When to descend II

Bee wrote:


If you were on vectors to the ILS, the final heading for intercept
couldn't be greater than 330 coming from that direction.

Heading is not the limiting factor. Track is what the controller is
concerned with. If I could only give you a 30 degree intercept some
days you would never join.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:32:46 -0000, John Godwin
wrote:

Ron Rosenfeld wrote in
:

You can certainly navigate TO ROYCE without being established on
the localizer, however.

Vectored, maybe but not navigating.

Why not navigating?

Even without a GPS, you should be able to navigate from 4mi SW of ROYCE to
ROYCE using VOR/LOC and DME (and situational awareness).

With a GPS, there is no problem.

Without a GPS, what you will lack is positive course guidance. But I don't
see where, in the definition of "navigation", that PCG is required.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:27:37 -0700, Bee wrote:


If you were on vectors to the ILS,


But he wrote that he had been cleared for the visual.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

It was cross ROYCE at or above 2,000, *then* cleared for the visual.

Newps wrote:




You're doing to the visual approach, it's irrelevant what fix I send you
too. It could be a charted one or one I simply made up out of thin air.

Okay, I get it. The IAP is not even in the plan. IFR to a fix, then
visual or, if unable, a new plan. Maybe, the at or above 2,000 at ROYCE
was to keep the pilot at MVA instead of for traffic? You think maybe so?

Newps wrote:



Bee wrote:


If you were on vectors to the ILS, the final heading for intercept
couldn't be greater than 330 coming from that direction.


Heading is not the limiting factor. Track is what the controller is
concerned with. If I could only give you a 30 degree intercept some
days you would never join.

Oh, yes, I have seen that effect a few times.

No, I meant SW. I was on a vector to join, and then called the field in
sight.

But if you were being vectored for the ILS, on the last vector to join
the localizer, then you were most likely on a 100 degree heading give
or take some wind, on a track to hit the localizer some 3 miles before
ROYCE. So I still doubt that you could have been SW of ROYCE.

My take on it is that since the controller had already planned on
clearing you for the ILS, or perhaps had already done so, your late
request for a visual didn't really change anything and so he intended
for you to continue on your heading to intercept the localizer, fly to
ROYCE and then descend to the runway.

This seems simple unless you left still more out of the story.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:29:07 -0700, Bee wrote:

It was cross ROYCE at or above 2,000, *then* cleared for the visual.

I don't understand your point.

The approach clearance is frequently/usually/always given after a
fix/crossing restriction.

He was NOT on vectors for an ILS approach.

I do not believe that to proceed direct ROYCE, from 4 miles SW of ROYCE,
for an ILS approach would even meet the requirements for proper ATC
handling.

So he was cleared via ROYCE as part of setting him up for a Visual
Approach.

My guess is that the altitude restriction and course specification was
traffic related. Perhaps there was conflicting traffic for the parallel
runway.

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

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:29:07 -0700, Bee wrote:


It was cross ROYCE at or above 2,000, *then* cleared for the visual.


I don't understand your point.

Because you said:

"But he wrote that he had been cleared for the visual."

The approach clearance is frequently/usually/always given after a
fix/crossing restriction.

He was NOT on vectors for an ILS approach.

I do not believe that to proceed direct ROYCE, from 4 miles SW of ROYCE,
for an ILS approach would even meet the requirements for proper ATC
handling.

So he was cleared via ROYCE as part of setting him up for a Visual
Approach.

Apparently so. Nonetheless, the visual approach was not authorized
until *after* crossing ROYCE at or above 2,000.

My guess is that the altitude restriction and course specification was
traffic related. Perhaps there was conflicting traffic for the parallel
runway.

Or, it could have been to assure MVA until ROYCE.

"Bee" wrote:

Maybe, the at or above 2,000 at ROYCE was to keep the pilot at MVA instead
of for traffic? You think maybe so?

I think it most likely was for sequencing or traffic. Hobby has a lot
helicopters and other GA of all sizes mixing with SW Airlines 737s.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

wrote:

My take on it is that since the controller had already planned on
clearing you for the ILS, or perhaps had already done so, your late
request for a visual didn't really change anything and so he intended
for you to continue on your heading to intercept the localizer, fly to
ROYCE and then descend to the runway.

This seems simple unless you left still more out of the story.

I think that's close to right, but I think he had another reason for the
routing, probably traffic. There are an awful lot of helicopters at Hobby.

The vector I was on was a "right base" for the ILS, not the intercept vector.
I didn't request the visual, just called the field in sight; perhaps that's
splitting hairs.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM