Direct to intermediate approach fix?

Yesterday, we had filed /G (with a CNX-80). Our clearance was KPOU IGN
V157 HAARP -D- KHPN. Nothing out of the ordinary there.

HPN was using the ILS-16 (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0612/00651I16.PDF) We
were on V157 somewhere north of VALRE when we got "fly heading 200 to
intercept, um, no, tell you what, proceed direct FARAN, cleared ILS-16".
This is a pretty common thing for NY Approach to say, but as I study the
chart now, I don't think it's legit.

I asked NY Approach for an initial heading to FARAN and got back an annoyed
sounding, "it's the initial approach fix" (along with a 200 heading). The
problem is, it's NOT an IAF. Which means that you can't pick it out of the
menu of IAFs for the approach. And since it wasn't on our original route,
you can't pick it out of the flight plan. You need to spell it out letter
by letter from the database (which takes a while, hence the request for an
initial heading).

The alternative would be to select IGN as the IAF from the approach menu,
execute that, then go into the flight plan and select direct to FARAN.
Except that it takes a while to figure that out, and I'm not even sure if
the box will let you do it.

It was my understanding that there's only two legit ways to clear a flight
for an approach -- give them direct to an IAF, or give them vectors to the
FAC. In this case, "direct FARAN, cleared ILS" is neither. Am I correct
that this is a bum clearance?

If they want to send people direct to FARAN (which they often do), why
don't they just declare FARAN to be an IAF? Then it would get into the
database that way, it would show up on everybody's IAF menus, and we would
all be happy campers.

One of the ways to educate controllers is by using ASRS. When the NASA guys
at Moffet Field call NY TRACON, the offending controller(s) will get the
word.

Bob Gardner

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
Yesterday, we had filed /G (with a CNX-80). Our clearance was KPOU IGN
V157 HAARP -D- KHPN. Nothing out of the ordinary there.

HPN was using the ILS-16 (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0612/00651I16.PDF) We
were on V157 somewhere north of VALRE when we got "fly heading 200 to
intercept, um, no, tell you what, proceed direct FARAN, cleared ILS-16".
This is a pretty common thing for NY Approach to say, but as I study the
chart now, I don't think it's legit.

I asked NY Approach for an initial heading to FARAN and got back an
annoyed
sounding, "it's the initial approach fix" (along with a 200 heading). The
problem is, it's NOT an IAF. Which means that you can't pick it out of
the
menu of IAFs for the approach. And since it wasn't on our original route,
you can't pick it out of the flight plan. You need to spell it out letter
by letter from the database (which takes a while, hence the request for an
initial heading).

The alternative would be to select IGN as the IAF from the approach menu,
execute that, then go into the flight plan and select direct to FARAN.
Except that it takes a while to figure that out, and I'm not even sure if
the box will let you do it.

It was my understanding that there's only two legit ways to clear a flight
for an approach -- give them direct to an IAF, or give them vectors to the
FAC. In this case, "direct FARAN, cleared ILS" is neither. Am I correct
that this is a bum clearance?

If they want to send people direct to FARAN (which they often do), why
don't they just declare FARAN to be an IAF? Then it would get into the
database that way, it would show up on everybody's IAF menus, and we would
all be happy campers.

Bob Gardner wrote:
One of the ways to educate controllers is by using ASRS. When the NASA guys
at Moffet Field call NY TRACON, the offending controller(s) will get the
word.

You'd be much better off calling the TRACON.

Roy Smith wrote:

This is a pretty common thing for NY Approach to say, but as I study the
chart now, I don't think it's legit.

It's not legit. You're right. IAF or vectors to final.


The alternative would be to select IGN as the IAF from the approach menu,
execute that, then go into the flight plan and select direct to FARAN.
Except that it takes a while to figure that out, and I'm not even sure if
the box will let you do it.

Yep, it will let you do that. I just did it on the simulator for
this approach. I've had to do similar things in the past at Dulles.

Newps wrote:


Bob Gardner wrote:
One of the ways to educate controllers is by using ASRS. When the NASA
guys at Moffet Field call NY TRACON, the offending controller(s) will
get the word.

You'd be much better off calling the TRACON.

Ask for the QA guy. They will research it and get you an answer.

Might not be limited to New York, newps. You know as well as I do that GPS
is not fully understood by a lot of controllers who speak fluent VOR,

Bob

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


Bob Gardner wrote:
One of the ways to educate controllers is by using ASRS. When the NASA
guys at Moffet Field call NY TRACON, the offending controller(s) will get
the word.

You'd be much better off calling the TRACON.

I roll my own GPS assisted ILS's. Usually its a flight plan with the
FAF and the airport. Pick it and go there. Then I use the loc/GS to fly
the ILS on it, but the GPS is there, to assist.

You will find that a lot with GPS approaches too. They vector you to a
non-IAP fix. Get prepared for it.

"Doug" wrote in message ups.com...


You will find that a lot with GPS approaches too. They vector you to a
non-IAP fix. Get prepared for it.

Indeed. Two days ago, I experienced exactly that, except the controller
first asked if I would like to receive vectors to that non-IAF fix.
Very nice of her to give me the choice, I thought.

It is now legit to clear an aircraft to an IF on an RNAV approach. I think
some of the controllers have mixed that up with other approaches. I have
received direct to an IAF/IF/FAF (the VOR) on a dogleg VOR/DME approach,
cleared straight-in approach. I questioned the controller, he amended the
clearance to vectors to the dogleg intermediate segment, which is also not
allowed by the 7110.65.



"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
Yesterday, we had filed /G (with a CNX-80). Our clearance was KPOU IGN
V157 HAARP -D- KHPN. Nothing out of the ordinary there.

HPN was using the ILS-16 (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0612/00651I16.PDF) We
were on V157 somewhere north of VALRE when we got "fly heading 200 to
intercept, um, no, tell you what, proceed direct FARAN, cleared ILS-16".
This is a pretty common thing for NY Approach to say, but as I study the
chart now, I don't think it's legit.

I asked NY Approach for an initial heading to FARAN and got back an
annoyed
sounding, "it's the initial approach fix" (along with a 200 heading). The
problem is, it's NOT an IAF. Which means that you can't pick it out of
the
menu of IAFs for the approach. And since it wasn't on our original route,
you can't pick it out of the flight plan. You need to spell it out letter
by letter from the database (which takes a while, hence the request for an
initial heading).

The alternative would be to select IGN as the IAF from the approach menu,
execute that, then go into the flight plan and select direct to FARAN.
Except that it takes a while to figure that out, and I'm not even sure if
the box will let you do it.

It was my understanding that there's only two legit ways to clear a flight
for an approach -- give them direct to an IAF, or give them vectors to the
FAC. In this case, "direct FARAN, cleared ILS" is neither. Am I correct
that this is a bum clearance?

If they want to send people direct to FARAN (which they often do), why
don't they just declare FARAN to be an IAF? Then it would get into the
database that way, it would show up on everybody's IAF menus, and we would
all be happy campers.

Roy Smith wrote:



If they want to send people direct to FARAN (which they often do), why
don't they just declare FARAN to be an IAF? Then it would get into the
database that way, it would show up on everybody's IAF menus, and we would
all be happy campers.

We went through all this perhaps a year ago on this group. Clearances
direct-to the IF on RNAV approaches is now legal provided certain
protocols are observed.

It has been in the AIM for perhaps a year now. ;-)