CFII question for Approach Gurus

"B" wrote in message ...

The related language in 7110.65 reads pretty much the same as the AIM.


Correct.

"B" wrote in message ...

BillJ wrote:
I had a surprise reaction from approach controller while entering the
GPS 23 at UCP:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0709/05842R23.PDF
I was doing a final pre-checkride lesson, and about 25 NW of UCP. In
IMC, assigned heading 250 at 4000. I expected the next word would be

initial situation snipped...

The controller was almost certainly applyin the provision where he is
authorized to clear you directly to an RNAV IAP's intermediate fix. If he
told you to expect clearance direct to ZARTO at least 5 miles from ZARTO
then you were expected to proceed straight-in in accordance with AIM 5-4-7
i:

"i. ATC may clear aircraft that have filed an Advanced RNAV equipment
suffix to the intermediate fix when clearing aircraft for an instrument
approach procedure. ATC will take the following actions when clearing
Advanced RNAV aircraft to the intermediate fix:
1. Provide radar monitoring to the intermediate fix.
2. Advise the pilot to expect clearance direct to the intermediate fix at
least 5 miles from the fix.
NOTE-
This is to allow the pilot to program the RNAV equipment to allow the
aircraft to fly to the intermediate fix when cleared by ATC.
3. Assign an altitude to maintain until the intermediate fix.
4. Insure the aircraft is on a course that will intercept the intermediate
segment at an angle not greater than 90 degrees and is at an altitude that
will permit normal descent from the intermediate fix to the final approach
fix."

So can anyone help to clairfy my understanding and/or straighten out the
published word? Would you have entered the hold?

No, you were required to go straight-in IAW AIM 5-4-7-i. That is, unless
he did it really quick and did not give you at least 5 miles to delete the
hold-in-lieu. Then it was up to up to suspect 5-4-7-i was being applied
and say "unable straight in, we will need a turn in the hold at ZARTO."

By the way I queried the student later about why he did the hold and he
said he didn't want to intercept the glide slope (LNAV+V...will be LPV
soon) from above in a descent. He thought there might be a "false lobe"
or phantom glideslope above as in ILS. We talked about that, so all in
all it was a good learning experience for him.

Well, at 4,000 the descent gradient from ZARTO to WOBUT is well under 3
degrees; 2.09 degrees actually.

You're right about the airway entry note at VOLAN, but that had nothing to
do about your handling.

Seems like pilots as a group have been very slow to understand AIM
5-4-7-1, which came into effect in February, 2006.

I assume you were actually NE, heading 250...

I agree with B. However, I would have expected the controller to
have issued you an altitude, maybe 3000', when you were cleared direct
ZARTO. This would have been one of my clues that I was being considered IAF
inbound.

You are right about the note "VOLAN westbound"

Al G CFIAMI

Al G wrote:
...

I agree with B. However, I would have expected the controller to
have issued you an altitude, maybe 3000', when you were cleared direct
ZARTO. This would have been one of my clues that I was being considered IAF
inbound.

You are right about the note "VOLAN westbound"

Al G CFIAMI


4,000 is compatible with the procedure, though. 3,000 is very flat.
I'll check the MVA for that area when I get a chance and let you know.

"B" wrote in message ...
Al G wrote:
..

I agree with B. However, I would have expected the controller to
have issued you an altitude, maybe 3000', when you were cleared direct
ZARTO. This would have been one of my clues that I was being considered
IAF inbound.

You are right about the note "VOLAN westbound"

Al G CFIAMI


4,000 is compatible with the procedure, though. 3,000 is very flat. I'll
check the MVA for that area when I get a chance and let you know.

Sure, it's compatible, I was thinking about #3 below, even if it is your
currently assigned altitude.


1. Provide radar monitoring to the intermediate fix.
2. Advise the pilot to expect clearance direct to the intermediate fix
at least 5 miles from the fix.
NOTE-
This is to allow the pilot to program the RNAV equipment to allow the
aircraft to fly to the intermediate fix when cleared by ATC.
3. Assign an altitude to maintain until the intermediate fix.
4. Insure the aircraft is on a course that will intercept the
intermediate segment at an angle not greater than 90 degrees and is at
an altitude that will permit normal descent from the intermediate fix to
the final approach fix."



Al G

In article , B wrote:

Not the way the chart is drawn. Look at, for example, the ACY GPS 13;
that's got terminal arrival areas (I think that's the right name) charted.
If they're not charted that way, they don't exist. The controller is just
plain wrong.

You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
effective February, 2006

So it would seem. Color me embarrassed.

Al G wrote:

4,000 is compatible with the procedure, though. 3,000 is very flat. I'll
check the MVA for that area when I get a chance and let you know.


Sure, it's compatible, I was thinking about #3 below, even if it is your
currently assigned altitude.


#3 Means the controller cannot assign an altitude below the MVA because
flying to the IF is off a published route.

#4 is more on-point; i.e., not only assign an alitude not below the MVA
but an altitude that will permit a normal descent (presumed to be about
300 feet per mile, or less).

I checked the MVA. It is 3,000 at the IF but 3,200 6 miles to the
northeast. If the controller wanted to use a cardinal altitude out to
the northeast that would be 4,000.

Sounds like proper handling to me. 4,000 or 3,000 would work at 5 miles.

1. Provide radar monitoring to the intermediate fix.
2. Advise the pilot to expect clearance direct to the intermediate fix
at least 5 miles from the fix.
NOTE-
This is to allow the pilot to program the RNAV equipment to allow the
aircraft to fly to the intermediate fix when cleared by ATC.
3. Assign an altitude to maintain until the intermediate fix.
4. Insure the aircraft is on a course that will intercept the
intermediate segment at an angle not greater than 90 degrees and is at
an altitude that will permit normal descent from the intermediate fix to
the final approach fix."



Al G

Bill Zaleski wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:07:34 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:


In article , B wrote:


Not the way the chart is drawn. Look at, for example, the ACY GPS 13;
that's got terminal arrival areas (I think that's the right name) charted.
If they're not charted that way, they don't exist. The controller is just
plain wrong.

You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
effective February, 2006

So it would seem. Color me embarrassed.



If the controller wants you to proceed straight in , and there is a
hold depicted at the IF, he must state to that effect when issuing the
approach clearance, It's not rocket science or guess work.

From the 7110.65:

If a hold in lieu of pattern is depicted and a straight-in area is not
defined
(e.g., "No PT" indicated at the fix), the aircraft must be
instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does
not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn."Cleared
direct CENTR, maintain at or above three thousand until
CENTR, cleared straight-in R-NAV Runway One Eight
approach."

If he did not state "straight in", then you were correct in making a
trip around the depicted hold. What did he say when issuing the
clearance?

He simply said "proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23 Approach...." What
you are saying is the way I understood it until "B" pointed out the AIM
section that seems to contradict and give a new twist to what happened.
In other words if you are cleared direct to an IF and the route/altitude
sets you up for straight in, you are to assume straight in is the way to
go.

Bill Zaleski wrote:

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:07:34 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:


In article , B wrote:


Not the way the chart is drawn. Look at, for example, the ACY GPS 13;
that's got terminal arrival areas (I think that's the right name) charted.
If they're not charted that way, they don't exist. The controller is just
plain wrong.

You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
effective February, 2006

So it would seem. Color me embarrassed.



If the controller wants you to proceed straight in , and there is a
hold depicted at the IF, he must state to that effect when issuing the
approach clearance, It's not rocket science or guess work.

From the 7110.65:

If a hold in lieu of pattern is depicted and a straight-in area is not
defined
(e.g., "No PT" indicated at the fix), the aircraft must be
instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does
not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn."Cleared
direct CENTR, maintain at or above three thousand until
CENTR, cleared straight-in R-NAV Runway One Eight
approach."

If he did not state "straight in", then you were correct in making a
trip around the depicted hold. What did he say when issuing the
clearance?

He simply said "proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23 Approach...." What
you are saying is the way I understood it until "B" pointed out the AIM
section that seems to contradict and give a new twist to what happened.
In other words if you are cleared direct to an IF and the route/altitude
sets you up for straight in, you are to assume straight in is the way to
go (provided you are /G)

In a previous article, B said:
The controller was almost certainly applyin the provision where he is
authorized to clear you directly to an RNAV IAP's intermediate fix. If
he told you to expect clearance direct to ZARTO at least 5 miles from
ZARTO then you were expected to proceed straight-in in accordance with
AIM 5-4-7 i:

If the fix is depicted as both an IAF and an IF, as this one is, how are
you supposed to know whether you've been cleared to it as an IAF or as a
IF?


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
I [was] looking at 30-40 of the most beautiful women in the world, each
eating a lollipop. Weirdly, every one had a different technique, but none
were doing it wrong. --Bob Church

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:43:33 -0700, B wrote:

#3 Means the controller cannot assign an altitude below the MVA because
flying to the IF is off a published route.

#4 is more on-point; i.e., not only assign an alitude not below the MVA
but an altitude that will permit a normal descent (presumed to be about
300 feet per mile, or less).

I checked the MVA. It is 3,000 at the IF but 3,200 6 miles to the
northeast. If the controller wanted to use a cardinal altitude out to
the northeast that would be 4,000.

Sounds like proper handling to me. 4,000 or 3,000 would work at 5 miles.


I'm not sure what you are writing here with regard to the altitude
restriction.

Whenever I've been cleared to an IAF or IF from an off-airway position,
I've always been assigned an altitude in conjunction with the clearance:

e.g." ...cross Zarto at or above 4,000; cleared RNAV Rwy 23 approach"

BillJ wrote that they were cleared to "proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23
approach" with no altitude restriction mentioned.

Is there still a requirement to state an altitude restriction until
established for GPS approaches being cleared to the IF from an off-airway
location?

If so, and if BillJ's recollection is correct (and if I didn't miss a
message where he stated he did receive the altitude restriction), than what
he received was not proper handling.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)