Hi all,

Question: take a look at the VOR Rwy 28 approach at Marshall Brooks
field (RMY). I've filed IFR to airports where the VOR IAF happened to
be the VOR which was no problem, I'd just have that VOR be the last
fix in the route box on flight plan form. In RMY's case, the IAF
appears to be the intersection ALBIO. So, on the flight plan, should
the route terminate at ALBIO? That intersection isn't even on the
enroute chart. Thanks.

P.S. Sorry haven't posted in a while, have had no time to read or
post. :( Hope y'all are doing well.

- Slav

"Slav Inger" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Question: take a look at the VOR Rwy 28 approach at Marshall Brooks
> field (RMY). I've filed IFR to airports where the VOR IAF happened to
> be the VOR which was no problem, I'd just have that VOR be the last
> fix in the route box on flight plan form. In RMY's case, the IAF
> appears to be the intersection ALBIO. So, on the flight plan, should
> the route terminate at ALBIO? That intersection isn't even on the
> enroute chart. Thanks.
>

If the fix isn't on the enroute chart it likely isn't stored in the flight
data processing computer. Filing such a fix in a route will cause the
flight plan to terminate at the previous known fix or be rejected
completely. Just file from the last enroute fix that is on the chart direct
to the field. It's just not that critical.

On 28 May 2004 19:33:13 -0700, (Slav Inger) wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>Question: take a look at the VOR Rwy 28 approach at Marshall Brooks
>field (RMY). I've filed IFR to airports where the VOR IAF happened to
>be the VOR which was no problem, I'd just have that VOR be the last
>fix in the route box on flight plan form. In RMY's case, the IAF
>appears to be the intersection ALBIO. So, on the flight plan, should
>the route terminate at ALBIO? That intersection isn't even on the
>enroute chart. Thanks.
>
>P.S. Sorry haven't posted in a while, have had no time to read or
>post. :( Hope y'all are doing well.
>
>- Slav

Although it's done in the military (or, at least, it used to be that way),
under Part 91 there is no 'rule' that says you have to file to an IAF.

So I don't pay any particular attention to that procedure. If I am filing
airways, I'd usually file to the last VOR on my route. For example, coming
from my home airport, I'd probably file ...JXN direct. If my computer did
it, the routing would be ...JXN V116 ECKDO direct.

It doesn't really matter. When you get close, ATC will assign an approach
and give you the routing they want you to fly. Or give you radar vectors.
And if you lose communications, they'll protect the IAF airspace anyway.

If I were coming from the South or West, I'd probably file via LFD or BTL
since there are feeder routes from those VOR's to the IAF.


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

Your clearance will be to the destination airport, so why no make that the
last entry in the route?

Bob Gardner

"Slav Inger" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi all,
>
> Question: take a look at the VOR Rwy 28 approach at Marshall Brooks
> field (RMY). I've filed IFR to airports where the VOR IAF happened to
> be the VOR which was no problem, I'd just have that VOR be the last
> fix in the route box on flight plan form. In RMY's case, the IAF
> appears to be the intersection ALBIO. So, on the flight plan, should
> the route terminate at ALBIO? That intersection isn't even on the
> enroute chart. Thanks.
>
> P.S. Sorry haven't posted in a while, have had no time to read or
> post. :( Hope y'all are doing well.
>
> - Slav

Hey Slav, how are ya.

My CFII's IR notes have a bold entry for "Always file to an IAF" and that's
what I do. Not saying this is correct or not, hopefully this thread sorts it
out. Perhaps I haven't come across the situation with an intersection fix
not on the charts in my limited experience.

The whole filing thing is more to do with Lost Comms than anything else.
Unless I've specifically requested the Full Procedure- ABC Transition, then,
as stated by another poster, you always get vectored to final.

Iain


"Slav Inger" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi all,
>
> Question: take a look at the VOR Rwy 28 approach at Marshall Brooks
> field (RMY). I've filed IFR to airports where the VOR IAF happened to
> be the VOR which was no problem, I'd just have that VOR be the last
> fix in the route box on flight plan form. In RMY's case, the IAF
> appears to be the intersection ALBIO. So, on the flight plan, should
> the route terminate at ALBIO? That intersection isn't even on the
> enroute chart. Thanks.
>
> P.S. Sorry haven't posted in a while, have had no time to read or
> post. :( Hope y'all are doing well.
>
> - Slav

"Iain Wilson" > wrote in message
hlink.net...>

> The whole filing thing is more to do with Lost Comms than anything else.

In the case of Lost Comm, ATC will try to track your progress either via
transponder or as a primary target. Either way they will be sure the
airspace is cleared to fly any approach at your filed destination.

> Unless I've specifically requested the Full Procedure- ABC Transition,
then,
> as stated by another poster, you always get vectored to final.

In many rural or mountainous areas, radar coverage is unavailable and you
must fly complete approaches including published course reversals.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> In the case of Lost Comm, ATC will try to track your progress either via
> transponder or as a primary target. Either way they will be sure the
> airspace is cleared to fly any approach at your filed destination.
>

Or at any airport along your route.

Slav Inger wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Question: take a look at the VOR Rwy 28 approach at Marshall Brooks
> field (RMY). I've filed IFR to airports where the VOR IAF happened to
> be the VOR which was no problem, I'd just have that VOR be the last
> fix in the route box on flight plan form. In RMY's case, the IAF
> appears to be the intersection ALBIO. So, on the flight plan, should
> the route terminate at ALBIO? That intersection isn't even on the
> enroute chart. Thanks.
>
> P.S. Sorry haven't posted in a while, have had no time to read or
> post. :( Hope y'all are doing well.
>
> - Slav

In this case filing a route to LFD then direct to the airport would be the
best course of action.

"Iain Wilson" > wrote in message .net>...
> My CFII's IR notes have a bold entry for "Always file to an IAF" and that's
> what I do. Not saying this is correct or not, hopefully this thread sorts it
> out. Perhaps I haven't come across the situation with an intersection fix
> not on the charts in my limited experience.

This is actually an interesting topic.

If you follow Don Brown's interesting columns for AvWeb, a few months
back he emphasized "always file to an IAF". (If you don't follow them
you should).

On the other hand....he also made a statement indicating that he
believed every approach contained an explicit transition from the
Victor airway structure -- IOW, that it's straightforward to include
the transition from the enroute structure to the IAF in your flight
plan. (My paraphrase)

Well, I think that was true once, but enter the RNAV/GPS approach
where (from what I understand) it's considered a transition if an
airway or intersection simply lies in one of the TAA sectors (with
no charted way for ATCS or pilot to readily Get the Picture). And
I know some RNAV/GPS approaches where I don't even think that's true--
certainly not of any VOR or intersection that anyone shooting the
approach would realistically want to fly to, first.

The bottom line is: my obsolete Palm VIIx can hold every VOR, navaid,
intersection, and airport in its measily little memory, but the ATC
computers can't. So if you're planning to shoot a GPS approach,
or if the IAF is not part of the enroute structure and your destination
is served by a different ARTCC than your departure point, there's a
pretty good chance filing to the IAF will only bollix the works.

OTOH, if the IAF is on the enroute charts, if it's an h-class VOR
or an intersection defined by airways, file it.

> The whole filing thing is more to do with Lost Comms than anything else.

Mmmm. Well. I have two radios, two antenna, extra headset jacks, and
a handheld radio with headset adaptor. I could be wrong, but I think
the most likely reason for me to lose comms (other than temporarily)
would be electrical failure.

In that case, I think the best thing for me to do is beat it to the
nearest VFR wx.

If I do lose comms for some other reason, I'm going to land at the
nearest practical airport. Let's say I'm flying into BWI. Think
ATC wants me to follow lost comm procs, hold at the IAF for one of
the ILS then shoot the approach? Or do they want me to skedaddle
down the GPS approach into some airport along the way and get out of
their hair ASAP? I know which gets my vote.

> Unless I've specifically requested the Full Procedure- ABC Transition, then,
> as stated by another poster, you always get vectored to final.

Um, no. If you are flying into airports where the ATC facility can
provide radar vectors to the FAC, you almost always get vectored to
final. However, there are many airports and many approaches where this
isn't true, and you'll be flying the full approach including the PT or
other course reversal.

"Slav Inger" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Question: take a look at the VOR Rwy 28 approach at Marshall Brooks
> > field (RMY). I've filed IFR to airports where the VOR IAF happened to
> > be the VOR which was no problem, I'd just have that VOR be the last
> > fix in the route box on flight plan form. In RMY's case, the IAF
> > appears to be the intersection ALBIO. So, on the flight plan, should
> > the route terminate at ALBIO? That intersection isn't even on the
> > enroute chart.

Slav, if the intersection isn't on the enroute chart, it's not likely
to be in the ATC computers unless your departure is served by the same
ATC facility. So I wouldn't file it.

JMO.

Best,
Sydney

<GPS approaches/Filing IAF>

Good to know. You'd think that anything designated as an IAF would be in the
system..


>
> > The whole filing thing is more to do with Lost Comms than anything else.
>
> Mmmm. Well. I have two radios, two antenna, extra headset jacks, and
> a handheld radio with headset adaptor. I could be wrong, but I think
> the most likely reason for me to lose comms (other than temporarily)
> would be electrical failure.
>
> In that case, I think the best thing for me to do is beat it to the
> nearest VFR wx.
>
> If I do lose comms for some other reason, I'm going to land at the
> nearest practical airport. Let's say I'm flying into BWI. Think
> ATC wants me to follow lost comm procs, hold at the IAF for one of
> the ILS then shoot the approach? Or do they want me to skedaddle
> down the GPS approach into some airport along the way and get out of
> their hair ASAP? I know which gets my vote.

Undoubtedly, but you still file a plan primarily for routing & lost comms.
If there are no other more sensible actions, then you are supposed to fly
what you've filed.



>
> > Unless I've specifically requested the Full Procedure- ABC Transition,
then,
> > as stated by another poster, you always get vectored to final.
>
> Um, no. If you are flying into airports where the ATC facility can
> provide radar vectors to the FAC, you almost always get vectored to
> final. However, there are many airports and many approaches where this
> isn't true, and you'll be flying the full approach including the PT or
> other course reversal.

Um, obviously with no radar, there'll be no vectoring.



>
> "Slav Inger" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Question: take a look at the VOR Rwy 28 approach at Marshall Brooks
> > > field (RMY). I've filed IFR to airports where the VOR IAF happened to
> > > be the VOR which was no problem, I'd just have that VOR be the last
> > > fix in the route box on flight plan form. In RMY's case, the IAF
> > > appears to be the intersection ALBIO. So, on the flight plan, should
> > > the route terminate at ALBIO? That intersection isn't even on the
> > > enroute chart.
>
> Slav, if the intersection isn't on the enroute chart, it's not likely
> to be in the ATC computers unless your departure is served by the same
> ATC facility. So I wouldn't file it.
>
> JMO.
>
> Best,
> Sydney

"Iain Wilson" > wrote in message et>...
> <GPS approaches/Filing IAF>
> Good to know. You'd think that anything designated as an IAF would be in the
> system..

Yeah, well. The thought that my Palm VIIx has more memory than
today's ATC computers is pretty scary actually.

> Undoubtedly, but you still file a plan primarily for routing & lost comms.
> If there are no other more sensible actions, then you are supposed to fly
> what you've filed.

My point is, and this isn't aimed at you in particular, I hear a lot of
stressing over the fine points of routing "in case of lost comms". But
in fact, following the route as filed is only one of several RL options
in the case of lost comms, and quite likely not the best option.

JMO, but if there are no other "more sensible actions" I kinda think
as the pilot of a light SE airplane I should stay in the air.

> > > Unless I've specifically requested the Full Procedure- ABC Transition,
> then,
> > > as stated by another poster, you always get vectored to final.

> > Um, no. If you are flying into airports where the ATC facility can
> > provide radar vectors to the FAC, you almost always get vectored to
> > final. However, there are many airports and many approaches where this
> > isn't true, and you'll be flying the full approach including the PT or
> > other course reversal.

> Um, obviously with no radar, there'll be no vectoring.

It's not as simple as "no radar", there can be radar coverage but it
must meet certain criterion for ATC to be able to provide radar vectors
to the FAC.

But I was addressing the statement "you always get vectored to final"
T'aint so.

Cheers,
Sydney