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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
Tim Auckland wrote:
To me, the issue hinges on whether the controller thought he was issuing a clearance based on the traditional method of clearing the plane to the IAF. In this case, it's my belief that the controller made a mistake, and should have assigned 2800 as the altititude. If, on the hand, the controller was intending to follow the new procedure of "direct clearance to an intermediate fix", then 2100 is appropriate, but the controller should have advised the pilot to "expect clearance direct to the Intermediate Fix" while the plane was at least 5 miles from the fix. The OP didn't indicate whether or not he was advised of this. Good points. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
We all have different experiences.
That's why we share on this newsgroup. However, I'm still trying to pin down your thoughts on this issue, so I'll ask again: "Would your opinion change if the OP had been cleared direct to the IAF at 2,100, yet approach clearance were withheld until he arrived there?" I predict that either "yes" or "no" will undermine your evaluation of the situation. ;-) |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
Under the old procedures, had this not been a TAA procedure I would
have accepted no lower than 2,800 and done the course reversal, making it clear to ATC that I would do the course reversal. What is inconsistent about any of that? As stated, sounds good to me. ;-) But the key phrase is "had this not been a TAA procedure". Your earlier statements seemed to indicate you were not drawing a distinction between a TAA and a random RNAV approach. Here's what I infer from your above paragraph: With a TAA approach (such as the one under discussion), even under the old procedure, it is ok to be cleared direct to the straight-in IAF at an altitude below the sector altitude, as long as the altitude is compatible with the minimum intermediate altitude and at or above MVA. If you disagree with that, then I'd like to explore further why this might be so, |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
The controller, as others have stated, has an MVA (minimum vectoring
altitude) chart. He wouldn't (shouldn't) clear you down to 2100' outside DOCAP if you'd be hitting something. Here's the plate: http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0608/05883R36.PDF Nobody can fault you for being cautious and aware... I think congratulations are in order for being "in the game" with your head and not just BLINDLY following altitude and heading clearances. CFIT results from that course of action. That said, I think you should have just verified with the controller. Congestion on the radio might have made that difficult. Without that, I would have gone down to 2100, for two reasons: 1) That was your last clearance; 2) A look at the approach plate shows that the tallest obstruction is just off to the east, ESE of Holly Springs, at 1049' MSL. The plates always put the highest obstruction in a bolder / larger font. Troy |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
Suffice it to say that a clearance prior to the new procedure does
not negate the TAA sectors, unless it were a vector to within the intermediate segment. Ok, this backs us up a few posts. ;-) I believe this to be insupportable even in theory, not to mention contrary to ATC practice and expectation. I would appreciate your agreeing or disagreeing with the following statements: 1) ATC has the right to clear me to any fix they choose, as long they assign me an altitude at or above MVA/MIA, yes? 2) And it doesn't matter if my course happens to underlie any published segment, such as an airway, feeder route, or IAP, because I have an assigned altitude based on MVA, which assumedly meets 91.177 minimums and I'm not currently executing an IAP. 3) Once I arrive at that fix, if cleared for the approach, none of the previous altitudes I flew while getting there suddenly become illegal. (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.) |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
Greg Esres wrote:
3) Once I arrive at that fix, if cleared for the approach, none of the previous altitudes I flew while getting there suddenly become illegal. The FAA has decided to take a literal reading of the rules. Approaches start with either an IAF or vectors to final. While you might get some slack from a controller, that's not the official FAA party line. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
Greg Esres wrote:
Suffice it to say that a clearance prior to the new procedure does not negate the TAA sectors, unless it were a vector to within the intermediate segment. Ok, this backs us up a few posts. ;-) I believe this to be insupportable even in theory, not to mention contrary to ATC practice and expectation. I would appreciate your agreeing or disagreeing with the following statements: 1) ATC has the right to clear me to any fix they choose, as long they assign me an altitude at or above MVA/MIA, yes? Yes, provided the fix is where you want to be going, or eithin reason. 2) And it doesn't matter if my course happens to underlie any published segment, such as an airway, feeder route, or IAP, because I have an assigned altitude based on MVA, which assumedly meets 91.177 minimums and I'm not currently executing an IAP. Yes, that is generally correct in spite of occasional violations of 91.177 by some MVAs and MIAs, but those are "technical" so far as the FAA is concernec, and (as you state) so long as you are not currently executing an IAP. 3) Once I arrive at that fix, if cleared for the approach, none of the previous altitudes I flew while getting there suddenly become illegal. True enough, provided the approach clearance is issued crossing that fix. 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. Until the new direct-to-the-IF procedure came into effect that immediate places you in violation of the Part 95 minimum altitude for the segment, which typically would be a TAA. And, the new procedure is not triggered unless the controller says the magic words, not less than five miles from the IF. Further, the new procedure can only be used for RNAV IAPs. (The magic words being: The pilot is advised to expect clearance direct to the Intermediate Fix at least 5 miles from the fix.) (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.) |
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 |