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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
Greg Esres wrote:
(As supporting evidence, the AIM says "Once cleared to fly the TAA, pilots are expected to obey minimum altitudes depicted within the TAA icons, unless instructed otherwise by air traffic control." This is clearly permissive.) To you it may be clearly permissive, to me it only implies that ATC can assign an altitude higher than the TAA area altitude. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
Greg Esres wrote:
(As supporting evidence, the AIM says "Once cleared to fly the TAA, pilots are expected to obey minimum altitudes depicted within the TAA icons, unless instructed otherwise by air traffic control." This is clearly permissive.) 4-8-1 b of 7110.65R states: b. For aircraft operating on unpublished routes, issue the approach clearance only after the aircraft is: 1. Established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure. 2. Assigned an altitude to maintain until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure. Further down 4-8-1 states, e. Where a Terminal Arrival Area (TAA) has been established to support RNAV approaches use the procedures under subpara b1 and b2 above. Clearly, none of this can serve to clear an aircraft within a TAA right base, left base, or direct entry area at an altitude below the published IAP minimum altitude for that area. Further, since the OLV IAP that started this thread was a TAA procedure, I believe the controller failed to apply the published area altitude of the TAA, especially if he issued the approach clearance prior to the IF. The pilot should have been assigned not less than 2,800 until the IF. When the new procedure was written it was all about off-route clearances; TAAs were not discussed. Nonethess less, it does not negate the existing ATC requirements for TAAs. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
Sam Spade wrote in news:nKjDg.567$cw.432@fed1read03:
Further, since the OLV IAP that started this thread was a TAA procedure, I believe the controller failed to apply the published area altitude of the TAA, especially if he issued the approach clearance prior to the IF. The pilot should have been assigned not less than 2,800 until the IF. This would be my take on it with charts in hand..... After all, once I am cleared for the approach, navigation is back in my court, and if my radios decided to call it the day, would seem rather "dangerous" in the clag flying lower then indicated on the approach charts. Sure, i could squawk 7600, and climb back to 2800, but the more changes you make in flight configurations, the more chance of errors developing. I did file a ASR report as to me, there is a major discrepancy between what the approach plate has and what instructions were given to me by ATC. Would seem that MVA would be inheritantly dangerous should the radios quit and here you are lower then what approach charts say you should be at. Granted as one other poster pointed out, there was only one antenna that was of any significant height, and not a factor in my approach, so 2100 would *seem* safe. Allen |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
The FAA has decided to take a literal reading of the rules.
Approaches start with either an IAF or vectors to final. I'm not questioning that. In the approach in question, the clearance fix WAS an IAF. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
To you it may be clearly permissive, to me it only implies that ATC
can assign an altitude higher than the TAA area altitude. That's what I thought you say. ;-) However, the sentence says "obey minimum altitudes". Any assigned higher altitude already obeys minimums, so the following phrase would be unnecessary. Not obeying minimums means going below. In English, anyway. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
Clearly, none of this can serve to clear an aircraft within a TAA
right base, left base, or direct entry area at an altitude below the published IAP minimum altitude for that area. That depends on how you're defining "on a route". First of all, a TAA arrival sector doesn't really meet the definition of a route in the Pilot/Controller's glossary, so that seems an open question. But that really isn't the important question here, IMO. Earlier, I asked you that if I were flying a path that coincided with a feeder route or airway, but my clearance had included neither, then would I be in violation of 91.177 by flying at a lower altitude than published. You said that you could not envision such a thing. (I'm sure you're familiar with clearances such as "cleared via the radials of V-999..." Regardless, you seem to arguing that if you are at a point in space that is encompassed by *some* route, then that altitude is binding on you. I am very much open to this interpretation, but I believe you need to carry it to its logical conclusion. I can think of three possible interpretations of what it means to be "on a rroute" 1) As stated above, you are within the lateral confines geogrraphically that is encompassed by *some* route, 2) You are within the lateral AND VERTICAL confines that is encompassed by *some* route. (If you are below the minimum altitude, you're not on that route.) 3) You are assigned a route by name, What's your take? |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
Greg Esres wrote:
True enough, provided the approach clearance is issued crossing that fix. Ok, so the controller says "Cross DOCAP at or above 2,100, cleared OLV RNAV 36." You agree that this is ok, even under the old procedure, because the fix is an IAF? And do you agree that "Cleared direct to DOCAP, maintain 2,100" is essentially the same clearance? But, you are not covering the circumstance where the controller places you on a published segment, and clears you for an approach *within the segment* at an altitude below the segment altitude. True, I ignored that because that doesn't seem to be the clearance the OP got. I have yet to see a controller have any inklink of what TAA arrival sectors are, much less expect the pilot to use them. Nonethless the TAA exists and the pilot correctly chose not to ignore the *published* IAP altitude that applied to his flight. I agree that the controller probably did not have a clue, which caused him or her to violate the 7110.65R. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
Greg Esres wrote:
To you it may be clearly permissive, to me it only implies that ATC can assign an altitude higher than the TAA area altitude. That's what I thought you say. ;-) However, the sentence says "obey minimum altitudes". Any assigned higher altitude already obeys minimums, so the following phrase would be unnecessary. Not obeying minimums means going below. In English, anyway. But, using English without context is folly. I provided you with the 7110.65R cites, which negates your assessment of the words in the abstract. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
Greg Esres wrote:
Regardless, you seem to arguing that if you are at a point in space that is encompassed by *some* route, then that altitude is binding on you. I am very much open to this interpretation, but I believe you need to carry it to its logical conclusion. From the TAA Order(8260.45A): "8.2.1 Straight-In Area. The arc boundary of the straight-in area is equivalent to a feeder fix. When crossing the boundary or when released by ATC within the straight-in area, an aircraft is expected to proceed direct to the IF(IAF)." So, since the FAA defines the arc boundary of the straight-in TAA area as the equivalent of a feeder fix, then the entire area inside that arc must be the equivalent of a feeder route. The TAA areas are published under FAR 97 as IAP altitudes. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
Greg Esres wrote in
: True enough, provided the approach clearance is issued crossing that fix. Ok, so the controller says "Cross DOCAP at or above 2,100, cleared OLV RNAV 36." You agree that this is ok, even under the old procedure, because the fix is an IAF? And do you agree that "Cleared direct to DOCAP, maintain 2,100" is essentially the same clearance? Greg, What you say above are not the same clearance. Your first one clears me for the GPS 36 approach to the airport. Your second one only clears me to DOCAP. If I am cleared direct to DOCAP, then my take is that DOCAP is my clearance limit. I better hear something before DOCAP or I will be asking if I am cleared for the approach. If I don't hear anything then I would just hold at DOCAP (direct entry from my 006 heading) and await a further clearance. Allen |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RAF Blind/Beam Approach Training flights | Geoffrey Sinclair | Military Aviation | 3 | September 4th 09 06:31 PM |
Contact approach question | Paul Tomblin | Instrument Flight Rules | 114 | January 31st 05 06:40 PM |
Approach Question- Published Missed Can't be flown? | Brad Z | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | May 6th 04 04:19 AM |
Where is the FAF on the GPS 23 approach to KUCP? | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 36 | April 16th 04 12:41 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |