A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old October 8th 05, 12:13 AM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

EGF456 got the clearance three minutes after you, but you don't know where
he is.


Sure I do. He's three minutes behind me. He's been three minutes behind me
since we left ORD. We filed the same route and the same altitude. Every
step of the way I heard ATC issue him the same instruction I was issued,
just three minutes later. I heard him report out of the same altitudes I
did, just three minutes later.


That wasn't part of the original scenario, but I'll bite. He will be at
5000 while I am descending in the hold to 3000. At 500 feet per minute
I'll have 1500 feet of vertical clearance when he goes whizzing by overhead.

But this is the crux of the matter. I've already said that if I were at
the right altitude and reasonably on track, I'd go right in (no PT).
You've indicated the same, and also that if you were not at the right
altitude (say, 5000 feet), you'd get a new vector (and likely be sent to
the back of the line) if you couldn't get an earlier clearance. This is
also reasonable and I'd do the same.

If you are dealt an inappropriate slam dunk (5000 on a 3000 approach),
do you go missed or make it work? If you make it work, how would you
lose the altitude?

I suppose it's a bit off track of the PT question, though hold in lieu
is one way to lose altitude, and is permitted most places a PT is.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #152  
Old October 8th 05, 12:16 AM
Ron Garret
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

So what would you do in the situation I described? You're at 4000 feet
on V21 going to FUL. You have not been cleared for the approach or told
to descend when you lose comm. If you go straight in you'll get to FUL
right at your filed ETA.


I answered that the first time you asked. I'd go straight in on the 020
radial.


My news server seems to have some lag. I presume this is your answer:

I'd create a fix on V21 where it crosses V25, I'd call it MCNIC. I'd make
the MEA on V21 between MCNIC and SLI 2600'. I wouldn't show it as a feeder
route, I'd make MCNIC an IAF just like ALBAS.


I can't tell if you're being serious or not. As far as I know pilots
can't create fixes, and certainly not while they're in the air.

So let me be clear: if you were actually flying this route and lost comm
you'd start a descent at MCNIC. I think I'd do the same thing. But I
also think I'd technically be in violation of the FARs. Do you agree?

rg
  #153  
Old October 8th 05, 01:05 AM
rps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It's clear that whoever drafted the language in the explanation needs
to brush up on his or her written English skills.

  #154  
Old October 8th 05, 02:29 AM
kgruber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pilots often create fixes in the air and use them.

Often it eases the route to intercept a radial of a VOR, since FMS boxes are
inherently fix to fix. It makes navigating much easier and is done
routinely.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG


  #155  
Old October 8th 05, 04:13 AM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

My news server seems to have some lag. I presume this is your answer:

I'd create a fix on V21 where it crosses V25, I'd call it MCNIC. I'd
make
the MEA on V21 between MCNIC and SLI 2600'. I wouldn't show it as a
feeder
route, I'd make MCNIC an IAF just like ALBAS.



No, my answer was, "It's IMC. I'd track the 020 radial out of SLI, fly the
approach and land because doing anything else is nutty."



I can't tell if you're being serious or not. As far as I know pilots
can't create fixes, and certainly not while they're in the air.


If my response isn't funny, I'm being serious.



So let me be clear: if you were actually flying this route and lost comm
you'd start a descent at MCNIC. I think I'd do the same thing. But I
also think I'd technically be in violation of the FARs. Do you agree?


It appears you're losing context. Mark Hansen mentioned creating a fix
somewhere on V21 and initiating the approach from that point. My message
was written along those lines, what I would do if I was designing the
approach.


  #156  
Old October 8th 05, 04:50 AM
zw671
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Alright, here's a real world example for you. You're flying AWI123 from
KORD to KGRB, Chicago departure puts you in the east departure track on a
360 heading and hands you off to Chicago Center. Around the Kenosha, WI,
area Chicago Center tells you to proceed direct to GRB VORTAC. Down the
road a piece you're handed off to Green Bay approach. At GRB the ILS RWY 36
approach is in use, and the approach controller notices you're present track
will intercept the localizer about fifteen miles from DEPRE, the LOM/IAF.
On initial contact you're told "descend and maintain 3,000 join the runway
36 localizer". About three minutes later you hear the same instruction
issued to EGF456. When you're about five miles from DEPRE the approach
controller says "AWI123 cleared ILS runway three six contact tower one one
eight point seven." When you reach DEPRE will you continue towards the
runway or will you start a procedure turn?


As someone who knows a couple of AWI pilots, I can tell you what they
would do. They'd point her one or two LRCH's to the left of DEPRE, peg
it a 250 kts to stay ahead of Eagle, a couple of miles from DEPRE chop
the power, deploy the airbrake, flaps, gear, some more flaps, stable at
1000', make the first turn-off, and be at the gate drinking Starbucks
while the rest of you try to make up your minds about flying a
proceedure turn or not.
  #157  
Old October 8th 05, 07:24 AM
Ron Garret
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

My news server seems to have some lag. I presume this is your answer:

I'd create a fix on V21 where it crosses V25, I'd call it MCNIC. I'd
make
the MEA on V21 between MCNIC and SLI 2600'. I wouldn't show it as a
feeder
route, I'd make MCNIC an IAF just like ALBAS.



No, my answer was, "It's IMC. I'd track the 020 radial out of SLI, fly the
approach and land because doing anything else is nutty."



I can't tell if you're being serious or not. As far as I know pilots
can't create fixes, and certainly not while they're in the air.


If my response isn't funny, I'm being serious.



So let me be clear: if you were actually flying this route and lost comm
you'd start a descent at MCNIC. I think I'd do the same thing. But I
also think I'd technically be in violation of the FARs. Do you agree?


It appears you're losing context. Mark Hansen mentioned creating a fix
somewhere on V21 and initiating the approach from that point. My message
was written along those lines, what I would do if I was designing the
approach.


But I'm the one who posed the original question, and my question is what
you would do if you were *flying* the approach (as it currently exists)
and lost comm.

rg
  #158  
Old October 8th 05, 07:25 AM
Ron Garret
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"kgruber" wrote:

Pilots often create fixes in the air and use them.


Not as part of an instrument approach they don't.

rg
  #159  
Old October 8th 05, 01:14 PM
Ron Rosenfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 20:39:54 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
news

Well, there are FAA facilities that do not follow the same rules as they
are published and interpreted by Washington. SoCal is another. There has
been a push to standardize these kinds of things.


Are you saying a rule was violated in this scenario? If so, what rule was
violated?



There was an old (1977) legal opinion indicating that pilots could get
authorization from ATC to eliminate PT's when they were sort of lined up
with the FAC and at an appropriate altitude. This supposedly was
eliminated by the 1994 opinion; however, that 1994 opinion (which I quoted
before) referred specifically to non-radar environments and was mute on
radar environments.


The 1994 opinion you posted does not differentiate between nonradar and
radar environments.


The full text, which has been posted previously by others, makes it clear
that the opinion refers to a non-radar environment. Here is the relevant
portion.

"This is a clarification of our response to your letter of
August 23, 1993. In that letter you requested an
interpretation of Section 91.175 of the Federal Aviation
Regulation (FAR) (14 C.F.R. Section 91.175). You address
the necessity of executing a complete Standard Instrument
Approach Procedure (SIAP) in a non-radar environment while
operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). Our response
assumes that each of the specific scenarios you pose speaks
to a flight conducted under IFR in a non-radar environment."





There is no question in my mind that it would be safe to fly straight in
from the position you set up. Perhaps the simplest way of getting that
ATC facilities practice in line with the regulations would be to designate
SENNA as an IAF. The route from OSH, which includes the route from SENNA
to DEPRE, is a NoPT route, and ATC has placed me on that route crossing
SENNA.


That ATC facility's practice is already in line with the regulations.


No, it seems to me that you've set up a situation which is quite similar
to, and understood by most, to be functionally equivalent to radar vectors
to the final approach course.

It also happens to include a segment prior to the FAF which is part of a
NoPT routing from a different IAF.

However, you claim this procedure is NOT equivalent to RV to FAC.

So you've effectively ignored the ATC requirement to start an approach at
an IAF. That is a requirement for ATC unless giving radar vectors IAW
7110.65 5-9-1. You may say that DEPRE is an IAF (which it is) but it is not
being used as one in this scenario.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
  #160  
Old October 8th 05, 01:19 PM
Ron Rosenfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 7 Oct 2005 17:05:28 -0700, "rps" wrote:

It's clear that whoever drafted the language in the explanation needs
to brush up on his or her written English skills.



It is also unclear whether the drafter even checked with the TERP's people
who design the procedures, to see if such language meets with their
approval. Or if he checked with the regulatory office to resolve the
conflict with their 1994 opinion.

Gee, if PT execution is now pilot choice, and "course reversal" is not
further defined, that opens up a whole bunch of ways to get into trouble!


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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question A Lieberman Instrument Flight Rules 18 January 30th 05 05:51 PM
Required hold? Nicholas Kliewer Instrument Flight Rules 22 November 14th 04 02:38 AM
more radial fans like fw190? jt Military Aviation 51 August 28th 04 04:22 AM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM
IFR in the 1930's Rich S. Home Built 43 September 21st 03 01:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.