VOR/DME Approach Question

I'm hoping one or more of you instrument pilots (or controllers) could help
me with an IAP question. The airport involved is RKW, which is Rockwood,
Tennessee. The IAP in question is the VOR/DME RWY 22 into Rockwood. If you
have the plate or know the procedure, I hope you can help me out.

RKW airport lies about 2 miles west of the common Atlanta (ZTL)
ARTCC/Knoxville (TYS) Tracon boundary. Center owns the airport, but because
of the close proximity to TYS airspace, Center has to coordinate with Tracon
for clearances in and out of RKW unless the aircraft is arriving from the
east. TYS coordinates with Center for RKW arrivals from the east, and TYS
issues the approach clearance, as most of the IAP lies within TYS airspace.

Here's the situation. I'm instructing a newbie on the radar. We're working
combined sectors and we're busy working the main bang out of Atlanta on
our other freq. We have a RKW arrival from the east, an Army UH60/G. Route
of flight is Asheville NC direct RKW, a 30 minute delay at RKW, and then on
to Fort Campbell KY. The aircraft whopping along at 6,000 and "PLA RKW" is
in remarks on his flightplan. There is a large thunderstorm sweeping south
over the Knoxville airport and the TYS controllers are busy holding their
own arrivals for the storm to pass. To ease their workload, TYS calls my
trainee and begs him to work the approach into RKW. The trainee agrees
(good training experience). Good experience for me too, as I don't get to
work east arrivals into this airport very often.

The aircraft checks on at 6000 with a request. We issue the CSV altimeter
and take the request. The request is "Center, Army 569 would like to shoot
the full VOR/DME 22 into Rockwood, followed by a missed approach and a ten
minute hold at MINES and then on to Campbell." My guy and I do a quick
huddle as we dig out the chart.

Normally I would have keyed the mic and asked the pilot what he was going
to do when he asked for the "full" approach, but I sit behind my trainee
when he works the radio. I can over-ride him, but he's a Yank from
Pennsylvania and I'm from the Low Country of SC. Our accents are as
different as night and day, and the last thing I wanted to do was let all of
the Delta pilots on our other freq know they were dealing with a trainee.
Like dogs, they work in packs, smell fear and love to shred new meat. I try
to stay off the radio when I train.

The MIA for the area is 5000. The trainee clears the aircraft to "Descend
and Maintain 5000, cleared direct MINES, I have your request for the
approach". This is followed a minute later with:

"Army 569, twelve miles northeast of Rockwood, cross MINES at 5000 inbound,
cleared VOR/DME Runway 22 approach Rockwood, report established on the
approach."

Look at the plate. The aircraft is approaching MINES on about a 270
heading. He's maybe ten miles due east from MINES when he checks on with
his request for the approach and we clear him -MINES. I am expecting the
aircraft to proceed to MINES at 5000, turn left to intercept the HCH 060R
inbound, and fly down the approach on a 240 track towards the airport, doing
a drive and dive. In the event, the aircraft proceeds to MINES, turns left
all the way around to a 060 heading, and flies one turn in the published
holding pattern at MINES. Somewhere in the trip around the pattern, he
calls established on the approach. We put him on the CTAF, he does his
thing, later misses as planned and life goes on.

My question concerns the course reversal at MINES. If you were flying this
approach from due east of MINES, "cleared approach", what do you do at MINES
to get on the approach course?

Thanks,

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote:
I'm hoping one or more of you instrument pilots (or controllers) could help
me with an IAP question. The airport involved is RKW, which is Rockwood,
Tennessee. The IAP in question is the VOR/DME RWY 22 into Rockwood. If you
have the plate or know the procedure, I hope you can help me out.

With the web, everybody's got all the plates. There's a bunch of sites;
I use http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/index.php

"Army 569, twelve miles northeast of Rockwood, cross MINES at 5000 inbound,
cleared VOR/DME Runway 22 approach Rockwood, report established on the
approach."

Look at the plate. The aircraft is approaching MINES on about a 270
heading. He's maybe ten miles due east from MINES when he checks on with
his request for the approach and we clear him -MINES. I am expecting the
aircraft to proceed to MINES at 5000, turn left to intercept the HCH 060R
inbound, and fly down the approach on a 240 track towards the airport, doing
a drive and dive. In the event, the aircraft proceeds to MINES, turns left
all the way around to a 060 heading, and flies one turn in the published
holding pattern at MINES.

Yup, that's what he was cleared to do. The AIM says:

5-4-9. Procedure Turn

a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of
procedure turn is a required maneuver. The procedure turn is not required
when the symbol "No PT" is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to the final approach
course is provided, when conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure
turn is not authorized.

I'm assuming you're thinking your trainee gave him radar vectors, but he
didn't; he cleared the flight direct to the IAF. Radar vectors would
have been:

"Army 569, twelve miles northeast of Rockwood, flying heading 270 to
intercept the final approach course, cleared VOR/DME Runway 22 approach
Rockwood, report established on the approach."

The pilot knew that. I'm guessing your trainee knew that, since he's
fresh out of studying this stuff in school. The only question is
whether the pilot's instructor knew that :-)

To be fair, the clearance as issued was a little funky. If the intent
was to have the flight fly the PT, I would expect the clearance to sound
like:

"Army 569, seven miles northeast of MINES, cross MINES at 5000 inbound,
cleared VOR/DME Runway 22 approach Rockwood, report procedure turn
inbound."

but I don't think what the pilot did was a deviation from his clearance
as issued.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
"Chip Jones" wrote:
[snipped]

To be fair, the clearance as issued was a little funky. If the intent
was to have the flight fly the PT, I would expect the clearance to sound
like:

"Army 569, seven miles northeast of MINES, cross MINES at 5000 inbound,
cleared VOR/DME Runway 22 approach Rockwood, report procedure turn
inbound."


Roy, I agree with your phraseology here. Trainee and I tried to discuss
phraseology before he issued the clearance, but we were busy and had a lot
of irons in the fire. One of our problems is that the MINES fix does not
exist on the radar scope- it's not adapted into the ATC computer database.
For the controller, the fix must be interpolated by eyeballing the paper
approach plate, eyeballing the radar scope, and guess-timating about where
MINES really is in space. Because of the computer limitations, the correct
"Seven miles northeast of MINES" phraseology is virtually impossible to come
up with unless ATC is slow enough to make several low priority computer
entries using the slewball/trackball (like a mouse pointer) to pinpoint the
whereabouts of MINES and then the aircraft's relationship to it.

In the event, my guy had his hands full on the other freq and he had his ATC
computer slewball engaged in higher priority duties. I have been hammering
him for weeks about making precise location calls to aircraft, especially on
instrument approaches. Due to his lack of experience with the radar map
display, he can be wildly off when he makes a position call reference a fix.
You may be 15 miles from XXX, and he might tell you "Five miles from XXX,
cleared blah blah blah." Or you could be ten miles out and he tells you "20
miles from XXX, cleared blah blah blah." If I were the pilot on an IAP,
I'd have some serious questions about a ten mile difference in what I showed
to be my position and where ATC just told me I was. In the case of my
trainee, ATC would be wrong quite often, simply because ATC was just tossing
out a figure based on an inexperienced glance at the scope. Because of his
tendency, I have been forcing this developmental to engage his computer
slewball and to make certain involved computer entries to get a fairly
precise position fix before he makes the position call. In the case of
MINES, he couldn't do it easily (quickly) so he used the distance from the
airport instead.

As for the "Report procedure turn inbound", my misunderstanding of this
approach probably led the trainee down the primrose path. The trainee asked
me about the course reversal and I said "I'm not sure...but don't you think
we'd better get higher on that Delta before he smokes the RJ out in front of
him?!?" In other words, I was looking at a higher priority duty when the
question came up. We never got back to the question. The trainee, who is
aggressive, likely said to himself "I'm done asking questions, I need to get
this Army cleared in now and move on. We can discuss the semantics in the
coffee shop later." I believe the trainee knew about the PT but since I
didn't jump on it when he asked me the question, he left the "Report PT" out
of his clearance.

Regards,

Chip, ZTL

Chip brings you out an interesting point about atc advising pilots of
their position.
I've always listened carefully to the atc postiion when they've first
get me on radar, as a cross check to ensure they've got the right
aircraft.
However, when it comes to clearing me for an approach, I've never
really cared to ensure the atc distance is all that close, what with
dual dme's, gps', fms' etc.
Does anyone consider this inappropriate?
After all, the time immediately after being cleared for approach can
be about the busiest, what with changing freqs, final settings to nav
aids, descents, intercepting etc

Stan
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:14:28 GMT, "Chip Jones"
wrote:


.. Due to his lack of experience with the radar map
display, he can be wildly off when he makes a position call reference a fix.
You may be 15 miles from XXX, and he might tell you "Five miles from XXX,
cleared blah blah blah." Or you could be ten miles out and he tells you "20
miles from XXX, cleared blah blah blah." If I were the pilot on an IAP,
I'd have some serious questions about a ten mile difference in what I showed
to be my position and where ATC just told me I was. In the case of my
trainee, ATC would be wrong quite often, simply because ATC was just tossing
out a figure based on an inexperienced glance at the scope.
Chip, ZTL

wrote:
Chip brings you out an interesting point about atc advising pilots of
their position.
I've always listened carefully to the atc postiion when they've first
get me on radar, as a cross check to ensure they've got the right
aircraft.
However, when it comes to clearing me for an approach, I've never
really cared to ensure the atc distance is all that close, what with
dual dme's, gps', fms' etc.
Does anyone consider this inappropriate?
After all, the time immediately after being cleared for approach can
be about the busiest, what with changing freqs, final settings to nav
aids, descents, intercepting etc

But, you are supposed to know where you are, aren't you? ;-)

The way I understand it is this:
If the procedure turn is in BOLD line.
1. If ATC vectors me onto the final approach course, I don't have to
do the procedure turn. (Note I say final approach course, I can be
outside the FAF).
2. Otherwise, I have to do the procedure turn.

If the procedure turn is not bold lined, then its optional.

But frankly, if I were the controller, I'd space other aircraft so the
pilot could do it either way, unless you are vectoring him past the
FAF. You never know when some pilot will decide he has to do the
procedure turn if you cut him loose outside the FAF.

As a pilot I see ABSOLUTELY no COMMON SENSE in having to make a course
reversal if I don't have to loose altitude and am on the final
approach course (or even within a few degrees of final approach
course) outside of the FAF. I mean, why do it? It takes time, burns
fuel, and increases risk.

I'm probably wrong somewhere on all this, but heck, I bet a lot of
other pilots are too.

It doesn't really come up very often.

(Doug) wrote:
As a pilot I see ABSOLUTELY no COMMON SENSE in having to make a course
reversal if I don't have to loose altitude and am on the final
approach course (or even within a few degrees of final approach
course) outside of the FAF. I mean, why do it? It takes time, burns
fuel, and increases risk.

Of course it makes no sense. But it's the law. Since when did the law
have to make sense :-)

The real problem is this was all laid down long before radar and RNAV
capabilities were common. The Terminal Arrival Area concept that's
being introduced with GPS approaches resolves a lot of this stupidity.

"Doug" wrote...
As a pilot I see ABSOLUTELY no COMMON SENSE in having to
make a course reversal if I don't have to loose altitude and am on the
final approach course (or even within a few degrees of final approach
course) outside of the FAF. I mean, why do it? It takes time, burns
fuel, and increases risk.

I can. FAR 61.57c, IFR currency requirements. In the case of this
approach, the course reversal is a hold. I dont know for sure but
I bet that was the intent with this pilot, get credit for the hold AND
the approach. As a pilot there were times I wanted to do something
like this only for currency, but the controller couldnt understand
why I WANTED to hold at, usually, the missed approach point.
But I always would say "request the approach with a turn in holding
at XXXX" or something like that to make it real clear, not this
"full approach" stuff.
As a controller when I'm running approaches I'll get the request
for a hold that seems to have no reason behind it, then I remember
this currency requirement. Problem is there's not enough pilot
controllers, and even less that are IFR rated or current.

Chris
- -
Steve Bosell for President 2004
"Vote for me or I'll sue you"
www.philhendrieshow.com

"Chip Jones" wrote in message
k.net...

My question concerns the course reversal at MINES. If you were flying
this
approach from due east of MINES, "cleared approach", what do you do at
MINES
to get on the approach course?

What the pilot did was correct. A charted course reversal must be flown
unless the pilots receives radar vectors or the route is charted as No PT.
Even if the pilot were perfectly setup for a straight-in at the ideal
altitude, the course reversal is required unless the above criteria area
met.

See AIM 5-4-8:

The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver.
The procedure turn is not required when the symbol "No PT" is shown, when
RADAR VECTORING to the final approach course is provided, when conducting a
timed approach, or when the procedure turn is not authorized. The hold in
lieu of procedure turn is not required when RADAR VECTORING to the final
approach course is provided or when "No PT" is shown.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

"Chip Jones" wrote in message =
k.net...
I'm hoping one or more of you instrument pilots (or controllers) could =
help
me with an IAP question. The airport involved is RKW, which is =
Rockwood,
Tennessee. The IAP in question is the VOR/DME RWY 22 into Rockwood. =
If you
have the plate or know the procedure, I hope you can help me out.
=20
RKW airport lies about 2 miles west of the common Atlanta (ZTL)
ARTCC/Knoxville (TYS) Tracon boundary. Center owns the airport, but =
because
of the close proximity to TYS airspace, Center has to coordinate with =
Tracon
for clearances in and out of RKW unless the aircraft is arriving from =
the
east. TYS coordinates with Center for RKW arrivals from the east, and =
TYS
issues the approach clearance, as most of the IAP lies within TYS =
airspace.
=20
Here's the situation. I'm instructing a newbie on the radar. We're =
working
combined sectors and we're busy working the main bang out of Atlanta =
on
our other freq. We have a RKW arrival from the east, an Army UH60/G. =
Route
of flight is Asheville NC direct RKW, a 30 minute delay at RKW, and =
then on
to Fort Campbell KY. The aircraft whopping along at 6,000 and "PLA =
RKW" is
in remarks on his flightplan. There is a large thunderstorm sweeping =
south
over the Knoxville airport and the TYS controllers are busy holding =
their
own arrivals for the storm to pass. To ease their workload, TYS calls =
my
trainee and begs him to work the approach into RKW. The trainee =
agrees
(good training experience). Good experience for me too, as I don't =
get to
work east arrivals into this airport very often.
=20
The aircraft checks on at 6000 with a request. We issue the CSV =
altimeter
and take the request. The request is "Center, Army 569 would like to =
shoot
the full VOR/DME 22 into Rockwood, followed by a missed approach and a =
ten
minute hold at MINES and then on to Campbell." My guy and I do a =
quick
huddle as we dig out the chart.
=20
Normally I would have keyed the mic and asked the pilot what he was =
going
to do when he asked for the "full" approach, but I sit behind my =
trainee
when he works the radio. I can over-ride him, but he's a Yank from
Pennsylvania and I'm from the Low Country of SC. Our accents are as
different as night and day, and the last thing I wanted to do was let =
all of
the Delta pilots on our other freq know they were dealing with a =
trainee.
Like dogs, they work in packs, smell fear and love to shred new meat. =
I try
to stay off the radio when I train.
=20
The MIA for the area is 5000. The trainee clears the aircraft to =
"Descend
and Maintain 5000, cleared direct MINES, I have your request for the
approach". This is followed a minute later with:
=20
"Army 569, twelve miles northeast of Rockwood, cross MINES at 5000 =
inbound,
cleared VOR/DME Runway 22 approach Rockwood, report established on the
approach."
=20
Look at the plate. The aircraft is approaching MINES on about a 270
heading. He's maybe ten miles due east from MINES when he checks on =
with
his request for the approach and we clear him -MINES. I am expecting =
the
aircraft to proceed to MINES at 5000, turn left to intercept the HCH =
060R
inbound, and fly down the approach on a 240 track towards the airport, =
doing
a drive and dive. In the event, the aircraft proceeds to MINES, turns =
left
all the way around to a 060 heading, and flies one turn in the =
published
holding pattern at MINES. Somewhere in the trip around the pattern, =
he
calls established on the approach. We put him on the CTAF, he does =
his
thing, later misses as planned and life goes on.
=20
My question concerns the course reversal at MINES. If you were flying =
this
approach from due east of MINES, "cleared approach", what do you do at =
MINES
to get on the approach course?
=20
Thanks,
=20
Chip, ZTL
=20
Chip, I set up that scenario in my CNX80 simulator, to see what IT would =
do.
Indeed, the simulator wants to go once around the holding pattern at =
MINES,
unless I select "Vector to Final", in which case it foregoes the hold.

The same is true even if I set up inbound to MINES on a 240 track.

Since the UH60 pilot asked for the "full" approach, not vectors, I'd =
assume
either that his GPS unit wanted to behave the same as the CNX80,
or else he just needed to log some holding-proficiency time. Maybe =
both.
---JRC---