure depicts, unless a NoPT is
charted for the route you are on. It does not default to straight-in,
as in the case of Radar Vectors to final approach.


The portion of the 7110.65 is a part of 4-8-1 prior to the new language
for direct to the IF with a radar monitor. The section you refer to
pertains to non-radar clearances. No 4 pertains direct to the IF for
entry into the intermediate segment.

The pilot is responsible for the AIM. The AIM tells him this type of
clearance is for entry into the intermediate segment.

I suppose it could be stated more precisely as much of this stuff could
be. But, the language in the AIM to pilots,

"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."

Makes it clear that the procedure is for entry into the intermediate
segment.

This stuff was circulated to industry representatives, and represented
by the air traffic folks to be a substitute for "vectors to final."

I guess they blew it. ;-)

Wouldn't be the first time.

B:

Suggest you review the current FAA order 7110.65R chapter 4, section 8
example on the upper left side of page 4-8-3 That section does not
pertain to non-radar only. It applies ot all approach clearance
procedures. Why can't you understand that the AIM has no intention of
telling ATC how to play their game?

Unfortunately, I was involved in the work done to bring this provision
into effect. It was intended for straight-ins from the IAF only. Why
some FAA numbnuts chose to lift the language from the 7110.65 and insert
it in the AIM is beyond me, but I intend to find out.

Again, you are missing the distinction between this and the foregoing
language in the 7110.65. This provision is for entry into the
intermediate segment, not the course reversal initial segment.

Once again, here is the reference, from the FAA order. It is not
limited to non-radar operations.

If a hold in lieu of pattern is depicted and a straight-in area is
not defined (e.g.," No PT" indicated at the fix), the aircraft must be
instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does
not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn."Cleared
direct CENTR, maintain at or above three thousand until
CENTR, cleared straight-in R-NAV Runway One Eight
approach."

BillJ wrote:

B wrote:

BillJ wrote:


Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we
all agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND
makes no sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy
northbound.)



NOTAM issued today:

FDC 7/5160 - FI/T NEW CASTLE MUNI, NEW CASTLE, PA. RNAV (GPS) RWY 23,
ORIG... CHANGE PLANVIEW NOTE TO READ: PROCEDURE NA FOR ARRIVALS AT
MERCY VIA V37 NORTHBOUND; AT VOLAN VIA V30-210-297 EASTBOUND. WIE
UNTIL UFN

WOW! Thank you if you instigated this. I have tried for two years with
email and phone calls, with no results.

I know where to go. The FAA doesn't want the public to know, sadly.

"BillJ" wrote in message
...
B wrote:
BillJ wrote:


Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all
agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no
sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.)


NOTAM issued today:

FDC 7/5160 - FI/T NEW CASTLE MUNI, NEW CASTLE, PA. RNAV (GPS) RWY 23,
ORIG... CHANGE PLANVIEW NOTE TO READ: PROCEDURE NA FOR ARRIVALS AT MERCY
VIA V37 NORTHBOUND; AT VOLAN VIA V30-210-297 EASTBOUND. WIE UNTIL UFN

WOW! Thank you if you instigated this. I have tried for two years with
email and phone calls, with no results.

Hey BillJ you're famous. Getting this corrected is a good thing.

After reading this thread, I think what your student did was correct
from my point of view, given what he was presented with. It is what I would
have done. There may have been more direct methods, but without better
phraseology, I would've taken the more conservative approach, or perhaps
communicated my intentions, and gone straight in.

Thanks guys, I think I learned something here.

Al G

Al G wrote:
"BillJ" wrote in message
...

B wrote:

BillJ wrote:



Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all
agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no
sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.)


NOTAM issued today:

FDC 7/5160 - FI/T NEW CASTLE MUNI, NEW CASTLE, PA. RNAV (GPS) RWY 23,
ORIG... CHANGE PLANVIEW NOTE TO READ: PROCEDURE NA FOR ARRIVALS AT MERCY
VIA V37 NORTHBOUND; AT VOLAN VIA V30-210-297 EASTBOUND. WIE UNTIL UFN


WOW! Thank you if you instigated this. I have tried for two years with
email and phone calls, with no results.


Hey BillJ you're famous. Getting this corrected is a good thing.

After reading this thread, I think what your student did was correct
from my point of view, given what he was presented with. It is what I would
have done. There may have been more direct methods, but without better
phraseology, I would've taken the more conservative approach, or perhaps
communicated my intentions, and gone straight in.

Thanks guys, I think I learned something here.

Al G


The AIM and 7110.65 guidance is crap and not what the folks who thought
this provision up were trying to accomplish.

If I remove myself from my prior knowledge I too agree that the student
did nothing wrong, nor would he have been wrong had he gone straight-in.

I am particularly distressed that he was not given an altitude to
maintain until at the IF. That requirement has been around since the
TWA crash in 1974.