Approach to an LOM/IAF with PT (not vectors to final)

NoPT means you cannot do a procedure turn without specific authorization
from ATC. You continue straight in. No means no.


"NoPT" is "Nope" speled by the FAA.

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

The Approach in question is SDF RWY 2 at KISW. I was coming in from the
south, nearly lined up with the inbound course of 021 degrees. I was in
touch with ATC. The LOM/IAF is called NEPCO. The ATC asked if I wanted
"direct NEPCO." I said yes. Within about 10 miles of the airport, the
controller said that frequency change was approved. I believe I was out
of radar contact by this time (radar coverage in the area is spotty).

1. Since there is no "NO PT" indicated on the chart, does that mean that
I am required to do a 180 deg turn when I reach NEPCO so I can track
outbound (201), then do a PT, then come back? That seems a little odd
to me.

It was odd because you were at 3,000, and you needed the course reversal to
descend to 2,600 so your descent gradient would have been as designed into
the IAP. In this case crossing the LOM 400 feet high probably wouldn't
matter, but it would at some locations.

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:


Sorry. Yes, I believe he cleared me for the SDF RWY 2 approach,
maintain 3000 until established on the localizer. It has been several
weeks, so this is my best recollection of what was said to me.

And, how would you know you were established on a *published* segment of the
localizer, which is what "established" means in the context of approach
clearances?

If the clearance was, in fact, maintain 3000 until intercepting the
localizer, I would have asked ATC for my distance from NEPCO and, if I was
within the PT distance, asked them specifically if this was "vectors to
final". I would NOT have used "readback what I want" trick and hope that
ATC would catch the error if they made it. Why be indirect and take a
chance on confusion, when you can ask your question directly?



This is one of the consistent big disconnects in vectors to final where the
controller fails to call the distance from EK. Had the controller stated a
poition less than 10 miles from EK, then the guy would have been established
for approach clearance purposes as soon as he intercepted, whereupon he could
have descended to 2,600 and gone straight-in.

But, this doesn't sound like a vector to final clearance to me. Sounds like
the guy was cleared non-radar direct to EK, which would have required a course
reversal.

Brad Z wrote:

"Yep, if you heard anything along the lines of "Vectors for the approach" in
your clearance, this whole discussion is moot.


And, if the vector rules had been properly applied, he would have been given a
distance from the LOM when he received his final intercept heading, or when he
received his approach clearance.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 07:07:00 -0700, wrote:

"Racetrack" is an obsolete term left over from the lighted-aiway days. The
holding rules are pretty well spelled out. Racetrack patterns used to have 2
minute legs in the 1940s and 50s.

Today it is synonymous with a holding pattern type procedure turn, and can
be executed (with legs restricted to not more than the PT distance), when
the PT depiction does not require a specific type of course reversal to be
flown as charted.


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

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 07:31:05 -0700, wrote:

This is one of the consistent big disconnects in vectors to final where the
controller fails to call the distance from EK. Had the controller stated a
poition less than 10 miles from EK, then the guy would have been established
for approach clearance purposes as soon as he intercepted, whereupon he could
have descended to 2,600 and gone straight-in.

Exactly.


But, this doesn't sound like a vector to final clearance to me. Sounds like
the guy was cleared non-radar direct to EK, which would have required a course
reversal.

But then the "maintain 3000" should have been until NEPCO, and not until
intercepting the LOC. It sounds to me as if either the OP's recollection
is faulty, or the controller used improper phraseology.


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

Uh... What the hell is an SDF? I don't think I have one in my plane.

Oh, and yeah, you need to do a PT at NEPCO since you didn't get a "vector to
final" - but a simple 360 right turn would do. Next time you can just ask to
skip the PT if you're already at 2600'.

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...
The Approach in question is SDF RWY 2 at KISW. I was coming in from the
south, nearly lined up with the inbound course of 021 degrees. I was in
touch with ATC. The LOM/IAF is called NEPCO. The ATC asked if I wanted
"direct NEPCO." I said yes. Within about 10 miles of the airport, the
controller said that frequency change was approved. I believe I was out
of radar contact by this time (radar coverage in the area is spotty).

1. Since there is no "NO PT" indicated on the chart, does that mean that
I am required to do a 180 deg turn when I reach NEPCO so I can track
outbound (201), then do a PT, then come back? That seems a little odd
to me.

2. If so, and I am assuming it is, should I have positioned myself to
approach NEPCO at an intercept that did not require a 180 deg turn to
get to the outbound course? Maybe come at it from the east?

3. Suppose that when I reach NEPCO (IAF), I am below the cloud deck.
Assume that I have switched over to unicom frequency at that point. Is
it permissible to abort the IFR approach and turn inbound for a visual
approach. Presumably, you would have to ask ATC permission to do this.
What if you can not raise ATC on the radio? Can you go visual on your
own?

-Sami
N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III

"McGregor" wrote in message
ink.net...

Uh... What the hell is an SDF? I don't think I have one in my plane.


I'll bet you don't have a localizer in your plane either, or an NDB or a
VOR.

An SDF is a Simplified Directional Facility, it's similar to a localizer.
You'll find a description in the AIM.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 19:11:37 GMT, "McGregor"
wrote:

Next time you can just ask to
skip the PT if you're already at 2600'.

Although controllers will often grant requests from pilots to shortcut
SIAP's, that does not necessarily make the granted shortcut legal.


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