Established on the approach - Checkride question

[endre]

I did my instrument checkride the other day and passed...

Question for this group.

I was being radar vectored for the SHN NDB approach. I was cleared in
the following way: Cessna 61786 14 miles from NDB descend and maintain
2000 until established.

The problem: I was outside the 10 mile ring on the plate, established
on the inbound course, no way to tell when I would be inside 10 mile.
However, I would need to descend to 1400 before the NDB to have a
chance to descend to MDA of 900.

What would you all do?

Endre

[Aarfy]

I'd look at my GNS430 and start descending to 1400' at CARRO or 10nm from
the NDB.

My read of the plate says that on the approach course you need to be at
1900' 10nm from the NDB. If you don't have an approach-ready GPS then I
guess there's 2 ways to go:

1. Calculate/estimate your ground speed, and use a timer to figure out when
you've traveled 4nm to be within 10nm, begin descent to 1400'.
2. Ask ATC to give you a heads-up when you're 10nm out, begin descent to
1400'.

Then again, maybe I'm reading the plate wrong.....



"endre" > wrote in message
om...
> I did my instrument checkride the other day and passed...
>
> Question for this group.
>
> I was being radar vectored for the SHN NDB approach. I was cleared in
> the following way: Cessna 61786 14 miles from NDB descend and maintain
> 2000 until established.
>
> The problem: I was outside the 10 mile ring on the plate, established
> on the inbound course, no way to tell when I would be inside 10 mile.
> However, I would need to descend to 1400 before the NDB to have a
> chance to descend to MDA of 900.
>
> What would you all do?
>
> Endre

[Greg Esres]

<<I was outside the 10 mile ring on the plate>>

I would first point out that that the 10 mile ring is irrelevant. The
ring depicted on NACO charts is NOT the procedure turn area. It
merely says everything is to scale inside the ring. Common
misunderstanding, but an instrument instructor should be slapped
around if he teaches it.

The only "10 nm" that comes into play is the one on the profile file
that says "remain within 10 nm". The protected area for a PT is NOT
a circle; more like an egg.

[David Megginson]

(endre) writes:

> I was being radar vectored for the SHN NDB approach. I was cleared
> in the following way: Cessna 61786 14 miles from NDB descend and
> maintain 2000 until established.
>
> The problem: I was outside the 10 mile ring on the plate, established
> on the inbound course, no way to tell when I would be inside 10 mile.
> However, I would need to descend to 1400 before the NDB to have a
> chance to descend to MDA of 900.
>
> What would you all do?

Since you were being vectored and not flying a full procedure, I'd
guess that you were OK to descend as soon as you intercepted the
inbound course, but if in doubt I would have asked ATC to clarify (as
I often do -- better embarrassed than dead). In my real-life IFR
flying so far, I've noticed that ATC often vectors me onto the
approach path far out beyond the PT limits -- once so far that I could
just barely pick up the localizer (in night IMC no less) -- and that
they intend for me to follow any altitude instructions as soon as I'm
on the course, even if I won't be inside PT limits for another 10
minutes or more.

Even if my experience is unusual (or U.S. ATC works differently, and
"established" means explicitly "inside PT limits"), they still gave
you the information you needed -- you were 14 nm from the NDB, and
with a 90 kias approach speed, 3 minutes (4 with a strong headwind)
should have been good enough to ensure that you were inside the 10 nm
circle.


All the best,


David

[Greg Esres]

<<I'd guess that you were OK to descend as soon as you intercepted the
inbound course, >>

Argh! No! The PILOT must know when he's established and within the
protected area. All you've intercepted is a navaid, not a segment of
the approach, until you've reached the start of that segment.

<<they intend for me to follow any altitude instructions as soon as
I'm on the course, even if I won't be inside PT limits for another 10
minutes or more.>>

What ATC intends is irrelevant. If they want you at the published
altitude before you reached the point where that altitude applies,
then they're got to clear you down to it, using their MVAs.

Failure to understand this concept has killed some people in the past,
including at least 1 airliner, TWA 514.

See the AOPA article:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9806.html

[McGregor]

Well, is the 10 nm ring irrelevent if he's already on the inbound course?

If he's getting "vectors to final" then he's not expected to make a PT.
Presumably he's going to be close to or on the final approach course when
ATC clears him 14 miles out.

There is another IAF 9.7 nm out and slightly left of course at CARRO which
allows you to descend to 1400 (and skip the PT). Even if it weren't there,
I'd be tempted to descend to 1400 inside 10nm. If you're on the final
approach course and inside the PT limits... why not?

Anyway, I'd start a timer after ATC said "cleared for the approach." If
you're going 120 knots wait for 2 minutes and then begin your descent to
1400 feet.

If you're good at trigonometry (I'm not, I'm not even sure I can spell it)
then you could use the OLM VOR for a DME fix. It's 18.2 to the NDB, and 90
degrees right of the 317 radial is 047, which is pretty close to (the
reciprocal of) your inbound course... so using Pythagorus's theorem you can
solve for the DME reading you need to see from OLM while on the inbound
course to know you're 10 (or 9.7) miles out. I get 20.6 - a nice thing to do
on the ground so you don't have to do square roots in your head while flying
an approach.


"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<I was outside the 10 mile ring on the plate>>
>
> I would first point out that that the 10 mile ring is irrelevant. The
> ring depicted on NACO charts is NOT the procedure turn area. It
> merely says everything is to scale inside the ring. Common
> misunderstanding, but an instrument instructor should be slapped
> around if he teaches it.
>
> The only "10 nm" that comes into play is the one on the profile file
> that says "remain within 10 nm". The protected area for a PT is NOT
> a circle; more like an egg.
>
>
>

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<I'd guess that you were OK to descend as soon as you intercepted the
> inbound course, >>
>
> Argh! No! The PILOT must know when he's established and within the
> protected area. All you've intercepted is a navaid, not a segment of
> the approach, until you've reached the start of that segment.

Is it well-defined where the approach segment begins when you're vectored
for SHN NDB-A? (There's an IAF at CARRO, but it's a bit to the side of the
approach course.)

--Gary

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<I'd guess that you were OK to descend as soon as you intercepted the
> inbound course, >>
>
> Argh! No! The PILOT must know when he's established and within the
> protected area. All you've intercepted is a navaid, not a segment of
> the approach, until you've reached the start of that segment.
>
> <<they intend for me to follow any altitude instructions as soon as
> I'm on the course, even if I won't be inside PT limits for another 10
> minutes or more.>>
>
> What ATC intends is irrelevant. If they want you at the published
> altitude before you reached the point where that altitude applies,
> then they're got to clear you down to it, using their MVAs.
>
> Failure to understand this concept has killed some people in the past,
> including at least 1 airliner, TWA 514.

Your points are all right on. Having said that, this thread demonstrates
that, 29 years after TWA 514, both pilots and controllers do not fully
understand this stuff. The clearance for that NDB approach with "until
established" is a "setup" by ATC; albeit from lack of controller
understanding. Over the years since the TWA 514 crash the controller's
handbook has had many layers of "inner tube" patches on the area of radar
vectors to approach procedures. The only correct clearance for such a
vector to the PT area, would be for the controller to withhold approach
clearance, using MVAs, until the aircraft is within 10 miles of the PT
fix. But, this is simply not taught to controllers. The burden for this
one should be on ATC, not the pilot.

[David Megginson]

Greg Esres > writes:

> <<I'd guess that you were OK to descend as soon as you intercepted
> the inbound course, >>
>
> Argh! No! The PILOT must know when he's established and within the
> protected area. All you've intercepted is a navaid, not a segment
> of the approach, until you've reached the start of that segment.

It's a little different here, because MSA is operational -- we have an
altitude we can descend to as soon as we're within 25 nm.

(Note that you snipped out the part where I said I'd call and check
what they actually wanted.)


Thanks for the info,


David

[Greg Esres]

<<Is it well-defined where the approach segment begins when you're
vectored for SHN NDB-A? >>

Yes, in theory. ;-) You're on the final approach segment where the
initial segment intersects the final approach course at (or within)
the 10 nm limit stated in the chart.

How you would detect this on a vectors to final outside this limit is
point of the original poster. I never waste NDB approaches by doing
vectors to final, so I haven't given any thought to the issue. ATC
probably ought not to do what they did, but I'm not aware of any rules
stating such.

[Greg Esres]

<<If you're on the final approach course and inside the PT limits...
why not?>>

That's fine, but my point is that the 10 nm is given to you on the
profile view, not the 10 nm ring, which has nothing to do with the PT.

Trivial distinction?

I don't think so. We had an approach that had no PT, yet some
instructors were teaching that an a/c could descend within 10 nm of
our FAF, because of the 10 nm ring.

[Greg Esres]

<<It's a little different here, because MSA is operational -- we have
an altitude we can descend to as soon as we're within 25 nm.>>

We're not talking about MSAs, we're talking about the 10 nm ring
around the approach that signifies that the included area is to scale.
There is no associated altitude with this ring, so some pilots assume
that it means the PT altitude. It doesn't.

The MSA is a 25 nm ring and it will provide obstacle protection; the
10 nm ring doesn't do that.

I don't know what Canadian charts look like.

<<(Note that you snipped out the part where I said I'd call and check
what they actually wanted.)>>

My point is that it doesn't matter what they wanted.

We had a local approach where we often got vectored to a point on the
extended centerline of the final approach course, but outside the
point where the approach started. The published altitude was 2,000
feet, but we were vectored at 2,500. ATC *wanted* us to descend
immediately on intercepting the localizer, but the approach simply did
not authorize that.

If ATC wanted us at 2,000, then it was their responsibility to assign
that altitude, because only then are they providing obstacle
protection. If a pilot allows himself to be intimidated down to an
unpublished altitude, then there is no obstacle protection being
provided by anyone, and the pilot is in violation of Part 97.

[Ron Natalie]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message ...

>
> It's a little different here, because MSA is operational -- we have an
> altitude we can descend to as soon as we're within 25 nm.
>
The MSA is for emergency use only. You shouldn't be relying on it for normal
operations.

[Ron Natalie]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message m...
>
> "David Megginson" > wrote in message ...
>
> >
> > It's a little different here, because MSA is operational -- we have an
> > altitude we can descend to as soon as we're within 25 nm.
> >
> The MSA is for emergency use only. You shouldn't be relying on it for normal
> operations.

Oops, didn't recognize you were talking about Canada first...

[Bob Gardner]

Canada, Ron, Dave is in Canada.

Bob Gardner

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> > It's a little different here, because MSA is operational -- we have an
> > altitude we can descend to as soon as we're within 25 nm.
> >
> The MSA is for emergency use only. You shouldn't be relying on it for
normal
> operations.
>
>

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<Is it well-defined where the approach segment begins when you're
> vectored for SHN NDB-A? >>
>
> Yes, in theory. ;-) You're on the final approach segment where the
> initial segment intersects the final approach course at (or within)
> the 10 nm limit stated in the chart.

I see why it's a sensible practice to construe it that way, but is it
officially defined that way somewhere?

--Gary

[Maule Driver]

So as a practical matter, assuming you are able to figure out the misleading
nature of the clearance, what would you do?

I'm thinking that the controller hasn't technically give me anything I can't
fly yet, it's just that I would like to be cleared lower outside of the FAF
(before established). So I would accept the clearance "123Foxtrot cleared
descend 2000". (I have never flown an NDB approach so bear with me here)
Once I had established myself on a course of 232 to the NDB, I would say
"123Foxtrot 2000 request descent 1400feet" The controller would either
reply "123Foxtrot cleared to descend 1400" or "123Foxtrot, radar contact
lost, maintain 2000 until established" I would respond with "123F
maintaining 2000, will report crossing the NDB".

I guess a third option would be "123F, you are cleared to descend once
established".....in which case, see last sentence above.

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<I'd guess that you were OK to descend as soon as you intercepted the
> inbound course, >>
>
> Argh! No! The PILOT must know when he's established and within the
> protected area. All you've intercepted is a navaid, not a segment of
> the approach, until you've reached the start of that segment.
>
> <<they intend for me to follow any altitude instructions as soon as
> I'm on the course, even if I won't be inside PT limits for another 10
> minutes or more.>>
>
> What ATC intends is irrelevant. If they want you at the published
> altitude before you reached the point where that altitude applies,
> then they're got to clear you down to it, using their MVAs.
>
> Failure to understand this concept has killed some people in the past,
> including at least 1 airliner, TWA 514.
>
> See the AOPA article:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9806.html
>
>

[[email protected]]

Ron Natalie wrote:

> The MSA is for emergency use only. You shouldn't be relying on it for normal
> operations.

True for the U.S. But, MSAs are operational altitudes for much of the world, which I believe
includes Canada.

[[email protected]]

"Gary L. Drescher" wrote:

> "Greg Esres" > wrote in message
> ...
> > <<Is it well-defined where the approach segment begins when you're
> > vectored for SHN NDB-A? >>
> >
> > Yes, in theory. ;-) You're on the final approach segment where the
> > initial segment intersects the final approach course at (or within)
> > the 10 nm limit stated in the chart.
>
> I see why it's a sensible practice to construe it that way, but is it
> officially defined that way somewhere?
>
>

On the FAR Part 97 form for the approach. It says "remain within 10
miles." Where there is no segment prior to that, the procedure turn
initial approach segment begins at 10 miles from the PT fix. If normally
ends at that limit, but when vectored to "final" it begins at that
point. Same published-segment airspace boundary in either case.

[David Megginson]

Greg Esres > writes:

> I don't know what Canadian charts look like.

Pretty similar.

> If ATC wanted us at 2,000, then it was their responsibility to
> assign that altitude, because only then are they providing obstacle
> protection. If a pilot allows himself to be intimidated down to an
> unpublished altitude, then there is no obstacle protection being
> provided by anyone, and the pilot is in violation of Part 97.

That's a good point. It looks like this might be a bit of a hornet's
nest of pilot/controller confusion. My instrument rating is still
fairly new, but when I'm being vectored far back (beyond PT limits),
the instruction I get is usually something like "on interception,
descend to ..." rather than "when established on the approach,
descend to ...". That's less ambiguous.


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

"Ron Natalie" > writes:

>> It's a little different here, because MSA is operational -- we have
>> an altitude we can descend to as soon as we're within 25 nm.
>>
> The MSA is for emergency use only. You shouldn't be relying on it
> for normal operations.

As I mentioned in the bit you quoted, it's different up north -- in
Canada, MSA *is* operational. If you are cleared for an approach and
not given an explict altitude restriction, you are automatically
allowed to descend to the lowest of the following (see RAC 9.3 in the
Canadian AIP):

(a) MEA

(b) published transition or feeder altitude

(c) MSA

(d) 100 nm safe altitude

(e) if nothing else applies, 1000 ft above the highest obstacle within
5 nm (1500 ft or 2000 ft in mountainous areas)

Typically, when you're being vectored and then are cleared for an
approach before you're inside the protected area, MSA will be the
winner (assuming that you're within 25 nm of the IAF) -- descending to
MSA was a standard part of almost every practice approach during my
IFR training, especially the full-procedure ones.


All the best,


David

[Greg Esres]

<<So as a practical matter, assuming you are able to figure out the
misleading nature of the clearance, what would you do?>>

This is a difficult question when the ATC guy doesn't understand the
approach. Like the case I mentioned at my own airport, ATC vectored
us at 2,500, but expected us to descend to 2,000 once on the
localizer, even though the chart didn't permit the descent.

My requests for "lower" were met with a bit of disdain when the
controller told me to fly the approach chart, which he *thought* said
2,000.

Some of your suggested dialog makes me a little uncomfortable, because
it seems to lend itself to some miscommunication between ATC and the
pilot about who is providing terrain clearance. (This was the essence
of the TWA514 accident.)

I suppose the easiest answer is to ask ATC to inform you when you're
within 10 nm of the NDB.

[Greg Esres]

<<get is usually something like "on interception, descend to ..."
rather than "when established on the approach, descend to ...".
That's less ambiguous.>>

Yes, it is. Still, sometimes we get "until established on the
localizer", but it has the same meaning as "established on the
approach". ATC just doesn't understand the difference.

[Greg Esres]

<<I see why it's a sensible practice to construe it that way, but is
it officially defined that way somewhere?>>

TERPS par. 234:

....When no fix marks the beginning of the intermediate or final
approach segment associated with the procedure turn, these segments
are deemed to commence on the inbound procedure turn course at the
maximum distance specified in the procedure.

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<get is usually something like "on interception, descend to ..."
> rather than "when established on the approach, descend to ...".
> That's less ambiguous.>>
>
> Yes, it is. Still, sometimes we get "until established on the
> localizer", but it has the same meaning as "established on the
> approach". ATC just doesn't understand the difference.

The ATC Handbook requires the use of the phrase "...maintain X,000 until
crossing ACME fix..." when a vector is given to a non-published
extension of the intermediate segment. The phrase "until established"
is appropriate only when the vector is to within a published segment of
the approach. This was brought to ATPAC a couple of years ago, and
supposedly controllers were reminded of the difference in an Air Traffic
Bulletin.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"endre" > wrote in message
om...
>
> I did my instrument checkride the other day and passed...
>
> Question for this group.
>
> I was being radar vectored for the SHN NDB approach. I was cleared in
> the following way: Cessna 61786 14 miles from NDB descend and maintain
> 2000 until established.
>

That was all of it? There's no approach clearance there.


>
> The problem: I was outside the 10 mile ring on the plate, established
> on the inbound course, no way to tell when I would be inside 10 mile.
> However, I would need to descend to 1400 before the NDB to have a
> chance to descend to MDA of 900.
>
> What would you all do?
>

If what's above is a verbatim quote of the instruction received, I'd request
an approach clearance.

I'm not sure what your concern is. The ten mile ring means nothing with
regard to where you can begin your descent.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
>
> Argh! No! The PILOT must know when he's established and within the
> protected area. All you've intercepted is a navaid, not a segment of
> the approach, until you've reached the start of that segment.
>

Actually, assuming a proper clearance is issued, it is OK. The controller
must assign an altitude to maintain until the aircraft is established on a
segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure. Once you're
established on a published segment you can descend to the appropriate
altitude for that segment.


>
> What ATC intends is irrelevant. If they want you at the published
> altitude before you reached the point where that altitude applies,
> then they're got to clear you down to it, using their MVAs.
>

There's a question here about the clearance; either ATC issued an improper
clearance or it was quoted incorrectly. But ATC did issue an altitude to
maintain until established, 2000 feet.


>
> Failure to understand this concept has killed some people in the past,
> including at least 1 airliner, TWA 514.
>
> See the AOPA article:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9806.html
>

Bad example. TWA514 was not vectored for the approach, they simply
descended below the published altitude for their route.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
>
> We had a local approach where we often got vectored to a point on the
> extended centerline of the final approach course, but outside the
> point where the approach started. The published altitude was 2,000
> feet, but we were vectored at 2,500. ATC *wanted* us to descend
> immediately on intercepting the localizer, but the approach simply did
> not authorize that.
>
> If ATC wanted us at 2,000, then it was their responsibility to assign
> that altitude, because only then are they providing obstacle
> protection. If a pilot allows himself to be intimidated down to an
> unpublished altitude, then there is no obstacle protection being
> provided by anyone, and the pilot is in violation of Part 97.
>

What approach is that?

[Robert Henry]

Dead reckoning? If the course intercept time and length are too difficult
to interpolate safely and fly the airplane, I'd request a position update in
5 minutes (7.5-10 miles closer), or the PT.

The no way to tell where you are part of your question should be (in my
limited experience) a BIG RED FLAG, both for the approach and how you
conduct the flight in general. Ultimately, keeping your butt out of the
rocks is solely up to you.

"endre" > wrote in message
om...
> I did my instrument checkride the other day and passed...
>
> Question for this group.
>
> I was being radar vectored for the SHN NDB approach. I was cleared in
> the following way: Cessna 61786 14 miles from NDB descend and maintain
> 2000 until established.
>
> The problem: I was outside the 10 mile ring on the plate, established
> on the inbound course, no way to tell when I would be inside 10 mile.
> However, I would need to descend to 1400 before the NDB to have a
> chance to descend to MDA of 900.
>
> What would you all do?
>
> Endre

[Chip Jones]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Greg Esres" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > We had a local approach where we often got vectored to a point on the
> > extended centerline of the final approach course, but outside the
> > point where the approach started. The published altitude was 2,000
> > feet, but we were vectored at 2,500. ATC *wanted* us to descend
> > immediately on intercepting the localizer, but the approach simply did
> > not authorize that.
> >
> > If ATC wanted us at 2,000, then it was their responsibility to assign
> > that altitude, because only then are they providing obstacle
> > protection. If a pilot allows himself to be intimidated down to an
> > unpublished altitude, then there is no obstacle protection being
> > provided by anyone, and the pilot is in violation of Part 97.
> >
>
> What approach is that?
>

My question too...

Chip, ZTL

[Greg Esres]

<<What approach is that?>>

OLV Loc 18.

It's been replaced now by an ILS, so it's no longer an issue.

The approach started at the FAF. No intermediate or initial segment.

[Greg Esres]

<<This was brought to ATPAC a couple of years ago, and supposedly
controllers were reminded of the difference in an Air Traffic
Bulletin.>>

They were. I have a copy of that publication with that reminder in
it, and used it as part of a package to persuade local instructors
that they were incorrect to permit descent before being on a black
line.

However, our controllers only very rarely used that phraseology.

One of our instructors talked to a Flight Procedures guy in OKC, who
raised the FAF to an altitude compatible with the vectoring altitude,
which caused no end of headaches with ATC. :-) Their fault for not
doing it right in the first place.

[Greg Esres]

<<Once you're established on a published segment you can descend to
the appropriate altitude for that segment.>>

Agreed, but the *pilot* must know when he's established on a segment
of the approach. A random controller is not qualified to determine
that.

<<There's a question here about the clearance; either ATC issued an
improper clearance or it was quoted incorrectly. But ATC did issue an
altitude to maintain until established, 2000 feet.
>>

I'm not questioning the clearance, but I'm questioning whether the
pilot should rely on ATC's interpretation of what it means to be
established.

<<Bad example. TWA514 was not vectored for the approach, they simply
descended below the published altitude for their route.>>

No, they descended to published altitudes BEFORE they reached the
point where those altitudes applied. They were not on a "black line".

I think this example is appropriate because

1) involves the definition of "established", and
2) involves confusion between who is providing terrain clearance.

[Maule Driver]

Good points. I agree. But I'm not sure I would be able to decipher the
problem during an actual single pilot approach. This analysis certainly
helps.

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<So as a practical matter, assuming you are able to figure out the
> misleading nature of the clearance, what would you do?>>
>
> This is a difficult question when the ATC guy doesn't understand the
> approach. Like the case I mentioned at my own airport, ATC vectored
> us at 2,500, but expected us to descend to 2,000 once on the
> localizer, even though the chart didn't permit the descent.
>
> My requests for "lower" were met with a bit of disdain when the
> controller told me to fly the approach chart, which he *thought* said
> 2,000.
>
> Some of your suggested dialog makes me a little uncomfortable, because
> it seems to lend itself to some miscommunication between ATC and the
> pilot about who is providing terrain clearance. (This was the essence
> of the TWA514 accident.)
>
> I suppose the easiest answer is to ask ATC to inform you when you're
> within 10 nm of the NDB.

[Greg Esres]

<<But I'm not sure I would be able to decipher the problem during an
actual single pilot approach. >>

Me either. Most of my learning experiences occur after something
unexpected happens on an approach, and I come home and research the
issue by looking at my reference material or calling up ATC on the
telephone or maybe even flight procedures folk.

It's amazing that the system works at all. :-)

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<What approach is that?>>
>
> OLV Loc 18.
>
> It's been replaced now by an ILS, so it's no longer an issue.
>
> The approach started at the FAF. No intermediate or initial segment.

Those Radar Required, no intermediate segment IAPs were the subject of
some considerable debate between ALPA and the FAA a few years ago. AFS
finally agreed they made no sense, and AVN-100 launched a program to add
published intermediates to all of them. Most of them should be done by
now.

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:

>
>
> <<Bad example. TWA514 was not vectored for the approach, they simply
> descended below the published altitude for their route.>>
>
> No, they descended to published altitudes BEFORE they reached the
> point where those altitudes applied. They were not on a "black line".
>
> I think this example is appropriate because
>
> 1) involves the definition of "established", and
> 2) involves confusion between who is providing terrain clearance.

The VOR/DME Runway 12 approach in effect at IAD at the time, which was
used by TWA 514, was defective in that the profile began at the FAF, even
though the intermediate segment was in the plan view. That did not meet
charting specs in effect at the time.

[[email protected]]

: I was being radar vectored for the SHN NDB approach. I was cleared in
: the following way: Cessna 61786 14 miles from NDB descend and maintain
: 2000 until established.

Doesn't this imply that ATC was providiong terrain clearance?
While "established" is a bit ambiguous when shortcutting an IAP, it seems
that this 2000' clearance (should) provide safe operation between the
current position and the point of intersecting the 052 radial.

Is this true?

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Greg Esres]

<<Most of them should be done by now.>>

I keep the plate around because I think it's instructive.


Vaguely related issue:

What are your thoughts about being vectored to final on an approach
whose intermediate segment is defined by a 1 minute hold-in-lieu that
you aren't doing?

I know that the protected area on a hold-in-lieu stretches a little
over 9 miles from the fix (template #4), but I'm not certain that it's
legit to use that information, since the segment is defined by timing.

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<Most of them should be done by now.>>
>
> I keep the plate around because I think it's instructive.
>
> Vaguely related issue:
>
> What are your thoughts about being vectored to final on an approach
> whose intermediate segment is defined by a 1 minute hold-in-lieu that
> you aren't doing?
>
> I know that the protected area on a hold-in-lieu stretches a little
> over 9 miles from the fix (template #4), but I'm not certain that it's
> legit to use that information, since the segment is defined by timing.

That has been mentioned to AFS-420 and their eyes just fog over. They
aren't inclined to solve such "minor" problems because they don't like
dealing with Washington ATP staff very much. ;-)

It's a good example of the terrible, disfunctional disonnect within the
FAA between Flight Standards and Air Traffic Service.

[Greg Esres]

<<It's a good example of the terrible, disfunctional disonnect within
the FAA between Flight Standards and Air Traffic Service.>>

I was afraid you'd say something like that. ;-)

I suppose the easiest thing to defend to an examiner is to say 200
knots for 1 minute equates to 6 nm.

BTW, an article I read a while back said that "IAP course-reversal
holds will always be limited to 200 knots to preserve minimums in
existing canyon IAPs".

However, the AIM still says that normal holding speeds apply to these
hold-in-lieus.

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<It's a good example of the terrible, disfunctional disonnect within
> the FAA between Flight Standards and Air Traffic Service.>>
>
> I was afraid you'd say something like that. ;-)
>
> I suppose the easiest thing to defend to an examiner is to say 200
> knots for 1 minute equates to 6 nm.
>
> BTW, an article I read a while back said that "IAP course-reversal
> holds will always be limited to 200 knots to preserve minimums in
> existing canyon IAPs".
>
> However, the AIM still says that normal holding speeds apply to these
> hold-in-lieus.

....which is 200 knots, 6,000 and below. It was decided that 230 works
above 6,000 for mountain-bowl airports; which, of course, requires
templates larger than P4.

[Kobra]

How would you know when you're at the 10nm circle? Not sure, but I'll throw
this in for debate: lay your plotter's compass rose on KITSAP and line up
the 203 bearing. Read the radial off the compass rose that points to the
circle's edge. It looks like 180 might do it. Fly the final approach
course at 2000' until you intercept the 180 bearing from KITSAP and you're
at the 10nm ring.

Some might say that what's outside the circle is not to scale. But the
fact that there's no squiggly line in front of KITSAP says to me that it is
to scale.

Personally, this is the best reason to pick up that Garmin 295 or 196. You
can't use it for the approach, but you can use it for situational awareness
and identifying certain fixes that would otherwise be allusive.

Kobra
PP-SEL IA
"endre" > wrote in message
om...
> I did my instrument checkride the other day and passed...
>
> Question for this group.
>
> I was being radar vectored for the SHN NDB approach. I was cleared in
> the following way: Cessna 61786 14 miles from NDB descend and maintain
> 2000 until established.
>
> The problem: I was outside the 10 mile ring on the plate, established
> on the inbound course, no way to tell when I would be inside 10 mile.
> However, I would need to descend to 1400 before the NDB to have a
> chance to descend to MDA of 900.
>
> What would you all do?
>
> Endre

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is a difficult question when the ATC guy doesn't understand the
> approach. Like the case I mentioned at my own airport, ATC vectored
> us at 2,500, but expected us to descend to 2,000 once on the
> localizer, even though the chart didn't permit the descent.
>
> My requests for "lower" were met with a bit of disdain when the
> controller told me to fly the approach chart, which he *thought* said
> 2,000.
>

You're referring to the OLV LOC/DME RWY 18 approach. The controller was
right, the procedure does permit a descent to 2000 once on the localizer. I
posted a scan of this procedure to alt.binaries.pictures.aviation for the
benefit of the non-packrats among us.


>
> Some of your suggested dialog makes me a little uncomfortable, because
> it seems to lend itself to some miscommunication between ATC and the
> pilot about who is providing terrain clearance. (This was the essence
> of the TWA514 accident.)
>

The essence of the TWA 514 accident was a misunderstanding of the clearance
by the pilot.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, it is. Still, sometimes we get "until established on the
> localizer", but it has the same meaning as "established on the
> approach". ATC just doesn't understand the difference.
>

Assuming that you're being vectored to a localizer, what is the difference?

[Greg Esres]

<<Assuming that you're being vectored to a localizer, what is the
difference?>>

Because the localizer extends out *much* further than does the
intermediate segment.

[Greg Esres]

<<The controller was right, the procedure does permit a descent to
2000 once on the localizer. >>

Wrong. There is no intermediate segment. The approach begins at
MANDD, period.

I've already discussed this approach with the Flight Procedures folk,
who all agree that the chart doesn't permit a descent until you get on
a black line, which starts at the FAF.

How could you conceivably think otherwise?

The controller has already admitted he was wrong; after making a lot
of phone calls, he found the guy that designed the approach.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because the localizer extends out *much* further than does the
> intermediate segment.
>

So what?

[Ron Natalie]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
> "Greg Esres" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Because the localizer extends out *much* further than does the
> > intermediate segment.
> >
>
> So what?

I think his point was just becuase you are on the localizer doesn't
mean you're on the published approach (and allowed to descend). Is ATC prohibited form
vectoring you farther out on the localizer than the approach begins?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
>
> OLV Loc 18.
>
> It's been replaced now by an ILS, so it's no longer an issue.
>
> The approach started at the FAF. No intermediate or initial segment.
>

You misunderstood that approach. I have a US Terminal Procedures book SC-4
dated 26 Feb 1998, I scanned and posted a copy of this procedure to
alt.binaries.pictures.aviation so you can review it. ATC cleared you to
2500 until established on the localizer because that's the MVA in that area.
Once you were cleared for the approach and had joined the localizer you were
to descend in accordance with FAR 91.175(i) to the 2000 minimum altitude
until MANDD, upon reaching MANDD you descend to the MDA, 800 feet. See the
profile view.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
>
> Agreed, but the *pilot* must know when he's established on a segment
> of the approach.
>

The pilot should practice the fine art of navigation.


>
> I'm not questioning the clearance, but I'm questioning whether the
> pilot should rely on ATC's interpretation of what it means to be
> established.
>

If the pilot doesn't know what it means to be established he shouldn't be
flying IFR.


>
> No, they descended to published altitudes BEFORE they reached the
> point where those altitudes applied. They were not on a "black line".
>

How does that differ from what I wrote?

You can review the incident here:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9806.html


I don't have a copy of the VOR/DME RWY 12 approach from 1974, but the
transcript has the pilot referring to a step-down fix on it.

Capt: "You know, according to this dumb sheet [referring to the instrument
approach chart] it says thirty-four hundred to Round Hill--is our minimum
altitude." The FE asked where the captain saw that, and the captain replied,
"Well, here. Round Hill is eleven-and-a-half DME."

Note that that conservation took place about three and a half minutes after
they were cleared for the approach and the pilot started a descent to 1800
feet. The pilot saw a minimum altitude applicable to the route in front of
them and he elected to descend through it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> The VOR/DME Runway 12 approach in effect at IAD at the time, which was
> used by TWA 514, was defective in that the profile began at the FAF, even
> though the intermediate segment was in the plan view. That did not meet
> charting specs in effect at the time.
>

That may be, but the transcript shows the pilot was aware of the higher
altitude that applied to Round Hill and descended below it anyway.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Doesn't this imply that ATC was providiong terrain clearance?
>

Yes.


>
> While "established" is a bit ambiguous when shortcutting an IAP, it seems
> that this 2000' clearance (should) provide safe operation between the
> current position and the point of intersecting the 052 radial.
>
> Is this true?
>

Yes. If that's a verbatim quote of the approach clearance it's pretty
sloppy on the part of the controller. I suspect the writer didn't remember
it quite right, even the sloppiest controllers tend to include the C-word in
their approach clearances.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wrong. There is no intermediate segment. The approach begins at
> MANDD, period.
>

Did you look at the chart I posted?


>
> I've already discussed this approach with the Flight Procedures folk,
> who all agree that the chart doesn't permit a descent until you get on
> a black line, which starts at the FAF.
>

Well, then, the flight procedures folks are wrong, the chart clearly permits
a descent to 2000 MSL once established on the localizer outside of MANDD.
Do you see the underlined 2000 figure immediately left of the maltese cross
in the profile view? Did you think that was just there for decorative
purposes?


>
> How could you conceivably think otherwise?
>

Because that's the way it is. Whatever gave you the idea you couldn't
descend to a published altitude once established on an instrument approach
procedure?


>
> The controller has already admitted he was wrong; after making a lot
> of phone calls, he found the guy that designed the approach.
>

Sounds like the controller was just humoring you.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I think his point was just becuase you are on the localizer doesn't
> mean you're on the published approach (and allowed to descend).
>

His points seem to change as he's asked questions about them. His statement
that I queried was; "Yes, it is. Still, sometimes we get 'until established
on the localizer', but it has the same meaning as 'established on the
approach'. ATC just doesn't understand the difference." The question I
asked was; "Assuming that you're being vectored to a localizer, what is the
difference?" Obviously, if what you're being vectored to on the approach is
a localizer there's no difference at all. His answer; "Because the
localizer extends out *much* further than does the intermediate segment."
made no sense at all. When one is being vectored to a localizer one is
generally being vectored to the intermediate segment.


>
> Is ATC prohibited form vectoring you farther out on the localizer than the
> approach begins?
>

There is no such prohibition. If the vector will have the aircraft join
beyond a published segment an altitude to maintain to a specific fix must be
issued with the approach clearance, or the approach clearance must be
withheld until the aircraft is on a published segment.

[Teacherjh]

>>
His answer; "Because the
localizer extends out *much* further than
does the intermediate segment."
made no sense at all.
<<

I've been enroute to DXR and been vectored to follow the localizer in while 25
miles away. I'm clearly not on an "approach segment" and just using the
localizer for enroute course guidance. (I was also not cleard for the approach
at that point)

>>
If the vector will have the aircraft join
beyond a published segment an altitude to maintain to a specific fix must be
issued with the approach clearance, or the approach clearance must be
withheld until the aircraft is on a published segment.
<<

That's what happened in my case.

Jose





--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Greg Esres" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > OLV Loc 18.
> >
> > It's been replaced now by an ILS, so it's no longer an issue.
> >
> > The approach started at the FAF. No intermediate or initial segment.
> >
>
> You misunderstood that approach. I have a US Terminal Procedures book SC-4
> dated 26 Feb 1998, I scanned and posted a copy of this procedure to
> alt.binaries.pictures.aviation so you can review it. ATC cleared you to
> 2500 until established on the localizer because that's the MVA in that area.
> Once you were cleared for the approach and had joined the localizer you were
> to descend in accordance with FAR 91.175(i) to the 2000 minimum altitude
> until MANDD, upon reaching MANDD you descend to the MDA, 800 feet. See the
> profile view.

Not so, Steve. The 2,000' shown on that 1998 chart is evaluated by the
procedures specialist only at the FAF, including any fix displacement factors.
If the MVA were 2,500, then the airspace below 2,500 until reaching the fix
displacement area for MANDD would be "TWA 514-land." Further, you cannot be
established on the LOC in that procedure prior to MANDD, in the context that
"established" when issued by ATC, means established in a published segment of
the approach.in accordance with FAR 91.175(i) and related AIM/7110.65 guidance.

Further, because controllers were misapplying the long-standing requirements of
the 7110.65 to NOT use the word "established" when vectoring an aircraft to an
unpublished extension of a published segment of an IAP, Air Traffic Bulletin
2001-04 was issued to provide clarification of *existing* air traffic policy.
The link and bulletin title follow:

http://www2.faa.gov/ATpubs/atbarc/01-4.htm

"Vectors to Final Approach Course Prior to Published Segment of an Instrument
Approach Procedure (IAP)"

The correct clearance in 1998 for that approach would be, "Intercept the
localizer, cross MANDD at 2,500, then cleared for the LOC/DME 18 approach."

And, this approach, and many other "Radar Required" IAPs without an intermediate
segment, not only resulted in confusion, but could also force the aircraft to
maintain MVA to the FAF, which in some cases (like this one) was higher than a
TERPsed intermediate segment would apply.

ALPA complained about this lack of intermediate segments in 1998, or so, and
over 100 such IAPs were identified and scheduled for correction. Most of them
have since been corrected. AVN-100 has a worksheet, which they present at the
Aeronautical Charting Forum each 6 months to show the progess on the repair of
these "intermediateless" IAPs.

How you read 91.175(i) to permit the pilot to depart MVA and descend to 2,000'
prior to MANDD escapes me. That is pretty much what the crew of TWA 514 did,
and which resulted in 91.175(i) being written; i.e., *published* route or
segment.

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:

> <<Once you're established on a published segment you can descend to
> the appropriate altitude for that segment.>>
>
> Agreed, but the *pilot* must know when he's established on a segment
> of the approach. A random controller is not qualified to determine
> that.
>
> <<There's a question here about the clearance; either ATC issued an
> improper clearance or it was quoted incorrectly. But ATC did issue an
> altitude to maintain until established, 2000 feet.
> >>
>
> I'm not questioning the clearance, but I'm questioning whether the
> pilot should rely on ATC's interpretation of what it means to be
> established.
>
> <<Bad example. TWA514 was not vectored for the approach, they simply
> descended below the published altitude for their route.>>
>
> No, they descended to published altitudes BEFORE they reached the
> point where those altitudes applied. They were not on a "black line".
>
> I think this example is appropriate because
>
> 1) involves the definition of "established", and
> 2) involves confusion between who is providing terrain clearance.

You're spot on. See example #3 in AIM 5-9-4.

[endre]

Thanks for all your posts. Makes a lot of sense. Just to clarify. The
controller did also clear me for the NDB approach as part of his
clearance. Just did not put it into the verbatim.


"Kobra" > wrote in message >...
> How would you know when you're at the 10nm circle? Not sure, but I'll throw
> this in for debate: lay your plotter's compass rose on KITSAP and line up
> the 203 bearing. Read the radial off the compass rose that points to the
> circle's edge. It looks like 180 might do it. Fly the final approach
> course at 2000' until you intercept the 180 bearing from KITSAP and you're
> at the 10nm ring.
>
> Some might say that what's outside the circle is not to scale. But the
> fact that there's no squiggly line in front of KITSAP says to me that it is
> to scale.
>
> Personally, this is the best reason to pick up that Garmin 295 or 196. You
> can't use it for the approach, but you can use it for situational awareness
> and identifying certain fixes that would otherwise be allusive.
>
> Kobra
> PP-SEL IA
> "endre" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I did my instrument checkride the other day and passed...
> >
> > Question for this group.
> >
> > I was being radar vectored for the SHN NDB approach. I was cleared in
> > the following way: Cessna 61786 14 miles from NDB descend and maintain
> > 2000 until established.
> >
> > The problem: I was outside the 10 mile ring on the plate, established
> > on the inbound course, no way to tell when I would be inside 10 mile.
> > However, I would need to descend to 1400 before the NDB to have a
> > chance to descend to MDA of 900.
> >
> > What would you all do?
> >
> > Endre

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:

>
> <<Bad example. TWA514 was not vectored for the approach, they simply
> descended below the published altitude for their route.>>
>
> No, they descended to published altitudes BEFORE they reached the
> point where those altitudes applied. They were not on a "black line".
>
> I think this example is appropriate because
>
> 1) involves the definition of "established", and
> 2) involves confusion between who is providing terrain clearance.

TWA 514 is a good example. Contrary to what Steve asserts, they were
vectored and they were not on a published route at the terminous of that
vector.

Washington Center took them off their published route and vectored them to
an extension of the final approach course for the IAD VOR/DME RWY 12 IAP.
The intercept occurred some 30 miles NW of the VOR and told to descend to
and manintain 7,000. The center then handed them off to IAD TRACON. The
approach controller simply cleared them for the approach without issuing
any crossing fixes or altitude restrictions. The flight was still on an
unpublished extension of the final approach course when cleared for the
approach.

At the NTSB hearing the FAA alleged that the flight was a non-radar
arrival, thus the approach controller had no duties or responsibilities to
monitor the flight in any manner on radar. Needless to say, that didn't
sit well in most quarters.