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
|
|||
|
|||
Direct to intermediate approach fix?
Sam Spade wrote:
Clearances direct-to the IF on RNAV approaches is now legal provided certain protocols are observed. It has been in the AIM for perhaps a year now. ;-) What are the protocols? I just took a look through what I thought were the likely parts of the AIM and didn't find anything about this. Do you have a specific section I should look at? In any case, if they're allowed to clear you direct to an IF, then the databases should start including the IFs in the "where do you want to start the approach from?" menus. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Direct to intermediate approach fix?
Just to be clear, it applies only to RNAV approaches and an RNAV-capable
aircraft. The ILS approach you were on does not meet that criterion. The 7110.65 provides for controllers to issue the instruction. It is 5-4-7i in the AIM. "Roy Smith" wrote in message ... Sam Spade wrote: Clearances direct-to the IF on RNAV approaches is now legal provided certain protocols are observed. It has been in the AIM for perhaps a year now. ;-) What are the protocols? I just took a look through what I thought were the likely parts of the AIM and didn't find anything about this. Do you have a specific section I should look at? In any case, if they're allowed to clear you direct to an IF, then the databases should start including the IFs in the "where do you want to start the approach from?" menus. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Direct to intermediate approach fix?
In article ,
"Stan Prevost" wrote: Just to be clear, it applies only to RNAV approaches and an RNAV-capable aircraft. The ILS approach you were on does not meet that criterion. The 7110.65 provides for controllers to issue the instruction. It is 5-4-7i in the AIM. Ah, thanks. 5-4-7-i says: i. ATC may clear aircraft that have filed an Advanced RNAV equipment suffix to the intermediate fix when clearing aircraft for an instrument approach procedure. ATC will take the following actions when clearing Advanced RNAV aircraft to the intermediate fix: 1. Provide radar monitoring to the intermediate fix. 2. Advise the pilot to expect clearance direct to the intermediate fix at least 5 miles from the fix. NOTE- This is to allow the pilot to program the RNAV equipment to allow the aircraft to fly to the intermediate fix when cleared by ATC. Which is fine. If the guy had told us 5 miles earlier, "expect direct FARAN", that would have given us a couple of minutes to set the box up. I'm not going to pick nits about RVAV vs. ILS, I'm just looking for a the time it takes to do all the button pushing I have to do to comply with his instruction. The other thing I don't understand is why the controller preferred "direct FARAN" to "fly heading 200 to intercept the localizer". They both boiled down to about the same ground track. They both required that he monitor our progress on radar. The heading to intercept was certainly easier for us to execute. Was there some advantage to the controller to issue it the way he did? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Direct to intermediate approach fix?
"Roy Smith" wrote in message ... In article , "Stan Prevost" wrote: Just to be clear, it applies only to RNAV approaches and an RNAV-capable aircraft. The ILS approach you were on does not meet that criterion. The 7110.65 provides for controllers to issue the instruction. It is 5-4-7i in the AIM. Ah, thanks. 5-4-7-i says: i. ATC may clear aircraft that have filed an Advanced RNAV equipment suffix to the intermediate fix when clearing aircraft for an instrument approach procedure. ATC will take the following actions when clearing Advanced RNAV aircraft to the intermediate fix: 1. Provide radar monitoring to the intermediate fix. 2. Advise the pilot to expect clearance direct to the intermediate fix at least 5 miles from the fix. NOTE- This is to allow the pilot to program the RNAV equipment to allow the aircraft to fly to the intermediate fix when cleared by ATC. Which is fine. If the guy had told us 5 miles earlier, "expect direct FARAN", that would have given us a couple of minutes to set the box up. I'm not going to pick nits about RVAV vs. ILS, I'm just looking for a the time it takes to do all the button pushing I have to do to comply with his instruction. The other thing I don't understand is why the controller preferred "direct FARAN" to "fly heading 200 to intercept the localizer". They both boiled down to about the same ground track. They both required that he monitor our progress on radar. The heading to intercept was certainly easier for us to execute. Was there some advantage to the controller to issue it the way he did? Not sure why you call it a nit. Your question related to whether the instructions you received were legit. They were not. They were not issued in accordance with the 7110.65 which is quite clear on this. When the rule was changed to allow vectors to an IF, it was very specifically limited to RNAV approaches. From the 7110.65: ====================== 4-8-1. APPROACH CLEARANCE snip b. For aircraft operating on unpublished routes, issue the approach clearance only after the aircraft is: ...........snip 4. Established on a heading or course that will intercept the intermediate segment at the intermediate fix, when an initial approach fix is published, provided the following conditions are met: (a) The instrument approach procedure is a GPS or RNAV approach. (b) Radar monitoring is provided to the Intermediate Fix. (c) The aircraft has filed an Advanced RNAV equipment suffix. (d) The pilot is advised to expect clearance direct to the Intermediate Fix at least 5 miles from the fix. (e) The aircraft is assigned an altitude to maintain until the Intermediate Fix. (f) 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. ========================= Note that (d) addresses your concern for more advance notice. This controller did not seem to understand the rule, as did not the one who gave me direct to an IF on a non-RNAV approach. The controller also did not seem to know the IAP, based on your statement about his thinking FARAN was an IAF. Another "nit" is that your instructions did not meet the criteria for skipping the PT. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Direct to intermediate approach fix?
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 18:15:32 -0800, Sam Spade wrote:
Roy Smith wrote: If they want to send people direct to FARAN (which they often do), why don't they just declare FARAN to be an IAF? Then it would get into the database that way, it would show up on everybody's IAF menus, and we would all be happy campers. We went through all this perhaps a year ago on this group. Clearances direct-to the IF on RNAV approaches is now legal provided certain protocols are observed. It has been in the AIM for perhaps a year now. ;-) It seems that although the AIM does not restrict this to RNAV approaches, there is such a restriction in the controllers manual 7110.65R, at least the version currently on the web. Am I missing something here? Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Direct to intermediate approach fix?
Roy Smith wrote:
The other thing I don't understand is why the controller preferred "direct FARAN" to "fly heading 200 to intercept the localizer". They both boiled down to about the same ground track. They both required that he monitor our progress on radar. The heading to intercept was certainly easier for us to execute. Was there some advantage to the controller to issue it the way he did? Stan is right, this is for RNAV only. I missed the part about the ILS in your original post. The likely reason the controller used the procedure for the ILS is because controllers have a way of bending the rules to suit their personal perception of things. When the proposal was discussed between the FAA and industry user groups, some proposed making it okay for all types of approaches that have intermedite fixes. The FAA wheel in charge said he did not want to to be used with other than RNAV because, unless you have RNAV, you can't get there on a ground-based IAP. Someone else said controllers would do it anyway for all type of IAPs with /G aircraft. ;-) In the case of an ILS, they are always video mapped where TRACON has coverage, and vectors to final are the rule except for the full approach. But, your controller obviously was lazy. A radar monitor is a whole lot easier than a vector and sometimes they don't even monitor the track. In fact, in the case of RNAV IAPs the IF often is not on the video map so it is a wag on their part in any case. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Direct to intermediate approach fix?
Also NY Tracon management has a "quality assurance" office which one of
the guys gave us numbers for back at a safety meeting. When I got verbally berated for flying legally I called that number and spoke to an individual. Gave him date/time/tail number and where I talked to the controller and they pulled the tapes. As a quality assurance issue you might want to express your misgivings as to being given an awkward at the least and possibly dangerous at the worst clearance. Robert Bob Gardner wrote: One of the ways to educate controllers is by using ASRS. When the NASA guys at Moffet Field call NY TRACON, the offending controller(s) will get the word. Bob Gardner "Roy Smith" wrote in message ... Yesterday, we had filed /G (with a CNX-80). Our clearance was KPOU IGN V157 HAARP -D- KHPN. Nothing out of the ordinary there. HPN was using the ILS-16 (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0612/00651I16.PDF) We were on V157 somewhere north of VALRE when we got "fly heading 200 to intercept, um, no, tell you what, proceed direct FARAN, cleared ILS-16". This is a pretty common thing for NY Approach to say, but as I study the chart now, I don't think it's legit. I asked NY Approach for an initial heading to FARAN and got back an annoyed sounding, "it's the initial approach fix" (along with a 200 heading). The problem is, it's NOT an IAF. Which means that you can't pick it out of the menu of IAFs for the approach. And since it wasn't on our original route, you can't pick it out of the flight plan. You need to spell it out letter by letter from the database (which takes a while, hence the request for an initial heading). The alternative would be to select IGN as the IAF from the approach menu, execute that, then go into the flight plan and select direct to FARAN. Except that it takes a while to figure that out, and I'm not even sure if the box will let you do it. It was my understanding that there's only two legit ways to clear a flight for an approach -- give them direct to an IAF, or give them vectors to the FAC. In this case, "direct FARAN, cleared ILS" is neither. Am I correct that this is a bum clearance? If they want to send people direct to FARAN (which they often do), why don't they just declare FARAN to be an IAF? Then it would get into the database that way, it would show up on everybody's IAF menus, and we would all be happy campers. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Direct to intermediate approach fix?
Ron Natalie wrote: Newps wrote: Bob Gardner wrote: One of the ways to educate controllers is by using ASRS. When the NASA guys at Moffet Field call NY TRACON, the offending controller(s) will get the word. You'd be much better off calling the TRACON. Ask for the QA guy. They will research it and get you an answer. QA or any supervisor. Give them the date and time so they can go listen. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Direct to intermediate approach fix?
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ... The likely reason the controller used the procedure for the ILS is because controllers have a way of bending the rules to suit their personal perception of things. What rules are you referring to? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Direct to intermediate approach fix?
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Sam Spade" wrote in message ... The likely reason the controller used the procedure for the ILS is because controllers have a way of bending the rules to suit their personal perception of things. What rules are you referring to? 7110.65P 4-8-1 b. 4. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RAF Blind/Beam Approach Training flights | Geoffrey Sinclair | Military Aviation | 3 | September 4th 09 06:31 PM |
GPS approach question | Matt Whiting | Instrument Flight Rules | 30 | August 29th 08 03:54 AM |
Where is approach good about multiple approaches and clearances in the air? | Andrew Gideon | Instrument Flight Rules | 29 | February 14th 04 02:51 AM |
Study pilot workload during approach and landing | Freshfighter | Piloting | 5 | December 7th 03 04:06 PM |
IR checkride story! | Guy Elden Jr. | Instrument Flight Rules | 16 | August 1st 03 09:03 PM |