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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... Where does it state that the determination as to when a course reversal is necessary is to be made by the pilot? Where does it state when a course reversal is necessary at all? By regulation we are required to fly a SIAP as published when it is necessary, and the SIAP is regulatory by inclusion by reference into 14 CFR 97. I don't think anybody disputes that, but you're saying we are also required by regulation to fly a SIAP as published when it is NOT necessary. Yet you can't cite any regulation that says that. If the SIAP includes a procedure turn, without qualification as to how one is approaching that point (i.e. NoPT routings), then it becomes regulatory by virtue of the above. 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? http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...s/00873I36.PDF |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Garret" wrote in message ... 91.3(a)? Works for me. OK, so say you're flying AVX V21 SLI FUL. Fullerton ATIS says the VOR-A is in use. Then you lose comm. What would you do and why? It's IMC. I'd track the 020 radial out of SLI, fly the approach and land because doing anything else is nutty. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... 91.3(a)? But you need to be in an emergency situation to deviate from the other rules of Part 91. I try to not allow my SIAP's deteriorate to that point :-)) FAR 91.3(a) says nothing about an emergency situation. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
In response to Steven McNicoll's scenario:
It wasn't clear to me from the scenario you wrote whether I'd be arriving from the north or elsewhere. If from the north, I'd have to fly the published PT because a course reversal is necessary. So, upon arriving DEPRE, I'd continue south on the localizer for about 1.5 minutes, and fly any type of PT to the west of the localizer. Upon returning to the localizer, I'd follow the glideslope down. If I'm approaching from the south (which is probably what you meant) and hadn't already arrived at GRB VORTAC before being cleared for the ILS, I'd join the localizer and: 1) when I'm within 10 nm of DEPRE, descend to 2700 and inform approach that I'm "leaving 3000 for 2700"; and 2) capture and follow the glide slope. In my opinion, the PT is unnecessary because there is no course reversal. Some would probably argue that you've been given radar vectors because your prior instruction was direct GRB VORTAC. In this northbound scenario, let's say you weren't cleared to 3000, and were still at an en route altitude, suppose 6000, when approach clears you for the ILS. You'd have to lose altitude fast. I still wouldn't do the PT. I'd instead opt to descend in a holding pattern at DEPRE (which is an IAF) down to 2200 (or capture glideslope northbound when south of DEPRE on an inbound leg of the hold). Of course, I'd let approach (or tower, as appropriate) know what I'm doing so that ATC is not surprised. If they need the airspace for someone else, they'd let me know. Doing so also keeps me closer to the airport in case something goes wrong when I'm descending. I think you could opt to do a PT instead, but how would you know when to begin the PT if you're approaching from the south and don't have a GPS? |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... Where does it state that the determination as to when a course reversal is necessary is to be made by the pilot? Where does it state when a course reversal is necessary at all? By regulation we are required to fly a SIAP as published when it is necessary, and the SIAP is regulatory by inclusion by reference into 14 CFR 97. I don't think anybody disputes that, but you're saying we are also required by regulation to fly a SIAP as published when it is NOT necessary. Yet you can't cite any regulation that says that. If the SIAP includes a procedure turn, without qualification as to how one is approaching that point (i.e. NoPT routings), then it becomes regulatory by virtue of the above. 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? http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...s/00873I36.PDF I don't think that's a very good example because (one could argue) you're being radar vectored to the approach, which is specifically cited in the AIM as one of the situations where a PT is not needed. rg |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
On 10/6/2005 10:51, Ron Garret wrote:
In article , Mark Hansen wrote: On 10/6/2005 08:23, Ron Garret wrote: In article , Ron Rosenfeld wrote: OK, so say you're flying AVX V21 SLI FUL. Fullerton ATIS says the VOR-A is in use. Then you lose comm. What would you do and why? Being more familiar with Jepp charts, and having to rely on NACO charts for that approach, perhaps I am missing some subtlety. But assuming a non-emergency situation, not getting into the discussion of what to do at SLI if you're ahead of your ETA, and also assuming IMC, I would maintain the V21 MEA of 4000' until reaching SLI. At SLI I would execute a racetrack type procedure turn on the SE side of the final approach course, descending to 2600'. Passing SLI inbound I would cross BWALT at or above 1500' and then continue my descent to the MDA and land if I met the requirements of 91.175 and the runway were clear. As to why? I would do that because that's how that SIAP is charted No, it isn't. There is no "racetrack type procedure turn" on the chart. There is a hold that is part of the missed approach. And if you fly that hold so as to end up at SLI inbound then you've flown it in the wrong direction. I think Ron said he wasn't as familiar with the government charts. There are two Rons in play here :-) Ron G. (that's me) is looking at a government chart. Thanks, but I wasn't confused about that. ;-) However, if you look at the chart, the procedure turn is indicated with the Barb, pointing 155 degrees. You can see, also, that if you use AIBAS IAF, no procedure turn is necessary. True, but you're not coming from ALBAS. You're coming in on V21. My point was that *if you were using ALBAS*, you would not need the procedure turn. According to the SIAP, if you're using the VOR as the IAF, you would need to use the procedure turn. (As an aside, doesn't it make intuitive sense that, from a TERPS point of view, if no procedure turn is required from ALBAS that none should be required coming from V21?) Victor 21 is not a feeder route for the approach. If it was, it would be charted as such. So you may be able to argue your point with the procedure designers... When you hit the VOR, you turn outbound for the procedure turn, 200 degrees. During the outbound leg (and the procedure turn) you can begin your descent to 2600'. You should time it such that you are at 2600' before you get back to the VOR. Note that you need to remain within 10NM of the VOR during the turn, so you can go outbound quite a log way (to aid in the descent) before actually beginning the physical turn. I presume you mean turn to a 200 heading, not turn 200 degrees. Yes, you can because I said "Turn, 200 degrees" instead of "turn 200 degrees", which wouldn't make any sense anyway... Sorry it wasn't clear. V21 is on a 202 heading. You would be turning 178 degrees or 182 degrees depending on which way you made the turn. Now... Right, because V21 is not a feeder route... Do you really turn to a 200 heading, or do you turn to intercept the SLI 200 radial? Those are not the same maneuver. You intercept the radial, of course... Do you turn left or right and why? You turn toward the protected side of the procedure area, which is to the southeast. At what point are you "established on the outbound leg", when you reach a 200 heading, or when you are established on the SLI 200 radial? I'll bet you can answer that one yourself ;-) Finally, suppose you flew this Byzantine procedure... by the time you got to the actual procedure turn (which, I note in passing, would be your SECOND course reversal) you would be in almost exactly the same spot as you were just minutes ago when you were on V21. Why is it safe to descend now but not then? What is the MEA on the victor airway (I don't have it here...) Something like 4000'? They aren't going to change the MEA of the airway just to satisfy an approach (or at least they didn't in this case). So, you'll be approaching the VOR at 4000' ... much to high to begin the approach. Now if you look at the feeder route from AIBAS, it has a minimum altitude of 2600'. This is exactly what you want. If you don't want to do the PT, use this IAF rather than the VOR. Note that WILMA requires a PT because it is not aligned within 30 degrees of the FAC... Now, if they created a fix somewhere out on V21, and wrote a feeder route from that fix, then you could. Effectively, you've be flying V21 to the fix, then initiating the SIAP from there. However, they didn't, so you can't ;-) That gets in to why the designers set up the approach this way, which I don't know. As a pilot using the procedure, I need only to interpret the chart. I don't really have to understand the "whys" behind it. rg -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane Sacramento, CA |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
I forgot to mentiond that I'd hold south of DEPRE, left turns.
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 16:37:34 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote: So make your case I've already made my case. You may reread it and the references until you understand it, or choose to disagree. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 08:23:29 -0700, Ron Garret
wrote: No, it isn't. There is no "racetrack type procedure turn" on the chart. There is a hold that is part of the missed approach. And if you fly that hold so as to end up at SLI inbound then you've flown it in the wrong direction. Huh? On the NACO chart I am looking at there is a barb on R-200 from SLI with 155°/335° on it. To the best of my knowledge, that indicates that the type of procedure turn is up to the pilot. Perhaps you are not aware that a racetrack pattern is one of the allowable types of procedure turns. Review your IFR materials and you will discover that it is. To be more precise, I would turn right at SLI to a heading that will allow me to track parallel to the inbound 020° course so that, with wind correction, when I turn inbound I will be established on the FAC INBOUND to SLI. Other methods are acceptable, but you asked what *I* would do. You could also, (and I probably would in mountainous terrain without GPS), continue the right turn at SLI until intercepting R-200, and then do a 45° PT on the SE side. But the choice of PT type is up to the pilot, in this instance. And your correct about the MEA statement. I meant to type "descend *from* the MEA" and not "*to* the MEA". Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
"rps" wrote in message ups.com... In response to Steven McNicoll's scenario: It wasn't clear to me from the scenario you wrote whether I'd be arriving from the north or elsewhere. KGRB is about 150 miles north of KORD. If from the north, I'd have to fly the published PT because a course reversal is necessary. So, upon arriving DEPRE, I'd continue south on the localizer for about 1.5 minutes, and fly any type of PT to the west of the localizer. Upon returning to the localizer, I'd follow the glideslope down. If I'm approaching from the south (which is probably what you meant) and hadn't already arrived at GRB VORTAC I included a link to the approach plate, it shows the VORTAC to be about five miles NNW of the field. before being cleared for the ILS, I'd join the localizer and: 1) when I'm within 10 nm of DEPRE, descend to 2700 and inform approach that I'm "leaving 3000 for 2700"; and 2) capture and follow the glide slope. If you begin descent when ten miles from DEPRE you've busted your altitude. The last instruction was "descend and maintain 3,000, join the runway 36 localizer", approach clearance was issued at five miles from DEPRE. In my opinion, the PT is unnecessary because there is no course reversal. Some would probably argue that you've been given radar vectors because your prior instruction was direct GRB VORTAC. Those making that argument would be wrong. If you're on your own navigation direct to a fix you're not being vectored, you're being vectored when you're on an assigned heading. |
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 05:51 PM |
Required hold? | Nicholas Kliewer | Instrument Flight Rules | 22 | November 14th 04 02:38 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 |