ILS question

wrote in message ...

That's what they're supposed to do.


What do you base that on?

Stan Gosnell wrote:


If you want it treated *exactly* like IFR, then file IFR.
Controllers don't know if you're an instructor training a
student, or just playing around, or what if you're VFR. If
you're IFR, then they have to do everything by the IFR book,
regardless of the weather. Do you feel that filing and flying
IFR is really that difficult, or restrictive, when teaching?

When I used to be a CFI-I (gad, I glad those days are behind me ;-) we
never, ever requested a VFR restriction during training. If, sometimes,
the controller would issue one we would request an IFR clearance. And,
in my early days at the airline, when we had to take 6-month checks in
the aircraft, company policy was IFR, period. But, some check pilots
would violate that policy to expedite things. Scud running in a 727 at
5:00 AM over the hills southeast of KONT isn't a whole lot of fun.

Gary Drescher wrote:

wrote in message ...


Chris Brooks wrote:

I am training in the maryland area. I was cleared for an ILS approach to
runway 27 at HGR the other day.

Here is a plate:
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0406/05114I27.PDF

I was about 17 miles out at 5000 feet when I got cleared for the
approach.
My question is, when can I descend to 4000 feet?

Anyone?

At 17 miles you were not within a published segment of the approach.

If you're vectored onto the approach course and cleared for the approach,
how close to the FAF do you have to be to consider yourself on a published
part of the course and thus permitted to descend to the charted intercept
altitude?

--Gary

The controller is not suppose to issue an "until established" clearance unless
the vector is onto a published segment of the approach. In this case the
controller would issue a crossing restriction at HAIGS, which you are free to
descend to upon receipt of the clearance. If, however, you feel uncomfortable
with that, seek clarification! It is a dual responsibility to stay out of the
rocks and weeds.

EDR wrote:

This is addressed in procedures written after an airline crash in
Virginia of a flight inbound to Dulles in the 1970's (?)

TWA 514, December 1, 1974.


The cause leading up to the crash and procedures developed afterward
are a case study in when you can descend.
It has been studied and written up in many aviation periodicals in the
last 30 years.

Gary Drescher wrote:

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
news
If you are just receiving vectors on a random route, then you cannot
descend until you are on a "hard, black line". However, in the situation
being discussed, if it is not the specific "radar vectors to final" or a
radar approach, then the AIM states that: "For this purpose, the procedure
turn of a published IAP shall *NOT* be considered a segment of that IAP
until the aircraft reaches the initial fix or navigation facility upon
which the procedure turn is predicated."

There's still something that's confusing me. Immediately prior to the
sentence you quote (5-4-7b), the AIM says "for aircraft operating on
unpublished routes or while being radar vectored, ATC will, except when
conducting a radar approach, issue an IFR approach clearance only after the
aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or IAP, or assign
an altitude to maintain until the aircraft is established on a segment of a
published route or instrument approach procedure".

If you're being radar vectored and you're then issued an IFR approach
clearance, doesn't that constitute a radar approach? If so, what does it
mean in that situation to say "except when conducting a radar approach"? And
doesn't the requirement for an altitude-until-established (if you're not
already on a published segment) apply during a radar approach? So why the
"exception"?

A radar approach is an ASR or PAR approach. A vector onto a non-radar approach
(all other approaches) is a vector that replaces a non-radar intitial approach
segment. Or, if you're vectored onto a segment prior to the final approach
course, it's a vector to replace an airway or a feeder route.



The example that the AIM then cites exacerbates the confusion. The clearance
is "maintain 2000 until established on the localizer", but the subsequent
note suggests that the interim altitude is to be maintained until
established on a published segment, not just on the localizer.

--Gary

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

That's what they're supposed to do.


What do you base that on?

5-9-1 requirement to issue an altitude compatible with an NPA or an altitude
below the G/S for a PA.

"b. For a precision approach, at an altitude not above the
glideslope/glidepath or below the minimum glideslope intercept altitude
specified on the approach procedure chart.
c. For a nonprecision approach, at an altitude which will allow descent in
accordance with the published procedure."

Even if he was vectored onto "final" 50 miles out, 5-9-4 leads to 5-9-1.
This stuff is written to make the IAP flyable, not to provide loopholes for
controllers. ;-)

I don't think that 10nm circle is a 4000-foot-protected area. The 4000 feet
refers to the hold in lieu of a PT, and there's no distance specified for it
except for the "one minute" which really can't be interpreted as a distance
within which you can descend to 4000 feet. I'd say the only way to properly
descend on the LOC 17 NM out is to intercept the GS and follow it down.

"Stan Prevost" wrote in message
...

On the procedure track and in the PT area, within the 10 nm circle, there
is
protected airspace at 4000. I don't know what is outside that. If he was
getting VTF, he should have been given an altitude restriction until
established, but he didn't tell us that part. Roy answered the full
procedure case.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:AYeAc.106416$3x.41993@attbi_s54...


Regarding radar approach - no, radar vectors do not constitute a 'radar
approach'. The term 'radar approach' refers to approaches using ASR and
PAR. It's in the AIM but don't have the reference.

It's also a fundamental part of being qualified to hold an instrument rating.



Maule Driver wrote:

"Maule Driver" wrote in message
. com...
Regarding radar approach - no, radar vectors do not constitute a 'radar
approach'. The term 'radar approach' refers to approaches using ASR and
PAR.

D'oh. Ok.

wrote in message ...

At 17 miles you were not within a published segment of the approach. ATC
was
required to give you an altitude to maintain and which to cross HAIGS. A
proper clearance would have been "X miles from HAIGS. Cross HAIGS at, or
above, 4,000, cleared for the ILS Runway 27 approach." The word
"established"
is inappropriate in this instance. If you did not receive such a
clearance
you were obligated to maintain 5,000 and question the clearance because
5,000
is not a reasonable altitude to cross HAIGS.

REF: ATC Handbook 7110.65P, Paragraph 4-8-1 b.2., Example for Aircraft 2
under
that subparagraph.


That example is of an unpublished direct route. At the time he was cleared
for the approach he was on a published route.