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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
John Clonts wrote:
Sam Spade wrote: John Clonts wrote: wrote: It seems to me you are ignoring the depiction of the southern sector on the map view that shows 2800. This applies to aircraft inbound to DOCAP from anywhere southern. Why are you saying that it does not apply? (I.e. why is the controller allowed to clear the a/c to DOCAP and descend to 2100?). 2,100 applies at DOCAP per the IAP. The MVA is 2,000 to the west of DOCAP and 2,100 to the east. Yes but I am talking about *prior to* DOCAP. 2800 applies prior to DOCAP per the IAP. If ATC clears an a/c to 2100 prior to DOCAP is it (1) a controller error which should be refused by the pilot, or (2) ok because somehow "mva trumps iap arrival sector altitude"? Again, a more consistent handling with the IAP profile and human-factors would have been for ATC to assign 2,800 to DOCAP. Under the present wording in the ATC Handbook MVA trumps the direct-entry sector's altitude. Another way to look at it is the IAP begins at the IF based on the clearance. An anology would be a "true" vector to final, say a 30 degree cut to the approach course 2 miles inside DOCAP. 2,100 would be an acceptable controller assignment in that case. The new application might work better with a restriction to not assign an altitude below the IF crossing altitude. But, that is not how it reads at present. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
Prior to the new change a clearance direct to DOCAP would have
required a course reversal. No one was doing that, though, thus the pressure for the change. But the TAA has had a NoPT sector for a straight-in ever since its inception. As far as I can tell, this new rule only affects Non-TAA RNav approaches. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
A Lieberma wrote:
Too new and green to know any difference *smile*. Been in the IA world for two years, and everytime I launch, it's a new experience! Allen For future reference, if in doubt about an altitude assignment, especially when it is below what seems reasonable, just request the higher altitude. It's important to keep the controller's expectations in sync with your's. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
The new procedure does not exclude RNAV IAPs with TAAs.
I know, but it appears it is irrelevant for TAA's. I could have gone straight-in if cleared direct to DOCAP anywhere within the straight-in TAA sector. I could not have accepted an altitude of less than 2,800 in that case, though. And why is that? "Skyhawk 1234X, cleared direct to DOCAP, maintain 2,100 until established, cleared RNAV 18 Olive Branch." Since DOCAP is and has always been labeled as an IAF, how is this any different from being given MVA direct to any other IAF on non-RNAV approaches, something that is done a thousand times every day? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
thus once cleared for the approach you are operating below the
minimum segment altitude while on a published IAP segment. You don't do that on the thousands of other IAPs. In the example cited, the clearance didn't start until DOCAP. Prior to that, he was on a "direct clearance". If you hold that that is invalid, then it seems that the same logic applies to any direct clearance that happens to either cross or coincide with an airway or feeder route. 1) If I cross an airway at MVA that is lower than MEA on a direct clearance, then am I in violation of 91.177? 2) If I am tracking a radial that happens to coincide with a feeder route, then am I in violation of 91.177 when I'm below the published altitude, even though I've never been cleared for the feeder route? |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
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. The controller's instructions for the new procedure can be found at: http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/ATC/Chp4/atc0408.html#4-8-1 Tim. On 10 Aug 2006 09:27:39 -0700, wrote: Prior to the new change a clearance direct to DOCAP would have required a course reversal. No one was doing that, though, thus the pressure for the change. But the TAA has had a NoPT sector for a straight-in ever since its inception. As far as I can tell, this new rule only affects Non-TAA RNav approaches. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
OLV GPS 36 approach question
|
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 |