Approach to an LOM/IAF with PT (not vectors to final)

[O. Sami Saydjari]

The Approach in question is SDF RWY 2 at KISW. I was coming in from the
south, nearly lined up with the inbound course of 021 degrees. I was in
touch with ATC. The LOM/IAF is called NEPCO. The ATC asked if I wanted
"direct NEPCO." I said yes. Within about 10 miles of the airport, the
controller said that frequency change was approved. I believe I was out
of radar contact by this time (radar coverage in the area is spotty).

1. Since there is no "NO PT" indicated on the chart, does that mean that
I am required to do a 180 deg turn when I reach NEPCO so I can track
outbound (201), then do a PT, then come back? That seems a little odd
to me.

2. If so, and I am assuming it is, should I have positioned myself to
approach NEPCO at an intercept that did not require a 180 deg turn to
get to the outbound course? Maybe come at it from the east?

3. Suppose that when I reach NEPCO (IAF), I am below the cloud deck.
Assume that I have switched over to unicom frequency at that point. Is
it permissible to abort the IFR approach and turn inbound for a visual
approach. Presumably, you would have to ask ATC permission to do this.
What if you can not raise ATC on the radio? Can you go visual on your
own?

-Sami
N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III

[Jim]

I'm kind of confused.
When or how did he actually clear you for the approach?

If he cleared you for the appoach and also cleared you direct NEPCO, then
you just shoot the approach straight in on the SDF once established on the
localizer. Since you were approaching from the south, no procedure turn is
necessary.

If he only cleared you to NEPCO, but didn't clear you for the approach, then
you should expect further clearance or enter the hold.

I don't think he would have given you a frequency change if he expected you
to do the full approach including the procedure turn, I'd only expect to get
the hand off after I was inbound crossing the IAF.

--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
> The Approach in question is SDF RWY 2 at KISW. I was coming in from the
> south, nearly lined up with the inbound course of 021 degrees. I was in
> touch with ATC. The LOM/IAF is called NEPCO. The ATC asked if I wanted
> "direct NEPCO." I said yes. Within about 10 miles of the airport, the
> controller said that frequency change was approved. I believe I was out
> of radar contact by this time (radar coverage in the area is spotty).
>
> 1. Since there is no "NO PT" indicated on the chart, does that mean that
> I am required to do a 180 deg turn when I reach NEPCO so I can track
> outbound (201), then do a PT, then come back? That seems a little odd
> to me.
>
> 2. If so, and I am assuming it is, should I have positioned myself to
> approach NEPCO at an intercept that did not require a 180 deg turn to
> get to the outbound course? Maybe come at it from the east?
>
> 3. Suppose that when I reach NEPCO (IAF), I am below the cloud deck.
> Assume that I have switched over to unicom frequency at that point. Is
> it permissible to abort the IFR approach and turn inbound for a visual
> approach. Presumably, you would have to ask ATC permission to do this.
> What if you can not raise ATC on the radio? Can you go visual on your
> own?
>
> -Sami
> N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III
>

[O. Sami Saydjari]

Jim wrote:

> I'm kind of confused.
> When or how did he actually clear you for the approach?

He cleared me for the approach about 10 miles out and then approved a
freq change. The paproach does not say "NO PT", so is it legit to
assume that I do not need to do one?

>
> If he cleared you for the appoach and also cleared you direct NEPCO, then
> you just shoot the approach straight in on the SDF once established on the
> localizer. Since you were approaching from the south, no procedure turn is
> necessary.

It does not say that in the approach plate.

>
> If he only cleared you to NEPCO, but didn't clear you for the approach, then
> you should expect further clearance or enter the hold.
>
> I don't think he would have given you a frequency change if he expected you
> to do the full approach including the procedure turn, I'd only expect to get
> the hand off after I was inbound crossing the IAF.
>

[Michael]

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote
> 1. Since there is no "NO PT" indicated on the chart, does that mean that
> I am required to do a 180 deg turn when I reach NEPCO so I can track
> outbound (201), then do a PT, then come back? That seems a little odd
> to me.

Technically yes, you are required to do this. If there's no RADAR,
who is going to know if you do or not?

> 2. If so, and I am assuming it is, should I have positioned myself to
> approach NEPCO at an intercept that did not require a 180 deg turn to
> get to the outbound course? Maybe come at it from the east?

Not really. Your cleared route is direct NEPCO, so that's what you're
expected to do.

> 3. Suppose that when I reach NEPCO (IAF), I am below the cloud deck.
> Assume that I have switched over to unicom frequency at that point. Is
> it permissible to abort the IFR approach and turn inbound for a visual
> approach. Presumably, you would have to ask ATC permission to do this.

Right. Or simply cancel IFR.

> What if you can not raise ATC on the radio?

Then you have a comm failure in VFR conditions, right? So continue
under VFR and land as soon as practicable as per 91.185(b).

Yes, I know I'm stretching the meaning of the reg, but realistically
that's what makes sense.

Michael

[Jim]

The exeption to the rule when NoPT is absent from the chart is when you are
cleared straight in either via radar vectors or via a clearance, otherwise
you are expected to do the PT when you arrive over the fix that begins the
procedure turn. Because you were given a radio hand off to the local
frequency, I would have taken that to mean you were cleared straight in via
your clearance to NEPCO, but when in doubt ask, because as you say, you were
probably below radar coverage. I would have responded with something like
"N1234 cleared direct NEPCO, straight in SDF 2, frequency change approved"
That's usually what I do when comeing from the north into STE on the GPS 21
and I usually get a "roger" or "read back correct". If he wants you to do
the full procedure turn that would give him a chance to make his clearance
clearer :)
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jim wrote:
>
> > I'm kind of confused.
> > When or how did he actually clear you for the approach?
>
> He cleared me for the approach about 10 miles out and then approved a
> freq change. The paproach does not say "NO PT", so is it legit to
> assume that I do not need to do one?
>
> >
> > If he cleared you for the appoach and also cleared you direct NEPCO,
then
> > you just shoot the approach straight in on the SDF once established on
the
> > localizer. Since you were approaching from the south, no procedure turn
is
> > necessary.
>
> It does not say that in the approach plate.
>
> >
> > If he only cleared you to NEPCO, but didn't clear you for the approach,
then
> > you should expect further clearance or enter the hold.
> >
> > I don't think he would have given you a frequency change if he expected
you
> > to do the full approach including the procedure turn, I'd only expect to
get
> > the hand off after I was inbound crossing the IAF.
> >
>

[Jim]

Another option. You could use the hold for a course reversal. "Roger
Minneapolis, cleared for the SDF 2, direct NEPCO, we'd like to do a lap in
the hold rather than the procedure turn." This would be a little quicker
because the holding fix is NEPCO. Right turn outbound, right turn inbound,
straight in and land.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply


"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
> The Approach in question is SDF RWY 2 at KISW. I was coming in from the
> south, nearly lined up with the inbound course of 021 degrees. I was in
> touch with ATC. The LOM/IAF is called NEPCO. The ATC asked if I wanted
> "direct NEPCO." I said yes. Within about 10 miles of the airport, the
> controller said that frequency change was approved. I believe I was out
> of radar contact by this time (radar coverage in the area is spotty).
>
> 1. Since there is no "NO PT" indicated on the chart, does that mean that
> I am required to do a 180 deg turn when I reach NEPCO so I can track
> outbound (201), then do a PT, then come back? That seems a little odd
> to me.
>
> 2. If so, and I am assuming it is, should I have positioned myself to
> approach NEPCO at an intercept that did not require a 180 deg turn to
> get to the outbound course? Maybe come at it from the east?
>
> 3. Suppose that when I reach NEPCO (IAF), I am below the cloud deck.
> Assume that I have switched over to unicom frequency at that point. Is
> it permissible to abort the IFR approach and turn inbound for a visual
> approach. Presumably, you would have to ask ATC permission to do this.
> What if you can not raise ATC on the radio? Can you go visual on your
> own?
>
> -Sami
> N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III
>

[O. Sami Saydjari]

Jim, I like your idea on reading back for a straight-in. The thing
about doing a turn around the hold is that it seems to me to defeat the
whole purpose for the PT. As I understand it, the approaches have you
do this so that you are well-established on the SDF/ILS *before* you get
to the LOM. In this case, the PT or hold serves to destablize your
track and decrease safety. At least, that is how I see it.

-Sami

Jim wrote:

> Another option. You could use the hold for a course reversal. "Roger
> Minneapolis, cleared for the SDF 2, direct NEPCO, we'd like to do a lap in
> the hold rather than the procedure turn." This would be a little quicker
> because the holding fix is NEPCO. Right turn outbound, right turn inbound,
> straight in and land.

[Brad Z]

The hold is for the missed approach. If the designer of the approach had
intended to use the hold as a course reversal method, he/she would have
designed it that way. If you have not been advised that you are being
vectored for the approach, substituting a lap in the hold for a procedure
turn doesn't make it any more legal than omitting the PT altogether.
Besides, ATC can't rewrite the approach procedure, especially if they can't
see you.

"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> Another option. You could use the hold for a course reversal. "Roger
> Minneapolis, cleared for the SDF 2, direct NEPCO, we'd like to do a lap in
> the hold rather than the procedure turn." This would be a little quicker
> because the holding fix is NEPCO. Right turn outbound, right turn
inbound,
> straight in and land.
> --
> Jim Burns III
>
> Remove "nospam" to reply
>
>
> "O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The Approach in question is SDF RWY 2 at KISW. I was coming in from the
> > south, nearly lined up with the inbound course of 021 degrees. I was in
> > touch with ATC. The LOM/IAF is called NEPCO. The ATC asked if I wanted
> > "direct NEPCO." I said yes. Within about 10 miles of the airport, the
> > controller said that frequency change was approved. I believe I was out
> > of radar contact by this time (radar coverage in the area is spotty).
> >
> > 1. Since there is no "NO PT" indicated on the chart, does that mean that
> > I am required to do a 180 deg turn when I reach NEPCO so I can track
> > outbound (201), then do a PT, then come back? That seems a little odd
> > to me.
> >
> > 2. If so, and I am assuming it is, should I have positioned myself to
> > approach NEPCO at an intercept that did not require a 180 deg turn to
> > get to the outbound course? Maybe come at it from the east?
> >
> > 3. Suppose that when I reach NEPCO (IAF), I am below the cloud deck.
> > Assume that I have switched over to unicom frequency at that point. Is
> > it permissible to abort the IFR approach and turn inbound for a visual
> > approach. Presumably, you would have to ask ATC permission to do this.
> > What if you can not raise ATC on the radio? Can you go visual on your
> > own?
> >
> > -Sami
> > N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III
> >
>
>

[Brad Z]

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
> The Approach in question is SDF RWY 2 at KISW. I was coming in from the
> south, nearly lined up with the inbound course of 021 degrees. I was in
> touch with ATC. The LOM/IAF is called NEPCO. The ATC asked if I wanted
> "direct NEPCO." I said yes. Within about 10 miles of the airport, the
> controller said that frequency change was approved. I believe I was out
> of radar contact by this time (radar coverage in the area is spotty).

Yep, if you heard anything along the lines of "Vectors for the approach" in
your clearance, this whole discussion is moot.

>
> 1. Since there is no "NO PT" indicated on the chart, does that mean that
> I am required to do a 180 deg turn when I reach NEPCO so I can track
> outbound (201), then do a PT, then come back? That seems a little odd
> to me.

According to the rules, yes, and technically ATC expects you to follow the
rules. More than likely, however, your controller expected you to continue
inbound without flying the PT. You could clarify the situation by
indicating that upon reaching the LOM you would be making a right turn to
track the FAC outbound for the published course reversal. This would likely
be replied with a "N12345 roger, report PT inbound" or something similar.

There is nothing in the AIM that makes an NoPT exception when you're already
set up on the FAC in non-vectoring situations. If you're not on a
transition with a NoPT note, or some other circumstance noted on the
approach procedure that excludes flying the PT, the PT must be flown.

>
> 2. If so, and I am assuming it is, should I have positioned myself to
> approach NEPCO at an intercept that did not require a 180 deg turn to
> get to the outbound course? Maybe come at it from the east?

Not necessary. Whatever is the most direct and allowable means of reaching
NEPCO is fine.

>
> 3. Suppose that when I reach NEPCO (IAF), I am below the cloud deck.

1) cancel IFR
2) Request Visual or Contact Approach
3) Land, assuming you meet the requirements of 91.175c

> Assume that I have switched over to unicom frequency at that point. Is
> it permissible to abort the IFR approach and turn inbound for a visual
> approach. Presumably, you would have to ask ATC permission to do this.

Unless you're NORDO, you're required to contact ATC anytime you deviate from
a clearance.

> What if you can not raise ATC on the radio? Can you go visual on your
> own?

You're NORDO in VFR, just land, and cancel IFR on the ground.

>
> -Sami
> N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III
>

[Stan Gosnell]

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in
:

> 1. Since there is no "NO PT" indicated on the chart, does that mean that
> I am required to do a 180 deg turn when I reach NEPCO so I can track
> outbound (201), then do a PT, then come back? That seems a little odd
> to me.

NoPT means you cannot do a procedure turn without specific authorization
from ATC. You continue straight in. No means no.

> 3. Suppose that when I reach NEPCO (IAF), I am below the cloud deck.
> Assume that I have switched over to unicom frequency at that point. Is
> it permissible to abort the IFR approach and turn inbound for a visual
> approach. Presumably, you would have to ask ATC permission to do this.
> What if you can not raise ATC on the radio? Can you go visual on your
> own?

Why would you do that? Presumably the approach leads to the airport, so
following the localizer or approach guidance will be the shortest route to
the airport. Once you have the airport in sight, you can maneuver as
necessary to land if you have to circle to a different runway.

Have you had no instrument training? All this should have been covered in
detail in any instrument instruction.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Brad Z]

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
> Jim, I like your idea on reading back for a straight-in.

Still doesn't make it legal, though :(

>The thing
> about doing a turn around the hold is that it seems to me to defeat the
> whole purpose for the PT. As I understand it, the approaches have you
> do this so that you are well-established on the SDF/ILS *before* you get
> to the LOM. In this case, the PT or hold serves to destablize your
> track and decrease safety. At least, that is how I see it.

Agreed. What's safe is not always legal, and what's legal is not always
safe :)

>
> -Sami
>
> Jim wrote:
>
> > Another option. You could use the hold for a course reversal. "Roger
> > Minneapolis, cleared for the SDF 2, direct NEPCO, we'd like to do a lap
in
> > the hold rather than the procedure turn." This would be a little
quicker
> > because the holding fix is NEPCO. Right turn outbound, right turn
inbound,
> > straight in and land.
>

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 02:28:15 GMT, "Brad Z" > wrote:

>The hold is for the missed approach. If the designer of the approach had
>intended to use the hold as a course reversal method, he/she would have
>designed it that way. If you have not been advised that you are being
>vectored for the approach, substituting a lap in the hold for a procedure
>turn doesn't make it any more legal than omitting the PT altogether.

There may be a semantic issue here. I agree that the charted holding
pattern is for the missed approach. However, at least in the US, on this
approach the type of procedure turn is up to the pilot. So there would be
nothing wrong with executing a "racetrack" procedure turn, which would be
the same as the charted holding pattern.


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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:50:12 -0500, "O. Sami Saydjari"
> wrote:

>The Approach in question is SDF RWY 2 at KISW. I was coming in from the
>south, nearly lined up with the inbound course of 021 degrees. I was in
>touch with ATC. The LOM/IAF is called NEPCO. The ATC asked if I wanted
>"direct NEPCO." I said yes. Within about 10 miles of the airport, the
>controller said that frequency change was approved. I believe I was out
>of radar contact by this time (radar coverage in the area is spotty).
>

I don't see in your summary where the controller cleared you for the
approach??? If so, what altitude did he tell you to maintain until NEPCO?


>1. Since there is no "NO PT" indicated on the chart, does that mean that
>I am required to do a 180 deg turn when I reach NEPCO so I can track
>outbound (201), then do a PT, then come back?

Yes

>That seems a little odd to me.

Probably because we don't have all the data.

>
>2. If so, and I am assuming it is, should I have positioned myself to
>approach NEPCO at an intercept that did not require a 180 deg turn to
>get to the outbound course? Maybe come at it from the east?


If you are starting out south of the airport, it seems to me to be quicker
to fly to NEPCO and then do the PT as you are losing altitude.


>
>3. Suppose that when I reach NEPCO (IAF), I am below the cloud deck.
>Assume that I have switched over to unicom frequency at that point. Is
>it permissible to abort the IFR approach and turn inbound for a visual
>approach. Presumably, you would have to ask ATC permission to do this.

Correct.


> What if you can not raise ATC on the radio? Can you go visual on your
>own?

In an emergency situation, yes. If not, try to get a relay from FSS or
another a/c.



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

[O. Sami Saydjari]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:50:12 -0500, "O. Sami Saydjari"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>The Approach in question is SDF RWY 2 at KISW. I was coming in from the
>>south, nearly lined up with the inbound course of 021 degrees. I was in
>>touch with ATC. The LOM/IAF is called NEPCO. The ATC asked if I wanted
>>"direct NEPCO." I said yes. Within about 10 miles of the airport, the
>>controller said that frequency change was approved. I believe I was out
>>of radar contact by this time (radar coverage in the area is spotty).
>>
>
>
> I don't see in your summary where the controller cleared you for the
> approach??? If so, what altitude did he tell you to maintain until NEPCO?
>
>

Sorry. Yes, I believe he cleared me for the SDF RWY 2 approach,
maintain 3000 until established on the localizer. It has been several
weeks, so this is my best recollection of what was said to me.

[Jim]

The readback is meant to clarify the situation. In Sami's situation, it was
slightly confusing because he was first given a clearance direct from his
present position to the outer marker, then given a radio hand off before he
was even on a published portion of the approach, this in my mind leads me to
think the controller intended to clear him straight in but for some reason
didn't say the words, thus, I would give the read back that included the
words "straight in". If the controller says "read back correct", then I'd
be cleared straight in, which even though there is not a NoPT on the chart,
would be legal because it follows the clearance. Normally in this area,
once we descend below radar coverage, Minneapolis will request that we
"report procedure turn inbound" and then report the IAF before giving us a
radio handoff to a CTAF on a non-towered airport.

The turn in the hold is only an option that I brought up because it is a
legal form of course reversal. Not the best idea for establishing you on
the final approach path, I'll agree, but may be useful to either loose
altitude or get turned around and headed inbound in the least amount of
time.

BTW Sami, is that Mooney still for sale at ISW? Any idea of the real asking
price?

Jim

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 23:06:49 -0500, "O. Sami Saydjari"
> wrote:

>Sorry. Yes, I believe he cleared me for the SDF RWY 2 approach,
>maintain 3000 until established on the localizer. It has been several
>weeks, so this is my best recollection of what was said to me.

Well, if your recollection is accurate, there is a problem with that
clearance. From what you wrote previously, I am assuming you were on a
random route (i.e. not on a published route).

I believe you should have been given an altitude to maintain until NEPCO;
or not cleared for the approach until established on the localizer and then
given a distance to NEPCO and/or an altitude to maintain of 2600' if this
were a VTF clearance. (There may be other phraseology; I'm not a
controller).

I would not have assumed anything from that clearance with regard to VTF.

If the clearance was, in fact, maintain 3000 until NEPCO, I would have
executed the PT to lose altitude to 2600, probably using a racetrack
maneuver.

If the clearance was, in fact, maintain 3000 until intercepting the
localizer, I would have asked ATC for my distance from NEPCO and, if I was
within the PT distance, asked them specifically if this was "vectors to
final". I would NOT have used "readback what I want" trick and hope that
ATC would catch the error if they made it. Why be indirect and take a
chance on confusion, when you can ask your question directly?


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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim" > wrote in message
...
>
> The exeption to the rule when NoPT is absent from the chart is
> when you are cleared straight in either via radar vectors or via a
> clearance, otherwise you are expected to do the PT when you
> arrive over the fix that begins the procedure turn. Because you
> were given a radio hand off to the local frequency, I would have
> taken that to mean you were cleared straight in via your clearance
> to NEPCO, but when in doubt ask, because as you say, you
> were probably below radar coverage. I would have responded
> with something like "N1234 cleared direct NEPCO, straight in
> SDF 2, frequency change approved"
>

Cleared straight in either via a clearance? What does that mean?


>
> That's usually what I do when comeing from the north into STE
> on the GPS 21 and I usually get a "roger" or "read back correct".
> If he wants you to do the full procedure turn that would give him
> a chance to make his clearance clearer :)
>

Why would he want you to do a full procedure turn?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Cleared straight in either via a clearance? What does that mean?
>

Sorry. That should have been, "Cleared straight in via a clearance?"

[[email protected]]

Michael wrote:

>
> Technically yes, you are required to do this. If there's no RADAR,
> who is going to know if you do or not?

Dishonesty, especially in a non-radar environment, is the last thing the
system needs.

[[email protected]]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> There may be a semantic issue here. I agree that the charted holding
> pattern is for the missed approach. However, at least in the US, on this
> approach the type of procedure turn is up to the pilot. So there would be
> nothing wrong with executing a "racetrack" procedure turn, which would be
> the same as the charted holding pattern.

"Racetrack" is an obsolete term left over from the lighted-aiway days. The
holding rules are pretty well spelled out. Racetrack patterns used to have 2
minute legs in the 1940s and 50s.

[[email protected]]

> NoPT means you cannot do a procedure turn without specific authorization
> from ATC. You continue straight in. No means no.
>

"NoPT" is "Nope" speled by the FAA.

[[email protected]]

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

> The Approach in question is SDF RWY 2 at KISW. I was coming in from the
> south, nearly lined up with the inbound course of 021 degrees. I was in
> touch with ATC. The LOM/IAF is called NEPCO. The ATC asked if I wanted
> "direct NEPCO." I said yes. Within about 10 miles of the airport, the
> controller said that frequency change was approved. I believe I was out
> of radar contact by this time (radar coverage in the area is spotty).
>
> 1. Since there is no "NO PT" indicated on the chart, does that mean that
> I am required to do a 180 deg turn when I reach NEPCO so I can track
> outbound (201), then do a PT, then come back? That seems a little odd
> to me.

It was odd because you were at 3,000, and you needed the course reversal to
descend to 2,600 so your descent gradient would have been as designed into
the IAP. In this case crossing the LOM 400 feet high probably wouldn't
matter, but it would at some locations.

[[email protected]]

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

>
> Sorry. Yes, I believe he cleared me for the SDF RWY 2 approach,
> maintain 3000 until established on the localizer. It has been several
> weeks, so this is my best recollection of what was said to me.

And, how would you know you were established on a *published* segment of the
localizer, which is what "established" means in the context of approach
clearances?

[[email protected]]

> If the clearance was, in fact, maintain 3000 until intercepting the
> localizer, I would have asked ATC for my distance from NEPCO and, if I was
> within the PT distance, asked them specifically if this was "vectors to
> final". I would NOT have used "readback what I want" trick and hope that
> ATC would catch the error if they made it. Why be indirect and take a
> chance on confusion, when you can ask your question directly?
>
>

This is one of the consistent big disconnects in vectors to final where the
controller fails to call the distance from EK. Had the controller stated a
poition less than 10 miles from EK, then the guy would have been established
for approach clearance purposes as soon as he intercepted, whereupon he could
have descended to 2,600 and gone straight-in.

But, this doesn't sound like a vector to final clearance to me. Sounds like
the guy was cleared non-radar direct to EK, which would have required a course
reversal.

[[email protected]]

Brad Z wrote:

> "Yep, if you heard anything along the lines of "Vectors for the approach" in
> your clearance, this whole discussion is moot.
>

And, if the vector rules had been properly applied, he would have been given a
distance from the LOM when he received his final intercept heading, or when he
received his approach clearance.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 07:07:00 -0700, wrote:

>"Racetrack" is an obsolete term left over from the lighted-aiway days. The
>holding rules are pretty well spelled out. Racetrack patterns used to have 2
>minute legs in the 1940s and 50s.

Today it is synonymous with a holding pattern type procedure turn, and can
be executed (with legs restricted to not more than the PT distance), when
the PT depiction does not require a specific type of course reversal to be
flown as charted.


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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 07:31:05 -0700, wrote:

>This is one of the consistent big disconnects in vectors to final where the
>controller fails to call the distance from EK. Had the controller stated a
>poition less than 10 miles from EK, then the guy would have been established
>for approach clearance purposes as soon as he intercepted, whereupon he could
>have descended to 2,600 and gone straight-in.

Exactly.

>
>But, this doesn't sound like a vector to final clearance to me. Sounds like
>the guy was cleared non-radar direct to EK, which would have required a course
>reversal.

But then the "maintain 3000" should have been until NEPCO, and not until
intercepting the LOC. It sounds to me as if either the OP's recollection
is faulty, or the controller used improper phraseology.


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

[McGregor]

Uh... What the hell is an SDF? I don't think I have one in my plane.

Oh, and yeah, you need to do a PT at NEPCO since you didn't get a "vector to
final" - but a simple 360 right turn would do. Next time you can just ask to
skip the PT if you're already at 2600'.

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
> The Approach in question is SDF RWY 2 at KISW. I was coming in from the
> south, nearly lined up with the inbound course of 021 degrees. I was in
> touch with ATC. The LOM/IAF is called NEPCO. The ATC asked if I wanted
> "direct NEPCO." I said yes. Within about 10 miles of the airport, the
> controller said that frequency change was approved. I believe I was out
> of radar contact by this time (radar coverage in the area is spotty).
>
> 1. Since there is no "NO PT" indicated on the chart, does that mean that
> I am required to do a 180 deg turn when I reach NEPCO so I can track
> outbound (201), then do a PT, then come back? That seems a little odd
> to me.
>
> 2. If so, and I am assuming it is, should I have positioned myself to
> approach NEPCO at an intercept that did not require a 180 deg turn to
> get to the outbound course? Maybe come at it from the east?
>
> 3. Suppose that when I reach NEPCO (IAF), I am below the cloud deck.
> Assume that I have switched over to unicom frequency at that point. Is
> it permissible to abort the IFR approach and turn inbound for a visual
> approach. Presumably, you would have to ask ATC permission to do this.
> What if you can not raise ATC on the radio? Can you go visual on your
> own?
>
> -Sami
> N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"McGregor" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Uh... What the hell is an SDF? I don't think I have one in my plane.
>

I'll bet you don't have a localizer in your plane either, or an NDB or a
VOR.

An SDF is a Simplified Directional Facility, it's similar to a localizer.
You'll find a description in the AIM.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 19:11:37 GMT, "McGregor"
> wrote:

>Next time you can just ask to
>skip the PT if you're already at 2600'.

Although controllers will often grant requests from pilots to shortcut
SIAP's, that does not necessarily make the granted shortcut legal.


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

[Brad Z]

"McGregor" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Uh... What the hell is an SDF? I don't think I have one in my plane.

If you did, you'd probably be overgross.

I hope you don't have a VOR either, that giant bowling pin takes up a lot of
space in the baggage compartment.

[McGregor]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> > Uh... What the hell is an SDF? I don't think I have one in my plane.
>
> I'll bet you don't have a localizer in your plane either, or an NDB or a
> VOR.
>
> An SDF is a Simplified Directional Facility, it's similar to a localizer.
> You'll find a description in the AIM.

Well, you're right. I've got a KX155, a KNS80 and an M3 GPS. Are SDFs more
prevelant out East? I've flown an LDA, but never an SDF.

[McGregor]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 19:11:37 GMT, "McGregor"
> > wrote:
>
> >Next time you can just ask to
> >skip the PT if you're already at 2600'.
>
> Although controllers will often grant requests from pilots to shortcut
> SIAP's, that does not necessarily make the granted shortcut legal.

yeah, but since we're both in on it, who's going to tell?

[Teacherjh]

>>
Well, you're right. I've got a KX155, a KNS80 and an M3 GPS. Are SDFs more
prevelant out East? I've flown an LDA, but never an SDF.
<<

I think he means that the SDF is the transmitter, not the receiver. Ditto the
VOR and the NDB.

Jose

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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 03:21:24 GMT, "McGregor"
> wrote:

>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 19:11:37 GMT, "McGregor"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Next time you can just ask to
>> >skip the PT if you're already at 2600'.
>>
>> Although controllers will often grant requests from pilots to shortcut
>> SIAP's, that does not necessarily make the granted shortcut legal.
>
>yeah, but since we're both in on it, who's going to tell?
>

The NTSB, when it turns out that the unsurveyed shortcut result in a CFIT
accident.


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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"McGregor" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Are SDFs more prevelant out East?
>

Don't know. What do you consider "out East"? I'm in Green Bay, and just
off the top of my head I'm aware of SDF approaches in Sturgeon Bay, Fond du
Lac, and Wisconsin Rapids.