VOR/DME Approach Question

Roy Smith wrote:


How does this work? Can two facilities really swap airspace back and
forth between themselves with something as informal as a phone call?
There's a reason I ask...

Yes. Pretty much anything can be done with coordination over the landline.

Chip Jones wrote:
"SeeAndAvoid" wrote in message
hlink.net...

The trainee and I did discuss where the "full approach" began. Since we
rarely work aircraft approaching RKW from the east, it was a legitimate
question in my mind. We had literally about 20 seconds to huddle with the
plate during the OJTI. We had our hands full with higher priority ATC stuff
and airplanes were calling right and left. This aircraft had GPS, so I said
I though the full approach in this case begins at the IAF (MINES) and we
could clear him to MINES via GPS-direct. The trainee thought that the
"full" approach began at HCH Vor, and involved flying out on the 060R to get
to MINES, then doing a course reversal. He asked if he should clear the guy
to HCH to start the full approach. HCH was 30 miles west of the position
from which the approach request was made and would have involved a serious
detour.

Now I'm wondering what I could have done with this UH-60 if it had been a /A
instead of a /G. We don't clear /A's direct to intersections. Where does
the "full approach" begin for a non-RNAV on this procedure. I can't vector
to final at this location.

The general answer to where a full approach can begin is "any fix that's marked
IAF on the approach chart". For this approach, the only IAF is MINES. So for a
non-RNAV aircraft, I'd think the only way to give a non-RNAV the full approach
would be to send him to HCH and let him navigate himself to MINES, or give him a
vector to the radial and let him navigate to MINES.

If I heard "cleared to MINES via heading x, join the HCH 060 radial and track
it inbound (or outbound), cross MINES at or above 5000, cleared for the
approach", I would do the PT.

On the other hand if I heard "fly heading x, vectors for the final approach
course, maintain 5000 until MINES, cleared for the approach", I would not do the PT.

On the third hand, if I thought there was any confusion about whether a PT would
be done, I'd tell ATC what my plans were.

"Chip Jones" wrote:
Now I'm wondering what I could have done with this UH-60 if it had been a /A
instead of a /G. We don't clear /A's direct to intersections. Where does
the "full approach" begin for a non-RNAV on this procedure. I can't vector
to final at this location.

I don't have an en-route chart of the area, just the approach plate off
the net, so I may be missing something. The only legal way I see to fly
this approach pilot nav and /A is "Direct Hinch Mountain, Hinch Mountain
060 radial, MINES, cross MINES at or above 5000, cleared VOR/DME 22
approach". It's about 60 miles out of the way, but them's the breaks.
Hope he planned on that when he fueled up for the flight.

As a procedures sort of guy I think it was stupid to remove the DME ARC,
especially since it is a VOR/DME IAP. If the system worked the way it should,
AVN-100 would not have removed the ARC because GPS overlay was added; rather,
they would have removed it because your airspace staff for that area asked for
it to be removed. Or, in the alternative the DME ARC might have failed a
periodic flight inspection, which is more common these days as the VORs get old.

Chip Jones wrote:

"Michael" wrote in message
m...
"Chip Jones" wrote
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 everyone. When I learned this IAP back in the day, it had a DME
arc
off of HCH Vor to get to the IAF, and then you turned down the approach
course. When they slipped GPS into the system, they changed the IAP and
eliminated the arc. Of course, no one told the controllers about the
change- as usual they just published it. I never thought about the
difference. Looks like I need some refresher training...

Chip, not to be argumentative, but IMO the change to the procedure
makes absolutely no difference here.

Obviously it made a difference to me. :-)


What the pilot did was absolutely correct. Had the DME arc been
charted as before, his actions would still have been correct provided
the hold-in-lieu was still charted. Removal of the DME arc is not a
function of adding the GPS overlay; there are VOR/DME approaches with
GPS overlays out there that include a DME arc as an option. UTS
VOR/DME or GPS-A (http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0408/05813VDGA.PDF) is
one example, though it's NoPT all the way around.

I have no doubt that the pilot made no mistake.


The key here is this - if you're vectoring the guy to the FAC, no
procedure turn. If you've cleared him direct to the IAF, he does the
PT. It's just that simple.

No kidding...


I guess my question is this - why was this a problem? The pilot asked
for the full procedure, and your traineed cleared him for it. The
phraseology was not quite perfect, but well within the range of
variation, at least based on my experience. What am I missing?


No one said this was a problem. I posted this to gain personal insight, and
nothing more. I don't think you're missing a thing.

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote
The trainee and I did discuss where the "full approach" began. Since we
rarely work aircraft approaching RKW from the east, it was a legitimate
question in my mind.

Chip, I'm honestly not trying to be a pain, but while the question was
a legitimate one in your mind, it wasn't legitimate regulatorily. In
other words, I think the source of the confusion is a less-than-ideal
understanding of the applicable rules. Don't feel too bad - I just
saw the same level of understanding in a 1500+ hour multi/IFR pilot I
flew with recently.

This aircraft had GPS, so I said
I though the full approach in this case begins at the IAF (MINES)

The full approach ALWAYS begins at the IAF (or an IAF if there is more
than one) regardless of how the aircraft is equipped.

and we could clear him to MINES via GPS-direct.

There's the difference. Since the aircraft had RNAV (not necessarily
GPS - any kind of approved RNAV would be fine, since the approach does
not start until the IAF is crossed) you could clear him direct to
MINES. Without RNAV, you would need an alternate plan.

The trainee thought that the
"full" approach began at HCH Vor

Well, he was wrong - but as a trainee he has every right to be wrong.

Now I'm wondering what I could have done with this UH-60 if it had been a /A
instead of a /G. We don't clear /A's direct to intersections. Where does
the "full approach" begin for a non-RNAV on this procedure. I can't vector
to final at this location.

I'm pretty sure you can vector an aircraft to intercept an airway -
can you do the same for a random VOR radial? How about "Fly heading
XXX, intercept the HCH-060 radial, track the radial to MINES, cleared
for the full approach, report procedure turn inbound?"

Michael

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:43:33 GMT, "Chip Jones"
wrote:

I wasn't vectoring to the FAC. I do not/cannot/would not vector to the FAC
at this airport anyway because nothing of this approach is depicted on the
radar scope except for the airport. None of the fixes on the approach even
exist in the ATC database. I had no intention of vectoring for the FAC. My
mistake was in misunderstanding the procedure.

I understand.

But others have brought that up that possibility in this thread and I
thought it worthwhile that the point be absolutely clear to everyone (not
just to you).


--ron

FAAO 8260.19 requires any arcs in a radar environment to be removed
unless they are operationally required. It appears that someone deemed
that they were not needed back in 1992, when they were removed from the
procedure. GPS was overlayed later, so had nothing to do with removal of
the arcs.
The arcs probably had the annotation "NoPT" on them, since a course
reversal would not have been required from the arcs based on the TERPS
criteria in effect back in 1992.
An interesting point that might help ATC understand the PT/NoPT question
is that anytime a route is published that allows elimination of the
course reversal, then the procedure specialist must indicate that by
publishing "NoPT" on that route segment. Otherwise, the PT is expected.
Since ATC was substituting radar flight following (not vectors) combined
with center's MIA to protect the GPS equipped aircraft on his flight to
MINES, then it would be up to ATC to indicate that the course reversal
was not necessary by stating that to the pilot.
In the case of the UH-60, though, once he asked for the "full approach"
it would have alerted me that he wanted a little more than a quick
straight-in, and I would have queried him further to confirm exactly
what he wanted, (hold-in lieu, clearance to Hinch Mountain for the
feeder, or what?).
We used to routinely vector military aircraft to intercept the final,
but whenever one requested the full procedure, that was our clue to
clear them via non-radar routes to the IAF, even if it was 20 miles
further out.

JPH

wrote:
As a procedures sort of guy I think it was stupid to remove the DME ARC,
especially since it is a VOR/DME IAP. If the system worked the way it should,
AVN-100 would not have removed the ARC because GPS overlay was added; rather,
they would have removed it because your airspace staff for that area asked for
it to be removed. Or, in the alternative the DME ARC might have failed a
periodic flight inspection, which is more common these days as the VORs get old.

Chip, there's a website you can check whenever you want that has the
upcoming proposed TERPS procedures on them;
http://avn.faa.gov/acifp.asp

You can click on the state and it will show the procedures for every
city in that state that have been prepared for future publication and
are in the coordination stage.
You can then click on the folder icon and it will show you the procedure
forms, maps of the procedures, graphic depiction, and even the dash-2's
(fix forms).

JPH

Chip Jones wrote:

I'd love to find an Airspace and Procedures guy anywhere in my Region who
had a clue to begin with. Down here in ZTL, we have a total disconnect
between the guys maintaining procedures for the facility, the guys
publishing new procedures up at the Regional level (Terps guys) and the men
and women keying the mic at the sector. For example, GPS approaches are
dropping into my airspace like landmines. We don't get briefed on the
changes anymore. Heck they aren't even "read and initial" items these days,
likely because the 530 guy doesn't even know about them. They even change
things like a missed approach procedure and the only way you can spot it is
by reading the paper IAP plate before issuing the clearance. They plop new
approaches in the airspace and you discover them when the pilot requests the
procedure and you scramble for the plate. We are so short staffed right now
at ZTL, we don't even do crew/team training anymore. I haven't had a Team
Training in three years. Everyone is months behind on CBI's. Our facility
Airspace office doesn't even pretend to try anymore. Yall are probably the
same way out there- it's getting pretty bad all over the Enroute community.

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Chip Jones" wrote
The trainee and I did discuss where the "full approach" began. Since we
rarely work aircraft approaching RKW from the east, it was a legitimate
question in my mind.

Chip, I'm honestly not trying to be a pain, but while the question was
a legitimate one in your mind, it wasn't legitimate regulatorily. In
other words, I think the source of the confusion is a less-than-ideal
understanding of the applicable rules. Don't feel too bad - I just
saw the same level of understanding in a 1500+ hour multi/IFR pilot I
flew with recently.

Hey man, I don't feel bad at all and I don't see you being a pain. I was
the guy who posted the question, and I'm the guy who was supposed to know
the answer before hand. The question shouldn't even come up, hehehe. I
imagine my "IFR" time is around 16,000 hours of live air traffic control.
I'd say I still do have a less than ideal understanding of the applicable
rules pertaining to certain IAP's. That's why I drop in here from time to
time.


This aircraft had GPS, so I said
I though the full approach in this case begins at the IAF (MINES)

The full approach ALWAYS begins at the IAF (or an IAF if there is more
than one) regardless of how the aircraft is equipped.

and we could clear him to MINES via GPS-direct.

There's the difference. Since the aircraft had RNAV (not necessarily
GPS - any kind of approved RNAV would be fine, since the approach does
not start until the IAF is crossed) you could clear him direct to
MINES. Without RNAV, you would need an alternate plan.

Because of ATC workload, without RNAV equipment the *pilot* would need an
alternate plan in this case. We were busy. We have no obligation to vector
non-Rnav aircraft on an unpublished route. In this particular event, he'd
have likely been sent direct HCH because it was the easy thing for the
trainee to do. HCH is on the plate.

[snipped]

Now I'm wondering what I could have done with this UH-60 if it had been
a /A
instead of a /G. We don't clear /A's direct to intersections. Where
does
the "full approach" begin for a non-RNAV on this procedure. I can't
vector
to final at this location.

I'm pretty sure you can vector an aircraft to intercept an airway -
can you do the same for a random VOR radial? How about "Fly heading
XXX, intercept the HCH-060 radial, track the radial to MINES, cleared
for the full approach, report procedure turn inbound?"



I can vector to a random VOR radial, but I cannot vector to the final
approach course. The HCH-060R is also the final approach course inside of
MINES. MINES (and the HCH 27 DME) is not depicted on the scope. Vectors
are workload permitting, and we were busy elsewhere. Therefore, I don't
know whether I would have vectored here or not in the event.

If the Army had crashed and burned (say the tail rotor fell off, nothing
related to the approach), how would I explain to the rules lawyers that I
was merely vectoring to a random radial that also happened to define the
FAC? I cannot clear aircraft operating on non-published routes (like a
random vector to join the 060R) for approach until they are established on
a segment of the IAP or a published route or I assign an altitude to
maintain until they are so established (or they are doing a GPS or RNAV
approach). These rules exist as a result of other ATC screw-ups in the
past. A vector to intercept the FAC radial, followed by an approach
clearance to an aircraft with a horrible UHF radio to read it back with
could end up being misconstrued as a vector to final (although the "Report
procedure turn inbound" should eliminate the possibility of a
misunderstanding).

All that aside, I do believe that your example is basically legal (I'd have
to clean up the phraseology a little bit to CYA). I may try it next time I
work one into RKW from the east, assuming I get to him far enough away from
MINES to make a vector workable.

I appreciate the insight,

Chip, ZTL

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

This brings me back to something you mentioned in your original post,
that got my attention. You said:

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.

How does this work? Can two facilities really swap airspace back and
forth between themselves with something as informal as a phone call?
There's a reason I ask...

ATC is flexible in everything but basic separation minima. Two controllers
can work out all kinds of thngs with a simple phone call between them,
including swapping airspace. We do this a lot here in ZTL and I'm sure it
happens all over the country. It's all in the name of efficiency. I can
think of six airports in or near my airspace for which I might swap
approach/departure control service with an adjacent sector or facility.
Sometimes it makes more sense for me to work you into an airport just across
a boundary than for me to hand you off to the controlling sector facility.
All of this can be done with a simple coordination land line call between
controllers.

Controllers can even swap separation standards between terminal and Center,
or between non-radar and radar. Here's a quick example of one aspect of
this:

Tracon: "Hey Center, can ya give me a higher on Air Wisconsin? I need to
top this ATR I'm shipping you at ten..."

Center: "You can have higher on the Air Wisconsin if you use your radar to
separate him from the Mooney on a code of 0735 at 11,000 crossing five miles
off his nose. Reference the Mooney, give AWI FL180."

Tracon: "Mooney traffic observed, show it..."

In this quickie, the terminal guy is using 3 miles separation with his local
ASR radar to top traffic in the Center, where the Center controller needs 5
miles minima using Center ARSR. With a quick phone call, ATC applies
terminal separation minima using terminal radar to aircraft in Center
airspace.


A while back, I was flying into MMK (Meriden, CT) on a training flight
with a student. We were IFR, conditions were night, but clear skies.

[snipped]


So, could you fill me in on what was happening behind the scenes? Once
I went lost comm, how did ATC deal with that? Did the Bradley guy just
hand me off to NY when he saw me leaving his airspace? And, most
interesting to me, how was the NY controller able to clear us for an
approach to an airport that he didn't own?

When you went lost comm, the Bradley controller probably cursed out loud
before he did anything else. But he wasn't cursing you, he was likely
cursing the FAA radio coverage for the area. I betcha that the BDL
controller knows that aircraft into MMK at certain altitudes on certain
approaches may lose comm. That is also probably the controller's
experience. Probably happens fairly often at MMK and he wonders why his
radios still suck after all the reports he has filed to AF. Like you said,
your experience is that comm with BDL has been pretty poor into this
airport. He was likely prepared with a Plan B and also a Plan C for comm.

BDL loses you, they probably played musical ATC transmitters/receivers on
the frequency to get you back. In the Center, I can toggle between primary,
secondary and back-up transmitters and receivers. I imagine BDL has the
same capability with their comm equipment. After he BDL fails to get you
with his in-house radio tricks, he resorts to an air to air relay. The air
to air relay is a failure. The BDL guy, realizing that you are still
tooling downwind on his vector, calls up his buddy at N90 and explains the
situation. Most likely, if the BDL/N90 boundary is so close to MMK, this is
not the first time this exact scenario has played out.

The N90 controller likely had either taken a "point-out" from BDL on your
aircraft or else N90 was doing a simple airspace block for your approach.
If it was a point out, it meant that the N90 controller was already watching
you and protecting your target from his own traffic as BDL vectored you near
the facility boundary. If N90 was blocking the airspace around MMK for you,
then they had simply sterilized N90 airspace that conflicts with your
approach into MMK. Either way, the BDL guy probably called his N90 partner
on the land line and explained that you were NORDO. The N90 guy then tagged
your target up and watched you come his way, lost comm.

Meanwhile, the ARTCC controller who took your radio transmission had to call
either N90 or BDL, most likely N90. From his perch in the Center airspace
above the lowly tracons, the Center controller probably saw you down below,
inside N90 airspace. The New York controller probably told Boston Center to
"put him on me" when Center called to say you'd come up on Center freq.
ARTCC switched you to N90. Meanwhile, the N90 guy called the BDL guy and
said that N90 was working you now in good comm. Since BDL couldn't talk to
you anyway, they released the airspace at MMK to N90, in essence reversing
the tactical situation at MMK between N90 and BDL. For the time it took you
to make the approach, N90 controlled the airspace around MMK and BDL was
blocking for you.

Because the BDL guy released the airspace to N90, the N90 guy could clear
you in. The New York Approach controllers are among the best in the
business anywhere, and this guy probably had a working knowledge of MMK
since it was so close by. Once you were cleared to the CTAF and given the
comm instructions for the Missed, N90 was done with you. N90 called BDL and
gave them your approach clearance time and the details. They probably kept
a tag on you just in case your comm problems with Bradley continued after
the miss. BDL resumed control of MMK once you got cleared for approach and
both facilities had to block the airspace until you missed. Once you got
back into two-way comm with BDL after the missed, BDL called N90 and told
them to cancel the block at MMK. N90 dropped their tag on you and life went
on.

Chip, ZTL