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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message ... Jim, I like your idea on reading back for a straight-in. Still doesn't make it legal, though The thing about doing a turn around the hold is that it seems to me to defeat the whole purpose for the PT. As I understand it, the approaches have you do this so that you are well-established on the SDF/ILS *before* you get to the LOM. In this case, the PT or hold serves to destablize your track and decrease safety. At least, that is how I see it. Agreed. What's safe is not always legal, and what's legal is not always safe -Sami Jim wrote: Another option. You could use the hold for a course reversal. "Roger Minneapolis, cleared for the SDF 2, direct NEPCO, we'd like to do a lap in the hold rather than the procedure turn." This would be a little quicker because the holding fix is NEPCO. Right turn outbound, right turn inbound, straight in and land. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 02:28:15 GMT, "Brad Z" wrote:
The hold is for the missed approach. If the designer of the approach had intended to use the hold as a course reversal method, he/she would have designed it that way. If you have not been advised that you are being vectored for the approach, substituting a lap in the hold for a procedure turn doesn't make it any more legal than omitting the PT altogether. There may be a semantic issue here. I agree that the charted holding pattern is for the missed approach. However, at least in the US, on this approach the type of procedure turn is up to the pilot. So there would be nothing wrong with executing a "racetrack" procedure turn, which would be the same as the charted holding pattern. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The readback is meant to clarify the situation. In Sami's situation, it was
slightly confusing because he was first given a clearance direct from his present position to the outer marker, then given a radio hand off before he was even on a published portion of the approach, this in my mind leads me to think the controller intended to clear him straight in but for some reason didn't say the words, thus, I would give the read back that included the words "straight in". If the controller says "read back correct", then I'd be cleared straight in, which even though there is not a NoPT on the chart, would be legal because it follows the clearance. Normally in this area, once we descend below radar coverage, Minneapolis will request that we "report procedure turn inbound" and then report the IAF before giving us a radio handoff to a CTAF on a non-towered airport. The turn in the hold is only an option that I brought up because it is a legal form of course reversal. Not the best idea for establishing you on the final approach path, I'll agree, but may be useful to either loose altitude or get turned around and headed inbound in the least amount of time. BTW Sami, is that Mooney still for sale at ISW? Any idea of the real asking price? Jim |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim" wrote in message ... The exeption to the rule when NoPT is absent from the chart is when you are cleared straight in either via radar vectors or via a clearance, otherwise you are expected to do the PT when you arrive over the fix that begins the procedure turn. Because you were given a radio hand off to the local frequency, I would have taken that to mean you were cleared straight in via your clearance to NEPCO, but when in doubt ask, because as you say, you were probably below radar coverage. I would have responded with something like "N1234 cleared direct NEPCO, straight in SDF 2, frequency change approved" Cleared straight in either via a clearance? What does that mean? That's usually what I do when comeing from the north into STE on the GPS 21 and I usually get a "roger" or "read back correct". If he wants you to do the full procedure turn that would give him a chance to make his clearance clearer Why would he want you to do a full procedure turn? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net... Cleared straight in either via a clearance? What does that mean? Sorry. That should have been, "Cleared straight in via a clearance?" |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Michael wrote: Technically yes, you are required to do this. If there's no RADAR, who is going to know if you do or not? Dishonesty, especially in a non-radar environment, is the last thing the system needs. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Rosenfeld wrote: There may be a semantic issue here. I agree that the charted holding pattern is for the missed approach. However, at least in the US, on this approach the type of procedure turn is up to the pilot. So there would be nothing wrong with executing a "racetrack" procedure turn, which would be the same as the charted holding pattern. "Racetrack" is an obsolete term left over from the lighted-aiway days. The holding rules are pretty well spelled out. Racetrack patterns used to have 2 minute legs in the 1940s and 50s. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why is ADF or Radar Required on MFD ILS RWY 32 Approach Plate? | S. Ramirez | Instrument Flight Rules | 17 | April 2nd 04 11:13 AM |
Why an NDB approach with a miss to an intersection? | Ben Jackson | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | March 25th 04 03:53 AM |
Changes to Aircraft Approach Categories?! | skyliner | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | February 9th 04 08:55 PM |
Which of these approaches is loggable? | Paul Tomblin | Instrument Flight Rules | 26 | August 16th 03 05:22 PM |
IR checkride story! | Guy Elden Jr. | Instrument Flight Rules | 16 | August 1st 03 09:03 PM |