VOR/DME Approach Question

"J Haggerty" wrote in message
newscdXc.60498$wo.55624@okepread06...
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).

HEYYY!!! Thanks!!!

Chip, ZTL

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:36:41 -0500, J Haggerty
wrote:

then it would be up to ATC to indicate that the course reversal
was not necessary by stating that to the pilot.

By what authority can ATC do this, on this particular approach?

Chip has already indicated that ATC could not issue vectors to final for
this approach; and I am not aware of any authority given ATC to modify
published SIAP's by eliminating required course reversals, absent VTF or
timed approaches.



--ron

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 04:00:48 GMT, "Chip Jones"
wrote:

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.

How about something like:

"Fly heading of 270 until intercepting the HCH 060 radial, then direct
Mines. Maintain 5000 (or your MIA/MVA for the area, if higher) until
MINES; cleared for the approach"?

I would not interpret such a clearance as being a "vector-to-final"




--ron

J Haggerty wrote:

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 were, and would be, of significant operational benefit at this location.


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.

Do you know of any ARC intitial approach segments that require a course reversal? The
ARCs would have certainly had "NoPT" on them with a hold-in-lieu, not "probably."



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.

By what authority?

SeeAndAvoid wrote:



Regardless, I still dont see the "necessary" part of the PT in this
scenario. Ya, I know that's only in the AIM, but how would you
be able to defend that part if you were set up a mile outside of
the IAF on the radial, or 10 miles, or 100 miles out. I can easily
see an FAA attorney using this argument.

There has been a project underway for several years now to authorize direct-to
straight-ins from an intermediate fix (which is what the fix in question really
is), with a 90 degree course change limitation and an MVA or MIA assignment
compatible with descent gradient requirements.

It's anyone's guess when the proposal will see the light of day, but it is
progressing..slowly.

20 questions time: how does someone positively identify which fix is the
intermediate fix?

J Haggerty wrote:

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.

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 04:00:48 GMT, "Chip Jones"
wrote:

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.

How about something like:

"Fly heading of 270 until intercepting the HCH 060 radial, then direct
Mines. Maintain 5000 (or your MIA/MVA for the area, if higher) until
MINES; cleared for the approach"?

I would not interpret such a clearance as being a "vector-to-final"


Ron, that sounds basically good to me. I would "chunk" that information so
it didn't all go out in the same transmission. My stab at it:

"Fly heading 270 to intecept the HCH060R, direct MINES when able."

Followed by:

"Maintain 5000 until MINES, cleared VOR/DME approach Rockwood, report
procedure turn inbound."

With the PT language there is no doubt that I didn't vector to final.

Chip, ZTL

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