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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
A Lieberma wrote:
Bear with me as I am really trying to understand this.... Looking at the FAA version of the approach plate, profile section, it has 2800 to DOCAP, then descend to 2100 at CICAL for the final approach into OLV. Based on what you are saying, since I am pretty much a straight in approach that it's allowable to be cleared by ATC below the profile altitude of 2800 10 miles BEFORE DOCAPS? 10 miles outside DOCAPS, my instructions were descend and maintain 2100, cleared for the GPS 36. Allen Think in terms of being vectored to the final approach course on an ILS. When done correctly, the controller will vector you at an altitude below the G/S. If this approach were an ILS and the controller was setting you up to intercept the "final" perhaps 3 miles prior to CICAL on a 30 degree intercept angle. The controller would almost certainly descend you to 2,100 to intercept. He might have you at 2,100 10 miles prior to intercept. Do you see any difference with your handling, albeit with a new ATC/AIM procedure? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
Looking at the FAA version of the approach plate, profile section, it
has 2800 to DOCAP, then descend to 2100 at CICAL for the final approach into OLV. The 2,800 ft segment you see is the Hold-in-Lieu. A HIL is part of the initial segment, which doesn't begin until the IAF. From your direction of flight, the HIL wasn't required for you, so its altitude didn't apply. Regardless, ATC has a right to assign you an altitude to maintain until you arrive at a certain fix; only AFTER you arrive there do published altitudes apply. Until then, you're relying on their MVA to keep you safe. If they had cleared you to ECILE, and told you to maintain 2,100, then there would have been a problem. You're fine until you get to ECILE, but the moment you pass that fix, you're in violation of 91.177. Same thing if you had come from the north direction to DOCAP. You'd be fine at 2,100 until the fix, but the HIL is required from this direction and you'd be in violation of 91.177 once you started the hold entry. Sam: The fix DOCAP is labeld IF/IAF. Does the segment from DOCAP to CICAL use initial or intermediate ROC ? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
John Clonts wrote:
wrote: It seems to me you are ignoring the depiction of the southern sector on the map view that shows 2800. This applies to aircraft inbound to DOCAP from anywhere southern. Why are you saying that it does not apply? (I.e. why is the controller allowed to clear the a/c to DOCAP and descend to 2100?). 2,100 applies at DOCAP per the IAP. The MVA is 2,000 to the west of DOCAP and 2,100 to the east. Again, a more consistent handling with the IAP profile and human-factors would have been for ATC to assign 2,800 to DOCAP. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
Sam Spade wrote: John Clonts wrote: wrote: It seems to me you are ignoring the depiction of the southern sector on the map view that shows 2800. This applies to aircraft inbound to DOCAP from anywhere southern. Why are you saying that it does not apply? (I.e. why is the controller allowed to clear the a/c to DOCAP and descend to 2100?). 2,100 applies at DOCAP per the IAP. The MVA is 2,000 to the west of DOCAP and 2,100 to the east. Yes but I am talking about *prior to* DOCAP. 2800 applies prior to DOCAP per the IAP. If ATC clears an a/c to 2100 prior to DOCAP is it (1) a controller error which should be refused by the pilot, or (2) ok because somehow "mva trumps iap arrival sector altitude"? Again, a more consistent handling with the IAP profile and human-factors would have been for ATC to assign 2,800 to DOCAP. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
It seems to me you are ignoring the depiction of the southern sector
on the map view that shows 2800. This applies to aircraft inbound to DOCAP from anywhere southern. That sector is essentially a feeder route. If cleared for the approach within that area, you could descend down to 2,800 if you were above it, absent any other altitude assignment by ATC. Many approaches have feeder routes, but you're not obligated to fly them to the IAF if ATC clears you direct to the IAF and assigns an altitude. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
If they don't then the pilot has a regulatory obligation to challenge
the lack of an altitude assignment Unless they've changed 91.175, it merely says that if an altitude isn't assigned when an approach clearance is received, the pilot is to maintain the last altitude assigned. Where is the regulatory requirement to challenge the lack of assignment? When this change to the AIM and ATC Order was discussed, I think everyone envisioned 2,800 being assigned for a direct-to DOCAP. But, once the real-world takes over... I'm not clear on how this clearance relates to the new change to ATC procedures. That pertains to direct to IF's, but this fix is a combined IAF/IF and has been for years, most likely prior to the AIM change, and a clearance direct to an IAF has long (forever?) been ok. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RAF Blind/Beam Approach Training flights | Geoffrey Sinclair | Military Aviation | 3 | September 4th 09 06:31 PM |
Contact approach question | Paul Tomblin | Instrument Flight Rules | 114 | January 31st 05 06:40 PM |
Approach Question- Published Missed Can't be flown? | Brad Z | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | May 6th 04 04:19 AM |
Where is the FAF on the GPS 23 approach to KUCP? | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 36 | April 16th 04 12:41 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |