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
|
|||
|
|||
If you're on the final approach course and inside the PT limits...
why not? That's fine, but my point is that the 10 nm is given to you on the profile view, not the 10 nm ring, which has nothing to do with the PT. Trivial distinction? I don't think so. We had an approach that had no PT, yet some instructors were teaching that an a/c could descend within 10 nm of our FAF, because of the 10 nm ring. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
It's a little different here, because MSA is operational -- we have
an altitude we can descend to as soon as we're within 25 nm. We're not talking about MSAs, we're talking about the 10 nm ring around the approach that signifies that the included area is to scale. There is no associated altitude with this ring, so some pilots assume that it means the PT altitude. It doesn't. The MSA is a 25 nm ring and it will provide obstacle protection; the 10 nm ring doesn't do that. I don't know what Canadian charts look like. (Note that you snipped out the part where I said I'd call and check what they actually wanted.) My point is that it doesn't matter what they wanted. We had a local approach where we often got vectored to a point on the extended centerline of the final approach course, but outside the point where the approach started. The published altitude was 2,000 feet, but we were vectored at 2,500. ATC *wanted* us to descend immediately on intercepting the localizer, but the approach simply did not authorize that. If ATC wanted us at 2,000, then it was their responsibility to assign that altitude, because only then are they providing obstacle protection. If a pilot allows himself to be intimidated down to an unpublished altitude, then there is no obstacle protection being provided by anyone, and the pilot is in violation of Part 97. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"David Megginson" wrote in message ... It's a little different here, because MSA is operational -- we have an altitude we can descend to as soon as we're within 25 nm. The MSA is for emergency use only. You shouldn't be relying on it for normal operations. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... "David Megginson" wrote in message ... It's a little different here, because MSA is operational -- we have an altitude we can descend to as soon as we're within 25 nm. The MSA is for emergency use only. You shouldn't be relying on it for normal operations. Oops, didn't recognize you were talking about Canada first... |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Canada, Ron, Dave is in Canada.
Bob Gardner "Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... "David Megginson" wrote in message ... It's a little different here, because MSA is operational -- we have an altitude we can descend to as soon as we're within 25 nm. The MSA is for emergency use only. You shouldn't be relying on it for normal operations. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Esres" wrote in message
... Is it well-defined where the approach segment begins when you're vectored for SHN NDB-A? Yes, in theory. ;-) You're on the final approach segment where the initial segment intersects the final approach course at (or within) the 10 nm limit stated in the chart. I see why it's a sensible practice to construe it that way, but is it officially defined that way somewhere? --Gary |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
So as a practical matter, assuming you are able to figure out the misleading
nature of the clearance, what would you do? I'm thinking that the controller hasn't technically give me anything I can't fly yet, it's just that I would like to be cleared lower outside of the FAF (before established). So I would accept the clearance "123Foxtrot cleared descend 2000". (I have never flown an NDB approach so bear with me here) Once I had established myself on a course of 232 to the NDB, I would say "123Foxtrot 2000 request descent 1400feet" The controller would either reply "123Foxtrot cleared to descend 1400" or "123Foxtrot, radar contact lost, maintain 2000 until established" I would respond with "123F maintaining 2000, will report crossing the NDB". I guess a third option would be "123F, you are cleared to descend once established".....in which case, see last sentence above. "Greg Esres" wrote in message ... I'd guess that you were OK to descend as soon as you intercepted the inbound course, Argh! No! The PILOT must know when he's established and within the protected area. All you've intercepted is a navaid, not a segment of the approach, until you've reached the start of that segment. they intend for me to follow any altitude instructions as soon as I'm on the course, even if I won't be inside PT limits for another 10 minutes or more. What ATC intends is irrelevant. If they want you at the published altitude before you reached the point where that altitude applies, then they're got to clear you down to it, using their MVAs. Failure to understand this concept has killed some people in the past, including at least 1 airliner, TWA 514. See the AOPA article: http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9806.html |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Natalie wrote: The MSA is for emergency use only. You shouldn't be relying on it for normal operations. True for the U.S. But, MSAs are operational altitudes for much of the world, which I believe includes Canada. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary L. Drescher" wrote: "Greg Esres" wrote in message ... Is it well-defined where the approach segment begins when you're vectored for SHN NDB-A? Yes, in theory. ;-) You're on the final approach segment where the initial segment intersects the final approach course at (or within) the 10 nm limit stated in the chart. I see why it's a sensible practice to construe it that way, but is it officially defined that way somewhere? On the FAR Part 97 form for the approach. It says "remain within 10 miles." Where there is no segment prior to that, the procedure turn initial approach segment begins at 10 miles from the PT fix. If normally ends at that limit, but when vectored to "final" it begins at that point. Same published-segment airspace boundary in either case. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Esres writes:
I don't know what Canadian charts look like. Pretty similar. If ATC wanted us at 2,000, then it was their responsibility to assign that altitude, because only then are they providing obstacle protection. If a pilot allows himself to be intimidated down to an unpublished altitude, then there is no obstacle protection being provided by anyone, and the pilot is in violation of Part 97. That's a good point. It looks like this might be a bit of a hornet's nest of pilot/controller confusion. My instrument rating is still fairly new, but when I'm being vectored far back (beyond PT limits), the instruction I get is usually something like "on interception, descend to ..." rather than "when established on the approach, descend to ...". That's less ambiguous. All the best, David |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The perfect approach | Capt.Doug | Home Built | 25 | December 3rd 04 03:37 AM |
Newbie Question, really: That first flight | Cecil Chapman | Home Built | 25 | September 20th 04 05:52 AM |
Which of these approaches is loggable? | Paul Tomblin | Instrument Flight Rules | 26 | August 16th 03 05:22 PM |
Terminology of New WAAS, VNAV, LPV approach types | Tarver Engineering | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | August 5th 03 03:50 AM |
IR checkride story! | Guy Elden Jr. | Instrument Flight Rules | 16 | August 1st 03 09:03 PM |