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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
NoPT means you cannot do a procedure turn without specific authorization from ATC. You continue straight in. No means no. "NoPT" is "Nope" speled by the FAA. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote: The Approach in question is SDF RWY 2 at KISW. I was coming in from the south, nearly lined up with the inbound course of 021 degrees. I was in touch with ATC. The LOM/IAF is called NEPCO. The ATC asked if I wanted "direct NEPCO." I said yes. Within about 10 miles of the airport, the controller said that frequency change was approved. I believe I was out of radar contact by this time (radar coverage in the area is spotty). 1. Since there is no "NO PT" indicated on the chart, does that mean that I am required to do a 180 deg turn when I reach NEPCO so I can track outbound (201), then do a PT, then come back? That seems a little odd to me. It was odd because you were at 3,000, and you needed the course reversal to descend to 2,600 so your descent gradient would have been as designed into the IAP. In this case crossing the LOM 400 feet high probably wouldn't matter, but it would at some locations. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote: Sorry. Yes, I believe he cleared me for the SDF RWY 2 approach, maintain 3000 until established on the localizer. It has been several weeks, so this is my best recollection of what was said to me. And, how would you know you were established on a *published* segment of the localizer, which is what "established" means in the context of approach clearances? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
If the clearance was, in fact, maintain 3000 until intercepting the localizer, I would have asked ATC for my distance from NEPCO and, if I was within the PT distance, asked them specifically if this was "vectors to final". I would NOT have used "readback what I want" trick and hope that ATC would catch the error if they made it. Why be indirect and take a chance on confusion, when you can ask your question directly? This is one of the consistent big disconnects in vectors to final where the controller fails to call the distance from EK. Had the controller stated a poition less than 10 miles from EK, then the guy would have been established for approach clearance purposes as soon as he intercepted, whereupon he could have descended to 2,600 and gone straight-in. But, this doesn't sound like a vector to final clearance to me. Sounds like the guy was cleared non-radar direct to EK, which would have required a course reversal. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Brad Z wrote: "Yep, if you heard anything along the lines of "Vectors for the approach" in your clearance, this whole discussion is moot. And, if the vector rules had been properly applied, he would have been given a distance from the LOM when he received his final intercept heading, or when he received his approach clearance. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Uh... What the hell is an SDF? I don't think I have one in my plane.
Oh, and yeah, you need to do a PT at NEPCO since you didn't get a "vector to final" - but a simple 360 right turn would do. Next time you can just ask to skip the PT if you're already at 2600'. "O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message ... The Approach in question is SDF RWY 2 at KISW. I was coming in from the south, nearly lined up with the inbound course of 021 degrees. I was in touch with ATC. The LOM/IAF is called NEPCO. The ATC asked if I wanted "direct NEPCO." I said yes. Within about 10 miles of the airport, the controller said that frequency change was approved. I believe I was out of radar contact by this time (radar coverage in the area is spotty). 1. Since there is no "NO PT" indicated on the chart, does that mean that I am required to do a 180 deg turn when I reach NEPCO so I can track outbound (201), then do a PT, then come back? That seems a little odd to me. 2. If so, and I am assuming it is, should I have positioned myself to approach NEPCO at an intercept that did not require a 180 deg turn to get to the outbound course? Maybe come at it from the east? 3. Suppose that when I reach NEPCO (IAF), I am below the cloud deck. Assume that I have switched over to unicom frequency at that point. Is it permissible to abort the IFR approach and turn inbound for a visual approach. Presumably, you would have to ask ATC permission to do this. What if you can not raise ATC on the radio? Can you go visual on your own? -Sami N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"McGregor" wrote in message ink.net... Uh... What the hell is an SDF? I don't think I have one in my plane. I'll bet you don't have a localizer in your plane either, or an NDB or a VOR. An SDF is a Simplified Directional Facility, it's similar to a localizer. You'll find a description in the AIM. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 19:11:37 GMT, "McGregor"
wrote: Next time you can just ask to skip the PT if you're already at 2600'. Although controllers will often grant requests from pilots to shortcut SIAP's, that does not necessarily make the granted shortcut legal. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why is ADF or Radar Required on MFD ILS RWY 32 Approach Plate? | S. Ramirez | Instrument Flight Rules | 17 | April 2nd 04 11:13 AM |
Why an NDB approach with a miss to an intersection? | Ben Jackson | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | March 25th 04 03:53 AM |
Changes to Aircraft Approach Categories?! | skyliner | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | February 9th 04 08:55 PM |
Which of these approaches is loggable? | Paul Tomblin | Instrument Flight Rules | 26 | August 16th 03 05:22 PM |
IR checkride story! | Guy Elden Jr. | Instrument Flight Rules | 16 | August 1st 03 09:03 PM |