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 |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
An airliner crashed several years ago when the crew mistakenly
descended to the initial approach altitude when cleared for the approach several miles out. The CVR recorded the conversation between the two pilots discussing whether or not that meant they could go down to the IAF altitude (they had been cleared direct to the IAF not via a feeder fix). The captain won the discussion and the aircraft hit a ridgeline before the IAF. Unless established on a published segment of the approach, the aircraft is not automatically cleared to descend. Feeder fixes depicted on the approach plate are considered published segments of the approach and when approach clearance is received, the aircraft may descend to the MEA published for that feeder fix without specific clearance. |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
* 150flivver :
An airliner crashed several years ago when the crew mistakenly descended to the initial approach altitude when cleared for the approach several miles out. The CVR recorded the conversation between the two pilots discussing whether or not that meant they could go down to the IAF altitude (they had been cleared direct to the IAF not via a feeder fix). The captain won the discussion and the aircraft hit a ridgeline before the IAF. Did they sink thru MSA? Can you remember what airport and approach that was? Would like to look at the approach plate... Unless established on a published segment of the approach, the aircraft is not automatically cleared to descend. So their approach clearance would have meant to fly to the IAF at level, then "somehow" descend there, and then follow the approach? Or was ATC's behaviour just wrong and they should have asked for clarification? Best regards, Daniel (not a real pilot, so please bear with me if I'm talking/asking nonsense) |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
"Jose" wrote in message ... IF the controller fails to assign an altitude to maintain when giving the approach clearance umpty ump miles out, I presume the existing altitude assignment remains valid until the aircraft is established, in this case until SENNA, the start of the heavy black line. Yes? § 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR. (i) Operations on unpublished routes and use of radar in instrument approach procedures. When radar is approved at certain locations for ATC purposes, it may be used not only for surveillance and precision radar approaches, as applicable, but also may be used in conjunction with instrument approach procedures predicated on other types of radio navigational aids. Radar vectors may be authorized to provide course guidance through the segments of an approach to the final course or fix. When operating on an unpublished route or while being radar vectored, the pilot, when an approach clearance is received, shall, in addition to complying with §91.177, maintain the last altitude assigned to that pilot until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC. After the aircraft is so established, published altitudes apply to descent within each succeeding route or approach segment unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC. Upon reaching the final approach course or fix, the pilot may either complete the instrument approach in accordance with a procedure approved for the facility or continue a surveillance or precision radar approach to a landing. |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
* Steven P. McNicoll :
When operating on an unpublished route or while being radar vectored, the pilot, when an approach clearance is received, shall, in addition to complying with §91.177, maintain the last altitude assigned to that pilot until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC. Let's say I've been vectored on heading 090 at 4000ft, 5NM from LLZ rwy 18. This track is not part of a published IAF-to-FAF track. Published GS intercept altitude is 3000ft. ATC instructs "turn right heading 150, cleared ILS 18". My interpretation of your quote would be that I'm _not_ allowed to start descending to 3000ft while I'm turning to 150 but would have to stay on 4000ft until LLZ capture, and then descend (either with the glide, or to 3000ft in order to wait there for GS capture) - or declare unable if the GS is already below me at LLZ capture. Is that correct? Best regards, Daniel (not a real pilot, just trying to learn) |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
"Daniel Roesen" wrote in message ... Did they sink thru MSA? Elevation at the crash site was about 1,670 feet, MSA in that quadrant was 3300. Can you remember what airport and approach that was? Would like to look at the approach plate... VOR/DME RWY 12 at Dulles International, you can see it at alt.binaries.pictures.aviation, the subject is "Dulles VOR/DME RWY 12". So their approach clearance would have meant to fly to the IAF at level, then "somehow" descend there, and then follow the approach? Not to the IAF, until on a published segment of the approach. They were already on the Armel 300 radial, they would have been on a published segment of the approach when they reached ROUND HILL, 11.6 miles from the IAF. Or was ATC's behaviour just wrong and they should have asked for clarification? There was no ATC error, and asking for clarification certainly wouldn't have hurt them. The CVR indicated uncertainty of the proper altitude, the captain said the approach plate indicated the minimum altitude until ROUND HILL was 3400, but decided that clearance for the approach was clearance to the initial approach altitude. |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
* Steven P. McNicoll :
Can you remember what airport and approach that was? Would like to look at the approach plate... VOR/DME RWY 12 at Dulles International, you can see it at alt.binaries.pictures.aviation, the subject is "Dulles VOR/DME RWY 12". Thank you, got it. So their approach clearance would have meant to fly to the IAF at level, then "somehow" descend there, and then follow the approach? Not to the IAF, until on a published segment of the approach. Timothy Witt wrote: "they had been cleared direct to the IAF", e.g. "turn X heading Y direct ROUND HILL, cleared VOR/DME 12". They were already on the Armel 300 radial, they would have been on a published segment of the approach when they reached ROUND HILL, 11.6 miles from the IAF. If I'm not totally mistaken, ROUND HILL is 11.6 DME from the FAF (which is in turn 6 DME from AML), not the IAF. I guess ROUND HILL is the actual IAF?! Or was ATC's behaviour just wrong and they should have asked for clarification? There was no ATC error, and asking for clarification certainly wouldn't have hurt them. The CVR indicated uncertainty of the proper altitude, the captain said the approach plate indicated the minimum altitude until ROUND HILL was 3400, but decided that clearance for the approach was clearance to the initial approach altitude. Hm. My reading of the old approach plate would be to stay at or above 3300 (which MSA radius was used back then?) until ROUND HILL, then descend to 1800, and at 6 DME AML (FAF) start descending to MDA. Where did this captain get the idea to descend below the MEA of 1800ft before the FAF? You said "but decided that clearance for the approach was clearance to the initial approach altitude" - which would be 1800ft. Did they overshoot this descend (you mentioned 1670ft), or did he actually thought he could descend to MDA? Best regards, Daniel |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 03:34:29 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote: "Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message .. . 7110.65 4-8-1. APPROACH CLEARANCE a. ... Standard Instrument Approach Procedures shall commence at an Initial Approach Fix or an Intermediate Approach Fix if there is not an Initial Approach Fix. That requirement is not violated. AWI123 intercepts the localizer fifteen miles south of DEPRE. DEPRE is an IAF. What is the minimum altitude at DEPRE when it is being used as an IAF? AWI123 is level at 3000 and five miles south of DEPRE when cleared for the approach. He follows the localizer down and crosses DEPRE at 2141 MSL. How is the initial segment defined? The segment between the intial approach fix and the intermediate fix or the point where the aircraft is established on the intermediate course or final approach course. How will you navigate from DEPRE to the FAF for the ILS approach? Lateral guidance is provided by the localizer, if I've passed DEPRE I've passed the FAF. Just so I understand exactly what you are saying, is it your position that, when using DEPRE as the IAF for the purpose of starting this SIAP, if one is inbound, the legal minimum altitude at DEPRE is 2141'? Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 03:34:29 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote: "Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message .. . 7110.65 4-8-1. APPROACH CLEARANCE a. ... Standard Instrument Approach Procedures shall commence at an Initial Approach Fix or an Intermediate Approach Fix if there is not an Initial Approach Fix. That requirement is not violated. AWI123 intercepts the localizer fifteen miles south of DEPRE. DEPRE is an IAF. What is the minimum altitude at DEPRE when it is being used as an IAF? AWI123 is level at 3000 and five miles south of DEPRE when cleared for the approach. He follows the localizer down and crosses DEPRE at 2141 MSL. How is the initial segment defined? The segment between the intial approach fix and the intermediate fix or the point where the aircraft is established on the intermediate course or final approach course. How will you navigate from DEPRE to the FAF for the ILS approach? Lateral guidance is provided by the localizer, if I've passed DEPRE I've passed the FAF. One other question which I keep forgetting to ask: Does the TRACON have appropriate radar coverage and setup to use Radar Vectors to Final in this area? Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... Just so I understand exactly what you are saying, is it your position that, when using DEPRE as the IAF for the purpose of starting this SIAP, if one is inbound, the legal minimum altitude at DEPRE is 2141'? There is no Minimum Descent Altitude on an ILS approach, there is instead a Decision Height. AWI123 is level at 3000 and five miles south of DEPRE, on the localizer, when cleared for the approach. The aircraft leaves 3000 about 2.7 miles south of DEPRE, where it intercepts the glideslope. It follows the glideslope down, crossing DEPRE at 2141 MSL, to the decision height of 882 MSL. From that point it will either complete the approach visually or execute the missed approach procedure. |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... One other question which I keep forgetting to ask: Does the TRACON have appropriate radar coverage and setup to use Radar Vectors to Final in this area? Yes. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question | A Lieberman | Instrument Flight Rules | 18 | January 30th 05 04:51 PM |
Required hold? | Nicholas Kliewer | Instrument Flight Rules | 22 | November 14th 04 01:38 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 |