ILS question

Mick Ruthven wrote:

I don't think that 10nm circle is a 4000-foot-protected area. The 4000 feet
refers to the hold in lieu of a PT, and there's no distance specified for it
except for the "one minute" which really can't be interpreted as a distance
within which you can descend to 4000 feet. I'd say the only way to properly
descend on the LOC 17 NM out is to intercept the GS and follow it down.

That will usually work, but it technically is not legal. The G/S is merely an
additional nav aid until the PFAF. At LAX there have been enforcement
violations for air carriers following the G/S prior to the PFAF. On a really
hot day, the airspace below rises sufficiently that TRACON airspace for the
Ontario area gets compromised unless the DME fixes and baro altitudes are used.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

5-9-1 requirement to issue an altitude compatible with an NPA or an
altitude below the G/S for a PA.

"b. For a precision approach, at an altitude not above the
glideslope/glidepath or below the minimum glideslope intercept altitude
specified on the approach procedure chart.
c. For a nonprecision approach, at an altitude which will allow descent
in accordance with the published procedure."


That's swell, but you said controllers were supposed to step down to the
altitude shown on the chart. Where is that requirement?

I guess it depends on the definition of "is."~




Even if he was vectored onto "final" 50 miles out, 5-9-4 leads to 5-9-1.
This stuff is written to make the IAP flyable, not to provide loopholes
for controllers. ;-)


I think you'll find that 5-9-4 follows 5-9-1.

Great observation! Also, there is the issue of context:

5-9-4 Arrival Instructions
Issue all of the following to an aircraft before it reaches the approach gate:

"Approach gate" sorta ties 5-9-4 to 5-9-1.

Gary Drescher wrote:

wrote in message ...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:AYeAc.106416$3x.41993@attbi_s54...


Regarding radar approach - no, radar vectors do not constitute a 'radar
approach'. The term 'radar approach' refers to approaches using ASR and
PAR. It's in the AIM but don't have the reference.

It's also a fundamental part of being qualified to hold an instrument
rating.

Yup, well, I'm certainly aware of ASR and PAR approaches, though I'd
momentarily forgotten that they're what the term 'radar approach' refers to,
in contrast with 'radar vectors to an approach'. Now that my embarrassing
lapse is remedied, I hope my qualifications are restored.

It has been restored. ;-)



Meanwhile, I'm still not certain I understand the example in AIM 5-4-7b.
When the specified clearance is to "maintain 2000 until established on the
localizer" (after being vectored to and cleared for the ILS approach), does
the clearance actually mean not just until established on the localizer, but
also "until established on a published segment" of the approach? That
interpretation is suggested by the preceding caveats and the subsequent note
in 5-4-7b. But if that's right, the phrasing of the clearance is confusing.


You got it right. "Established" is suppose to be used by ATC only in
conjunction with a published segment. If they vector you onto an unpublished
extension of the LOC, they are then obligated to either withhold approach
clearance until you reach a published segment, or issue the approach clearance
with a crossing restriction for a fix where you reach the published segment.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

At 17 miles you were not within a published segment of the approach. ATC
was
required to give you an altitude to maintain and which to cross HAIGS. A
proper clearance would have been "X miles from HAIGS. Cross HAIGS at, or
above, 4,000, cleared for the ILS Runway 27 approach." The word
"established"
is inappropriate in this instance. If you did not receive such a
clearance
you were obligated to maintain 5,000 and question the clearance because
5,000
is not a reasonable altitude to cross HAIGS.

REF: ATC Handbook 7110.65P, Paragraph 4-8-1 b.2., Example for Aircraft 2
under
that subparagraph.


That example is of an unpublished direct route. At the time he was cleared
for the approach he was on a published route.

I read he was 17 miles out. How do you conclude that is a published route?

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:36:13 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

So when you turn inbound on the hold you're not on a published part of the
approach?

Of course you are. What sort of question is that?


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

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:08:16 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

If you're being radar vectored and you're then issued an IFR approach
clearance, doesn't that constitute a radar approach?

No it does not.

This is all in the AIM. Look under "Radar Approaches" (5-4-10).




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

wrote in :

When I used to be a CFI-I (gad, I glad those days are behind me ;-) we
never, ever requested a VFR restriction during training. If, sometimes,
the controller would issue one we would request an IFR clearance. And,
in my early days at the airline, when we had to take 6-month checks in
the aircraft, company policy was IFR, period. But, some check pilots
would violate that policy to expedite things. Scud running in a 727 at
5:00 AM over the hills southeast of KONT isn't a whole lot of fun.

We normally file IFR for our 6-month checkrides. We used to for the annual
recurrent, but that's done in the sim now. Some checkpilots don't want to
file, and I don't argue with them either way. That's not a smart way to
start a ride........

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

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".


That has been my experience flying practice approaches at ELM, BGM and
ITH. Typically, I'm given the "maintain xxxx until established, cleared
Rxx yyy approach, maintain VFR." I agree that this is very good from a
training perspective. Training is meant to simulate reality as much as
possible and this helps do that.


Matt

The 10 mile circle isn't protected airspace. It means that the features
within in are drawn to scale.

Iain

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...



On the procedure track and in the PT area, within the 10 nm circle, there
is
protected airspace at 4000. I don't know what is outside that. If he was
getting VTF, he should have been given an altitude restriction until
established, but he didn't tell us that part. Roy answered the full
procedure case.

Matt Whiting ) wrote:

That has been my experience flying practice approaches at ELM, BGM and
ITH.

Matt, at what airport are you based? I am out of Syracuse and I like to
fly a lot of my practice IFR flights into those airports you listed.

--
Peter














----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---