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.

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.

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.

Roy Smith wrote:

> 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.

It's not legit. You're right. IAF or vectors to final.

>
> 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.

Yep, it will let you do that. I just did it on the simulator for
this approach. I've had to do similar things in the past at Dulles.

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.

Might not be limited to New York, newps. You know as well as I do that GPS
is not fully understood by a lot of controllers who speak fluent VOR,

Bob

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> 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.

I roll my own GPS assisted ILS's. Usually its a flight plan with the
FAF and the airport. Pick it and go there. Then I use the loc/GS to fly
the ILS on it, but the GPS is there, to assist.

You will find that a lot with GPS approaches too. They vector you to a
non-IAP fix. Get prepared for it.

"Doug" > wrote in message ups.com...
>
>
> You will find that a lot with GPS approaches too. They vector you to a
> non-IAP fix. Get prepared for it.
>
Indeed. Two days ago, I experienced exactly that, except the controller
first asked if I would like to receive vectors to that non-IAF fix.
Very nice of her to give me the choice, I thought.

It is now legit to clear an aircraft to an IF on an RNAV approach. I think
some of the controllers have mixed that up with other approaches. I have
received direct to an IAF/IF/FAF (the VOR) on a dogleg VOR/DME approach,
cleared straight-in approach. I questioned the controller, he amended the
clearance to vectors to the dogleg intermediate segment, which is also not
allowed by the 7110.65.



"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.

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. ;-)

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.

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.

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?

"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.

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)

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.

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.
>
>
>

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.

"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?

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.

"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
>

So what's the problem with controllers bending the rules to suit their
personal perception of things? After all, 7110.65 is an FAA order and FAA
orders are just guidance. Isn't that correct?

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
>>
>
>
> So what's the problem with controllers bending the rules to suit their
> personal perception of things? After all, 7110.65 is an FAA order and FAA
> orders are just guidance. Isn't that correct?
>
>
No, that is not correct.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, that is not correct.
>

What caused you to change your mind?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>No, that is not correct.
>>
>
>
> What caused you to change your mind?
>
>
An order sets forth directives from the Adminstrator or her designees.

Where the order sets fortt mandatory actions or limitations, it means
just that. Where it gives several methods of compliance, it means just
that. Where it provides optional procedures, it means just that. Where
it instructs employees to be familiar with an order that applies to the
services they provide, it means just that.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> An order sets forth directives from the Adminstrator or her designees.
>
> Where the order sets fortt mandatory actions or limitations, it means just
> that. Where it gives several methods of compliance, it means just that.
> Where it provides optional procedures, it means just that. Where it
> instructs employees to be familiar with an order that applies to the
> services they provide, it means just that.
>

Yes, I know, but three months ago you took the position that FAA orders are
guidance. What caused you to change your mind?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>An order sets forth directives from the Adminstrator or her designees.
>>
>>Where the order sets fortt mandatory actions or limitations, it means just
>>that. Where it gives several methods of compliance, it means just that.
>>Where it provides optional procedures, it means just that. Where it
>>instructs employees to be familiar with an order that applies to the
>>services they provide, it means just that.
>>
>
>
> Yes, I know, but three months ago you took the position that FAA orders are
> guidance. What caused you to change your mind?
>
>
I didn't.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> I didn't.
>

Which do you believe you didn't do? Take the position that FAA orders are
guidance or change your mind?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I didn't.
>>
>
>
> Which do you believe you didn't do? Take the position that FAA orders are
> guidance or change your mind?
>
>

Oh, orders are indeed guidance. Guidance does not always mean guidelines.

I quote Order 8260.19C, Paragraph 100:

"This order provides guidance to all FAA personnel for the
administration and accomplishment of the FAA Flight Procedures and
Airspace Program."

Or, Order 7100.9:

"1. Purpose. This order provides guidance and standardization for
procedures development and management of the Standard Terminal Arrival
(STAR) Program."

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> Oh, orders are indeed guidance. Guidance does not always mean guidelines.
>
> I quote Order 8260.19C, Paragraph 100:
>
> "This order provides guidance to all FAA personnel for the administration
> and accomplishment of the FAA Flight Procedures and Airspace Program."
>
> Or, Order 7100.9:
>
> "1. Purpose. This order provides guidance and standardization for
> procedures development and management of the Standard Terminal Arrival
> (STAR) Program."
>

l.rr.com

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Oh, orders are indeed guidance. Guidance does not always mean guidelines.
>>
>>I quote Order 8260.19C, Paragraph 100:
>>
>>"This order provides guidance to all FAA personnel for the administration
>>and accomplishment of the FAA Flight Procedures and Airspace Program."
>>
>>Or, Order 7100.9:
>>
>>"1. Purpose. This order provides guidance and standardization for
>>procedures development and management of the Standard Terminal Arrival
>>(STAR) Program."
>>
>
>
> l.rr.com
>
>
>
I repeat myself:


Where the order sets fortt mandatory actions or limitations, it means
just that. Where it gives several methods of compliance, it means just
that. Where it provides optional procedures, it means just that. Where
it instructs employees to be familiar with an order that applies to the
services they provide, it means just that.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> I repeat myself:
>
>
> Where the order sets fortt mandatory actions or limitations, it means just
> that. Where it gives several methods of compliance, it means just that.
> Where it provides optional procedures, it means just that. Where it
> instructs employees to be familiar with an order that applies to the
> services they provide, it means just that.
>

FAA Order 7210.37 En Route Minimum IFR Altitude Sector Charts states; "Each
air route traffic control center shall develop and implement MIA sector
charts using these procedures/criteria." "Shall" sets forth mandatory
action, yet last September you said this order was "guidance". So, I repeat
myself, what caused you to change your mind?

FAA Order 7210.3 Facility Operation and Administration, in paragraph 3-9-2.
MVA CHART PREPARATION (TERMINAL/MEARTS) states; "Prepare a vectoring chart
as follows:", then goes on to use a lot of other mandatory words. But last
September you said this order was "guidance" as well. So, I repeat myself,
what
caused you to change your mind?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I repeat myself:
>>
>>
>>Where the order sets fortt mandatory actions or limitations, it means just
>>that. Where it gives several methods of compliance, it means just that.
>>Where it provides optional procedures, it means just that. Where it
>>instructs employees to be familiar with an order that applies to the
>>services they provide, it means just that.
>>
>
>
> FAA Order 7210.37 En Route Minimum IFR Altitude Sector Charts states; "Each
> air route traffic control center shall develop and implement MIA sector
> charts using these procedures/criteria." "Shall" sets forth mandatory
> action, yet last September you said this order was "guidance". So, I repeat
> myself, what caused you to change your mind?
>
> FAA Order 7210.3 Facility Operation and Administration, in paragraph 3-9-2.
> MVA CHART PREPARATION (TERMINAL/MEARTS) states; "Prepare a vectoring chart
> as follows:", then goes on to use a lot of other mandatory words. But last
> September you said this order was "guidance" as well. So, I repeat myself,
> what
> caused you to change your mind?
>
>
You love to twist it, don't you. I told you several month's ago you
should take Los Angeles Center to task for violating the MIA order.
Instead, you just like to argue.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> You love to twist it, don't you.

Just the opposite, actually.


>
> I told you several month's ago you should take Los Angeles Center to task
> for violating the MIA order. Instead, you just like to argue.
>

That's not what you said. You said the orders were "guidance". You had no
idea the procedures in them were mandatory. You had no idea how MIAs or
MVAs were established, you thought they were based on radar coverage. What
caused you to change your mind?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>You love to twist it, don't you.
>
>
> Just the opposite, actually.
>
>
>
>>I told you several month's ago you should take Los Angeles Center to task
>>for violating the MIA order. Instead, you just like to argue.
>>
>
>
> That's not what you said. You said the orders were "guidance". You had no
> idea the procedures in them were mandatory. You had no idea how MIAs or
> MVAs were established, you thought they were based on radar coverage. What
> caused you to change your mind?
>
>
So, you know more about my ideas than I do?

Wow, you are very special.

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> So, you know more about my ideas than I do?
>

I know what you wrote better than you do.


>
> Wow, you are very special.
>

Agreed.