I had a surprise reaction from approach controller while entering the
GPS 23 at UCP:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0709/05842R23.PDF
I was doing a final pre-checkride lesson, and about 25 NW of UCP. In
IMC, assigned heading 250 at 4000. I expected the next word would be
"advise when you have the New Castle weather" and then "what approach
would you like?" But instead we got proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23
approach. OK, so student stayed at 4000, entered the procedure in the
530W and headed to Zarto, no problem.

Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all
agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no
sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.)

Anyway I thought the student might get to Zarto still at 4000 realize
there was time to descend to 2600 before Wobut and just turn inbound the
few degrees required. The 530 asks "do you want to hold at Zarto" and I
saw him pause and think about it and he selected "yes", which seemed
like a good answer (the only really correct answer I thought).

So as we turned outbound for the hold the controller comes on rather
gruffly and says "1234X, where are you going?" I got on and said
"...entering the hold as published " and he says "why, that is not
authorized, if you want to do it you have to ask.." I pointed out that
the only NoPT enteries were from the airways, and anyway we needed to
loose altitude in the hold.

So controller says "...that is incorrect. All entries in the arc from
Volan to Mercy are NoPT!! So where does that come from? Do controllers
have a different plate that we use? Also you would think the typo about
Volan would have been discovered and corrected. I have pointed out this
to NACO, controllers, etc. but it stays in the book. I am sure there
have been numerous arrivals at Volan westbound cleared for the approach,
which is common sense but violates the plate.

So can anyone help to clairfy my understanding and/or straighten out the
published word? Would you have entered the hold?

By the way I queried the student later about why he did the hold and he
said he didn't want to intercept the glide slope (LNAV+V...will be LPV
soon) from above in a descent. He thought there might be a "false lobe"
or phantom glideslope above as in ILS. We talked about that, so all in
all it was a good learning experience for him.

BillJ wrote:
> So as we turned outbound for the hold the controller comes on rather
> gruffly and says "1234X, where are you going?" I got on and said
> "...entering the hold as published " and he says "why, that is not
> authorized, if you want to do it you have to ask.." I pointed out that
> the only NoPT enteries were from the airways, and anyway we needed to
> loose altitude in the hold.

Bill,
It is my understanding that, when in radar contact, ATC does NOT expect
you to fly holding patterns no matter where depicted on the plates...
BUT
I cannot recall where I learned that, nor what publication would support
my statement, so I will be watching this thread with interest.

Ran into as situation last month at a strange airport (KHIO) where the
tower was expecting me to make a turn for the departure procedure and I
was waiting for them to tell me to start the turn. I guess I should
have spoken up ("when in doubt, shout it out").

Rich
(CFII for 30 years and still learning stuff)

Rich wrote:

>
> BillJ wrote:
>
>> So as we turned outbound for the hold the controller comes on rather
>> gruffly and says "1234X, where are you going?" I got on and said
>> "...entering the hold as published " and he says "why, that is not
>> authorized, if you want to do it you have to ask.." I pointed out that
>> the only NoPT enteries were from the airways, and anyway we needed to
>> loose altitude in the hold.
>
>
> Bill,
> It is my understanding that, when in radar contact, ATC does NOT expect
> you to fly holding patterns no matter where depicted on the plates...
> BUT
> I cannot recall where I learned that, nor what publication would support
> my statement, so I will be watching this thread with interest.
>
> Ran into as situation last month at a strange airport (KHIO) where the
> tower was expecting me to make a turn for the departure procedure and I
> was waiting for them to tell me to start the turn. I guess I should
> have spoken up ("when in doubt, shout it out").
>
> Rich
> (CFII for 30 years and still learning stuff)
Well, many times I have done this same approach, coming from the south,
cleared direct Zarto, and you have to do the hold to reverse course.
They don't tell you to do that, you just do it.
Of course if they offer vectors, that's eliminated the hold.

> So controller says "...that is incorrect. All entries in the arc from
> Volan to Mercy are NoPT!! So where does that come from?

Where the sun doesn't shine most-likely. I've never heard of such a thing,
but as others here will attest, I'm no great source of wisdom. As I look at
the plate ZARTO is an IAF and that is where you were sent. There is no
where listed on the chart that NoPT is required of ZARTO.

No matter who's correct here, if I was NW of the AP I would have proceeded
with a parallel entry at ZARTO. If the turn was just right and my altitude
ok I would have proceeded immediately with the approach once back at ZARTO.
After all once cleared for the approach and you are established on a
published segment of the approach, you can proceed with that approach.
Correct? I guess my question is: After the parallel entry, even if one's
altitude and line-up are perfect at ZARTO, is one complete circuit around
the hold required anyway?

Kobra

BillJ wrote:
> I had a surprise reaction from approach controller while entering the
> GPS 23 at UCP:
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0709/05842R23.PDF
> I was doing a final pre-checkride lesson, and about 25 NW of UCP. In
> IMC, assigned heading 250 at 4000. I expected the next word would be
> "advise when you have the New Castle weather" and then "what approach
> would you like?" But instead we got proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23
> approach. OK, so student stayed at 4000, entered the procedure in the
> 530W and headed to Zarto, no problem.
>
> Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
> North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all
> agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no
> sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.)
>
> Anyway I thought the student might get to Zarto still at 4000 realize
> there was time to descend to 2600 before Wobut and just turn inbound the
> few degrees required. The 530 asks "do you want to hold at Zarto" and I
> saw him pause and think about it and he selected "yes", which seemed
> like a good answer (the only really correct answer I thought).
>
> So as we turned outbound for the hold the controller comes on rather
> gruffly and says "1234X, where are you going?" I got on and said
> "...entering the hold as published " and he says "why, that is not
> authorized, if you want to do it you have to ask.." I pointed out that
> the only NoPT enteries were from the airways, and anyway we needed to
> loose altitude in the hold.
>
> So controller says "...that is incorrect. All entries in the arc from
> Volan to Mercy are NoPT!! So where does that come from? Do controllers
> have a different plate that we use? Also you would think the typo about
> Volan would have been discovered and corrected. I have pointed out this
> to NACO, controllers, etc. but it stays in the book. I am sure there
> have been numerous arrivals at Volan westbound cleared for the approach,
> which is common sense but violates the plate.

The controller was almost certainly applyin the provision where he is
authorized to clear you directly to an RNAV IAP's intermediate fix. If
he told you to expect clearance direct to ZARTO at least 5 miles from
ZARTO then you were expected to proceed straight-in in accordance with
AIM 5-4-7 i:

"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.
3. Assign an altitude to maintain until the intermediate fix.
4. Insure 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."
>
> So can anyone help to clairfy my understanding and/or straighten out the
> published word? Would you have entered the hold?

No, you were required to go straight-in IAW AIM 5-4-7-i. That is,
unless he did it really quick and did not give you at least 5 miles to
delete the hold-in-lieu. Then it was up to up to suspect 5-4-7-i was
being applied and say "unable straight in, we will need a turn in the
hold at ZARTO."
>
> By the way I queried the student later about why he did the hold and he
> said he didn't want to intercept the glide slope (LNAV+V...will be LPV
> soon) from above in a descent. He thought there might be a "false lobe"
> or phantom glideslope above as in ILS. We talked about that, so all in
> all it was a good learning experience for him.

Well, at 4,000 the descent gradient from ZARTO to WOBUT is well under 3
degrees; 2.09 degrees actually.

You're right about the airway entry note at VOLAN, but that had nothing
to do about your handling.

Seems like pilots as a group have been very slow to understand AIM
5-4-7-1, which came into effect in February, 2006.

Kobra wrote:

>>So controller says "...that is incorrect. All entries in the arc from
>>Volan to Mercy are NoPT!! So where does that come from?
>
>
> Where the sun doesn't shine most-likely. I've never heard of such a thing,
> but as others here will attest, I'm no great source of wisdom. As I look at
> the plate ZARTO is an IAF and that is where you were sent. There is no
> where listed on the chart that NoPT is required of ZARTO.
>
> No matter who's correct here, if I was NW of the AP I would have proceeded
> with a parallel entry at ZARTO. If the turn was just right and my altitude
> ok I would have proceeded immediately with the approach once back at ZARTO.
> After all once cleared for the approach and you are established on a
> published segment of the approach, you can proceed with that approach.
> Correct? I guess my question is: After the parallel entry, even if one's
> altitude and line-up are perfect at ZARTO, is one complete circuit around
> the hold required anyway?
>
> Kobra
>
>
Sorry, I should have said I was 25 NE , not NW

B wrote:

>
> BillJ wrote:
> > I had a surprise reaction from approach controller while entering the
> > GPS 23 at UCP:
> > http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0709/05842R23.PDF
> > I was doing a final pre-checkride lesson, and about 25 NW of UCP. In
> > IMC, assigned heading 250 at 4000. I expected the next word would be
> > "advise when you have the New Castle weather" and then "what approach
> > would you like?" But instead we got proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23
> > approach. OK, so student stayed at 4000, entered the procedure in the
> > 530W and headed to Zarto, no problem.
> >
> > Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
> > North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all
> > agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no
> > sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.)
> >
> > Anyway I thought the student might get to Zarto still at 4000 realize
> > there was time to descend to 2600 before Wobut and just turn inbound the
> > few degrees required. The 530 asks "do you want to hold at Zarto" and I
> > saw him pause and think about it and he selected "yes", which seemed
> > like a good answer (the only really correct answer I thought).
> >
> > So as we turned outbound for the hold the controller comes on rather
> > gruffly and says "1234X, where are you going?" I got on and said
> > "...entering the hold as published " and he says "why, that is not
> > authorized, if you want to do it you have to ask.." I pointed out that
> > the only NoPT enteries were from the airways, and anyway we needed to
> > loose altitude in the hold.
> >
> > So controller says "...that is incorrect. All entries in the arc from
> > Volan to Mercy are NoPT!! So where does that come from? Do controllers
> > have a different plate that we use? Also you would think the typo about
> > Volan would have been discovered and corrected. I have pointed out this
> > to NACO, controllers, etc. but it stays in the book. I am sure there
> > have been numerous arrivals at Volan westbound cleared for the approach,
> > which is common sense but violates the plate.
>
> The controller was almost certainly applyin the provision where he is
> authorized to clear you directly to an RNAV IAP's intermediate fix. If
> he told you to expect clearance direct to ZARTO at least 5 miles from
> ZARTO then you were expected to proceed straight-in in accordance with
> AIM 5-4-7 i:
>
> "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.
> 3. Assign an altitude to maintain until the intermediate fix.
> 4. Insure 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."
> >
> > So can anyone help to clairfy my understanding and/or straighten out the
> > published word? Would you have entered the hold?
>
> No, you were required to go straight-in IAW AIM 5-4-7-i. That is,
> unless he did it really quick and did not give you at least 5 miles to
> delete the hold-in-lieu. Then it was up to up to suspect 5-4-7-i was
> being applied and say "unable straight in, we will need a turn in the
> hold at ZARTO."
> >
> > By the way I queried the student later about why he did the hold and he
> > said he didn't want to intercept the glide slope (LNAV+V...will be LPV
> > soon) from above in a descent. He thought there might be a "false lobe"
> > or phantom glideslope above as in ILS. We talked about that, so all in
> > all it was a good learning experience for him.
>
> Well, at 4,000 the descent gradient from ZARTO to WOBUT is well under 3
> degrees; 2.09 degrees actually.
>
> You're right about the airway entry note at VOLAN, but that had nothing
> to do about your handling.
>
> Seems like pilots as a group have been very slow to understand AIM
> 5-4-7-1, which came into effect in February, 2006.
Thanks, thats the answer I was looking for. I was thinking of Zarto only
as an IAF.

Bill

B wrote:

>
> BillJ wrote:
> > I had a surprise reaction from approach controller while entering the
> > GPS 23 at UCP:
> > http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0709/05842R23.PDF
> > I was doing a final pre-checkride lesson, and about 25 NW of UCP. In
> > IMC, assigned heading 250 at 4000. I expected the next word would be
> > "advise when you have the New Castle weather" and then "what approach
> > would you like?" But instead we got proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23
> > approach. OK, so student stayed at 4000, entered the procedure in the
> > 530W and headed to Zarto, no problem.
> >
> > Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
> > North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all
> > agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no
> > sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.)
> >
> > Anyway I thought the student might get to Zarto still at 4000 realize
> > there was time to descend to 2600 before Wobut and just turn inbound the
> > few degrees required. The 530 asks "do you want to hold at Zarto" and I
> > saw him pause and think about it and he selected "yes", which seemed
> > like a good answer (the only really correct answer I thought).
> >
> > So as we turned outbound for the hold the controller comes on rather
> > gruffly and says "1234X, where are you going?" I got on and said
> > "...entering the hold as published " and he says "why, that is not
> > authorized, if you want to do it you have to ask.." I pointed out that
> > the only NoPT enteries were from the airways, and anyway we needed to
> > loose altitude in the hold.
> >
> > So controller says "...that is incorrect. All entries in the arc from
> > Volan to Mercy are NoPT!! So where does that come from? Do controllers
> > have a different plate that we use? Also you would think the typo about
> > Volan would have been discovered and corrected. I have pointed out this
> > to NACO, controllers, etc. but it stays in the book. I am sure there
> > have been numerous arrivals at Volan westbound cleared for the approach,
> > which is common sense but violates the plate.
>
> The controller was almost certainly applyin the provision where he is
> authorized to clear you directly to an RNAV IAP's intermediate fix. If
> he told you to expect clearance direct to ZARTO at least 5 miles from
> ZARTO then you were expected to proceed straight-in in accordance with
> AIM 5-4-7 i:
>
> "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.
> 3. Assign an altitude to maintain until the intermediate fix.
> 4. Insure 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."
> >
> > So can anyone help to clairfy my understanding and/or straighten out the
> > published word? Would you have entered the hold?
>
> No, you were required to go straight-in IAW AIM 5-4-7-i. That is,
> unless he did it really quick and did not give you at least 5 miles to
> delete the hold-in-lieu. Then it was up to up to suspect 5-4-7-i was
> being applied and say "unable straight in, we will need a turn in the
> hold at ZARTO."
> >
> > By the way I queried the student later about why he did the hold and he
> > said he didn't want to intercept the glide slope (LNAV+V...will be LPV
> > soon) from above in a descent. He thought there might be a "false lobe"
> > or phantom glideslope above as in ILS. We talked about that, so all in
> > all it was a good learning experience for him.
>
> Well, at 4,000 the descent gradient from ZARTO to WOBUT is well under 3
> degrees; 2.09 degrees actually.
>
> You're right about the airway entry note at VOLAN, but that had nothing
> to do about your handling.
>
> Seems like pilots as a group have been very slow to understand AIM
> 5-4-7-1, which came into effect in February, 2006.
Thanks, that is the answer I was looking for. I was viewing Zarto only
as an IAF, not also an IF.
BUT, the controller seemed to also not understand this very well, having
given the bogus story of an arc of NoPT entries. Its the angle of
intercept that allowed it to happen.

Bill

BillJ wrote:
..
>
> Thanks, that is the answer I was looking for. I was viewing Zarto only
> as an IAF, not also an IF.
> BUT, the controller seemed to also not understand this very well, having
> given the bogus story of an arc of NoPT entries. Its the angle of
> intercept that allowed it to happen.
>
> Bill

They often receive just enough training on stuff like this to get by.
Although the national policy is 90 degrees, the airspace manager at that
facility may have established the limits as defined by those two fixes,
which is certainly their local option since it is more conservative than
what the national policy permits.

In article >, BillJ >
wrote:

> I had a surprise reaction from approach controller while entering the
> GPS 23 at UCP:
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0709/05842R23.PDF
> I was doing a final pre-checkride lesson, and about 25 NW of UCP. In
> IMC, assigned heading 250 at 4000.

I'm confused. If you're 25 NW of the airport, why were on on a heading 250
vector? That takes you further away from the airport.

> Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
> North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all
> agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no
> sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.)

I don't understand the note at all. Both the MERCY->ZARTO and VOLAN->ZARTO
segments are marked NoPT. Given that, I don't understand why the note is
needed at all, and why it only applies to arriving at those fixes from
certain directions. Other than that, making the PT NA for westbound
arrivals at VOLAN makes sense, but the prohibition for northbound arrivals
at MERCY seems backwards to me.

> Anyway I thought the student might get to Zarto still at 4000 realize
> there was time to descend to 2600 before Wobut and just turn inbound the
> few degrees required.

Um, I'm guessing you made a typo up above and you really started this
approach 25 NE of the airport, not 25 NW?

> The 530 asks "do you want to hold at Zarto" and I
> saw him pause and think about it and he selected "yes", which seemed
> like a good answer (the only really correct answer I thought).

Yeah, by my book, that's the only correct answer too. Unless you are on
vectors to the FAC (being cleared direct to the IAF is *NOT* vectors to the
FAC), or established on a NoPT segment, you need to do the PT. One lap
around a racetrack and drop 1000 feet in the process, to cross ZARTO
inbound at 3000. Makes sense to me.

If the controller didn't want to have you do the PT, there were two
reasonable things he could have done. One was vector you to the FAC, the
other was to clear you "direct MERCY, cleared GPS 23 approach" (assuming
you really were 25 NE of the airport).

> So controller says "...that is incorrect. All entries in the arc from
> Volan to Mercy are NoPT!!

Not the way the chart is drawn. Look at, for example, the ACY GPS 13;
that's got terminal arrival areas (I think that's the right name) charted.
If they're not charted that way, they don't exist. The controller is just
plain wrong.

On 08/29/07 06:07, Rich wrote:
> BillJ wrote:
>> So as we turned outbound for the hold the controller comes on rather
>> gruffly and says "1234X, where are you going?" I got on and said
>> "...entering the hold as published " and he says "why, that is not
>> authorized, if you want to do it you have to ask.." I pointed out that
>> the only NoPT enteries were from the airways, and anyway we needed to
>> loose altitude in the hold.
>
> Bill,
> It is my understanding that, when in radar contact, ATC does NOT expect
> you to fly holding patterns no matter where depicted on the plates...

That's certainly *not* what I've been taught. If the plate shows a PT,
then the PT is required unless you're getting radar vectors. Actually,
the conditions where you should/should not execute the PT is covered
(more or less) in the AIM...

Being in radar contact has nothing to do with it.

I'm willing to be taught something new as well, however ;-)

> BUT
> I cannot recall where I learned that, nor what publication would support
> my statement, so I will be watching this thread with interest.
>
> Ran into as situation last month at a strange airport (KHIO) where the
> tower was expecting me to make a turn for the departure procedure and I
> was waiting for them to tell me to start the turn. I guess I should
> have spoken up ("when in doubt, shout it out").
>
> Rich
> (CFII for 30 years and still learning stuff)



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >, BillJ >
> wrote:
>
>
>>I had a surprise reaction from approach controller while entering the
>>GPS 23 at UCP:
>> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0709/05842R23.PDF
>>I was doing a final pre-checkride lesson, and about 25 NW of UCP. In
>>IMC, assigned heading 250 at 4000.
>
>
> I'm confused. If you're 25 NW of the airport, why were on on a heading 250
> vector? That takes you further away from the airport.
>
>
>>Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
>>North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all
>>agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no
>>sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.)
>
>
> I don't understand the note at all. Both the MERCY->ZARTO and VOLAN->ZARTO
> segments are marked NoPT. Given that, I don't understand why the note is
> needed at all, and why it only applies to arriving at those fixes from
> certain directions. Other than that, making the PT NA for westbound
> arrivals at VOLAN makes sense, but the prohibition for northbound arrivals
> at MERCY seems backwards to me.
>
>
>>Anyway I thought the student might get to Zarto still at 4000 realize
>>there was time to descend to 2600 before Wobut and just turn inbound the
>>few degrees required.
>
>
> Um, I'm guessing you made a typo up above and you really started this
> approach 25 NE of the airport, not 25 NW?
>
>
>>The 530 asks "do you want to hold at Zarto" and I
>>saw him pause and think about it and he selected "yes", which seemed
>>like a good answer (the only really correct answer I thought).
>
>
> Yeah, by my book, that's the only correct answer too. Unless you are on
> vectors to the FAC (being cleared direct to the IAF is *NOT* vectors to the
> FAC), or established on a NoPT segment, you need to do the PT. One lap
> around a racetrack and drop 1000 feet in the process, to cross ZARTO
> inbound at 3000. Makes sense to me.
>
> If the controller didn't want to have you do the PT, there were two
> reasonable things he could have done. One was vector you to the FAC, the
> other was to clear you "direct MERCY, cleared GPS 23 approach" (assuming
> you really were 25 NE of the airport).
>
>
>>So controller says "...that is incorrect. All entries in the arc from
>>Volan to Mercy are NoPT!!
>
>
> Not the way the chart is drawn. Look at, for example, the ACY GPS 13;
> that's got terminal arrival areas (I think that's the right name) charted.
> If they're not charted that way, they don't exist. The controller is just
> plain wrong.

You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
effective February, 2006

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >, BillJ >
> wrote:
>
>
>>I had a surprise reaction from approach controller while entering the
>>GPS 23 at UCP:
>> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0709/05842R23.PDF
>>I was doing a final pre-checkride lesson, and about 25 NW of UCP. In
>>IMC, assigned heading 250 at 4000.
>
>
> I'm confused. If you're 25 NW of the airport, why were on on a heading 250
> vector? That takes you further away from the airport.
>
>
>>Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
>>North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all
>>agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no
>>sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.)
>
>
> I don't understand the note at all. Both the MERCY->ZARTO and VOLAN->ZARTO
> segments are marked NoPT. Given that, I don't understand why the note is
> needed at all, and why it only applies to arriving at those fixes from
> certain directions. Other than that, making the PT NA for westbound
> arrivals at VOLAN makes sense, but the prohibition for northbound arrivals
> at MERCY seems backwards to me.
>
>
>>Anyway I thought the student might get to Zarto still at 4000 realize
>>there was time to descend to 2600 before Wobut and just turn inbound the
>>few degrees required.
>
>
> Um, I'm guessing you made a typo up above and you really started this
> approach 25 NE of the airport, not 25 NW?
>
>
>>The 530 asks "do you want to hold at Zarto" and I
>>saw him pause and think about it and he selected "yes", which seemed
>>like a good answer (the only really correct answer I thought).
>
>
> Yeah, by my book, that's the only correct answer too. Unless you are on
> vectors to the FAC (being cleared direct to the IAF is *NOT* vectors to the
> FAC), or established on a NoPT segment, you need to do the PT. One lap
> around a racetrack and drop 1000 feet in the process, to cross ZARTO
> inbound at 3000. Makes sense to me.
>
> If the controller didn't want to have you do the PT, there were two
> reasonable things he could have done. One was vector you to the FAC, the
> other was to clear you "direct MERCY, cleared GPS 23 approach" (assuming
> you really were 25 NE of the airport).
>
>
>>So controller says "...that is incorrect. All entries in the arc from
>>Volan to Mercy are NoPT!!
>
>
> Not the way the chart is drawn. Look at, for example, the ACY GPS 13;
> that's got terminal arrival areas (I think that's the right name) charted.
> If they're not charted that way, they don't exist. The controller is just
> plain wrong.
Roy,
You are correct about my error, it should have been NE.
The procedure (not PT) is not available for arrivals AT Mercy northbound
because a course reversal is required with no charted way to do it.
Should be same at Volan for EAST arrivals, but it says WEST which is
nonsense. Of course in real life, noone would arrive at Mercy
northbound and then decide to do the approach. They would have been
vectored off the airway or cleared to Zarto much further south and in
that case the hold would be required to reverse course.

Hope this clears up your questions,
Bill

Roy Smith wrote:

>
>
>
> Um, I'm guessing you made a typo up above and you really started this
approach 25 NE of the airport, not 25 NW?
>
>

>
>
> Not the way the chart is drawn. Look at, for example, the ACY GPS
13; that's got terminal arrival areas (I think that's the right name)
charted. If they're not charted that way, they don't exist. The
controller is just plain wrong.

Roy,
You are correct about my error, it should have been NE.
The procedure (not PT) is not available for arrivals AT Mercy northbound
because a course reversal is required with no charted way to do it.
Should be same at Volan for EAST arrivals, but it says WEST which is
nonsense. Of course in real life, noone would arrive at Mercy
northbound and then decide to do the approach. They would have been
vectored off the airway or cleared to Zarto much further south and in
that case the hold would be required to reverse course.

Hope this clears up your questions,
Bill

In article >, B > wrote:

> You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
> effective February, 2006

5-5-7-i doesn't say anything about procedure turns. In fact, it says
nothing about pilot actions at all, only ATC actions. Now, it does
impose requirements on ATC that would make it possible to fly the
approach without the PT, which strongly implies that under these
circumstances one ought to fly the approach without a PT, but it doesn't
actually say so. Personally, if something went awry, I would much
rather stand up in front of the NTSB board and explain why I did fly the
PT than why I didn't.

In any case, it seems to me that an ASRS form is in order.

rg

"BillJ" > wrote in message
...
>
> I had a surprise reaction from approach controller while entering the GPS
> 23 at UCP:
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0709/05842R23.PDF
> I was doing a final pre-checkride lesson, and about 25 NW of UCP. In IMC,
> assigned heading 250 at 4000. I expected the next word would be "advise
> when you have the New Castle weather" and then "what approach would you
> like?" But instead we got proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23 approach.
> OK, so student stayed at 4000, entered the procedure in the 530W and
> headed to Zarto, no problem.
>
> Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
> North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all
> agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no
> sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.)
>

Agreed.


>
> Anyway I thought the student might get to Zarto still at 4000 realize
> there was time to descend to 2600 before Wobut and just turn inbound the
> few degrees required. The 530 asks "do you want to hold at Zarto" and I
> saw him pause and think about it and he selected "yes", which seemed like
> a good answer (the only really correct answer I thought).
>

Few degrees required? If you were 25 NW of UCP when you were cleared direct
to ZARTO it sure looks like a turn of more than a few degrees would be
required to head inbound upon reaching ZARTO.


>
> So as we turned outbound for the hold the controller comes on rather
> gruffly and says "1234X, where are you going?" I got on and said
> "...entering the hold as published " and he says "why, that is not
> authorized, if you want to do it you have to ask.." I pointed out that the
> only NoPT enteries were from the airways, and anyway we needed to loose
> altitude in the hold.
>
> So controller says "...that is incorrect. All entries in the arc from
> Volan to Mercy are NoPT!! So where does that come from?
>

Arc? What arc?


>
> Do controllers have a different plate that we use?
>

Controllers use NACO charts. There's no arc. He's fulla crap.

"BillJ" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sorry, I should have said I was 25 NE , not NW
>

Ah, that's different. In that case I'd have turned inbound upon reaching
ZARTO.

Ron Garret wrote:
> In article >, B > wrote:
>
>
>>You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
>>effective February, 2006
>
>
> 5-5-7-i doesn't say anything about procedure turns. In fact, it says
> nothing about pilot actions at all, only ATC actions. Now, it does
> impose requirements on ATC that would make it possible to fly the
> approach without the PT, which strongly implies that under these
> circumstances one ought to fly the approach without a PT, but it doesn't
> actually say so. Personally, if something went awry, I would much
> rather stand up in front of the NTSB board and explain why I did fly the
> PT than why I didn't.
>
> In any case, it seems to me that an ASRS form is in order.
>
> rg

I guess you mean 5-4-7-1, not 5-5-7-i.

What part of number 4 do you not understand?

"Insure 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."

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>
> 5-5-7-i doesn't say anything about procedure turns. In fact, it says
> nothing about pilot actions at all, only ATC actions. Now, it does
> impose requirements on ATC that would make it possible to fly the
> approach without the PT, which strongly implies that under these
> circumstances one ought to fly the approach without a PT, but it doesn't
> actually say so. Personally, if something went awry, I would much
> rather stand up in front of the NTSB board and explain why I did fly the
> PT than why I didn't.
>

The AIM poses no requirements on ATC. ATC requirements are found in FAA
Order 7110.65.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>5-5-7-i doesn't say anything about procedure turns. In fact, it says
>>nothing about pilot actions at all, only ATC actions. Now, it does
>>impose requirements on ATC that would make it possible to fly the
>>approach without the PT, which strongly implies that under these
>>circumstances one ought to fly the approach without a PT, but it doesn't
>>actually say so. Personally, if something went awry, I would much
>>rather stand up in front of the NTSB board and explain why I did fly the
>>PT than why I didn't.
>>
>
>
> The AIM poses no requirements on ATC. ATC requirements are found in FAA
> Order 7110.65.
>
>
The related language in 7110.65 reads pretty much the same as the AIM.

"B" > wrote in message ...
>
> The related language in 7110.65 reads pretty much the same as the AIM.
>

Correct.

"B" > wrote in message ...
>
> BillJ wrote:
> > I had a surprise reaction from approach controller while entering the
> > GPS 23 at UCP:
> > http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0709/05842R23.PDF
> > I was doing a final pre-checkride lesson, and about 25 NW of UCP. In
> > IMC, assigned heading 250 at 4000. I expected the next word would be

initial situation snipped...
>
> The controller was almost certainly applyin the provision where he is
> authorized to clear you directly to an RNAV IAP's intermediate fix. If he
> told you to expect clearance direct to ZARTO at least 5 miles from ZARTO
> then you were expected to proceed straight-in in accordance with AIM 5-4-7
> i:
>
> "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.
> 3. Assign an altitude to maintain until the intermediate fix.
> 4. Insure 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."
> >
> > So can anyone help to clairfy my understanding and/or straighten out the
> > published word? Would you have entered the hold?
>
> No, you were required to go straight-in IAW AIM 5-4-7-i. That is, unless
> he did it really quick and did not give you at least 5 miles to delete the
> hold-in-lieu. Then it was up to up to suspect 5-4-7-i was being applied
> and say "unable straight in, we will need a turn in the hold at ZARTO."
> >
> > By the way I queried the student later about why he did the hold and he
> > said he didn't want to intercept the glide slope (LNAV+V...will be LPV
> > soon) from above in a descent. He thought there might be a "false lobe"
> > or phantom glideslope above as in ILS. We talked about that, so all in
> > all it was a good learning experience for him.
>
> Well, at 4,000 the descent gradient from ZARTO to WOBUT is well under 3
> degrees; 2.09 degrees actually.
>
> You're right about the airway entry note at VOLAN, but that had nothing to
> do about your handling.
>
> Seems like pilots as a group have been very slow to understand AIM
> 5-4-7-1, which came into effect in February, 2006.

I assume you were actually NE, heading 250...

I agree with B. However, I would have expected the controller to
have issued you an altitude, maybe 3000', when you were cleared direct
ZARTO. This would have been one of my clues that I was being considered IAF
inbound.

You are right about the note "VOLAN westbound"

Al G CFIAMI

Al G wrote:
...
>
> I agree with B. However, I would have expected the controller to
> have issued you an altitude, maybe 3000', when you were cleared direct
> ZARTO. This would have been one of my clues that I was being considered IAF
> inbound.
>
> You are right about the note "VOLAN westbound"
>
> Al G CFIAMI
>

4,000 is compatible with the procedure, though. 3,000 is very flat.
I'll check the MVA for that area when I get a chance and let you know.

"B" > wrote in message ...
> Al G wrote:
> ..
>>
>> I agree with B. However, I would have expected the controller to
>> have issued you an altitude, maybe 3000', when you were cleared direct
>> ZARTO. This would have been one of my clues that I was being considered
>> IAF inbound.
>>
>> You are right about the note "VOLAN westbound"
>>
>> Al G CFIAMI
>>
>
> 4,000 is compatible with the procedure, though. 3,000 is very flat. I'll
> check the MVA for that area when I get a chance and let you know.

Sure, it's compatible, I was thinking about #3 below, even if it is your
currently assigned altitude.


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.
3. Assign an altitude to maintain until the intermediate fix.
4. Insure 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."



Al G

In article >, B > wrote:

> > Not the way the chart is drawn. Look at, for example, the ACY GPS 13;
> > that's got terminal arrival areas (I think that's the right name) charted.
> > If they're not charted that way, they don't exist. The controller is just
> > plain wrong.
>
> You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
> effective February, 2006

So it would seem. Color me embarrassed.

Al G wrote:

>>4,000 is compatible with the procedure, though. 3,000 is very flat. I'll
>>check the MVA for that area when I get a chance and let you know.
>
>
> Sure, it's compatible, I was thinking about #3 below, even if it is your
> currently assigned altitude.
>

#3 Means the controller cannot assign an altitude below the MVA because
flying to the IF is off a published route.

#4 is more on-point; i.e., not only assign an alitude not below the MVA
but an altitude that will permit a normal descent (presumed to be about
300 feet per mile, or less).

I checked the MVA. It is 3,000 at the IF but 3,200 6 miles to the
northeast. If the controller wanted to use a cardinal altitude out to
the northeast that would be 4,000.

Sounds like proper handling to me. 4,000 or 3,000 would work at 5 miles.
>
> 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.
> 3. Assign an altitude to maintain until the intermediate fix.
> 4. Insure 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."
>
>
>
> Al G
>
>

Bill Zaleski wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:07:34 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:
>
>
>>In article >, B > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Not the way the chart is drawn. Look at, for example, the ACY GPS 13;
>>>>that's got terminal arrival areas (I think that's the right name) charted.
>>>>If they're not charted that way, they don't exist. The controller is just
>>>>plain wrong.
>>>
>>>You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
>>>effective February, 2006
>>
>>So it would seem. Color me embarrassed.
>
>
>
> If the controller wants you to proceed straight in , and there is a
> hold depicted at the IF, he must state to that effect when issuing the
> approach clearance, It's not rocket science or guess work.
>
> From the 7110.65:
>
> If a hold in lieu of pattern is depicted and a straight-in area is not
> defined
> (e.g., "No PT" indicated at the fix), the aircraft must be
> instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does
> not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn."Cleared
> direct CENTR, maintain at or above three thousand until
> CENTR, cleared straight-in R-NAV Runway One Eight
> approach."
>
> If he did not state "straight in", then you were correct in making a
> trip around the depicted hold. What did he say when issuing the
> clearance?
>
He simply said "proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23 Approach...." What
you are saying is the way I understood it until "B" pointed out the AIM
section that seems to contradict and give a new twist to what happened.
In other words if you are cleared direct to an IF and the route/altitude
sets you up for straight in, you are to assume straight in is the way to
go.

Bill Zaleski wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:07:34 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:
>
>
>>In article >, B > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Not the way the chart is drawn. Look at, for example, the ACY GPS 13;
>>>>that's got terminal arrival areas (I think that's the right name) charted.
>>>>If they're not charted that way, they don't exist. The controller is just
>>>>plain wrong.
>>>
>>>You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
>>>effective February, 2006
>>
>>So it would seem. Color me embarrassed.
>
>
>
> If the controller wants you to proceed straight in , and there is a
> hold depicted at the IF, he must state to that effect when issuing the
> approach clearance, It's not rocket science or guess work.
>
> From the 7110.65:
>
> If a hold in lieu of pattern is depicted and a straight-in area is not
> defined
> (e.g., "No PT" indicated at the fix), the aircraft must be
> instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does
> not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn."Cleared
> direct CENTR, maintain at or above three thousand until
> CENTR, cleared straight-in R-NAV Runway One Eight
> approach."
>
> If he did not state "straight in", then you were correct in making a
> trip around the depicted hold. What did he say when issuing the
> clearance?
>
He simply said "proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23 Approach...." What
you are saying is the way I understood it until "B" pointed out the AIM
section that seems to contradict and give a new twist to what happened.
In other words if you are cleared direct to an IF and the route/altitude
sets you up for straight in, you are to assume straight in is the way to
go (provided you are /G)

In a previous article, B > said:
>The controller was almost certainly applyin the provision where he is
>authorized to clear you directly to an RNAV IAP's intermediate fix. If
>he told you to expect clearance direct to ZARTO at least 5 miles from
>ZARTO then you were expected to proceed straight-in in accordance with
>AIM 5-4-7 i:

If the fix is depicted as both an IAF and an IF, as this one is, how are
you supposed to know whether you've been cleared to it as an IAF or as a
IF?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
I [was] looking at 30-40 of the most beautiful women in the world, each
eating a lollipop. Weirdly, every one had a different technique, but none
were doing it wrong. --Bob Church

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:43:33 -0700, B > wrote:

>#3 Means the controller cannot assign an altitude below the MVA because
>flying to the IF is off a published route.
>
>#4 is more on-point; i.e., not only assign an alitude not below the MVA
>but an altitude that will permit a normal descent (presumed to be about
>300 feet per mile, or less).
>
>I checked the MVA. It is 3,000 at the IF but 3,200 6 miles to the
>northeast. If the controller wanted to use a cardinal altitude out to
>the northeast that would be 4,000.
>
>Sounds like proper handling to me. 4,000 or 3,000 would work at 5 miles.
>>

I'm not sure what you are writing here with regard to the altitude
restriction.

Whenever I've been cleared to an IAF or IF from an off-airway position,
I've always been assigned an altitude in conjunction with the clearance:

e.g." ...cross Zarto at or above 4,000; cleared RNAV Rwy 23 approach"

BillJ wrote that they were cleared to "proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23
approach" with no altitude restriction mentioned.

Is there still a requirement to state an altitude restriction until
established for GPS approaches being cleared to the IF from an off-airway
location?

If so, and if BillJ's recollection is correct (and if I didn't miss a
message where he stated he did receive the altitude restriction), than what
he received was not proper handling.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, B > said:
>
>>The controller was almost certainly applyin the provision where he is
>>authorized to clear you directly to an RNAV IAP's intermediate fix. If
>>he told you to expect clearance direct to ZARTO at least 5 miles from
>>ZARTO then you were expected to proceed straight-in in accordance with
>>AIM 5-4-7 i:
>
>
> If the fix is depicted as both an IAF and an IF, as this one is, how are
> you supposed to know whether you've been cleared to it as an IAF or as a
> IF?
>
>
The AIM referemce says you will be cleared to the IF. Where there is a
course reversal hold, the fix is also an IAF to support that holding
pattern (course reversal initial approach segment). But, when you are
cleared by ATC direct to an RNAV IF, that is what it is, an IF; the
beginning of the intermediate segment (which means straight in).

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:43:33 -0700, B > wrote:
>
>
>>#3 Means the controller cannot assign an altitude below the MVA because
>>flying to the IF is off a published route.
>>
>>#4 is more on-point; i.e., not only assign an alitude not below the MVA
>>but an altitude that will permit a normal descent (presumed to be about
>>300 feet per mile, or less).
>>
>>I checked the MVA. It is 3,000 at the IF but 3,200 6 miles to the
>>northeast. If the controller wanted to use a cardinal altitude out to
>>the northeast that would be 4,000.
>>
>>Sounds like proper handling to me. 4,000 or 3,000 would work at 5 miles.
>>
>
> I'm not sure what you are writing here with regard to the altitude
> restriction.

I think my writing is quite clear.
>
> Whenever I've been cleared to an IAF or IF from an off-airway position,
> I've always been assigned an altitude in conjunction with the clearance:
>
> e.g." ...cross Zarto at or above 4,000; cleared RNAV Rwy 23 approach"

I made that quite clear, didn't I?
>
> BillJ wrote that they were cleared to "proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23
> approach" with no altitude restriction mentioned.

I presume that was his error in stating what happened, which is almost
always the case here, as opposed to an ATC error.
>
> Is there still a requirement to state an altitude restriction until
> established for GPS approaches being cleared to the IF from an off-airway
> location?

Isn't that what I said above?
>
> If so, and if BillJ's recollection is correct (and if I didn't miss a
> message where he stated he did receive the altitude restriction), than what
> he received was not proper handling.
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

His recollection is almost certainly incomplete.

Bill Zaleski wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:07:34 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:
>
>
>>In article >, B > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Not the way the chart is drawn. Look at, for example, the ACY GPS 13;
>>>>that's got terminal arrival areas (I think that's the right name) charted.
>>>>If they're not charted that way, they don't exist. The controller is just
>>>>plain wrong.
>>>
>>>You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
>>>effective February, 2006
>>
>>So it would seem. Color me embarrassed.
>
>
>
> If the controller wants you to proceed straight in , and there is a
> hold depicted at the IF, he must state to that effect when issuing the
> approach clearance, It's not rocket science or guess work.
>
> From the 7110.65:
>
> If a hold in lieu of pattern is depicted and a straight-in area is not
> defined
> (e.g., "No PT" indicated at the fix), the aircraft must be
> instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does
> not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn."Cleared
> direct CENTR, maintain at or above three thousand until
> CENTR, cleared straight-in R-NAV Runway One Eight
> approach."
>
> If he did not state "straight in", then you were correct in making a
> trip around the depicted hold. What did he say when issuing the
> clearance?
>
You need to get up to date, too.

Bill Zaleski wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:00:11 -0400, BillJ > wrote:
>
>
>>Bill Zaleski wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:07:34 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article >, B > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Not the way the chart is drawn. Look at, for example, the ACY GPS 13;
>>>>>>that's got terminal arrival areas (I think that's the right name) charted.
>>>>>>If they're not charted that way, they don't exist. The controller is just
>>>>>>plain wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
>>>>>effective February, 2006
>>>>
>>>>So it would seem. Color me embarrassed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>If the controller wants you to proceed straight in , and there is a
>>>hold depicted at the IF, he must state to that effect when issuing the
>>>approach clearance, It's not rocket science or guess work.
>>>
>>>From the 7110.65:
>>>
>>>If a hold in lieu of pattern is depicted and a straight-in area is not
>>>defined
>>>(e.g., "No PT" indicated at the fix), the aircraft must be
>>>instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does
>>>not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn."Cleared
>>>direct CENTR, maintain at or above three thousand until
>>>CENTR, cleared straight-in R-NAV Runway One Eight
>>>approach."
>>>
>>>If he did not state "straight in", then you were correct in making a
>>>trip around the depicted hold. What did he say when issuing the
>>>clearance?
>>>
>>
>>He simply said "proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23 Approach...." What
>>you are saying is the way I understood it until "B" pointed out the AIM
>>section that seems to contradict and give a new twist to what happened.
>>In other words if you are cleared direct to an IF and the route/altitude
>>sets you up for straight in, you are to assume straight in is the way to
>> go.
>
>
> No, I didn't say that at all. The controller is allowed to give you a
> straight-in, if the turn at the IF is 90 degrees or less, but he must
> state "straight-in" within the clearance verbiage. Otherwise, you
> comply with what the approach procedure depicts, unless a NoPT is
> charted for the route you are on. It does not default to straight-in,
> as in the case of Radar Vectors to final approach.
>
Where is your reference that the controller is required to state
"straight in?"

B wrote:
> Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:43:33 -0700, B > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> #3 Means the controller cannot assign an altitude below the MVA
>>> because flying to the IF is off a published route.
>>>
>>> #4 is more on-point; i.e., not only assign an alitude not below the
>>> MVA but an altitude that will permit a normal descent (presumed to be
>>> about 300 feet per mile, or less).
>>>
>>> I checked the MVA. It is 3,000 at the IF but 3,200 6 miles to the
>>> northeast. If the controller wanted to use a cardinal altitude out
>>> to the northeast that would be 4,000.
>>>
>>> Sounds like proper handling to me. 4,000 or 3,000 would work at 5
>>> miles.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what you are writing here with regard to the altitude
>> restriction.
>
>
> I think my writing is quite clear.
>
>>
>> Whenever I've been cleared to an IAF or IF from an off-airway position,
>> I've always been assigned an altitude in conjunction with the clearance:
>>
>> e.g." ...cross Zarto at or above 4,000; cleared RNAV Rwy 23 approach"
>
>
> I made that quite clear, didn't I?
>
>>
>> BillJ wrote that they were cleared to "proceed direct Zarto, cleared
>> GPS 23
>> approach" with no altitude restriction mentioned.
>
>
> I presume that was his error in stating what happened, which is almost
> always the case here, as opposed to an ATC error.
>
>>
>> Is there still a requirement to state an altitude restriction until
>> established for GPS approaches being cleared to the IF from an off-airway
>> location?
>
>
> Isn't that what I said above?
>
>>
>> If so, and if BillJ's recollection is correct (and if I didn't miss a
>> message where he stated he did receive the altitude restriction), than
>> what
>> he received was not proper handling.
>> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>
>
> His recollection is almost certainly incomplete.
Here again is what I am sure happened. Departing FKL, "fly heading 250,
climb and maintain 4000"
Then about 5 mins later "Proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS23". That's
all, but yes I expected more including the usual descend to 3000 or what
ever MVA is and the normal maintain 3000 until established, cleared...

B wrote:

> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
>> In a previous article, B > said:
>>
>>> The controller was almost certainly applyin the provision where he is
>>> authorized to clear you directly to an RNAV IAP's intermediate fix.
>>> If he told you to expect clearance direct to ZARTO at least 5 miles
>>> from ZARTO then you were expected to proceed straight-in in
>>> accordance with AIM 5-4-7 i:
>>
>>
>>
>> If the fix is depicted as both an IAF and an IF, as this one is, how are
>> you supposed to know whether you've been cleared to it as an IAF or as a
>> IF?
>>
>>
> The AIM referemce says you will be cleared to the IF. Where there is a
> course reversal hold, the fix is also an IAF to support that holding
> pattern (course reversal initial approach segment). But, when you are
> cleared by ATC direct to an RNAV IF, that is what it is, an IF; the
> beginning of the intermediate segment (which means straight in).
Suppose I had asked to do the full approach on my own, i.e. simulate no
radar. Then my only option would have been the hold, right?

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:17:24 -0700, B > wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:43:33 -0700, B > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>#3 Means the controller cannot assign an altitude below the MVA because
>>>flying to the IF is off a published route.
>>>
>>>#4 is more on-point; i.e., not only assign an alitude not below the MVA
>>>but an altitude that will permit a normal descent (presumed to be about
>>>300 feet per mile, or less).
>>>
>>>I checked the MVA. It is 3,000 at the IF but 3,200 6 miles to the
>>>northeast. If the controller wanted to use a cardinal altitude out to
>>>the northeast that would be 4,000.
>>>
>>>Sounds like proper handling to me. 4,000 or 3,000 would work at 5 miles.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what you are writing here with regard to the altitude
>> restriction.
>
>I think my writing is quite clear.
>>
>> Whenever I've been cleared to an IAF or IF from an off-airway position,
>> I've always been assigned an altitude in conjunction with the clearance:
>>
>> e.g." ...cross Zarto at or above 4,000; cleared RNAV Rwy 23 approach"
>
>I made that quite clear, didn't I?
>>
>> BillJ wrote that they were cleared to "proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23
>> approach" with no altitude restriction mentioned.
>
>I presume that was his error in stating what happened, which is almost
>always the case here, as opposed to an ATC error.
>>
>> Is there still a requirement to state an altitude restriction until
>> established for GPS approaches being cleared to the IF from an off-airway
>> location?
>
>Isn't that what I said above?
>>
>> If so, and if BillJ's recollection is correct (and if I didn't miss a
>> message where he stated he did receive the altitude restriction), than what
>> he received was not proper handling.
>> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>
>His recollection is almost certainly incomplete.

The reason your writing was not clear to me was your claim that BillJ
received "proper handling". Since what BillJ wrote did not include an
altitude to maintain until ZARTO, it was difficult for me to reconcile all
that you had wrote with my concept of "proper handling".

Now that you have mentioned your belief that BillJ's recollection was
incomplete, it becomes more clear why you think his handling was proper.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

BillJ wrote:
> B wrote:
>
>> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>
>>> In a previous article, B > said:
>>>
>>>> The controller was almost certainly applyin the provision where he
>>>> is authorized to clear you directly to an RNAV IAP's intermediate
>>>> fix. If he told you to expect clearance direct to ZARTO at least 5
>>>> miles from ZARTO then you were expected to proceed straight-in in
>>>> accordance with AIM 5-4-7 i:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If the fix is depicted as both an IAF and an IF, as this one is, how are
>>> you supposed to know whether you've been cleared to it as an IAF or as a
>>> IF?
>>>
>>>
>> The AIM referemce says you will be cleared to the IF. Where there is
>> a course reversal hold, the fix is also an IAF to support that holding
>> pattern (course reversal initial approach segment). But, when you are
>> cleared by ATC direct to an RNAV IF, that is what it is, an IF; the
>> beginning of the intermediate segment (which means straight in).
>
> Suppose I had asked to do the full approach on my own, i.e. simulate no
> radar. Then my only option would have been the hold, right?

That's right but the controller still might not understand your
intentions. It's not a perfect world, especially with this stuff.

Since you say the controller didn't give you an altitude to maintain
prior to ZARTO, that was very wrong and you should file a NASA ASRS report.

Bill Zaleski wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:00:11 -0400, BillJ > wrote:
>
>
>>Bill Zaleski wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:07:34 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article >, B > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Not the way the chart is drawn. Look at, for example, the ACY GPS 13;
>>>>>>that's got terminal arrival areas (I think that's the right name) charted.
>>>>>>If they're not charted that way, they don't exist. The controller is just
>>>>>>plain wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
>>>>>effective February, 2006
>>>>
>>>>So it would seem. Color me embarrassed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>If the controller wants you to proceed straight in , and there is a
>>>hold depicted at the IF, he must state to that effect when issuing the
>>>approach clearance, It's not rocket science or guess work.
>>>
>>>From the 7110.65:
>>>
>>>If a hold in lieu of pattern is depicted and a straight-in area is not
>>>defined
>>>(e.g., "No PT" indicated at the fix), the aircraft must be
>>>instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does
>>>not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn."Cleared
>>>direct CENTR, maintain at or above three thousand until
>>>CENTR, cleared straight-in R-NAV Runway One Eight
>>>approach."
>>>
>>>If he did not state "straight in", then you were correct in making a
>>>trip around the depicted hold. What did he say when issuing the
>>>clearance?
>>>
>>
>>He simply said "proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23 Approach...." What
>>you are saying is the way I understood it until "B" pointed out the AIM
>>section that seems to contradict and give a new twist to what happened.
>>In other words if you are cleared direct to an IF and the route/altitude
>>sets you up for straight in, you are to assume straight in is the way to
>> go.
>
>
> No, I didn't say that at all. The controller is allowed to give you a
> straight-in, if the turn at the IF is 90 degrees or less, but he must
> state "straight-in" within the clearance verbiage. Otherwise, you
> comply with what the approach procedure depicts, unless a NoPT is
> charted for the route you are on. It does not default to straight-in,
> as in the case of Radar Vectors to final approach.
>

The portion of the 7110.65 is a part of 4-8-1 prior to the new language
for direct to the IF with a radar monitor. The section you refer to
pertains to non-radar clearances. No 4 pertains direct to the IF for
entry into the intermediate segment.

The pilot is responsible for the AIM. The AIM tells him this type of
clearance is for entry into the intermediate segment.

I suppose it could be stated more precisely as much of this stuff could
be. But, the language in the AIM to pilots,

"Insure 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."

Makes it clear that the procedure is for entry into the intermediate
segment.

This stuff was circulated to industry representatives, and represented
by the air traffic folks to be a substitute for "vectors to final."

I guess they blew it. ;-)

Wouldn't be the first time.

In article >,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > 5-5-7-i doesn't say anything about procedure turns. In fact, it says
> > nothing about pilot actions at all, only ATC actions. Now, it does
> > impose requirements on ATC that would make it possible to fly the
> > approach without the PT, which strongly implies that under these
> > circumstances one ought to fly the approach without a PT, but it doesn't
> > actually say so. Personally, if something went awry, I would much
> > rather stand up in front of the NTSB board and explain why I did fly the
> > PT than why I didn't.
> >
>
> The AIM poses no requirements on ATC. ATC requirements are found in FAA
> Order 7110.65.

Geez, Steven, do your eyes ever get sore from picking at these
microscopic nits?

rg

In article >, B > wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
> > In article >, B > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
> >>effective February, 2006
> >
> >
> > 5-5-7-i doesn't say anything about procedure turns. In fact, it says
> > nothing about pilot actions at all, only ATC actions. Now, it does
> > impose requirements on ATC that would make it possible to fly the
> > approach without the PT, which strongly implies that under these
> > circumstances one ought to fly the approach without a PT, but it doesn't
> > actually say so. Personally, if something went awry, I would much
> > rather stand up in front of the NTSB board and explain why I did fly the
> > PT than why I didn't.
> >
> > In any case, it seems to me that an ASRS form is in order.
> >
> > rg
>
> I guess you mean 5-4-7-1, not 5-5-7-i.

Yes.

> What part of number 4 do you not understand?
>
> "Insure 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."

What part of number 4 do you think is at odds with what I said?

rg

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>
> Geez, Steven, do your eyes ever get sore from picking at these
> microscopic nits?
>

No.

Ron Garret wrote:
>
> Geez, Steven, do your eyes ever get sore from picking at these
> microscopic nits?

How is pointing us to the specific document where we can read the
controller's view picking nits?

Ron Garret wrote:
> In article >, B > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron Garret wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, B > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
>>>>effective February, 2006
>>>
>>>
>>>5-5-7-i doesn't say anything about procedure turns. In fact, it says
>>>nothing about pilot actions at all, only ATC actions. Now, it does
>>>impose requirements on ATC that would make it possible to fly the
>>>approach without the PT, which strongly implies that under these
>>>circumstances one ought to fly the approach without a PT, but it doesn't
>>>actually say so. Personally, if something went awry, I would much
>>>rather stand up in front of the NTSB board and explain why I did fly the
>>>PT than why I didn't.
>>>
>>>In any case, it seems to me that an ASRS form is in order.
>>>
>>>rg
>>
>>I guess you mean 5-4-7-1, not 5-5-7-i.
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>What part of number 4 do you not understand?
>>
>>"Insure 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."
>
>
> What part of number 4 do you think is at odds with what I said?
>
> rg
The hold-in-lieu-of procedure turn is an initital approach segment. The
segment inbound is the intermedaite segement. The language in #4 speaks
about intercepting the intermediate segment, not the course reversal
initial approach segment. In order to do that, it would be a straight-in.

BillJ wrote:


> Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
> North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all
> agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no
> sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.)

NOTAM issued today:

FDC 7/5160 - FI/T NEW CASTLE MUNI, NEW CASTLE, PA. RNAV (GPS) RWY 23,
ORIG... CHANGE PLANVIEW NOTE TO READ: PROCEDURE NA FOR ARRIVALS AT MERCY
VIA V37 NORTHBOUND; AT VOLAN VIA V30-210-297 EASTBOUND. WIE UNTIL UFN

B wrote:
> BillJ wrote:
>
>
>> Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
>> North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all
>> agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no
>> sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.)
>
>
> NOTAM issued today:
>
> FDC 7/5160 - FI/T NEW CASTLE MUNI, NEW CASTLE, PA. RNAV (GPS) RWY 23,
> ORIG... CHANGE PLANVIEW NOTE TO READ: PROCEDURE NA FOR ARRIVALS AT MERCY
> VIA V37 NORTHBOUND; AT VOLAN VIA V30-210-297 EASTBOUND. WIE UNTIL UFN
>
WOW! Thank you if you instigated this. I have tried for two years with
email and phone calls, with no results.

Bill Zaleski wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:15:15 -0700, B > wrote:
>
>
>>Bill Zaleski wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:00:11 -0400, BillJ > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bill Zaleski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:07:34 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article >, B > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Not the way the chart is drawn. Look at, for example, the ACY GPS 13;
>>>>>>>>that's got terminal arrival areas (I think that's the right name) charted.
>>>>>>>>If they're not charted that way, they don't exist. The controller is just
>>>>>>>>plain wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
>>>>>>>effective February, 2006
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So it would seem. Color me embarrassed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If the controller wants you to proceed straight in , and there is a
>>>>>hold depicted at the IF, he must state to that effect when issuing the
>>>>>approach clearance, It's not rocket science or guess work.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>From the 7110.65:
>>>>
>>>>>If a hold in lieu of pattern is depicted and a straight-in area is not
>>>>>defined
>>>>>(e.g., "No PT" indicated at the fix), the aircraft must be
>>>>>instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does
>>>>>not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn."Cleared
>>>>>direct CENTR, maintain at or above three thousand until
>>>>>CENTR, cleared straight-in R-NAV Runway One Eight
>>>>>approach."
>>>>>
>>>>>If he did not state "straight in", then you were correct in making a
>>>>>trip around the depicted hold. What did he say when issuing the
>>>>>clearance?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>He simply said "proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23 Approach...." What
>>>>you are saying is the way I understood it until "B" pointed out the AIM
>>>>section that seems to contradict and give a new twist to what happened.
>>>>In other words if you are cleared direct to an IF and the route/altitude
>>>>sets you up for straight in, you are to assume straight in is the way to
>>>>go.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, I didn't say that at all. The controller is allowed to give you a
>>>straight-in, if the turn at the IF is 90 degrees or less, but he must
>>>state "straight-in" within the clearance verbiage. Otherwise, you
>>>comply with what the approach procedure depicts, unless a NoPT is
>>>charted for the route you are on. It does not default to straight-in,
>>>as in the case of Radar Vectors to final approach.
>>>
>>
>>The portion of the 7110.65 is a part of 4-8-1 prior to the new language
>>for direct to the IF with a radar monitor. The section you refer to
>>pertains to non-radar clearances. No 4 pertains direct to the IF for
>>entry into the intermediate segment.
>>
>>The pilot is responsible for the AIM. The AIM tells him this type of
>>clearance is for entry into the intermediate segment.
>>
>>I suppose it could be stated more precisely as much of this stuff could
>>be. But, the language in the AIM to pilots,
>>
>>"Insure 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."
>>
>>Makes it clear that the procedure is for entry into the intermediate
>>segment.
>>
>>This stuff was circulated to industry representatives, and represented
>>by the air traffic folks to be a substitute for "vectors to final."
>>
>>I guess they blew it. ;-)
>>
>>Wouldn't be the first time.
>
> B:
>
> Suggest you review the current FAA order 7110.65R chapter 4, section 8
> example on the upper left side of page 4-8-3 That section does not
> pertain to non-radar only. It applies ot all approach clearance
> procedures. Why can't you understand that the AIM has no intention of
> telling ATC how to play their game?

Unfortunately, I was involved in the work done to bring this provision
into effect. It was intended for straight-ins from the IAF only. Why
some FAA numbnuts chose to lift the language from the 7110.65 and insert
it in the AIM is beyond me, but I intend to find out.

Again, you are missing the distinction between this and the foregoing
language in the 7110.65. This provision is for entry into the
intermediate segment, not the course reversal initial segment.
>
> Once again, here is the reference, from the FAA order. It is not
> limited to non-radar operations.
>
> If a hold in lieu of pattern is depicted and a straight-in area is
> not defined (e.g.," No PT" indicated at the fix), the aircraft must be
> instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does
> not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn."Cleared
> direct CENTR, maintain at or above three thousand until
> CENTR, cleared straight-in R-NAV Runway One Eight
> approach."

BillJ wrote:

> B wrote:
>
>> BillJ wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
>>> North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we
>>> all agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND
>>> makes no sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy
>>> northbound.)
>>
>>
>>
>> NOTAM issued today:
>>
>> FDC 7/5160 - FI/T NEW CASTLE MUNI, NEW CASTLE, PA. RNAV (GPS) RWY 23,
>> ORIG... CHANGE PLANVIEW NOTE TO READ: PROCEDURE NA FOR ARRIVALS AT
>> MERCY VIA V37 NORTHBOUND; AT VOLAN VIA V30-210-297 EASTBOUND. WIE
>> UNTIL UFN
>>
> WOW! Thank you if you instigated this. I have tried for two years with
> email and phone calls, with no results.

I know where to go. The FAA doesn't want the public to know, sadly.

"BillJ" > wrote in message
...
>B wrote:
>> BillJ wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
>>> North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all
>>> agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no
>>> sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.)
>>
>>
>> NOTAM issued today:
>>
>> FDC 7/5160 - FI/T NEW CASTLE MUNI, NEW CASTLE, PA. RNAV (GPS) RWY 23,
>> ORIG... CHANGE PLANVIEW NOTE TO READ: PROCEDURE NA FOR ARRIVALS AT MERCY
>> VIA V37 NORTHBOUND; AT VOLAN VIA V30-210-297 EASTBOUND. WIE UNTIL UFN
>>
> WOW! Thank you if you instigated this. I have tried for two years with
> email and phone calls, with no results.

Hey BillJ you're famous. Getting this corrected is a good thing.

After reading this thread, I think what your student did was correct
from my point of view, given what he was presented with. It is what I would
have done. There may have been more direct methods, but without better
phraseology, I would've taken the more conservative approach, or perhaps
communicated my intentions, and gone straight in.

Thanks guys, I think I learned something here.

Al G

Al G wrote:
> "BillJ" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>B wrote:
>>
>>>BillJ wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
>>>>North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all
>>>>agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no
>>>>sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.)
>>>
>>>
>>>NOTAM issued today:
>>>
>>>FDC 7/5160 - FI/T NEW CASTLE MUNI, NEW CASTLE, PA. RNAV (GPS) RWY 23,
>>>ORIG... CHANGE PLANVIEW NOTE TO READ: PROCEDURE NA FOR ARRIVALS AT MERCY
>>>VIA V37 NORTHBOUND; AT VOLAN VIA V30-210-297 EASTBOUND. WIE UNTIL UFN
>>>
>>
>>WOW! Thank you if you instigated this. I have tried for two years with
>>email and phone calls, with no results.
>
>
> Hey BillJ you're famous. Getting this corrected is a good thing.
>
> After reading this thread, I think what your student did was correct
> from my point of view, given what he was presented with. It is what I would
> have done. There may have been more direct methods, but without better
> phraseology, I would've taken the more conservative approach, or perhaps
> communicated my intentions, and gone straight in.
>
> Thanks guys, I think I learned something here.
>
> Al G
>
>
The AIM and 7110.65 guidance is crap and not what the folks who thought
this provision up were trying to accomplish.

If I remove myself from my prior knowledge I too agree that the student
did nothing wrong, nor would he have been wrong had he gone straight-in.

I am particularly distressed that he was not given an altitude to
maintain until at the IF. That requirement has been around since the
TWA crash in 1974.

In article >,
B A R R Y > wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
> >
> > Geez, Steven, do your eyes ever get sore from picking at these
> > microscopic nits?
>
> How is pointing us to the specific document where we can read the
> controller's view picking nits?

Because whether or not the AIM "imposes requirements" or merely
describes requirements imposed by some other document or whatever is
irrelevant to the point I was making, namely, that the section in
question is talking about ATC actions and not pilot actions. (To which
Steven would probably say something along the lines of "The AIM, being
an inanimate object, cannot "talk" about anything.")

rg

In article >, B > wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
> > In article >, B > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ron Garret wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article >, B > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
> >>>>effective February, 2006
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>5-5-7-i doesn't say anything about procedure turns. In fact, it says
> >>>nothing about pilot actions at all, only ATC actions. Now, it does
> >>>impose requirements on ATC that would make it possible to fly the
> >>>approach without the PT, which strongly implies that under these
> >>>circumstances one ought to fly the approach without a PT, but it doesn't
> >>>actually say so. Personally, if something went awry, I would much
> >>>rather stand up in front of the NTSB board and explain why I did fly the
> >>>PT than why I didn't.
> >>>
> >>>In any case, it seems to me that an ASRS form is in order.
> >>>
> >>>rg
> >>
> >>I guess you mean 5-4-7-1, not 5-5-7-i.
> >
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >
> >>What part of number 4 do you not understand?
> >>
> >>"Insure 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."
> >
> >
> > What part of number 4 do you think is at odds with what I said?
> >
> > rg
> The hold-in-lieu-of procedure turn is an initital approach segment.

So what? ZARTO is both an IF and and IAF. How is the pilot supposed to
know that the controller intended for him to treat it as an IF under the
auspices of 5-4-7-i (it is an "i" by the way, not a "1") and not as a
regular old approach with ZARTO as the IAF? And even if the pilot knew
that this was what the controller intended, the language of 5-4-7-i is
permissive, not restrictive. Nothing in that language requires the
pilot to fly it that way if cleared "direct ZARTO cleared for the
approach" instead of a vector to final.

In fact, we don't even know for certain that 5-4-7-i applies at all
because Bill never actually said whether or not he was filed /R or /G.
(Not that it matters. My point is just that those who say that the
pilot was wrong to fly the PT and cite 5-4-7-i as their evidence are
making an awful lot of unwarranted assumptions.)

rg

Thanks to BillJ and B and all the group. I learned a great deal from this
thread today!!!
John Severyn
instrument student

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because whether or not the AIM "imposes requirements" or merely
> describes requirements imposed by some other document or whatever is
> irrelevant to the point I was making, namely, that the section in
> question is talking about ATC actions and not pilot actions. (To which
> Steven would probably say something along the lines of "The AIM, being
> an inanimate object, cannot "talk" about anything.")
>

Steven wouldn't say anything like that because he knows one definition of
"talk" is "to communicate ideas by means other than speech, as by writing,
signs, or signals."

"B" > wrote in message
...
>
> The pilot is responsible for the AIM.

The pilot is responsible for the FARs:

"(j) Limitation on procedure turns. In the case of a radar vector to a final
approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach
for which the procedure specifies "No PT," no pilot may make a procedure
turn unless cleared to do so by ATC."

The FARs do not establish any limitation on PTs relevant to the case under
discussion.

>
> This stuff was circulated to industry representatives, and represented by
> the air traffic folks to be a substitute for "vectors to final."
>

Somebody forgot to inform pilots. The AIM does not state an equivalence
between VTF and vectors to IF so that the FAR limitations would be
applicable.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> "B" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The pilot is responsible for the AIM.
>
> The pilot is responsible for the FARs:
>
> "(j) Limitation on procedure turns. In the case of a radar vector to a
> final approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an
> approach for which the procedure specifies "No PT," no pilot may make a
> procedure turn unless cleared to do so by ATC."
>
> The FARs do not establish any limitation on PTs relevant to the case under
> discussion.
>
>>
>> This stuff was circulated to industry representatives, and represented by
>> the air traffic folks to be a substitute for "vectors to final."
>>
>
> Somebody forgot to inform pilots. The AIM does not state an equivalence
> between VTF and vectors to IF so that the FAR limitations would be
> applicable.
>

I misspoke. Replace "vectors to IF" with "direct to IF".

Stan Prevost wrote:

> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"B" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>The pilot is responsible for the AIM.
>>
>>The pilot is responsible for the FARs:
>>
>>"(j) Limitation on procedure turns. In the case of a radar vector to a
>>final approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an
>>approach for which the procedure specifies "No PT," no pilot may make a
>>procedure turn unless cleared to do so by ATC."
>>
>>The FARs do not establish any limitation on PTs relevant to the case under
>>discussion.
>>
>>
>>>This stuff was circulated to industry representatives, and represented by
>>>the air traffic folks to be a substitute for "vectors to final."
>>>
>>
>>Somebody forgot to inform pilots. The AIM does not state an equivalence
>>between VTF and vectors to IF so that the FAR limitations would be
>>applicable.
>>
>
>
> I misspoke. Replace "vectors to IF" with "direct to IF".
>
>
>
The feds who cobbled this together state in internal documents that it
is the equivalent of vectors to the intermediate segment. Too bad they
can't convey that to pilots.

"B" > wrote in message
...
> Stan Prevost wrote:
>
>> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>"B" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>The pilot is responsible for the AIM.
>>>
>>>The pilot is responsible for the FARs:
>>>
>>>"(j) Limitation on procedure turns. In the case of a radar vector to a
>>>final approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an
>>>approach for which the procedure specifies "No PT," no pilot may make a
>>>procedure turn unless cleared to do so by ATC."
>>>
>>>The FARs do not establish any limitation on PTs relevant to the case
>>>under discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>>>This stuff was circulated to industry representatives, and represented
>>>>by the air traffic folks to be a substitute for "vectors to final."
>>>>
>>>
>>>Somebody forgot to inform pilots. The AIM does not state an equivalence
>>>between VTF and vectors to IF so that the FAR limitations would be
>>>applicable.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I misspoke. Replace "vectors to IF" with "direct to IF".
>>
>>
>>
> The feds who cobbled this together state in internal documents that it is
> the equivalent of vectors to the intermediate segment. Too bad they can't
> convey that to pilots.

Yes, it is. It also opens up another can of worms. The FAR refers to
"vectors to final approach course", but the intermediate segment is not
always aligned with the final segment. So vectors to an intermediate
segment (or a supposedly equivalent action) not aligned with the final
approach course do not strictly meet the NoPT criteria of the above-quoted
FAR extract. But we have been around on that one before.