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
|
|||
|
|||
CFII question for Approach Gurus
On 08/29/07 06:07, Rich wrote:
BillJ wrote: So as we turned outbound for the hold the controller comes on rather gruffly and says "1234X, where are you going?" I got on and said "...entering the hold as published " and he says "why, that is not authorized, if you want to do it you have to ask.." I pointed out that the only NoPT enteries were from the airways, and anyway we needed to loose altitude in the hold. Bill, It is my understanding that, when in radar contact, ATC does NOT expect you to fly holding patterns no matter where depicted on the plates... That's certainly *not* what I've been taught. If the plate shows a PT, then the PT is required unless you're getting radar vectors. Actually, the conditions where you should/should not execute the PT is covered (more or less) in the AIM... Being in radar contact has nothing to do with it. I'm willing to be taught something new as well, however ;-) BUT I cannot recall where I learned that, nor what publication would support my statement, so I will be watching this thread with interest. Ran into as situation last month at a strange airport (KHIO) where the tower was expecting me to make a turn for the departure procedure and I was waiting for them to tell me to start the turn. I guess I should have spoken up ("when in doubt, shout it out"). Rich (CFII for 30 years and still learning stuff) -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot Cal Aggie Flying Farmers Sacramento, CA |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
CFII question for Approach Gurus
Roy Smith wrote:
In article , BillJ wrote: I had a surprise reaction from approach controller while entering the GPS 23 at UCP: http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0709/05842R23.PDF I was doing a final pre-checkride lesson, and about 25 NW of UCP. In IMC, assigned heading 250 at 4000. I'm confused. If you're 25 NW of the airport, why were on on a heading 250 vector? That takes you further away from the airport. Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.) I don't understand the note at all. Both the MERCY-ZARTO and VOLAN-ZARTO segments are marked NoPT. Given that, I don't understand why the note is needed at all, and why it only applies to arriving at those fixes from certain directions. Other than that, making the PT NA for westbound arrivals at VOLAN makes sense, but the prohibition for northbound arrivals at MERCY seems backwards to me. Anyway I thought the student might get to Zarto still at 4000 realize there was time to descend to 2600 before Wobut and just turn inbound the few degrees required. Um, I'm guessing you made a typo up above and you really started this approach 25 NE of the airport, not 25 NW? The 530 asks "do you want to hold at Zarto" and I saw him pause and think about it and he selected "yes", which seemed like a good answer (the only really correct answer I thought). Yeah, by my book, that's the only correct answer too. Unless you are on vectors to the FAC (being cleared direct to the IAF is *NOT* vectors to the FAC), or established on a NoPT segment, you need to do the PT. One lap around a racetrack and drop 1000 feet in the process, to cross ZARTO inbound at 3000. Makes sense to me. If the controller didn't want to have you do the PT, there were two reasonable things he could have done. One was vector you to the FAC, the other was to clear you "direct MERCY, cleared GPS 23 approach" (assuming you really were 25 NE of the airport). So controller says "...that is incorrect. All entries in the arc from Volan to Mercy are NoPT!! Not the way the chart is drawn. Look at, for example, the ACY GPS 13; that's got terminal arrival areas (I think that's the right name) charted. If they're not charted that way, they don't exist. The controller is just plain wrong. You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i, effective February, 2006 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
CFII question for Approach Gurus
Roy Smith wrote:
In article , BillJ wrote: I had a surprise reaction from approach controller while entering the GPS 23 at UCP: http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0709/05842R23.PDF I was doing a final pre-checkride lesson, and about 25 NW of UCP. In IMC, assigned heading 250 at 4000. I'm confused. If you're 25 NW of the airport, why were on on a heading 250 vector? That takes you further away from the airport. Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.) I don't understand the note at all. Both the MERCY-ZARTO and VOLAN-ZARTO segments are marked NoPT. Given that, I don't understand why the note is needed at all, and why it only applies to arriving at those fixes from certain directions. Other than that, making the PT NA for westbound arrivals at VOLAN makes sense, but the prohibition for northbound arrivals at MERCY seems backwards to me. Anyway I thought the student might get to Zarto still at 4000 realize there was time to descend to 2600 before Wobut and just turn inbound the few degrees required. Um, I'm guessing you made a typo up above and you really started this approach 25 NE of the airport, not 25 NW? The 530 asks "do you want to hold at Zarto" and I saw him pause and think about it and he selected "yes", which seemed like a good answer (the only really correct answer I thought). Yeah, by my book, that's the only correct answer too. Unless you are on vectors to the FAC (being cleared direct to the IAF is *NOT* vectors to the FAC), or established on a NoPT segment, you need to do the PT. One lap around a racetrack and drop 1000 feet in the process, to cross ZARTO inbound at 3000. Makes sense to me. If the controller didn't want to have you do the PT, there were two reasonable things he could have done. One was vector you to the FAC, the other was to clear you "direct MERCY, cleared GPS 23 approach" (assuming you really were 25 NE of the airport). So controller says "...that is incorrect. All entries in the arc from Volan to Mercy are NoPT!! Not the way the chart is drawn. Look at, for example, the ACY GPS 13; that's got terminal arrival areas (I think that's the right name) charted. If they're not charted that way, they don't exist. The controller is just plain wrong. Roy, You are correct about my error, it should have been NE. The procedure (not PT) is not available for arrivals AT Mercy northbound because a course reversal is required with no charted way to do it. Should be same at Volan for EAST arrivals, but it says WEST which is nonsense. Of course in real life, noone would arrive at Mercy northbound and then decide to do the approach. They would have been vectored off the airway or cleared to Zarto much further south and in that case the hold would be required to reverse course. Hope this clears up your questions, Bill |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
CFII question for Approach Gurus
Roy Smith wrote:
Um, I'm guessing you made a typo up above and you really started this approach 25 NE of the airport, not 25 NW? Not the way the chart is drawn. Look at, for example, the ACY GPS 13; that's got terminal arrival areas (I think that's the right name) charted. If they're not charted that way, they don't exist. The controller is just plain wrong. Roy, You are correct about my error, it should have been NE. The procedure (not PT) is not available for arrivals AT Mercy northbound because a course reversal is required with no charted way to do it. Should be same at Volan for EAST arrivals, but it says WEST which is nonsense. Of course in real life, noone would arrive at Mercy northbound and then decide to do the approach. They would have been vectored off the airway or cleared to Zarto much further south and in that case the hold would be required to reverse course. Hope this clears up your questions, Bill |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
CFII question for Approach Gurus
In article , B wrote:
You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i, effective February, 2006 5-5-7-i doesn't say anything about procedure turns. In fact, it says nothing about pilot actions at all, only ATC actions. Now, it does impose requirements on ATC that would make it possible to fly the approach without the PT, which strongly implies that under these circumstances one ought to fly the approach without a PT, but it doesn't actually say so. Personally, if something went awry, I would much rather stand up in front of the NTSB board and explain why I did fly the PT than why I didn't. In any case, it seems to me that an ASRS form is in order. rg |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
CFII question for Approach Gurus
"BillJ" wrote in message ... I had a surprise reaction from approach controller while entering the GPS 23 at UCP: http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0709/05842R23.PDF I was doing a final pre-checkride lesson, and about 25 NW of UCP. In IMC, assigned heading 250 at 4000. I expected the next word would be "advise when you have the New Castle weather" and then "what approach would you like?" But instead we got proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23 approach. OK, so student stayed at 4000, entered the procedure in the 530W and headed to Zarto, no problem. Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.) Agreed. Anyway I thought the student might get to Zarto still at 4000 realize there was time to descend to 2600 before Wobut and just turn inbound the few degrees required. The 530 asks "do you want to hold at Zarto" and I saw him pause and think about it and he selected "yes", which seemed like a good answer (the only really correct answer I thought). Few degrees required? If you were 25 NW of UCP when you were cleared direct to ZARTO it sure looks like a turn of more than a few degrees would be required to head inbound upon reaching ZARTO. So as we turned outbound for the hold the controller comes on rather gruffly and says "1234X, where are you going?" I got on and said "...entering the hold as published " and he says "why, that is not authorized, if you want to do it you have to ask.." I pointed out that the only NoPT enteries were from the airways, and anyway we needed to loose altitude in the hold. So controller says "...that is incorrect. All entries in the arc from Volan to Mercy are NoPT!! So where does that come from? Arc? What arc? Do controllers have a different plate that we use? Controllers use NACO charts. There's no arc. He's fulla crap. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
CFII question for Approach Gurus
"BillJ" wrote in message ... Sorry, I should have said I was 25 NE , not NW Ah, that's different. In that case I'd have turned inbound upon reaching ZARTO. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
CFII question for Approach Gurus
Ron Garret wrote:
In article , B wrote: You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i, effective February, 2006 5-5-7-i doesn't say anything about procedure turns. In fact, it says nothing about pilot actions at all, only ATC actions. Now, it does impose requirements on ATC that would make it possible to fly the approach without the PT, which strongly implies that under these circumstances one ought to fly the approach without a PT, but it doesn't actually say so. Personally, if something went awry, I would much rather stand up in front of the NTSB board and explain why I did fly the PT than why I didn't. In any case, it seems to me that an ASRS form is in order. rg I guess you mean 5-4-7-1, not 5-5-7-i. What part of number 4 do you not understand? "Insure the aircraft is on a course that will intercept the intermediate segment at an angle not greater than 90 degrees and is at an altitude that will permit normal descent from the intermediate fix to the final approach fix." |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
CFII question for Approach Gurus
"Ron Garret" wrote in message ... 5-5-7-i doesn't say anything about procedure turns. In fact, it says nothing about pilot actions at all, only ATC actions. Now, it does impose requirements on ATC that would make it possible to fly the approach without the PT, which strongly implies that under these circumstances one ought to fly the approach without a PT, but it doesn't actually say so. Personally, if something went awry, I would much rather stand up in front of the NTSB board and explain why I did fly the PT than why I didn't. The AIM poses no requirements on ATC. ATC requirements are found in FAA Order 7110.65. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
CFII question for Approach Gurus
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Ron Garret" wrote in message ... 5-5-7-i doesn't say anything about procedure turns. In fact, it says nothing about pilot actions at all, only ATC actions. Now, it does impose requirements on ATC that would make it possible to fly the approach without the PT, which strongly implies that under these circumstances one ought to fly the approach without a PT, but it doesn't actually say so. Personally, if something went awry, I would much rather stand up in front of the NTSB board and explain why I did fly the PT than why I didn't. The AIM poses no requirements on ATC. ATC requirements are found in FAA Order 7110.65. The related language in 7110.65 reads pretty much the same as the AIM. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
question for tactics gurus | Moe | Naval Aviation | 7 | July 31st 06 06:38 PM |
Any OLC gurus? HELP PLEASE! | Mhudson126 | Soaring | 1 | March 21st 04 04:43 AM |
CFII question... | Ditch | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | January 13th 04 12:21 AM |
Question for Net Gurus My New Aviation Videos | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 24 | December 19th 03 07:35 PM |