Approach to an LOM/IAF with PT (not vectors to final)

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...
Jim, I like your idea on reading back for a straight-in.

Still doesn't make it legal, though

The thing
about doing a turn around the hold is that it seems to me to defeat the
whole purpose for the PT. As I understand it, the approaches have you
do this so that you are well-established on the SDF/ILS *before* you get
to the LOM. In this case, the PT or hold serves to destablize your
track and decrease safety. At least, that is how I see it.

Agreed. What's safe is not always legal, and what's legal is not always
safe


-Sami

Jim wrote:

Another option. You could use the hold for a course reversal. "Roger
Minneapolis, cleared for the SDF 2, direct NEPCO, we'd like to do a lap
in
the hold rather than the procedure turn." This would be a little
quicker
because the holding fix is NEPCO. Right turn outbound, right turn
inbound,
straight in and land.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 02:28:15 GMT, "Brad Z" wrote:

The hold is for the missed approach. If the designer of the approach had
intended to use the hold as a course reversal method, he/she would have
designed it that way. If you have not been advised that you are being
vectored for the approach, substituting a lap in the hold for a procedure
turn doesn't make it any more legal than omitting the PT altogether.

There may be a semantic issue here. I agree that the charted holding
pattern is for the missed approach. However, at least in the US, on this
approach the type of procedure turn is up to the pilot. So there would be
nothing wrong with executing a "racetrack" procedure turn, which would be
the same as the charted holding pattern.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:50:12 -0500, "O. Sami Saydjari"
wrote:

The Approach in question is SDF RWY 2 at KISW. I was coming in from the
south, nearly lined up with the inbound course of 021 degrees. I was in
touch with ATC. The LOM/IAF is called NEPCO. The ATC asked if I wanted
"direct NEPCO." I said yes. Within about 10 miles of the airport, the
controller said that frequency change was approved. I believe I was out
of radar contact by this time (radar coverage in the area is spotty).


I don't see in your summary where the controller cleared you for the
approach??? If so, what altitude did he tell you to maintain until NEPCO?


1. Since there is no "NO PT" indicated on the chart, does that mean that
I am required to do a 180 deg turn when I reach NEPCO so I can track
outbound (201), then do a PT, then come back?

Yes

That seems a little odd to me.

Probably because we don't have all the data.


2. If so, and I am assuming it is, should I have positioned myself to
approach NEPCO at an intercept that did not require a 180 deg turn to
get to the outbound course? Maybe come at it from the east?


If you are starting out south of the airport, it seems to me to be quicker
to fly to NEPCO and then do the PT as you are losing altitude.



3. Suppose that when I reach NEPCO (IAF), I am below the cloud deck.
Assume that I have switched over to unicom frequency at that point. Is
it permissible to abort the IFR approach and turn inbound for a visual
approach. Presumably, you would have to ask ATC permission to do this.

Correct.


What if you can not raise ATC on the radio? Can you go visual on your
own?

In an emergency situation, yes. If not, try to get a relay from FSS or
another a/c.



Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:50:12 -0500, "O. Sami Saydjari"
wrote:


The Approach in question is SDF RWY 2 at KISW. I was coming in from the
south, nearly lined up with the inbound course of 021 degrees. I was in
touch with ATC. The LOM/IAF is called NEPCO. The ATC asked if I wanted
"direct NEPCO." I said yes. Within about 10 miles of the airport, the
controller said that frequency change was approved. I believe I was out
of radar contact by this time (radar coverage in the area is spotty).



I don't see in your summary where the controller cleared you for the
approach??? If so, what altitude did he tell you to maintain until NEPCO?



Sorry. Yes, I believe he cleared me for the SDF RWY 2 approach,
maintain 3000 until established on the localizer. It has been several
weeks, so this is my best recollection of what was said to me.

The readback is meant to clarify the situation. In Sami's situation, it was
slightly confusing because he was first given a clearance direct from his
present position to the outer marker, then given a radio hand off before he
was even on a published portion of the approach, this in my mind leads me to
think the controller intended to clear him straight in but for some reason
didn't say the words, thus, I would give the read back that included the
words "straight in". If the controller says "read back correct", then I'd
be cleared straight in, which even though there is not a NoPT on the chart,
would be legal because it follows the clearance. Normally in this area,
once we descend below radar coverage, Minneapolis will request that we
"report procedure turn inbound" and then report the IAF before giving us a
radio handoff to a CTAF on a non-towered airport.

The turn in the hold is only an option that I brought up because it is a
legal form of course reversal. Not the best idea for establishing you on
the final approach path, I'll agree, but may be useful to either loose
altitude or get turned around and headed inbound in the least amount of
time.

BTW Sami, is that Mooney still for sale at ISW? Any idea of the real asking
price?

Jim

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 23:06:49 -0500, "O. Sami Saydjari"
wrote:

Sorry. Yes, I believe he cleared me for the SDF RWY 2 approach,
maintain 3000 until established on the localizer. It has been several
weeks, so this is my best recollection of what was said to me.

Well, if your recollection is accurate, there is a problem with that
clearance. From what you wrote previously, I am assuming you were on a
random route (i.e. not on a published route).

I believe you should have been given an altitude to maintain until NEPCO;
or not cleared for the approach until established on the localizer and then
given a distance to NEPCO and/or an altitude to maintain of 2600' if this
were a VTF clearance. (There may be other phraseology; I'm not a
controller).

I would not have assumed anything from that clearance with regard to VTF.

If the clearance was, in fact, maintain 3000 until NEPCO, I would have
executed the PT to lose altitude to 2600, probably using a racetrack
maneuver.

If the clearance was, in fact, maintain 3000 until intercepting the
localizer, I would have asked ATC for my distance from NEPCO and, if I was
within the PT distance, asked them specifically if this was "vectors to
final". I would NOT have used "readback what I want" trick and hope that
ATC would catch the error if they made it. Why be indirect and take a
chance on confusion, when you can ask your question directly?


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Jim" wrote in message
...

The exeption to the rule when NoPT is absent from the chart is
when you are cleared straight in either via radar vectors or via a
clearance, otherwise you are expected to do the PT when you
arrive over the fix that begins the procedure turn. Because you
were given a radio hand off to the local frequency, I would have
taken that to mean you were cleared straight in via your clearance
to NEPCO, but when in doubt ask, because as you say, you
were probably below radar coverage. I would have responded
with something like "N1234 cleared direct NEPCO, straight in
SDF 2, frequency change approved"


Cleared straight in either via a clearance? What does that mean?



That's usually what I do when comeing from the north into STE
on the GPS 21 and I usually get a "roger" or "read back correct".
If he wants you to do the full procedure turn that would give him
a chance to make his clearance clearer


Why would he want you to do a full procedure turn?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

Cleared straight in either via a clearance? What does that mean?


Sorry. That should have been, "Cleared straight in via a clearance?"

Michael wrote:


Technically yes, you are required to do this. If there's no RADAR,
who is going to know if you do or not?

Dishonesty, especially in a non-radar environment, is the last thing the
system needs.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

There may be a semantic issue here. I agree that the charted holding
pattern is for the missed approach. However, at least in the US, on this
approach the type of procedure turn is up to the pilot. So there would be
nothing wrong with executing a "racetrack" procedure turn, which would be
the same as the charted holding pattern.

"Racetrack" is an obsolete term left over from the lighted-aiway days. The
holding rules are pretty well spelled out. Racetrack patterns used to have 2
minute legs in the 1940s and 50s.