Approach to an LOM/IAF with PT (not vectors to final)

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:50:12 -0500, "O. Sami Saydjari"
wrote:

The Approach in question is SDF RWY 2 at KISW. I was coming in from the
south, nearly lined up with the inbound course of 021 degrees. I was in
touch with ATC. The LOM/IAF is called NEPCO. The ATC asked if I wanted
"direct NEPCO." I said yes. Within about 10 miles of the airport, the
controller said that frequency change was approved. I believe I was out
of radar contact by this time (radar coverage in the area is spotty).


I don't see in your summary where the controller cleared you for the
approach??? If so, what altitude did he tell you to maintain until NEPCO?


1. Since there is no "NO PT" indicated on the chart, does that mean that
I am required to do a 180 deg turn when I reach NEPCO so I can track
outbound (201), then do a PT, then come back?

Yes

That seems a little odd to me.

Probably because we don't have all the data.


2. If so, and I am assuming it is, should I have positioned myself to
approach NEPCO at an intercept that did not require a 180 deg turn to
get to the outbound course? Maybe come at it from the east?


If you are starting out south of the airport, it seems to me to be quicker
to fly to NEPCO and then do the PT as you are losing altitude.



3. Suppose that when I reach NEPCO (IAF), I am below the cloud deck.
Assume that I have switched over to unicom frequency at that point. Is
it permissible to abort the IFR approach and turn inbound for a visual
approach. Presumably, you would have to ask ATC permission to do this.

Correct.


What if you can not raise ATC on the radio? Can you go visual on your
own?

In an emergency situation, yes. If not, try to get a relay from FSS or
another a/c.



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

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:50:12 -0500, "O. Sami Saydjari"
wrote:


The Approach in question is SDF RWY 2 at KISW. I was coming in from the
south, nearly lined up with the inbound course of 021 degrees. I was in
touch with ATC. The LOM/IAF is called NEPCO. The ATC asked if I wanted
"direct NEPCO." I said yes. Within about 10 miles of the airport, the
controller said that frequency change was approved. I believe I was out
of radar contact by this time (radar coverage in the area is spotty).



I don't see in your summary where the controller cleared you for the
approach??? If so, what altitude did he tell you to maintain until NEPCO?



Sorry. Yes, I believe he cleared me for the SDF RWY 2 approach,
maintain 3000 until established on the localizer. It has been several
weeks, so this is my best recollection of what was said to me.

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 23:06:49 -0500, "O. Sami Saydjari"
wrote:

Sorry. Yes, I believe he cleared me for the SDF RWY 2 approach,
maintain 3000 until established on the localizer. It has been several
weeks, so this is my best recollection of what was said to me.

Well, if your recollection is accurate, there is a problem with that
clearance. From what you wrote previously, I am assuming you were on a
random route (i.e. not on a published route).

I believe you should have been given an altitude to maintain until NEPCO;
or not cleared for the approach until established on the localizer and then
given a distance to NEPCO and/or an altitude to maintain of 2600' if this
were a VTF clearance. (There may be other phraseology; I'm not a
controller).

I would not have assumed anything from that clearance with regard to VTF.

If the clearance was, in fact, maintain 3000 until NEPCO, I would have
executed the PT to lose altitude to 2600, probably using a racetrack
maneuver.

If the clearance was, in fact, maintain 3000 until intercepting the
localizer, I would have asked ATC for my distance from NEPCO and, if I was
within the PT distance, asked them specifically if this was "vectors to
final". I would NOT have used "readback what I want" trick and hope that
ATC would catch the error if they made it. Why be indirect and take a
chance on confusion, when you can ask your question directly?


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

If the clearance was, in fact, maintain 3000 until intercepting the
localizer, I would have asked ATC for my distance from NEPCO and, if I was
within the PT distance, asked them specifically if this was "vectors to
final". I would NOT have used "readback what I want" trick and hope that
ATC would catch the error if they made it. Why be indirect and take a
chance on confusion, when you can ask your question directly?



This is one of the consistent big disconnects in vectors to final where the
controller fails to call the distance from EK. Had the controller stated a
poition less than 10 miles from EK, then the guy would have been established
for approach clearance purposes as soon as he intercepted, whereupon he could
have descended to 2,600 and gone straight-in.

But, this doesn't sound like a vector to final clearance to me. Sounds like
the guy was cleared non-radar direct to EK, which would have required a course
reversal.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 07:31:05 -0700, wrote:

This is one of the consistent big disconnects in vectors to final where the
controller fails to call the distance from EK. Had the controller stated a
poition less than 10 miles from EK, then the guy would have been established
for approach clearance purposes as soon as he intercepted, whereupon he could
have descended to 2,600 and gone straight-in.

Exactly.


But, this doesn't sound like a vector to final clearance to me. Sounds like
the guy was cleared non-radar direct to EK, which would have required a course
reversal.

But then the "maintain 3000" should have been until NEPCO, and not until
intercepting the LOC. It sounds to me as if either the OP's recollection
is faulty, or the controller used improper phraseology.


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

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:


Sorry. Yes, I believe he cleared me for the SDF RWY 2 approach,
maintain 3000 until established on the localizer. It has been several
weeks, so this is my best recollection of what was said to me.

And, how would you know you were established on a *published* segment of the
localizer, which is what "established" means in the context of approach
clearances?

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

The Approach in question is SDF RWY 2 at KISW. I was coming in from the
south, nearly lined up with the inbound course of 021 degrees. I was in
touch with ATC. The LOM/IAF is called NEPCO. The ATC asked if I wanted
"direct NEPCO." I said yes. Within about 10 miles of the airport, the
controller said that frequency change was approved. I believe I was out
of radar contact by this time (radar coverage in the area is spotty).

1. Since there is no "NO PT" indicated on the chart, does that mean that
I am required to do a 180 deg turn when I reach NEPCO so I can track
outbound (201), then do a PT, then come back? That seems a little odd
to me.

It was odd because you were at 3,000, and you needed the course reversal to
descend to 2,600 so your descent gradient would have been as designed into
the IAP. In this case crossing the LOM 400 feet high probably wouldn't
matter, but it would at some locations.

Uh... What the hell is an SDF? I don't think I have one in my plane.

Oh, and yeah, you need to do a PT at NEPCO since you didn't get a "vector to
final" - but a simple 360 right turn would do. Next time you can just ask to
skip the PT if you're already at 2600'.

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...
The Approach in question is SDF RWY 2 at KISW. I was coming in from the
south, nearly lined up with the inbound course of 021 degrees. I was in
touch with ATC. The LOM/IAF is called NEPCO. The ATC asked if I wanted
"direct NEPCO." I said yes. Within about 10 miles of the airport, the
controller said that frequency change was approved. I believe I was out
of radar contact by this time (radar coverage in the area is spotty).

1. Since there is no "NO PT" indicated on the chart, does that mean that
I am required to do a 180 deg turn when I reach NEPCO so I can track
outbound (201), then do a PT, then come back? That seems a little odd
to me.

2. If so, and I am assuming it is, should I have positioned myself to
approach NEPCO at an intercept that did not require a 180 deg turn to
get to the outbound course? Maybe come at it from the east?

3. Suppose that when I reach NEPCO (IAF), I am below the cloud deck.
Assume that I have switched over to unicom frequency at that point. Is
it permissible to abort the IFR approach and turn inbound for a visual
approach. Presumably, you would have to ask ATC permission to do this.
What if you can not raise ATC on the radio? Can you go visual on your
own?

-Sami
N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III

"McGregor" wrote in message
ink.net...

Uh... What the hell is an SDF? I don't think I have one in my plane.


I'll bet you don't have a localizer in your plane either, or an NDB or a
VOR.

An SDF is a Simplified Directional Facility, it's similar to a localizer.
You'll find a description in the AIM.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

Uh... What the hell is an SDF? I don't think I have one in my plane.

I'll bet you don't have a localizer in your plane either, or an NDB or a
VOR.

An SDF is a Simplified Directional Facility, it's similar to a localizer.
You'll find a description in the AIM.

Well, you're right. I've got a KX155, a KNS80 and an M3 GPS. Are SDFs more
prevelant out East? I've flown an LDA, but never an SDF.