Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn

* Steven P. McNicoll :
follows the glideslope down, crossing DEPRE at 2141 MSL, to the decision
height of 882 MSL.

The decision height is 200ft for straight-in ILS 36. What you mean is
the decision altitude. Unless I've misunderstood something completely.


Best regards,
Daniel

"Daniel Roesen" wrote in message
...

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?


Where's LLZ? Sounds like the heading will intercept inside the LOM.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:35:42 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"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.


Your answer is not responsive to my question, but perhaps I did not write
clearly. So I will try to be more clear:

I did not mean to ask you about an MDA for this ILS approach. Nor am I
concerned about how the approach is flown from the FAF to DH.

I ask how your procedure without radar vectors satisfies the requirement
that this approach begin at an IAF.

I thought you indicated that DEPRE was the applicable IAF to satisfy this
requirement. Was that an incorrect assumption?

If DEPRE is the applicable IAF, it must have a minimum crossing altitude.
Since traffic is passing DEPRE at 2141', I would have expected that you
would think that is legal when DEPRE is being used as the IAF from which
this approach begins. Is that your position?

If DEPRE is not the applicable IAF, then I don't see how your procedure
meets the requirements of the 7110.65 that a non-vectored approach begin at
an IAF.

--------------------------------------

Out of curiousity, does the Green Bay TRACON have the appropriate radar
equipment and screen markings to legally issue radar vectors to final for
this approach?


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

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 20:36:51 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"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.


Please ignore this question in my last post. I had not seen this response
of yours.

Although it does make your original scenario seem even more odd to me; but
I'll reserve comments until after considering your response to my other
questions and gathering some more information.


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

"Daniel Roesen" wrote in message
...

Timothy Witt wrote: "they had been cleared direct to the IAF", e.g.
"turn X heading Y direct ROUND HILL, cleared VOR/DME 12".


Who's Timothy Witt?

"At 10:51 the [Washington] center controller gave the flight a heading of
090 to intercept the 300-degree radial of the Armel VOR, to cross a point 25
miles west of Armel at 8,000, and '...the three-zero-zero radial will be for
the VOR approach to Runway One-Two at Dulles, altimeter
two-niner-point-seven-four.' The crew acknowledged. Cockpit voice recordings
(CVR) showed that the VOR was tuned and altimeters properly set."

"At 10:57 the crew again discussed the approach, including Round Hill
intersection, the final approach fix, VASI, runway lights, and the airport
diagram."

"At 11:01 the flight was cleared to 7,000 feet and handed off to Dulles
Approach Control. Dulles cleared it to proceed inbound to Armel VOR and to
expect the VOR/DME approach to Runway 12. At 11:04 the flight reported level
at 7,000, and five seconds later the controller said, 'TWA Five-Fourteen,
you're cleared for a VOR/DME approach to Runway One-Two.' The captain
acknowledged this."

http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9806.html



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?!


Oops. I should have written, "...when they reached ROUND HILL, 11.6 miles
from the FAF. There is no designated IAF on this plate.



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.


According to the regulation in effect today, given the clearance TWA514
received, you'd stay at 7,000 until ROUND HILL.



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?


They were descending to 1,800. The weather was bad, the CVR mentions a
downdraft and a bumpy ride. Why the captain chose 1,800 is a mystery. If
you extend the 300 radial beyond ROUND HILL, you can see they'd be flying
almost directly over a 1764' obstruction. The MSA for the quadrant they
were in is 3300'. The MEA for the route from Front Royal VOR, which was
just 14 degrees off of their track, was 3400'. How anyone could examine
that plate and conclude 1800 MSL was a good altitude west of ROUND HILL is a
mystery to me.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:50:51 +0000 (UTC), Daniel Roesen wrote:

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?

According to what I was told by people who were in a position to know, that
idea that "clearance for the approach was also clearance to immediately
descend to the initial approach altitude" was part of the airline training
(at the particular airline) at that time.

I, too, was surpised as my IFR training, occurring a few years earlier,
would have led me to NOT descend until I was on a charted portion of the
approach.

Needless to say, that accident led to changes both in ATC procedures as
well as airline training.


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

* Steven P. McNicoll :

"Daniel Roesen" wrote in message
...

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?

Where's LLZ?

It's the localizer, not a fix.

Sounds like the heading will intercept inside the LOM.

Probably. Does that matter? Point being that I'm on hdg 150 towards
intercepting the localizer on 4000ft when being cleared for ILS. As
this is radar vectoring and my position not on a published procedure
track until I did capture the localizer and am established on FAC,
I understand that I'm not allowed to descend on my own. In my scenary
I would have the glideslope falling thru while I'm still heading for
localizer, so I may not descend. Ergo I can descend only at a time
when the GS is already below me.


Best regards,
Daniel

* Steven P. McNicoll :
Timothy Witt wrote: "they had been cleared direct to the IAF", e.g.
"turn X heading Y direct ROUND HILL, cleared VOR/DME 12".

Who's Timothy Witt?

The person who posted .com
as deducted from his email address.

"At 10:51 the [Washington] center controller gave the flight a heading of
090 to intercept the 300-degree radial of the Armel VOR, to cross a point 25
miles west of Armel at 8,000, and '...the three-zero-zero radial will be for
the VOR approach to Runway One-Two at Dulles, altimeter
two-niner-point-seven-four.' The crew acknowledged. Cockpit voice recordings
(CVR) showed that the VOR was tuned and altimeters properly set."

"At 10:57 the crew again discussed the approach, including Round Hill
intersection, the final approach fix, VASI, runway lights, and the airport
diagram."

"At 11:01 the flight was cleared to 7,000 feet and handed off to Dulles
Approach Control. Dulles cleared it to proceed inbound to Armel VOR and to
expect the VOR/DME approach to Runway 12. At 11:04 the flight reported level
at 7,000, and five seconds later the controller said, 'TWA Five-Fourteen,
you're cleared for a VOR/DME approach to Runway One-Two.' The captain
acknowledged this."

http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9806.html

Thanks. I can see no clearance "direct to the IAF" there. Only vector
to intercept the FAC for the VOR/DME 12.

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?!

Oops. I should have written, "...when they reached ROUND HILL, 11.6 miles
from the FAF. There is no designated IAF on this plate.

OK. Wasn't sure wether IAFs were explicitly marked as such almost 30
years ago. I'm only familiar with today's charts. :-)

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.

According to the regulation in effect today, given the clearance TWA514
received, you'd stay at 7,000 until ROUND HILL.

Yep, fully agree. Good to see that I actually understood one thing and
another. :-)

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?

They were descending to 1,800. The weather was bad, the CVR mentions a
downdraft and a bumpy ride. Why the captain chose 1,800 is a mystery.

Indeed.

The MSA for the quadrant they were in is 3300'. The MEA for the route
from Front Royal VOR, which was just 14 degrees off of their track,
was 3400'.

Yeah, that's why I asked what MSA radius was used back then, as it's not
stated on the approach plate. The enroute segment with the 3400ft MEA
is (IIRC) about 18nm long, so it's certainly longer than the MSA radius.

How anyone could examine that plate and conclude 1800 MSL was a good
altitude west of ROUND HILL is a mystery to me.

Indeed.

Best regards,
Daniel

"Tim Auckland" wrote in message
...
Another example from the same plate:

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0510/00375I28R.PDF

You've not been given "vectors to final".
You're established on the approach from the IAF FAITH.
You're at 4100 feet.
You fly over DUMBA.
The leg from FAITH to DUMBA is NOT marked NoPT.

I'm in the camp which thinks (hopes?) that a turn in the hold at DUMBA
is not logical nor required.

Three questions:

a) does anyone think a turn in the hold at DUMBA is required? If so,
why?

b) should the leg from FAITH to DUMBA be marked "NoPT"?

I emailed the FAA at their chart-error address ),
and just received a reply:

"Thanks for your e-mail. You have brought up a very interesting question.
The arrival over FAITH INT should have a 'NoPT' associated with it, and a
T-NOTAM (see below) is being issued to cover the procedure until amended.
Coincidentally, this chart was already being amended, and the amendment will
be published in the Oct 27,2005 edition of the chart. The amendment will now
replace FAITH INT with MEHTA INT, located 0.6 NM southeast of the current
location of FAITH. The transition from MEHTA will have an associated 'NoPT'.
!FDC 5/9250 SFO FI/T SAN FRANCISCO INTL, SAN FRANCISCO, CA. ILS RWY 28R (CAT
I, II, III), AMDT 10A. TERMINAL ROUTE FROM FAITH INT TO DUMBA INT NOPT."

--Gary

"Daniel Roesen" wrote in message
...

The decision height is 200ft for straight-in ILS 36. What you mean is
the decision altitude. Unless I've misunderstood something completely.


No, I mean decision height. The decision height for the S-ILS 36 is 882
MSL, the height above touchdown is 200 feet.