VOR/DME Approach Question

On 24 Aug 2004 13:33:47 -0700, (Michael)
wrote:

The key here is this - if you're vectoring the guy to the FAC, no
procedure turn. If you've cleared him direct to the IAF, he does the
PT. It's just that simple.

I agree with you.

In addition, Chip should be aware that there are cut-and-dried requirements
in his 7110.65 in order for him to be able to give legal radar vectors to
the FAC so that the pilot will not do the PT. (7110.65 5-9-1)

It does not seem to me as if the requirements were met.






--ron

What the hell, I'll jump in. Just doing a quick search on "full approach",
I didnt find anything relating to the FARS, the AIM, or the 7110.65. If
someone else wants to look through the hundreds of hits, go at it. But
I did find one interesting reference to it in an old AOPA article
http://home.columbus.rr.com/lusch/aopa_article01.html
in part it says...."A pilot training for an instrument rating learns to fly
a full approach* cross the initial approach fix, fly outbound for a minute
or two, execute a procedure turn to get headed the opposite direction, and
fly inbound on the final approach course while descending to decision
altitude or the missed approach point. A full approach is a staple of
instrument flying, yet some pilots rarely, if ever, have to fly one other
than during initial or recurrency/proficiency training. That's because a
full approach usually is required only when radar service is not available,
and radar is available at most larger and busier instrument airports. Pilots
come to expect radar vectors to final approach courses and that ATC will
keep an electronic eye on them all the way to a successful conclusion of
every approach...."

Full approach, which isnt exactly what the pilot said, he said "would like
to shoot the full VOR/DME 22 into Rockwood". This may be splitting hairs,
but he didnt say it (which I'm not convinced there is any such phraseology),
but even if he did, that was a REQUEST, which is not always which is
given by the controller.

I dont think it's so simple that the pilot is expected to do a PT.
On procedure turns, the AIM, as earlier stated does indeed say....
5-4-9. Procedure Turn

a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of
procedure turn is a required maneuver.

First off, as we are reminded quite often, the AIM is not regulatory.
Secondly,
if you read that verbatim, it says "when it is necessary". Giving someone
a vector, or this clearance where it's within 30 degrees or so, basically a
straight-in to the IAF, I do not consider the PT "necessary". You can't
tell
me that a course reversal on damn near a straight-in could ever be mistaken
in court as "necessary" for the establishment of this intermediate part of
the approach, UNLESS the airplane is way too high, which in this case is
not applicable as the altitude was good and in accordance with the IAP.

Also in 5-4-9a5 "A procedure turn is not required when an approach can be
made directly from a specified intermediate fix to the final approach fix. "
Is MINES an intermediate fix? It's not the FAF, it is an IAF, can it also
be an intermediate fix in the context of this clearance which includes a
non-published route prior to it? Tough to say.

Lastly on 5-4-9b1 "In the case of a radar initial approach to a final
approach fix or position, or a timed approach from a holding fix, or where
the procedure specifies NoPT, no pilot may make a procedure turn unless,
when final approach clearance is received, the pilot so advises ATC and a
clearance is received to execute a procedure turn."

This is the one the FAA, if it so chose, could go after the pilot. They
would
argue that the non-published route (direct MINES) was in essense a
RADAR VECTOR. This particular clearance can only be done with
radar service provided. This is not an arc, a victor airway, or a published
transition. That's why it was correctly included in the clearance that the
pilot should cross MINES at 5,000', which is above the MIA (Minimum
IFR Altitude) and keeps him in radar contact. The clearance also included
(which is also phraseology I'm not sure exists) "cross MINES at 5000
INBOUND". That "inbound" I'm not so sure of, and could cause confusion
with the pilot. It could mean hit MINES and continue inbound, no PT, or
it could mean once he's inbound, cross MINES at 5,000'.

There was confusion on both sides here, the way I see it. The pilot made
his REQUEST, figures he got what he asked for. The controller heard
the request, used questionable phraseology to get what he wanted to get
across, and the end result was the pilot doing something other than the
controller expected. "Report PT inbound" wouldve probably made it
real clear, and if the pilot didnt intend on doing a PT, that would have
raised a warning flag to him. I guess you can ask if he's going to do
the course reversal, and if I hear "full approach", I'd at the very least
protect the airspace either way, or just ask the pilot.

You ask any controller, or Airspace & Procedures specialist this
situation, you'll get lots of different interpretations. They'll all
probably agree that the communication was hazy (you didnt
"break the chain" as they love to shove down our throats), and
the pilot may have been a little guilty of hearing what he wanted
to hear - although we dont have the exact tapes. A REQUEST
means nothing without a CLEARANCE. I'd be interested in
hearing the pilots readback, I'm willing to bet that it wasn't
exactly standard phraseology either.

Chris

PS:email me sometime Chip, your assumption of my email
address was correct.

--
Steve Bosell for President 2004
"Vote for me or I'll sue you"
www.philhendrieshow.com

"SeeAndAvoid" wrote in message
hlink.net...


To respond to just one element of your post:

I dont think it's so simple that the pilot is expected to do a PT.
On procedure turns, the AIM, as earlier stated does indeed say....
5-4-9. Procedure Turn

a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in lieu
of
procedure turn is a required maneuver.

First off, as we are reminded quite often, the AIM is not regulatory.

But the FARs a

FAR 91.175

(j) Limitation on procedure turns. In the case of a radar vector to a final
approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach
for which the procedure specifies "No PT," no pilot may make a procedure
turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.


OK, a second point.
A radar vector is a heading to fly. A clearance to a fix is not a vector,
it specifies a specific point to fly to.
A vector to final will be a heading to fly (the vector) followed by an
instruction to join the final approach course.

Stan

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:04:06 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
wrote:

First off, as we are reminded quite often, the AIM is not regulatory.

No, but Part 97 is, and prescribes a mandatory procedure turn for that
approach unless one of the exceptions in Part 91 is met.

And none of them were met.

The 7110.65 requirements for issuing radar vectors to a final approach
course were also not met.


--ron

"Stan Prevost" wrote:
But the FARs a
FAR 91.175
(j) Limitation on procedure turns. In the case of a radar vector to a
final
approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an
approach
for which the procedure specifies "No PT," no pilot may make a procedure
turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.

Subpart (i) right above that starts touching on unpublished routes, but
seems
to mostly talk about altitudes to maintain, not routes to fly. You could
say
that (j) above covers that, but it doesnt talk about unpublished routes.
The
only way I could see the whole issue perfectly cleared up is if they added
in (j) "on an unpublished route within XX degrees of the
intermediate or final approach course", but it doesnt. It is a vague area
between (i) and (j) and the AIMS 5-4-9a5 (PT not required when...).
(j) is the only place in 91.175 where PT's are mentioned. Regs and
our 7110.65 seem often to be written in the negative, like this one where
it says when you CANT do a PT. I'd be sweating in court as a pilot
trying to dig a positive statement that I COULD do one in that limited
paragraph.

OK, a second point.
A radar vector is a heading to fly. A clearance to a fix is not a vector,
it specifies a specific point to fly to.
A vector to final will be a heading to fly (the vector) followed by an
instruction to join the final approach course.

In 7110.65 5-6-2e METHODS, and this is a clearance we give daily
whether the airplane is GPS/FMS/RNAV or not....
FLY HEADING (degrees). WHEN ABLE, PROCEED
DIRECT (name of fix),
That above is a vector, it is also a specific point to fly to, and a
perfectly legitimate clearance. So are you saying if he said the
above, a PT would NOT be authorized because of 91.175, yet
it would be authorized if it was MINUS "fly heading"?

And you can be vectored to a radial outside the IAF, and not just
direct to the IAF. Many times I get that request so they can set
up and established a little before the IAF. So vectors are not just
for the FAC.

Regardless, I still dont see the "necessary" part of the PT in this
scenario. Ya, I know that's only in the AIM, but how would you
be able to defend that part if you were set up a mile outside of
the IAF on the radial, or 10 miles, or 100 miles out. I can easily
see an FAA attorney using this argument.

Chris

--
Steve Bosell for President 2004
"Vote for me or I'll sue you"
www.philhendrieshow.com

"Michael" wrote in message
m...
"Chip Jones" wrote
My question concerns the course reversal at MINES. If you were flying
this
approach from due east of MINES, "cleared approach", what do you do at
MINES
to get on the approach course?

Thanks everyone. When I learned this IAP back in the day, it had a DME
arc
off of HCH Vor to get to the IAF, and then you turned down the approach
course. When they slipped GPS into the system, they changed the IAP and
eliminated the arc. Of course, no one told the controllers about the
change- as usual they just published it. I never thought about the
difference. Looks like I need some refresher training...

Chip, not to be argumentative, but IMO the change to the procedure
makes absolutely no difference here.

Obviously it made a difference to me. :-)


What the pilot did was absolutely correct. Had the DME arc been
charted as before, his actions would still have been correct provided
the hold-in-lieu was still charted. Removal of the DME arc is not a
function of adding the GPS overlay; there are VOR/DME approaches with
GPS overlays out there that include a DME arc as an option. UTS
VOR/DME or GPS-A (http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0408/05813VDGA.PDF) is
one example, though it's NoPT all the way around.

I have no doubt that the pilot made no mistake.


The key here is this - if you're vectoring the guy to the FAC, no
procedure turn. If you've cleared him direct to the IAF, he does the
PT. It's just that simple.

No kidding...


I guess my question is this - why was this a problem? The pilot asked
for the full procedure, and your traineed cleared him for it. The
phraseology was not quite perfect, but well within the range of
variation, at least based on my experience. What am I missing?


No one said this was a problem. I posted this to gain personal insight, and
nothing more. I don't think you're missing a thing.

Chip, ZTL

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On 24 Aug 2004 13:33:47 -0700, (Michael)
wrote:

The key here is this - if you're vectoring the guy to the FAC, no
procedure turn. If you've cleared him direct to the IAF, he does the
PT. It's just that simple.

I agree with you.

In addition, Chip should be aware that there are cut-and-dried
requirements
in his 7110.65 in order for him to be able to give legal radar vectors to
the FAC so that the pilot will not do the PT. (7110.65 5-9-1)

It does not seem to me as if the requirements were met.


I wasn't vectoring to the FAC. I do not/cannot/would not vector to the FAC
at this airport anyway because nothing of this approach is depicted on the
radar scope except for the airport. None of the fixes on the approach even
exist in the ATC database. I had no intention of vectoring for the FAC. My
mistake was in misunderstanding the procedure.

Chip, ZTL

SeeAndAvoid wrote:
"Stan Prevost" wrote:

Regardless, I still dont see the "necessary" part of the PT in this
scenario. Ya, I know that's only in the AIM, but how would you
be able to defend that part if you were set up a mile outside of
the IAF on the radial, or 10 miles, or 100 miles out. I can easily
see an FAA attorney using this argument.

Interesting discussion, since in my view the answer is cut-and-dried and
unequivocal: vector-to-final or "NoPT" = no procedure turn, otherwise =
procedure turn.

I've also found that some controllers seem surprised by this, so I make a point
of informally making sure the controller and I have the same expectations, but
from a legal point of view, the answer is clear.

BTW, I don't see where the controller has discretion to waive the requirement
for a procedure turn, either, as they sometimes want to do. Seems to me if the
controller doesn't want me to do a PT, they need to either put me on a NoPT
segment or give me vectors to final. If I'm navigating on my own to the IAF, I'm
going to do the PT.

"Chip Jones" wrote:
I wasn't vectoring to the FAC. I do not/cannot/would not vector to the FAC
at this airport anyway because nothing of this approach is depicted on the
radar scope except for the airport. None of the fixes on the approach even
exist in the ATC database.

This brings me back to something you mentioned in your original post,
that got my attention. You said:

There is a large thunderstorm sweeping south
over the Knoxville airport and the TYS controllers are busy holding their
own arrivals for the storm to pass. To ease their workload, TYS calls my
trainee and begs him to work the approach into RKW.

How does this work? Can two facilities really swap airspace back and
forth between themselves with something as informal as a phone call?
There's a reason I ask...

A while back, I was flying into MMK (Meriden, CT) on a training flight
with a student. We were IFR, conditions were night, but clear skies.
The approach chart says Bradley Approach runs the approach control, but
my experience has been that radio contact with Bradley is usually pretty
poor. MMK is right on the edge between Bradley and New York Approach.
That night was no exception, and we lost contact completely with Bradley
while on a vector downwind. This was actually a good thing, because it
gave me the opportunity to hold an impromptu lesson on lost comm
procedures.

We tried calling Bradley a few times, and then got a message relayed by
another flight in the area to call Bradley on a different freq. No joy
on that freq either, and by that time we were out of radio contact with
the other aircraft. I decided to try one more trick and punch up
"Nearest ARTCC" on the GPS. Wonderful feature, that. It put us in
contact with Boston Center, loud and clear. It took just a moment to
explain the situation to the center guy, and he quickly got us a new
freq for NY Approach (by now we were probably pretty deep into NY's
airspace).

I expected the NY controller would give us vectors back towards MMK and
then hand us off to Bradley again, but that's not what happened. To my
surprise, he gave us vectors to final, cleared us for the approach, and
issued instructions to contact Bradley on the missed (the missed takes
you deeper into Bradley territory and radio comm is usually much better
on that side of the airport). We flew the approach, called Bradley on
the missed, and the controller acted like nothing strange had happened.

So, could you fill me in on what was happening behind the scenes? Once
I went lost comm, how did ATC deal with that? Did the Bradley guy just
hand me off to NY when he saw me leaving his airspace? And, most
interesting to me, how was the NY controller able to clear us for an
approach to an airport that he didn't own?

"SeeAndAvoid" wrote in message
hlink.net...
What the hell, I'll jump in. Just doing a quick search on "full
approach",
[snipped]

Full approach, which isnt exactly what the pilot said, he said "would like
to shoot the full VOR/DME 22 into Rockwood". This may be splitting hairs,
but he didnt say it (which I'm not convinced there is any such
phraseology),
but even if he did, that was a REQUEST, which is not always which is
given by the controller.

The trainee and I did discuss where the "full approach" began. Since we
rarely work aircraft approaching RKW from the east, it was a legitimate
question in my mind. We had literally about 20 seconds to huddle with the
plate during the OJTI. We had our hands full with higher priority ATC stuff
and airplanes were calling right and left. This aircraft had GPS, so I said
I though the full approach in this case begins at the IAF (MINES) and we
could clear him to MINES via GPS-direct. The trainee thought that the
"full" approach began at HCH Vor, and involved flying out on the 060R to get
to MINES, then doing a course reversal. He asked if he should clear the guy
to HCH to start the full approach. HCH was 30 miles west of the position
from which the approach request was made and would have involved a serious
detour.

Now I'm wondering what I could have done with this UH-60 if it had been a /A
instead of a /G. We don't clear /A's direct to intersections. Where does
the "full approach" begin for a non-RNAV on this procedure. I can't vector
to final at this location.


I dont think it's so simple that the pilot is expected to do a PT.
On procedure turns, the AIM, as earlier stated does indeed say....
5-4-9. Procedure Turn

a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in lieu
of
procedure turn is a required maneuver.

First off, as we are reminded quite often, the AIM is not regulatory.
Secondly,
if you read that verbatim, it says "when it is necessary". Giving someone
a vector, or this clearance where it's within 30 degrees or so, basically
a
straight-in to the IAF, I do not consider the PT "necessary". You can't
tell
me that a course reversal on damn near a straight-in could ever be
mistaken
in court as "necessary" for the establishment of this intermediate part of
the approach, UNLESS the airplane is way too high, which in this case is
not applicable as the altitude was good and in accordance with the IAP.

The direction from which the aircraft was approaching MINES likely
contributed to my misunderstanding. He was approaching MINES on a track
that intercepted the FAC at 30 degrees or less. The VOR/DME Rwy22 is also
the GPS Rwy 22. I got it in my head that he didn't need a PT. What the
heck, on many of the newer GPS approaches, aircraft make 90 degree turns
between waypoints to get to the FAF. I had the wrong site picture here.


[snipped]


This is the one the FAA, if it so chose, could go after the pilot. They
would
argue that the non-published route (direct MINES) was in essense a
RADAR VECTOR. This particular clearance can only be done with
radar service provided. This is not an arc, a victor airway, or a
published
transition. That's why it was correctly included in the clearance that
the
pilot should cross MINES at 5,000', which is above the MIA (Minimum
IFR Altitude) and keeps him in radar contact. The clearance also included
(which is also phraseology I'm not sure exists) "cross MINES at 5000
INBOUND". That "inbound" I'm not so sure of, and could cause confusion
with the pilot. It could mean hit MINES and continue inbound, no PT, or
it could mean once he's inbound, cross MINES at 5,000'.

I believe that the phraseology "inbound" slipped in there because we have an
approach to another airport where this is required phraseology. He had
issued this other clearance earier in the session. My Dev only has about 60
hours on this position, working on his first two R-sides.


There was confusion on both sides here, the way I see it. The pilot made
his REQUEST, figures he got what he asked for. The controller heard
the request, used questionable phraseology to get what he wanted to get
across, and the end result was the pilot doing something other than the
controller expected. "Report PT inbound" wouldve probably made it
real clear, and if the pilot didnt intend on doing a PT, that would have
raised a warning flag to him. I guess you can ask if he's going to do
the course reversal, and if I hear "full approach", I'd at the very least
protect the airspace either way, or just ask the pilot.

Yeah, we were protecting the airspace anyway. I didn't really have my radio
to use, so I didn't ask like I normally would.


You ask any controller, or Airspace & Procedures specialist this
situation, you'll get lots of different interpretations. They'll all
probably agree that the communication was hazy (you didnt
"break the chain" as they love to shove down our throats), and
the pilot may have been a little guilty of hearing what he wanted
to hear - although we dont have the exact tapes. A REQUEST
means nothing without a CLEARANCE. I'd be interested in
hearing the pilots readback, I'm willing to bet that it wasn't
exactly standard phraseology either.

The phraseology that I wrote for the ATC side of things is 100% accurate for
the event, but not 100% correct by the book. The Army pilot was
transmitting on UHF, so even if we could pull voice tapes, we'd likely not
fully understand him. Our UHF receivers are old, worn out and often
unservicable. His initial request was stepped on by an air carrier on VHF
in our other combined sector asking about the freaking ride. (Jeeze is
*that* is getting OLD!!!). His subsequent request was hard to understand,
but he did emphasize a request for the *full* approach.

I'd love to find an Airspace and Procedures guy anywhere in my Region who
had a clue to begin with. Down here in ZTL, we have a total disconnect
between the guys maintaining procedures for the facility, the guys
publishing new procedures up at the Regional level (Terps guys) and the men
and women keying the mic at the sector. For example, GPS approaches are
dropping into my airspace like landmines. We don't get briefed on the
changes anymore. Heck they aren't even "read and initial" items these days,
likely because the 530 guy doesn't even know about them. They even change
things like a missed approach procedure and the only way you can spot it is
by reading the paper IAP plate before issuing the clearance. They plop new
approaches in the airspace and you discover them when the pilot requests the
procedure and you scramble for the plate. We are so short staffed right now
at ZTL, we don't even do crew/team training anymore. I haven't had a Team
Training in three years. Everyone is months behind on CBI's. Our facility
Airspace office doesn't even pretend to try anymore. Yall are probably the
same way out there- it's getting pretty bad all over the Enroute community.

Thanks for the insight.


PS:email me sometime Chip, your assumption of my email
address was correct.

Wilco.

Chip, ZTL