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
|
|||
|
|||
procedure turns revisited
Sam Spade wrote:
As to recently, I believe it became effective this past February. And, these things have to work for everyone, from Approach Category A to D. Why? There's no reason you can't limit the applicability to Cat A&B airplanes - that's really most of the GA fleet, and 100% of what shoots many of the approaches where this is done. There are even entire approaches that are not approved for anything but Cat A&B. Michael |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
procedure turns revisited
Michael wrote:
Sam Spade wrote: As to recently, I believe it became effective this past February. And, these things have to work for everyone, from Approach Category A to D. Why? There's no reason you can't limit the applicability to Cat A&B airplanes - that's really most of the GA fleet, and 100% of what shoots many of the approaches where this is done. There are even entire approaches that are not approved for anything but Cat A&B. Michael The FAA doesn't see it that way, excpept for the special CAT A only procedure turn, the final approach segment, and turning missed approach criteria. More tailoring has been discussed many times over the years and discarded as impractical. I ain't the FAA, though, so write them a letter! |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
procedure turns revisited
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
procedure turns revisited
wrote in message ups.com... Because it conflicts with San Jose's LOUPE ONE departure. The extra three to four minutes hanging over the airport really ****es them off. Especially since they're not expecting it. Then they need to find other employment. Conflict resolution is the reason we have ATC. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
procedure turns revisited
ATC may clear aircraft that have filed an Advanced RNAV
equipment suffix to the intermediate fix when clearing aircraft for an instrument approach procedure. How does this jibe with the letter of interp requiring an a/c to use an IAF or be vectored to final. Will this language be added to the ..65 so it can be said to be approved by the Administrator? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
procedure turns revisited
Greg Esres wrote:
ATC may clear aircraft that have filed an Advanced RNAV equipment suffix to the intermediate fix when clearing aircraft for an instrument approach procedure. How does this jibe with the letter of interp requiring an a/c to use an IAF or be vectored to final. Will this language be added to the .65 so it can be said to be approved by the Administrator? It was added to 7110.65R this past February. Here is the new portion of 7110.65R, 4-8-1: "Area Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures may begin at an Intermediate Approach Fix for aircraft that have filed an Advanced RNAV equipment suffix when the conditions of subpara b4 are met." And, here is the background material for the change in the back of 7110.65R: BACKGROUND: Currently, paragraph 4−8−1 provides two methods for clearing aircraft for a Standard Instrument Approach: 1) clear the aircraft to the Initial Approach Fix (IAF) (or Intermediate Fix (IF) when no IAF is depicted), or 2) vector the aircraft to the final approach course. These procedures create undue delay to pilots and air traffic control under certain conditions. When an aircraft utilizing Area Navigation (RNAV) is aligned with the final approach course and at an altitude not requiring abnormal descent to the final approach fix, air traffic must either clear the aircraft to an IAF or vector the aircraft to the final approach course. RNAV aircraft are capable of flying direct to a fix or waypoint with more precision than a radar vector. A direct−to clearance eliminates variables of aircraft drift when changing altitudes and/or airspace when a strong wind shear is present. A radar vector to a typical RNAV approach would place the aircraft within 2 miles of the IF. This requires the controller to monitor the aircraft in variable wind conditions to ensure it does not intercept the final approach course prior to the IF. The final approach course does not extend beyond the IF as a radial on a conventional approach. There are several supporting examples permitting RNAV aircraft to be cleared direct to an IF to execute an instrument approach procedure. FAA Order 8260.3B, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), paragraph 230, provides for an initial approach to be made along an arc, radial, course, heading, radar vector, or combination thereof when the IF is part of the en route structure. In this case, the approach commences at the IF and a direct−to clearance provides a course for the aircraft to fly. Aircraft may be cleared to the IAF/IF for RNAV approaches. When a Terminal Arrival Area (TAA) is depicted, most TAAs specify NoPT (No Procedure Turn) for the straight−in segment. This permits aircraft to fly the same segment of the instrument procedure as any RNAV approach from the IF. 14 CFR Section 91.175(i) contains the following statement: “When operating on an unpublished route or while being radar vectored, the pilot, when an approach clearance is received, shall, in addition to complying with Sec. 91.177, maintain the last altitude assigned to that pilot until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC.” Aircraft are on an unpublished route when cleared direct−to a fix or waypoint and the intermediate segment defines the segment the aircraft must be established on for the approach. Issuing aircraft a direct−to clearance to the IF will enhance the movement of aircraft in the terminal environment. Requiring the controller to advise the pilot in advance of the clearance, limiting the turn angle to intercept the intermediate segment, accounting for descent along the approach and providing radar monitoring, the procedure will ensure the pilot is able to safely maneuver the aircraft for the approach. 3 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
procedure turns revisited
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
nk.net: Then they need to find other employment. Conflict resolution is the reason we have ATC. But they aren't going to resign over this. That's easy for you to say, but it solves nothing, and will never solve anything. Ain't gonna happen, GI. The way to solve it is to do away with the idiotic requirement to do a precedure turn, but that ain't gonna happen, either. -- Regards, Stan "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
procedure turns revisited
It was added to 7110.65R this past February.
Ah, thank you. Mine is outdated. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn | Kris Kortokrax | Instrument Flight Rules | 208 | October 14th 05 12:58 AM |
Parachute fails to save SR-22 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 72 | February 10th 05 05:14 AM |
Procedure Turn | Bravo8500 | Instrument Flight Rules | 65 | April 22nd 04 03:27 AM |
Unusual Procedure at DFW | Toks Desalu | Piloting | 9 | December 17th 03 05:27 PM |
Instrument Approaches and procedure turns.... | Cecil E. Chapman | Instrument Flight Rules | 58 | September 18th 03 10:40 PM |