Clearance with an Odd Intersection

Air carriers almost always use canned flight plans that never vary,

Most air carrier flight plans are not canned in the sense that the same
flight plan is prefiled and does not ever change. Air carrier flight
plans are typically filed the same day as the flight and do vary
according to weather or flow restrictions.


and they seldom file /G.

If the aircraft is capable of /G then that is what they would file.
Nowadays with the jets pretty much all you see is /Q and /W.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:41:34 -0600, Journeyman
wrote:

In article , Marco Leon wrote:

Regardless, I agree with your advice that one should know their entire route
clearance before departure.

Flying in the NYC area (FRG) and you've never had an airborne reroute?


Morris


Reroutes aren't the issue.

If you get a reroute, you need to re-understand your (newly) planned
route, right to the ground.

What does that have to do with what I wrote? You should understand your
clearance regardless if it's a reroute or not.

Marco

"Journeyman" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Marco Leon wrote:

Regardless, I agree with your advice that one should know their entire
route
clearance before departure.

Flying in the NYC area (FRG) and you've never had an airborne reroute?


Morris



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Marco Leon" mleon(at)optonline.net wrote in message
...

Has anyone received a route clearance that included an intersection that
was only on an approach chart and not in an Enroute Chart?
Flew IFR from FRG to GON with the following clearance: Farmingdale Three,
radar vectors BDR, direct MAD, MAD 126 radial to MONDI, direct.
For the life of me I couldn't find MONDI on the enroute. However, it was
in my (up-to-date) Garmin 430 database and it was pretty much on the way
(albeit a bit of a dogleg) so I didn't make it an issue. Turns out MONDI
is only on the KGON ILS RWY 5 and it's not even an IAF. The GPS RWY 33 was
the active approach which made it even more difficult to figure out.

Is this commom anywhere else?


It's not unusual to use an approach fix at the destination airport.


Should they have told me it was only on an IAP chart?


Since you were landing there they probably assumed you were familiar with
the approaches.


Are all the fixes on any of a given airport's approach charts
fair-game to include in an enroute clearance?


If you're landing at that airport, yes.

If I were familiar with the airport, I would advise that I am unable to accept a
clearance direct to an intermediate fix. I'd request direct to an IAF or
vectors. The controller shouldn't place the pilot in such an uncomfortable
position by violating 7110.65, 4-8-1, "Standard Instrument Approach Procedures
shall commence at an Initial Approach Fix or an Intermediate Approach Fix if
there is not an Initial Approach Fix. Where adequate radar coverage exists,
radar facilities may vector aircraft to the final approach course in accordance
with para 5-9-1, Vectors to Final Approach Course.."

In article , wrote:

FRG to GON with the following clearance: Farmingdale Three, radar
vectors BDR, direct MAD, MAD 126 radial to MONDI, direct. [...] Turns
out MONDI is only on the KGON ILS RWY 5 and it's not even an IAF.

If I were familiar with the airport, I would advise that I am unable to
accept a clearance direct to an intermediate fix. I'd request direct to
an IAF or vectors.

Why are you unable to go direct to an intermediate fix in a radar
environment? Looking at http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0501/05049I5.PDF, it
seems to me that going direct MONDI puts you right where you want to be to
get vectored onto the ILS. So, would "direct MONDI, expect vectors to the
ILS final approach course" have made you any happier?

wrote in message ...

If I were familiar with the airport, I would advise that I am unable to
accept a
clearance direct to an intermediate fix. I'd request direct to an IAF or
vectors. The controller shouldn't place the pilot in such an
uncomfortable
position by violating 7110.65, 4-8-1, "Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures
shall commence at an Initial Approach Fix or an Intermediate Approach Fix
if
there is not an Initial Approach Fix. Where adequate radar coverage
exists,
radar facilities may vector aircraft to the final approach course in
accordance
with para 5-9-1, Vectors to Final Approach Course.."


A clearance direct to an intermediate fix was not issued in this case, the
clearance was the MAD 126 radial to MONDI, then direct to GON. The
controller did not violate FAAO 7110.65 para 5-9-1, this routing was issued
with the departure clearance from FRG.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

Why are you unable to go direct to an intermediate fix in a radar
environment? Looking at http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0501/05049I5.PDF, it
seems to me that going direct MONDI puts you right where you want to be to
get vectored onto the ILS.


The clearance issued in this case does not require going direct to an
intermediate fix. The portion of the clearance were concerned with is the
MAD 126 radial to MONDI, then direct to GON. The radial to MONDI is
specified and both segments are within usable navaid distances. This
clearance is good even in a nonradar environment.



So, would "direct MONDI, expect vectors to the
ILS final approach course" have made you any happier?


Approach instructions are generally not included in the departure clearance.

Roy Smith wrote:

In article , wrote:

FRG to GON with the following clearance: Farmingdale Three, radar
vectors BDR, direct MAD, MAD 126 radial to MONDI, direct. [...] Turns
out MONDI is only on the KGON ILS RWY 5 and it's not even an IAF.

If I were familiar with the airport, I would advise that I am unable to
accept a clearance direct to an intermediate fix. I'd request direct to
an IAF or vectors.

Why are you unable to go direct to an intermediate fix in a radar
environment? Looking at http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0501/05049I5.PDF, it
seems to me that going direct MONDI puts you right where you want to be to
get vectored onto the ILS. So, would "direct MONDI, expect vectors to the
ILS final approach course" have made you any happier?

I wish I could be sent direct to MONDI, provided it is at a angle and altitude
similar to a vector provided in accordance with 7110.65, 5-9-1.

And, the mighty chiefs at Air Traffic headquarters have been working on such a
handbook provision, which may come out this year, but only for RNAV
approaches. Ground based approaches would be be permitted this option per the
decision of one of the senior AT managers.

It is not a question of me being happy, it is a question of procedural limits
that are established by FAA management (usually, but not always, with good
reason).

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

If I were familiar with the airport, I would advise that I am unable to
accept a
clearance direct to an intermediate fix. I'd request direct to an IAF or
vectors. The controller shouldn't place the pilot in such an
uncomfortable
position by violating 7110.65, 4-8-1, "Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures
shall commence at an Initial Approach Fix or an Intermediate Approach Fix
if
there is not an Initial Approach Fix. Where adequate radar coverage
exists,
radar facilities may vector aircraft to the final approach course in
accordance
with para 5-9-1, Vectors to Final Approach Course.."


A clearance direct to an intermediate fix was not issued in this case, the
clearance was the MAD 126 radial to MONDI, then direct to GON. The
controller did not violate FAAO 7110.65 para 5-9-1, this routing was issued
with the departure clearance from FRG.

Agreed. I missed the MONDI-GON part.

Ground based approaches would be be permitted this option per the
decision of one of the senior AT managers.


Should read "not be" rather than "be be"