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 |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
EGF456 got the clearance three minutes after you, but you don't know where
he is. Sure I do. He's three minutes behind me. He's been three minutes behind me since we left ORD. We filed the same route and the same altitude. Every step of the way I heard ATC issue him the same instruction I was issued, just three minutes later. I heard him report out of the same altitudes I did, just three minutes later. That wasn't part of the original scenario, but I'll bite. He will be at 5000 while I am descending in the hold to 3000. At 500 feet per minute I'll have 1500 feet of vertical clearance when he goes whizzing by overhead. But this is the crux of the matter. I've already said that if I were at the right altitude and reasonably on track, I'd go right in (no PT). You've indicated the same, and also that if you were not at the right altitude (say, 5000 feet), you'd get a new vector (and likely be sent to the back of the line) if you couldn't get an earlier clearance. This is also reasonable and I'd do the same. If you are dealt an inappropriate slam dunk (5000 on a 3000 approach), do you go missed or make it work? If you make it work, how would you lose the altitude? I suppose it's a bit off track of the PT question, though hold in lieu is one way to lose altitude, and is permitted most places a PT is. Jose -- Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Ron Garret" wrote in message ... So what would you do in the situation I described? You're at 4000 feet on V21 going to FUL. You have not been cleared for the approach or told to descend when you lose comm. If you go straight in you'll get to FUL right at your filed ETA. I answered that the first time you asked. I'd go straight in on the 020 radial. My news server seems to have some lag. I presume this is your answer: I'd create a fix on V21 where it crosses V25, I'd call it MCNIC. I'd make the MEA on V21 between MCNIC and SLI 2600'. I wouldn't show it as a feeder route, I'd make MCNIC an IAF just like ALBAS. I can't tell if you're being serious or not. As far as I know pilots can't create fixes, and certainly not while they're in the air. So let me be clear: if you were actually flying this route and lost comm you'd start a descent at MCNIC. I think I'd do the same thing. But I also think I'd technically be in violation of the FARs. Do you agree? rg |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
It's clear that whoever drafted the language in the explanation needs
to brush up on his or her written English skills. |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
Pilots often create fixes in the air and use them.
Often it eases the route to intercept a radial of a VOR, since FMS boxes are inherently fix to fix. It makes navigating much easier and is done routinely. Karl "Curator" N185KG |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Garret" wrote in message ... My news server seems to have some lag. I presume this is your answer: I'd create a fix on V21 where it crosses V25, I'd call it MCNIC. I'd make the MEA on V21 between MCNIC and SLI 2600'. I wouldn't show it as a feeder route, I'd make MCNIC an IAF just like ALBAS. No, my answer was, "It's IMC. I'd track the 020 radial out of SLI, fly the approach and land because doing anything else is nutty." I can't tell if you're being serious or not. As far as I know pilots can't create fixes, and certainly not while they're in the air. If my response isn't funny, I'm being serious. So let me be clear: if you were actually flying this route and lost comm you'd start a descent at MCNIC. I think I'd do the same thing. But I also think I'd technically be in violation of the FARs. Do you agree? It appears you're losing context. Mark Hansen mentioned creating a fix somewhere on V21 and initiating the approach from that point. My message was written along those lines, what I would do if I was designing the approach. |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Alright, here's a real world example for you. You're flying AWI123 from KORD to KGRB, Chicago departure puts you in the east departure track on a 360 heading and hands you off to Chicago Center. Around the Kenosha, WI, area Chicago Center tells you to proceed direct to GRB VORTAC. Down the road a piece you're handed off to Green Bay approach. At GRB the ILS RWY 36 approach is in use, and the approach controller notices you're present track will intercept the localizer about fifteen miles from DEPRE, the LOM/IAF. On initial contact you're told "descend and maintain 3,000 join the runway 36 localizer". About three minutes later you hear the same instruction issued to EGF456. When you're about five miles from DEPRE the approach controller says "AWI123 cleared ILS runway three six contact tower one one eight point seven." When you reach DEPRE will you continue towards the runway or will you start a procedure turn? As someone who knows a couple of AWI pilots, I can tell you what they would do. They'd point her one or two LRCH's to the left of DEPRE, peg it a 250 kts to stay ahead of Eagle, a couple of miles from DEPRE chop the power, deploy the airbrake, flaps, gear, some more flaps, stable at 1000', make the first turn-off, and be at the gate drinking Starbucks while the rest of you try to make up your minds about flying a proceedure turn or not. |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Ron Garret" wrote in message ... My news server seems to have some lag. I presume this is your answer: I'd create a fix on V21 where it crosses V25, I'd call it MCNIC. I'd make the MEA on V21 between MCNIC and SLI 2600'. I wouldn't show it as a feeder route, I'd make MCNIC an IAF just like ALBAS. No, my answer was, "It's IMC. I'd track the 020 radial out of SLI, fly the approach and land because doing anything else is nutty." I can't tell if you're being serious or not. As far as I know pilots can't create fixes, and certainly not while they're in the air. If my response isn't funny, I'm being serious. So let me be clear: if you were actually flying this route and lost comm you'd start a descent at MCNIC. I think I'd do the same thing. But I also think I'd technically be in violation of the FARs. Do you agree? It appears you're losing context. Mark Hansen mentioned creating a fix somewhere on V21 and initiating the approach from that point. My message was written along those lines, what I would do if I was designing the approach. But I'm the one who posed the original question, and my question is what you would do if you were *flying* the approach (as it currently exists) and lost comm. rg |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"kgruber" wrote: Pilots often create fixes in the air and use them. Not as part of an instrument approach they don't. rg |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 20:39:54 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote: "Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message news Well, there are FAA facilities that do not follow the same rules as they are published and interpreted by Washington. SoCal is another. There has been a push to standardize these kinds of things. Are you saying a rule was violated in this scenario? If so, what rule was violated? There was an old (1977) legal opinion indicating that pilots could get authorization from ATC to eliminate PT's when they were sort of lined up with the FAC and at an appropriate altitude. This supposedly was eliminated by the 1994 opinion; however, that 1994 opinion (which I quoted before) referred specifically to non-radar environments and was mute on radar environments. The 1994 opinion you posted does not differentiate between nonradar and radar environments. The full text, which has been posted previously by others, makes it clear that the opinion refers to a non-radar environment. Here is the relevant portion. "This is a clarification of our response to your letter of August 23, 1993. In that letter you requested an interpretation of Section 91.175 of the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) (14 C.F.R. Section 91.175). You address the necessity of executing a complete Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) in a non-radar environment while operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). Our response assumes that each of the specific scenarios you pose speaks to a flight conducted under IFR in a non-radar environment." There is no question in my mind that it would be safe to fly straight in from the position you set up. Perhaps the simplest way of getting that ATC facilities practice in line with the regulations would be to designate SENNA as an IAF. The route from OSH, which includes the route from SENNA to DEPRE, is a NoPT route, and ATC has placed me on that route crossing SENNA. That ATC facility's practice is already in line with the regulations. No, it seems to me that you've set up a situation which is quite similar to, and understood by most, to be functionally equivalent to radar vectors to the final approach course. It also happens to include a segment prior to the FAF which is part of a NoPT routing from a different IAF. However, you claim this procedure is NOT equivalent to RV to FAC. So you've effectively ignored the ATC requirement to start an approach at an IAF. That is a requirement for ATC unless giving radar vectors IAW 7110.65 5-9-1. You may say that DEPRE is an IAF (which it is) but it is not being used as one in this scenario. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
On 7 Oct 2005 17:05:28 -0700, "rps" wrote:
It's clear that whoever drafted the language in the explanation needs to brush up on his or her written English skills. It is also unclear whether the drafter even checked with the TERP's people who design the procedures, to see if such language meets with their approval. Or if he checked with the regulatory office to resolve the conflict with their 1994 opinion. Gee, if PT execution is now pilot choice, and "course reversal" is not further defined, that opens up a whole bunch of ways to get into trouble! Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question | A Lieberman | Instrument Flight Rules | 18 | January 30th 05 04:51 PM |
Required hold? | Nicholas Kliewer | Instrument Flight Rules | 22 | November 14th 04 01:38 AM |
more radial fans like fw190? | jt | Military Aviation | 51 | August 28th 04 04:22 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
IFR in the 1930's | Rich S. | Home Built | 43 | September 21st 03 01:03 AM |