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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message ink.net... "Barry" wrote in message ... Here's a real-world scenario that I've encountered: VOR 22 approach to GED (Georgetown, DE): http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/publis...s/00935V22.PDF Coming from the northeast, on the 057 radial inbound to ATR (Victor 308), Dover Approach says "cross Waterloo at 3000, cleared for the VOR 22 approach". Since my course is now 237, I'm only three degrees off the final approach course of 234. There's no "No PT" sector shown, and the charted hold in lieu of a PT would put me on the 033 radial, with a 23 degree turn at the FAF. Obviously it makes no sense to do a turn in the hold, and Dover didn't expect me to, but some people would claim it's required. Is Dover doing anything contrary to 7110.65? Nope. So are you saying the turn around the hold is not legally required here? Why not? Thanks, John Clonts Temple, Texas N7NZ |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Rosenfeld wrote: On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 06:05:28 -0700, wrote: Apparently, the gentlemen is of limited clues. ;-) GPS approaches that have course reversals have them at the intermediate fix, not the FAF. That was why I asked for specifics regarding the SIAP. By the way, that should more properly read "stand-alone" GPS approaches, shouldn't it? Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) I suppose so. How about "RNAV (GPS) approaches that have course reversals have them at the intermediate waypoint, not the final approach waypoint." |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Teacherjh wrote: Letter of Legal Interpretation [snipped] These things are useless. You ask the FAA a question, and they quote the rules at you as if they were self-evident if only you knew what they were. Useless or not, they are used by the FAA in policy making and sometimes in enforcement proceedings, especially where the interpretation migrates to the AIM. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
"John Clonts" wrote in message ... So are you saying the turn around the hold is not legally required here? Why not? I said nothing at all like that. The question was; "Is Dover doing anything contrary to 7110.65?" They aren't. The pilot was cleared via an airway and the IAF was a VOR on that airway. That's a perfectly good clearance. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message link.net... "John Clonts" wrote in message ... So are you saying the turn around the hold is not legally required here? Why not? I said nothing at all like that. The question was; "Is Dover doing anything contrary to 7110.65?" They aren't. The pilot was cleared via an airway and the IAF was a VOR on that airway. That's a perfectly good clearance. Ok, then I'm asking you: "Is the turn around the hold legally required here?" Thanks, John |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
"John Clonts" wrote in message ... Ok, then I'm asking you: "Is the turn around the hold legally required here?" I don't think so. A procedure turn is "the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish an aircraft on the intermediate approach segment or final approach course." Obviously it isn't necessary to reverse direction in this case. Part 91 states when a procedure turn may not be flown, it has not a word on when a procedure turn must be flown. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
John Clonts wrote: So are you saying the turn around the hold is not legally required here? Why not? The reason you (the collective you ;-) are picking this one to death is because FAA air traffic management in DC can't manage. A proposal was taken to the Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee (ATPAC) 3 years ago to establish TERPs "fences" for direct-to clearances that could bypass the IAF. In the case of RNAV approaches the direct-to could not be to the FAF, but it could be to the IF, with a limit of a 90-degree course change and provided the MVA (and altitude assignment) were compatible with the procedure. In the case were a VOR or NDB is both the IAF and FAF, the clearance could be directly to the facility provided the course change was limited to 10-30 degrees (depending on length of final and type aircraft). Thus far, no action has been taken even though the proposal passed unanimously at ATPAC. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... Apparently, the gentlemen is of limited clues. ;-) GPS approaches that have course reversals have them at the intermediate fix, not the FAF. Limited clues? I don't think so. You need to get out around the country more. I've seen lots of those. Here's one that comes to mind where I made a fuel stop heading up to Colorado a while back. Seems to me that the FAF, IAF, and course reversal are all at the same waypoint on this one .. as I've seen on lots of them. And it sure isn't an overlay. http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/publis...s/06555G35.PDF |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:24:43 GMT, "Otis Winslow"
wrote: wrote in message ... Apparently, the gentlemen is of limited clues. ;-) GPS approaches that have course reversals have them at the intermediate fix, not the FAF. Limited clues? I don't think so. You need to get out around the country more. I've seen lots of those. Here's one that comes to mind where I made a fuel stop heading up to Colorado a while back. Seems to me that the FAF, IAF, and course reversal are all at the same waypoint on this one .. as I've seen on lots of them. And it sure isn't an overlay. http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/publis...s/06555G35.PDF That's an interesting approach in the context of our discussion. It's not really the TAA type GPS approach, but something else. For standard TAA's, where there is a five mile intermediate segment prior to the final segment, a turn at the IF is allowed up to, I think, 102°. In the approach you reference, arriving at COTTU on a 90° intercept at 3000' and then turning towards the airport, at slow speeds you would probably be safe. But I'd be concerned about the narrower surveyed protected area on the final segment that might bite me during the turn. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Boeing 757 turn rate? | Garyurbach | Aerobatics | 6 | June 14th 04 04:43 PM |
Interesting Departure Procedu MRB Trixy Two | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 26 | February 18th 04 11:42 PM |
Calculating vertical time and distance in a stall turn (US Hammerhead) | Dave | Aerobatics | 3 | November 20th 03 10:48 AM |
Instrument Approaches and procedure turns.... | Cecil E. Chapman | Instrument Flight Rules | 58 | September 18th 03 10:40 PM |