VOR/DME Approach Question

[Chip Jones]

I'm hoping one or more of you instrument pilots (or controllers) could help
me with an IAP question. The airport involved is RKW, which is Rockwood,
Tennessee. The IAP in question is the VOR/DME RWY 22 into Rockwood. If you
have the plate or know the procedure, I hope you can help me out.

RKW airport lies about 2 miles west of the common Atlanta (ZTL)
ARTCC/Knoxville (TYS) Tracon boundary. Center owns the airport, but because
of the close proximity to TYS airspace, Center has to coordinate with Tracon
for clearances in and out of RKW unless the aircraft is arriving from the
east. TYS coordinates with Center for RKW arrivals from the east, and TYS
issues the approach clearance, as most of the IAP lies within TYS airspace.

Here's the situation. I'm instructing a newbie on the radar. We're working
combined sectors and we're busy working the main bang out of Atlanta on
our other freq. We have a RKW arrival from the east, an Army UH60/G. Route
of flight is Asheville NC direct RKW, a 30 minute delay at RKW, and then on
to Fort Campbell KY. The aircraft whopping along at 6,000 and "PLA RKW" is
in remarks on his flightplan. There is a large thunderstorm sweeping south
over the Knoxville airport and the TYS controllers are busy holding their
own arrivals for the storm to pass. To ease their workload, TYS calls my
trainee and begs him to work the approach into RKW. The trainee agrees
(good training experience). Good experience for me too, as I don't get to
work east arrivals into this airport very often.

The aircraft checks on at 6000 with a request. We issue the CSV altimeter
and take the request. The request is "Center, Army 569 would like to shoot
the full VOR/DME 22 into Rockwood, followed by a missed approach and a ten
minute hold at MINES and then on to Campbell." My guy and I do a quick
huddle as we dig out the chart.

Normally I would have keyed the mic and asked the pilot what he was going
to do when he asked for the "full" approach, but I sit behind my trainee
when he works the radio. I can over-ride him, but he's a Yank from
Pennsylvania and I'm from the Low Country of SC. Our accents are as
different as night and day, and the last thing I wanted to do was let all of
the Delta pilots on our other freq know they were dealing with a trainee.
Like dogs, they work in packs, smell fear and love to shred new meat. I try
to stay off the radio when I train.

The MIA for the area is 5000. The trainee clears the aircraft to "Descend
and Maintain 5000, cleared direct MINES, I have your request for the
approach". This is followed a minute later with:

"Army 569, twelve miles northeast of Rockwood, cross MINES at 5000 inbound,
cleared VOR/DME Runway 22 approach Rockwood, report established on the
approach."

Look at the plate. The aircraft is approaching MINES on about a 270
heading. He's maybe ten miles due east from MINES when he checks on with
his request for the approach and we clear him -MINES. I am expecting the
aircraft to proceed to MINES at 5000, turn left to intercept the HCH 060R
inbound, and fly down the approach on a 240 track towards the airport, doing
a drive and dive. In the event, the aircraft proceeds to MINES, turns left
all the way around to a 060 heading, and flies one turn in the published
holding pattern at MINES. Somewhere in the trip around the pattern, he
calls established on the approach. We put him on the CTAF, he does his
thing, later misses as planned and life goes on.

My question concerns the course reversal at MINES. If you were flying this
approach from due east of MINES, "cleared approach", what do you do at MINES
to get on the approach course?

Thanks,

Chip, ZTL

[Roy Smith]

"Chip Jones" > wrote:
> I'm hoping one or more of you instrument pilots (or controllers) could help
> me with an IAP question. The airport involved is RKW, which is Rockwood,
> Tennessee. The IAP in question is the VOR/DME RWY 22 into Rockwood. If you
> have the plate or know the procedure, I hope you can help me out.

With the web, everybody's got all the plates. There's a bunch of sites;
I use http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/index.php

> "Army 569, twelve miles northeast of Rockwood, cross MINES at 5000 inbound,
> cleared VOR/DME Runway 22 approach Rockwood, report established on the
> approach."
>
> Look at the plate. The aircraft is approaching MINES on about a 270
> heading. He's maybe ten miles due east from MINES when he checks on with
> his request for the approach and we clear him -MINES. I am expecting the
> aircraft to proceed to MINES at 5000, turn left to intercept the HCH 060R
> inbound, and fly down the approach on a 240 track towards the airport, doing
> a drive and dive. In the event, the aircraft proceeds to MINES, turns left
> all the way around to a 060 heading, and flies one turn in the published
> holding pattern at MINES.

Yup, that's what he was cleared to do. The AIM says:

> 5-4-9. Procedure Turn
>
> a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
> perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
> intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of
> procedure turn is a required maneuver. The procedure turn is not required
> when the symbol "No PT" is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to the final approach
> course is provided, when conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure
> turn is not authorized.

I'm assuming you're thinking your trainee gave him radar vectors, but he
didn't; he cleared the flight direct to the IAF. Radar vectors would
have been:

"Army 569, twelve miles northeast of Rockwood, flying heading 270 to
intercept the final approach course, cleared VOR/DME Runway 22 approach
Rockwood, report established on the approach."

The pilot knew that. I'm guessing your trainee knew that, since he's
fresh out of studying this stuff in school. The only question is
whether the pilot's instructor knew that :-)

To be fair, the clearance as issued was a little funky. If the intent
was to have the flight fly the PT, I would expect the clearance to sound
like:

"Army 569, seven miles northeast of MINES, cross MINES at 5000 inbound,
cleared VOR/DME Runway 22 approach Rockwood, report procedure turn
inbound."

but I don't think what the pilot did was a deviation from his clearance
as issued.

[John R. Copeland]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message =
k.net...
> I'm hoping one or more of you instrument pilots (or controllers) could =
help
> me with an IAP question. The airport involved is RKW, which is =
Rockwood,
> Tennessee. The IAP in question is the VOR/DME RWY 22 into Rockwood. =
If you
> have the plate or know the procedure, I hope you can help me out.
>=20
> RKW airport lies about 2 miles west of the common Atlanta (ZTL)
> ARTCC/Knoxville (TYS) Tracon boundary. Center owns the airport, but =
because
> of the close proximity to TYS airspace, Center has to coordinate with =
Tracon
> for clearances in and out of RKW unless the aircraft is arriving from =
the
> east. TYS coordinates with Center for RKW arrivals from the east, and =
TYS
> issues the approach clearance, as most of the IAP lies within TYS =
airspace.
>=20
> Here's the situation. I'm instructing a newbie on the radar. We're =
working
> combined sectors and we're busy working the main bang out of Atlanta =
on
> our other freq. We have a RKW arrival from the east, an Army UH60/G. =
Route
> of flight is Asheville NC direct RKW, a 30 minute delay at RKW, and =
then on
> to Fort Campbell KY. The aircraft whopping along at 6,000 and "PLA =
RKW" is
> in remarks on his flightplan. There is a large thunderstorm sweeping =
south
> over the Knoxville airport and the TYS controllers are busy holding =
their
> own arrivals for the storm to pass. To ease their workload, TYS calls =
my
> trainee and begs him to work the approach into RKW. The trainee =
agrees
> (good training experience). Good experience for me too, as I don't =
get to
> work east arrivals into this airport very often.
>=20
> The aircraft checks on at 6000 with a request. We issue the CSV =
altimeter
> and take the request. The request is "Center, Army 569 would like to =
shoot
> the full VOR/DME 22 into Rockwood, followed by a missed approach and a =
ten
> minute hold at MINES and then on to Campbell." My guy and I do a =
quick
> huddle as we dig out the chart.
>=20
> Normally I would have keyed the mic and asked the pilot what he was =
going
> to do when he asked for the "full" approach, but I sit behind my =
trainee
> when he works the radio. I can over-ride him, but he's a Yank from
> Pennsylvania and I'm from the Low Country of SC. Our accents are as
> different as night and day, and the last thing I wanted to do was let =
all of
> the Delta pilots on our other freq know they were dealing with a =
trainee.
> Like dogs, they work in packs, smell fear and love to shred new meat. =
I try
> to stay off the radio when I train.
>=20
> The MIA for the area is 5000. The trainee clears the aircraft to =
"Descend
> and Maintain 5000, cleared direct MINES, I have your request for the
> approach". This is followed a minute later with:
>=20
> "Army 569, twelve miles northeast of Rockwood, cross MINES at 5000 =
inbound,
> cleared VOR/DME Runway 22 approach Rockwood, report established on the
> approach."
>=20
> Look at the plate. The aircraft is approaching MINES on about a 270
> heading. He's maybe ten miles due east from MINES when he checks on =
with
> his request for the approach and we clear him -MINES. I am expecting =
the
> aircraft to proceed to MINES at 5000, turn left to intercept the HCH =
060R
> inbound, and fly down the approach on a 240 track towards the airport, =
doing
> a drive and dive. In the event, the aircraft proceeds to MINES, turns =
left
> all the way around to a 060 heading, and flies one turn in the =
published
> holding pattern at MINES. Somewhere in the trip around the pattern, =
he
> calls established on the approach. We put him on the CTAF, he does =
his
> thing, later misses as planned and life goes on.
>=20
> My question concerns the course reversal at MINES. If you were flying =
this
> approach from due east of MINES, "cleared approach", what do you do at =
MINES
> to get on the approach course?
>=20
> Thanks,
>=20
> Chip, ZTL
>=20
Chip, I set up that scenario in my CNX80 simulator, to see what IT would =
do.
Indeed, the simulator wants to go once around the holding pattern at =
MINES,
unless I select "Vector to Final", in which case it foregoes the hold.

The same is true even if I set up inbound to MINES on a 240 track.

Since the UH60 pilot asked for the "full" approach, not vectors, I'd =
assume
either that his GPS unit wanted to behave the same as the CNX80,
or else he just needed to log some holding-proficiency time. Maybe =
both.
---JRC---

[Richard Kaplan]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
k.net...>

> My question concerns the course reversal at MINES. If you were flying
this
> approach from due east of MINES, "cleared approach", what do you do at
MINES
> to get on the approach course?

What the pilot did was correct. A charted course reversal must be flown
unless the pilots receives radar vectors or the route is charted as No PT.
Even if the pilot were perfectly setup for a straight-in at the ideal
altitude, the course reversal is required unless the above criteria area
met.

See AIM 5-4-8:

The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver.
The procedure turn is not required when the symbol "No PT" is shown, when
RADAR VECTORING to the final approach course is provided, when conducting a
timed approach, or when the procedure turn is not authorized. The hold in
lieu of procedure turn is not required when RADAR VECTORING to the final
approach course is provided or when "No PT" is shown.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Stan Prevost]

Chip, even if he had been coming in from the northeast, tracking HCH R-060,
he would still have had to turn around at MINES and fly the course reversal,
if he were cleared direct MINES rather than being given Vectors To Final.

Stan


"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
k.net...
> I'm hoping one or more of you instrument pilots (or controllers) could
help
> me with an IAP question. The airport involved is RKW, which is Rockwood,
> Tennessee. The IAP in question is the VOR/DME RWY 22 into Rockwood. If
you
> have the plate or know the procedure, I hope you can help me out.
>
> RKW airport lies about 2 miles west of the common Atlanta (ZTL)
> ARTCC/Knoxville (TYS) Tracon boundary. Center owns the airport, but
because
> of the close proximity to TYS airspace, Center has to coordinate with
Tracon
> for clearances in and out of RKW unless the aircraft is arriving from the
> east. TYS coordinates with Center for RKW arrivals from the east, and TYS
> issues the approach clearance, as most of the IAP lies within TYS
airspace.
>
> Here's the situation. I'm instructing a newbie on the radar. We're
working
> combined sectors and we're busy working the main bang out of Atlanta on
> our other freq. We have a RKW arrival from the east, an Army UH60/G.
Route
> of flight is Asheville NC direct RKW, a 30 minute delay at RKW, and then
on
> to Fort Campbell KY. The aircraft whopping along at 6,000 and "PLA RKW"
is
> in remarks on his flightplan. There is a large thunderstorm sweeping
south
> over the Knoxville airport and the TYS controllers are busy holding their
> own arrivals for the storm to pass. To ease their workload, TYS calls my
> trainee and begs him to work the approach into RKW. The trainee agrees
> (good training experience). Good experience for me too, as I don't get to
> work east arrivals into this airport very often.
>
> The aircraft checks on at 6000 with a request. We issue the CSV altimeter
> and take the request. The request is "Center, Army 569 would like to
shoot
> the full VOR/DME 22 into Rockwood, followed by a missed approach and a ten
> minute hold at MINES and then on to Campbell." My guy and I do a quick
> huddle as we dig out the chart.
>
> Normally I would have keyed the mic and asked the pilot what he was going
> to do when he asked for the "full" approach, but I sit behind my trainee
> when he works the radio. I can over-ride him, but he's a Yank from
> Pennsylvania and I'm from the Low Country of SC. Our accents are as
> different as night and day, and the last thing I wanted to do was let all
of
> the Delta pilots on our other freq know they were dealing with a trainee.
> Like dogs, they work in packs, smell fear and love to shred new meat. I
try
> to stay off the radio when I train.
>
> The MIA for the area is 5000. The trainee clears the aircraft to "Descend
> and Maintain 5000, cleared direct MINES, I have your request for the
> approach". This is followed a minute later with:
>
> "Army 569, twelve miles northeast of Rockwood, cross MINES at 5000
inbound,
> cleared VOR/DME Runway 22 approach Rockwood, report established on the
> approach."
>
> Look at the plate. The aircraft is approaching MINES on about a 270
> heading. He's maybe ten miles due east from MINES when he checks on with
> his request for the approach and we clear him -MINES. I am expecting the
> aircraft to proceed to MINES at 5000, turn left to intercept the HCH 060R
> inbound, and fly down the approach on a 240 track towards the airport,
doing
> a drive and dive. In the event, the aircraft proceeds to MINES, turns
left
> all the way around to a 060 heading, and flies one turn in the published
> holding pattern at MINES. Somewhere in the trip around the pattern, he
> calls established on the approach. We put him on the CTAF, he does his
> thing, later misses as planned and life goes on.
>
> My question concerns the course reversal at MINES. If you were flying
this
> approach from due east of MINES, "cleared approach", what do you do at
MINES
> to get on the approach course?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chip, ZTL
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Chip Jones]

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
k.net...
[snipped]
>
> My question concerns the course reversal at MINES. If you were flying
this
> approach from due east of MINES, "cleared approach", what do you do at
MINES
> to get on the approach course?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chip, ZTL
>

Thanks everyone. When I learned this IAP back in the day, it had a DME arc
off of HCH Vor to get to the IAF, and then you turned down the approach
course. When they slipped GPS into the system, they changed the IAP and
eliminated the arc. Of course, no one told the controllers about the
change- as usual they just published it. I never thought about the
difference. Looks like I need some refresher training...

Chip, ZTL

[Chip Jones]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> "Chip Jones" > wrote:
[snipped]
>
> To be fair, the clearance as issued was a little funky. If the intent
> was to have the flight fly the PT, I would expect the clearance to sound
> like:
>
> "Army 569, seven miles northeast of MINES, cross MINES at 5000 inbound,
> cleared VOR/DME Runway 22 approach Rockwood, report procedure turn
> inbound."
>

Roy, I agree with your phraseology here. Trainee and I tried to discuss
phraseology before he issued the clearance, but we were busy and had a lot
of irons in the fire. One of our problems is that the MINES fix does not
exist on the radar scope- it's not adapted into the ATC computer database.
For the controller, the fix must be interpolated by eyeballing the paper
approach plate, eyeballing the radar scope, and guess-timating about where
MINES really is in space. Because of the computer limitations, the correct
"Seven miles northeast of MINES" phraseology is virtually impossible to come
up with unless ATC is slow enough to make several low priority computer
entries using the slewball/trackball (like a mouse pointer) to pinpoint the
whereabouts of MINES and then the aircraft's relationship to it.

In the event, my guy had his hands full on the other freq and he had his ATC
computer slewball engaged in higher priority duties. I have been hammering
him for weeks about making precise location calls to aircraft, especially on
instrument approaches. Due to his lack of experience with the radar map
display, he can be wildly off when he makes a position call reference a fix.
You may be 15 miles from XXX, and he might tell you "Five miles from XXX,
cleared blah blah blah." Or you could be ten miles out and he tells you "20
miles from XXX, cleared blah blah blah." If I were the pilot on an IAP,
I'd have some serious questions about a ten mile difference in what I showed
to be my position and where ATC just told me I was. In the case of my
trainee, ATC would be wrong quite often, simply because ATC was just tossing
out a figure based on an inexperienced glance at the scope. Because of his
tendency, I have been forcing this developmental to engage his computer
slewball and to make certain involved computer entries to get a fairly
precise position fix before he makes the position call. In the case of
MINES, he couldn't do it easily (quickly) so he used the distance from the
airport instead.

As for the "Report procedure turn inbound", my misunderstanding of this
approach probably led the trainee down the primrose path. The trainee asked
me about the course reversal and I said "I'm not sure...but don't you think
we'd better get higher on that Delta before he smokes the RJ out in front of
him?!?" In other words, I was looking at a higher priority duty when the
question came up. We never got back to the question. The trainee, who is
aggressive, likely said to himself "I'm done asking questions, I need to get
this Army cleared in now and move on. We can discuss the semantics in the
coffee shop later." I believe the trainee knew about the PT but since I
didn't jump on it when he asked me the question, he left the "Report PT" out
of his clearance.

Regards,

Chip, ZTL

[[email protected]]

Chip brings you out an interesting point about atc advising pilots of
their position.
I've always listened carefully to the atc postiion when they've first
get me on radar, as a cross check to ensure they've got the right
aircraft.
However, when it comes to clearing me for an approach, I've never
really cared to ensure the atc distance is all that close, what with
dual dme's, gps', fms' etc.
Does anyone consider this inappropriate?
After all, the time immediately after being cleared for approach can
be about the busiest, what with changing freqs, final settings to nav
aids, descents, intercepting etc

Stan
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:14:28 GMT, "Chip Jones"
> wrote:

>
.. Due to his lack of experience with the radar map
>display, he can be wildly off when he makes a position call reference a fix.
>You may be 15 miles from XXX, and he might tell you "Five miles from XXX,
>cleared blah blah blah." Or you could be ten miles out and he tells you "20
>miles from XXX, cleared blah blah blah." If I were the pilot on an IAP,
>I'd have some serious questions about a ten mile difference in what I showed
>to be my position and where ATC just told me I was. In the case of my
>trainee, ATC would be wrong quite often, simply because ATC was just tossing
>out a figure based on an inexperienced glance at the scope.
>Chip, ZTL
>
>
>

[john smith]

wrote:
> Chip brings you out an interesting point about atc advising pilots of
> their position.
> I've always listened carefully to the atc postiion when they've first
> get me on radar, as a cross check to ensure they've got the right
> aircraft.
> However, when it comes to clearing me for an approach, I've never
> really cared to ensure the atc distance is all that close, what with
> dual dme's, gps', fms' etc.
> Does anyone consider this inappropriate?
> After all, the time immediately after being cleared for approach can
> be about the busiest, what with changing freqs, final settings to nav
> aids, descents, intercepting etc

But, you are supposed to know where you are, aren't you? ;-)

[Michael]

"Chip Jones" > wrote
> > My question concerns the course reversal at MINES. If you were flying
> this
> > approach from due east of MINES, "cleared approach", what do you do at
> MINES
> > to get on the approach course?
> >
> Thanks everyone. When I learned this IAP back in the day, it had a DME arc
> off of HCH Vor to get to the IAF, and then you turned down the approach
> course. When they slipped GPS into the system, they changed the IAP and
> eliminated the arc. Of course, no one told the controllers about the
> change- as usual they just published it. I never thought about the
> difference. Looks like I need some refresher training...

Chip, not to be argumentative, but IMO the change to the procedure
makes absolutely no difference here.

What the pilot did was absolutely correct. Had the DME arc been
charted as before, his actions would still have been correct provided
the hold-in-lieu was still charted. Removal of the DME arc is not a
function of adding the GPS overlay; there are VOR/DME approaches with
GPS overlays out there that include a DME arc as an option. UTS
VOR/DME or GPS-A (http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0408/05813VDGA.PDF) is
one example, though it's NoPT all the way around.

The key here is this - if you're vectoring the guy to the FAC, no
procedure turn. If you've cleared him direct to the IAF, he does the
PT. It's just that simple.

I guess my question is this - why was this a problem? The pilot asked
for the full procedure, and your traineed cleared him for it. The
phraseology was not quite perfect, but well within the range of
variation, at least based on my experience. What am I missing?

Michael

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 24 Aug 2004 13:33:47 -0700, (Michael)
wrote:

>The key here is this - if you're vectoring the guy to the FAC, no
>procedure turn. If you've cleared him direct to the IAF, he does the
>PT. It's just that simple.

I agree with you.

In addition, Chip should be aware that there are cut-and-dried requirements
in his 7110.65 in order for him to be able to give legal radar vectors to
the FAC so that the pilot will not do the PT. (7110.65 5-9-1)

It does not seem to me as if the requirements were met.






--ron

[SeeAndAvoid]

What the hell, I'll jump in. Just doing a quick search on "full approach",
I didnt find anything relating to the FARS, the AIM, or the 7110.65. If
someone else wants to look through the hundreds of hits, go at it. But
I did find one interesting reference to it in an old AOPA article
http://home.columbus.rr.com/lusch/aopa_article01.html
in part it says...."A pilot training for an instrument rating learns to fly
a full approach* cross the initial approach fix, fly outbound for a minute
or two, execute a procedure turn to get headed the opposite direction, and
fly inbound on the final approach course while descending to decision
altitude or the missed approach point. A full approach is a staple of
instrument flying, yet some pilots rarely, if ever, have to fly one other
than during initial or recurrency/proficiency training. That's because a
full approach usually is required only when radar service is not available,
and radar is available at most larger and busier instrument airports. Pilots
come to expect radar vectors to final approach courses and that ATC will
keep an electronic eye on them all the way to a successful conclusion of
every approach...."

Full approach, which isnt exactly what the pilot said, he said "would like
to shoot the full VOR/DME 22 into Rockwood". This may be splitting hairs,
but he didnt say it (which I'm not convinced there is any such phraseology),
but even if he did, that was a REQUEST, which is not always which is
given by the controller.

I dont think it's so simple that the pilot is expected to do a PT.
On procedure turns, the AIM, as earlier stated does indeed say....
5-4-9. Procedure Turn

a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of
procedure turn is a required maneuver.

First off, as we are reminded quite often, the AIM is not regulatory.
Secondly,
if you read that verbatim, it says "when it is necessary". Giving someone
a vector, or this clearance where it's within 30 degrees or so, basically a
straight-in to the IAF, I do not consider the PT "necessary". You can't
tell
me that a course reversal on damn near a straight-in could ever be mistaken
in court as "necessary" for the establishment of this intermediate part of
the approach, UNLESS the airplane is way too high, which in this case is
not applicable as the altitude was good and in accordance with the IAP.

Also in 5-4-9a5 "A procedure turn is not required when an approach can be
made directly from a specified intermediate fix to the final approach fix. "
Is MINES an intermediate fix? It's not the FAF, it is an IAF, can it also
be an intermediate fix in the context of this clearance which includes a
non-published route prior to it? Tough to say.

Lastly on 5-4-9b1 "In the case of a radar initial approach to a final
approach fix or position, or a timed approach from a holding fix, or where
the procedure specifies NoPT, no pilot may make a procedure turn unless,
when final approach clearance is received, the pilot so advises ATC and a
clearance is received to execute a procedure turn."

This is the one the FAA, if it so chose, could go after the pilot. They
would
argue that the non-published route (direct MINES) was in essense a
RADAR VECTOR. This particular clearance can only be done with
radar service provided. This is not an arc, a victor airway, or a published
transition. That's why it was correctly included in the clearance that the
pilot should cross MINES at 5,000', which is above the MIA (Minimum
IFR Altitude) and keeps him in radar contact. The clearance also included
(which is also phraseology I'm not sure exists) "cross MINES at 5000
INBOUND". That "inbound" I'm not so sure of, and could cause confusion
with the pilot. It could mean hit MINES and continue inbound, no PT, or
it could mean once he's inbound, cross MINES at 5,000'.

There was confusion on both sides here, the way I see it. The pilot made
his REQUEST, figures he got what he asked for. The controller heard
the request, used questionable phraseology to get what he wanted to get
across, and the end result was the pilot doing something other than the
controller expected. "Report PT inbound" wouldve probably made it
real clear, and if the pilot didnt intend on doing a PT, that would have
raised a warning flag to him. I guess you can ask if he's going to do
the course reversal, and if I hear "full approach", I'd at the very least
protect the airspace either way, or just ask the pilot.

You ask any controller, or Airspace & Procedures specialist this
situation, you'll get lots of different interpretations. They'll all
probably agree that the communication was hazy (you didnt
"break the chain" as they love to shove down our throats), and
the pilot may have been a little guilty of hearing what he wanted
to hear - although we dont have the exact tapes. A REQUEST
means nothing without a CLEARANCE. I'd be interested in
hearing the pilots readback, I'm willing to bet that it wasn't
exactly standard phraseology either.

Chris

PS:email me sometime Chip, your assumption of my email
address was correct.

--
Steve Bosell for President 2004
"Vote for me or I'll sue you"
www.philhendrieshow.com

[Stan Prevost]

"SeeAndAvoid" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>

To respond to just one element of your post:

> I dont think it's so simple that the pilot is expected to do a PT.
> On procedure turns, the AIM, as earlier stated does indeed say....
> 5-4-9. Procedure Turn
>
> a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
> perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
> intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in lieu
of
> procedure turn is a required maneuver.
>
> First off, as we are reminded quite often, the AIM is not regulatory.

But the FARs are:

FAR 91.175

(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.


OK, a second point.
A radar vector is a heading to fly. A clearance to a fix is not a vector,
it specifies a specific point to fly to.
A vector to final will be a heading to fly (the vector) followed by an
instruction to join the final approach course.

Stan

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:04:06 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
> wrote:

>First off, as we are reminded quite often, the AIM is not regulatory.

No, but Part 97 is, and prescribes a mandatory procedure turn for that
approach unless one of the exceptions in Part 91 is met.

And none of them were met.

The 7110.65 requirements for issuing radar vectors to a final approach
course were also not met.


--ron

[SeeAndAvoid]

"Stan Prevost" wrote:
> But the FARs are:
> FAR 91.175
> (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.

Subpart (i) right above that starts touching on unpublished routes, but
seems
to mostly talk about altitudes to maintain, not routes to fly. You could
say
that (j) above covers that, but it doesnt talk about unpublished routes.
The
only way I could see the whole issue perfectly cleared up is if they added
in (j) "on an unpublished route within XX degrees of the
intermediate or final approach course", but it doesnt. It is a vague area
between (i) and (j) and the AIMS 5-4-9a5 (PT not required when...).
(j) is the only place in 91.175 where PT's are mentioned. Regs and
our 7110.65 seem often to be written in the negative, like this one where
it says when you CANT do a PT. I'd be sweating in court as a pilot
trying to dig a positive statement that I COULD do one in that limited
paragraph.

> OK, a second point.
> A radar vector is a heading to fly. A clearance to a fix is not a vector,
> it specifies a specific point to fly to.
> A vector to final will be a heading to fly (the vector) followed by an
> instruction to join the final approach course.

In 7110.65 5-6-2e METHODS, and this is a clearance we give daily
whether the airplane is GPS/FMS/RNAV or not....
FLY HEADING (degrees). WHEN ABLE, PROCEED
DIRECT (name of fix),
That above is a vector, it is also a specific point to fly to, and a
perfectly legitimate clearance. So are you saying if he said the
above, a PT would NOT be authorized because of 91.175, yet
it would be authorized if it was MINUS "fly heading"?

And you can be vectored to a radial outside the IAF, and not just
direct to the IAF. Many times I get that request so they can set
up and established a little before the IAF. So vectors are not just
for the FAC.

Regardless, I still dont see the "necessary" part of the PT in this
scenario. Ya, I know that's only in the AIM, but how would you
be able to defend that part if you were set up a mile outside of
the IAF on the radial, or 10 miles, or 100 miles out. I can easily
see an FAA attorney using this argument.

Chris

--
Steve Bosell for President 2004
"Vote for me or I'll sue you"
www.philhendrieshow.com

[Chip Jones]

"Michael" > wrote in message
m...
> "Chip Jones" > wrote
> > > My question concerns the course reversal at MINES. If you were flying
> > this
> > > approach from due east of MINES, "cleared approach", what do you do at
> > MINES
> > > to get on the approach course?
> > >
> > Thanks everyone. When I learned this IAP back in the day, it had a DME
arc
> > off of HCH Vor to get to the IAF, and then you turned down the approach
> > course. When they slipped GPS into the system, they changed the IAP and
> > eliminated the arc. Of course, no one told the controllers about the
> > change- as usual they just published it. I never thought about the
> > difference. Looks like I need some refresher training...
>
> Chip, not to be argumentative, but IMO the change to the procedure
> makes absolutely no difference here.

Obviously it made a difference to me. :-)

>
> What the pilot did was absolutely correct. Had the DME arc been
> charted as before, his actions would still have been correct provided
> the hold-in-lieu was still charted. Removal of the DME arc is not a
> function of adding the GPS overlay; there are VOR/DME approaches with
> GPS overlays out there that include a DME arc as an option. UTS
> VOR/DME or GPS-A (http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0408/05813VDGA.PDF) is
> one example, though it's NoPT all the way around.

I have no doubt that the pilot made no mistake.

>
> The key here is this - if you're vectoring the guy to the FAC, no
> procedure turn. If you've cleared him direct to the IAF, he does the
> PT. It's just that simple.

No kidding...

>
> I guess my question is this - why was this a problem? The pilot asked
> for the full procedure, and your traineed cleared him for it. The
> phraseology was not quite perfect, but well within the range of
> variation, at least based on my experience. What am I missing?
>

No one said this was a problem. I posted this to gain personal insight, and
nothing more. I don't think you're missing a thing.

Chip, ZTL

[Chip Jones]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On 24 Aug 2004 13:33:47 -0700, (Michael)
> wrote:
>
> >The key here is this - if you're vectoring the guy to the FAC, no
> >procedure turn. If you've cleared him direct to the IAF, he does the
> >PT. It's just that simple.
>
> I agree with you.
>
> In addition, Chip should be aware that there are cut-and-dried
requirements
> in his 7110.65 in order for him to be able to give legal radar vectors to
> the FAC so that the pilot will not do the PT. (7110.65 5-9-1)
>
> It does not seem to me as if the requirements were met.
>

I wasn't vectoring to the FAC. I do not/cannot/would not vector to the FAC
at this airport anyway because nothing of this approach is depicted on the
radar scope except for the airport. None of the fixes on the approach even
exist in the ATC database. I had no intention of vectoring for the FAC. My
mistake was in misunderstanding the procedure.

Chip, ZTL

[Dave Butler]

SeeAndAvoid wrote:
> "Stan Prevost" wrote:
>
> Regardless, I still dont see the "necessary" part of the PT in this
> scenario. Ya, I know that's only in the AIM, but how would you
> be able to defend that part if you were set up a mile outside of
> the IAF on the radial, or 10 miles, or 100 miles out. I can easily
> see an FAA attorney using this argument.

Interesting discussion, since in my view the answer is cut-and-dried and
unequivocal: vector-to-final or "NoPT" => no procedure turn, otherwise =>
procedure turn.

I've also found that some controllers seem surprised by this, so I make a point
of informally making sure the controller and I have the same expectations, but
from a legal point of view, the answer is clear.

BTW, I don't see where the controller has discretion to waive the requirement
for a procedure turn, either, as they sometimes want to do. Seems to me if the
controller doesn't want me to do a PT, they need to either put me on a NoPT
segment or give me vectors to final. If I'm navigating on my own to the IAF, I'm
going to do the PT.

[Roy Smith]

"Chip Jones" > wrote:
> I wasn't vectoring to the FAC. I do not/cannot/would not vector to the FAC
> at this airport anyway because nothing of this approach is depicted on the
> radar scope except for the airport. None of the fixes on the approach even
> exist in the ATC database.

This brings me back to something you mentioned in your original post,
that got my attention. You said:

> There is a large thunderstorm sweeping south
> over the Knoxville airport and the TYS controllers are busy holding their
> own arrivals for the storm to pass. To ease their workload, TYS calls my
> trainee and begs him to work the approach into RKW.

How does this work? Can two facilities really swap airspace back and
forth between themselves with something as informal as a phone call?
There's a reason I ask...

A while back, I was flying into MMK (Meriden, CT) on a training flight
with a student. We were IFR, conditions were night, but clear skies.
The approach chart says Bradley Approach runs the approach control, but
my experience has been that radio contact with Bradley is usually pretty
poor. MMK is right on the edge between Bradley and New York Approach.
That night was no exception, and we lost contact completely with Bradley
while on a vector downwind. This was actually a good thing, because it
gave me the opportunity to hold an impromptu lesson on lost comm
procedures.

We tried calling Bradley a few times, and then got a message relayed by
another flight in the area to call Bradley on a different freq. No joy
on that freq either, and by that time we were out of radio contact with
the other aircraft. I decided to try one more trick and punch up
"Nearest ARTCC" on the GPS. Wonderful feature, that. It put us in
contact with Boston Center, loud and clear. It took just a moment to
explain the situation to the center guy, and he quickly got us a new
freq for NY Approach (by now we were probably pretty deep into NY's
airspace).

I expected the NY controller would give us vectors back towards MMK and
then hand us off to Bradley again, but that's not what happened. To my
surprise, he gave us vectors to final, cleared us for the approach, and
issued instructions to contact Bradley on the missed (the missed takes
you deeper into Bradley territory and radio comm is usually much better
on that side of the airport). We flew the approach, called Bradley on
the missed, and the controller acted like nothing strange had happened.

So, could you fill me in on what was happening behind the scenes? Once
I went lost comm, how did ATC deal with that? Did the Bradley guy just
hand me off to NY when he saw me leaving his airspace? And, most
interesting to me, how was the NY controller able to clear us for an
approach to an airport that he didn't own?

[Chip Jones]

"SeeAndAvoid" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> What the hell, I'll jump in. Just doing a quick search on "full
approach",
[snipped]
>
> Full approach, which isnt exactly what the pilot said, he said "would like
> to shoot the full VOR/DME 22 into Rockwood". This may be splitting hairs,
> but he didnt say it (which I'm not convinced there is any such
phraseology),
> but even if he did, that was a REQUEST, which is not always which is
> given by the controller.

The trainee and I did discuss where the "full approach" began. Since we
rarely work aircraft approaching RKW from the east, it was a legitimate
question in my mind. We had literally about 20 seconds to huddle with the
plate during the OJTI. We had our hands full with higher priority ATC stuff
and airplanes were calling right and left. This aircraft had GPS, so I said
I though the full approach in this case begins at the IAF (MINES) and we
could clear him to MINES via GPS-direct. The trainee thought that the
"full" approach began at HCH Vor, and involved flying out on the 060R to get
to MINES, then doing a course reversal. He asked if he should clear the guy
to HCH to start the full approach. HCH was 30 miles west of the position
from which the approach request was made and would have involved a serious
detour.

Now I'm wondering what I could have done with this UH-60 if it had been a /A
instead of a /G. We don't clear /A's direct to intersections. Where does
the "full approach" begin for a non-RNAV on this procedure. I can't vector
to final at this location.

>
> I dont think it's so simple that the pilot is expected to do a PT.
> On procedure turns, the AIM, as earlier stated does indeed say....
> 5-4-9. Procedure Turn
>
> a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
> perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
> intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in lieu
of
> procedure turn is a required maneuver.
>
> First off, as we are reminded quite often, the AIM is not regulatory.
> Secondly,
> if you read that verbatim, it says "when it is necessary". Giving someone
> a vector, or this clearance where it's within 30 degrees or so, basically
a
> straight-in to the IAF, I do not consider the PT "necessary". You can't
> tell
> me that a course reversal on damn near a straight-in could ever be
mistaken
> in court as "necessary" for the establishment of this intermediate part of
> the approach, UNLESS the airplane is way too high, which in this case is
> not applicable as the altitude was good and in accordance with the IAP.

The direction from which the aircraft was approaching MINES likely
contributed to my misunderstanding. He was approaching MINES on a track
that intercepted the FAC at 30 degrees or less. The VOR/DME Rwy22 is also
the GPS Rwy 22. I got it in my head that he didn't need a PT. What the
heck, on many of the newer GPS approaches, aircraft make 90 degree turns
between waypoints to get to the FAF. I had the wrong site picture here.


[snipped]

>
> This is the one the FAA, if it so chose, could go after the pilot. They
> would
> argue that the non-published route (direct MINES) was in essense a
> RADAR VECTOR. This particular clearance can only be done with
> radar service provided. This is not an arc, a victor airway, or a
published
> transition. That's why it was correctly included in the clearance that
the
> pilot should cross MINES at 5,000', which is above the MIA (Minimum
> IFR Altitude) and keeps him in radar contact. The clearance also included
> (which is also phraseology I'm not sure exists) "cross MINES at 5000
> INBOUND". That "inbound" I'm not so sure of, and could cause confusion
> with the pilot. It could mean hit MINES and continue inbound, no PT, or
> it could mean once he's inbound, cross MINES at 5,000'.

I believe that the phraseology "inbound" slipped in there because we have an
approach to another airport where this is required phraseology. He had
issued this other clearance earier in the session. My Dev only has about 60
hours on this position, working on his first two R-sides.

>
> There was confusion on both sides here, the way I see it. The pilot made
> his REQUEST, figures he got what he asked for. The controller heard
> the request, used questionable phraseology to get what he wanted to get
> across, and the end result was the pilot doing something other than the
> controller expected. "Report PT inbound" wouldve probably made it
> real clear, and if the pilot didnt intend on doing a PT, that would have
> raised a warning flag to him. I guess you can ask if he's going to do
> the course reversal, and if I hear "full approach", I'd at the very least
> protect the airspace either way, or just ask the pilot.

Yeah, we were protecting the airspace anyway. I didn't really have my radio
to use, so I didn't ask like I normally would.

>
> You ask any controller, or Airspace & Procedures specialist this
> situation, you'll get lots of different interpretations. They'll all
> probably agree that the communication was hazy (you didnt
> "break the chain" as they love to shove down our throats), and
> the pilot may have been a little guilty of hearing what he wanted
> to hear - although we dont have the exact tapes. A REQUEST
> means nothing without a CLEARANCE. I'd be interested in
> hearing the pilots readback, I'm willing to bet that it wasn't
> exactly standard phraseology either.

The phraseology that I wrote for the ATC side of things is 100% accurate for
the event, but not 100% correct by the book. The Army pilot was
transmitting on UHF, so even if we could pull voice tapes, we'd likely not
fully understand him. Our UHF receivers are old, worn out and often
unservicable. His initial request was stepped on by an air carrier on VHF
in our other combined sector asking about the freaking ride. (Jeeze is
*that* is getting OLD!!!). His subsequent request was hard to understand,
but he did emphasize a request for the *full* approach.

I'd love to find an Airspace and Procedures guy anywhere in my Region who
had a clue to begin with. Down here in ZTL, we have a total disconnect
between the guys maintaining procedures for the facility, the guys
publishing new procedures up at the Regional level (Terps guys) and the men
and women keying the mic at the sector. For example, GPS approaches are
dropping into my airspace like landmines. We don't get briefed on the
changes anymore. Heck they aren't even "read and initial" items these days,
likely because the 530 guy doesn't even know about them. They even change
things like a missed approach procedure and the only way you can spot it is
by reading the paper IAP plate before issuing the clearance. They plop new
approaches in the airspace and you discover them when the pilot requests the
procedure and you scramble for the plate. We are so short staffed right now
at ZTL, we don't even do crew/team training anymore. I haven't had a Team
Training in three years. Everyone is months behind on CBI's. Our facility
Airspace office doesn't even pretend to try anymore. Yall are probably the
same way out there- it's getting pretty bad all over the Enroute community.

Thanks for the insight.

>
> PS:email me sometime Chip, your assumption of my email
> address was correct.

Wilco.

Chip, ZTL

[Newps]

Roy Smith wrote:

>
> How does this work? Can two facilities really swap airspace back and
> forth between themselves with something as informal as a phone call?
> There's a reason I ask...

Yes. Pretty much anything can be done with coordination over the landline.

[Dave Butler]

Chip Jones wrote:
> "SeeAndAvoid" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
> The trainee and I did discuss where the "full approach" began. Since we
> rarely work aircraft approaching RKW from the east, it was a legitimate
> question in my mind. We had literally about 20 seconds to huddle with the
> plate during the OJTI. We had our hands full with higher priority ATC stuff
> and airplanes were calling right and left. This aircraft had GPS, so I said
> I though the full approach in this case begins at the IAF (MINES) and we
> could clear him to MINES via GPS-direct. The trainee thought that the
> "full" approach began at HCH Vor, and involved flying out on the 060R to get
> to MINES, then doing a course reversal. He asked if he should clear the guy
> to HCH to start the full approach. HCH was 30 miles west of the position
> from which the approach request was made and would have involved a serious
> detour.
>
> Now I'm wondering what I could have done with this UH-60 if it had been a /A
> instead of a /G. We don't clear /A's direct to intersections. Where does
> the "full approach" begin for a non-RNAV on this procedure. I can't vector
> to final at this location.

The general answer to where a full approach can begin is "any fix that's marked
IAF on the approach chart". For this approach, the only IAF is MINES. So for a
non-RNAV aircraft, I'd think the only way to give a non-RNAV the full approach
would be to send him to HCH and let him navigate himself to MINES, or give him a
vector to the radial and let him navigate to MINES.

If I heard "cleared to MINES via heading <x>, join the HCH 060 radial and track
it inbound (or outbound), cross MINES at or above 5000, cleared for the
approach", I would do the PT.

On the other hand if I heard "fly heading <x>, vectors for the final approach
course, maintain 5000 until MINES, cleared for the approach", I would not do the PT.

On the third hand, if I thought there was any confusion about whether a PT would
be done, I'd tell ATC what my plans were.

[Roy Smith]

"Chip Jones" > wrote:
> Now I'm wondering what I could have done with this UH-60 if it had been a /A
> instead of a /G. We don't clear /A's direct to intersections. Where does
> the "full approach" begin for a non-RNAV on this procedure. I can't vector
> to final at this location.

I don't have an en-route chart of the area, just the approach plate off
the net, so I may be missing something. The only legal way I see to fly
this approach pilot nav and /A is "Direct Hinch Mountain, Hinch Mountain
060 radial, MINES, cross MINES at or above 5000, cleared VOR/DME 22
approach". It's about 60 miles out of the way, but them's the breaks.
Hope he planned on that when he fueled up for the flight.

[[email protected]]

As a procedures sort of guy I think it was stupid to remove the DME ARC,
especially since it is a VOR/DME IAP. If the system worked the way it should,
AVN-100 would not have removed the ARC because GPS overlay was added; rather,
they would have removed it because your airspace staff for that area asked for
it to be removed. Or, in the alternative the DME ARC might have failed a
periodic flight inspection, which is more common these days as the VORs get old.

Chip Jones wrote:

> "Michael" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "Chip Jones" > wrote
> > > > My question concerns the course reversal at MINES. If you were flying
> > > this
> > > > approach from due east of MINES, "cleared approach", what do you do at
> > > MINES
> > > > to get on the approach course?
> > > >
> > > Thanks everyone. When I learned this IAP back in the day, it had a DME
> arc
> > > off of HCH Vor to get to the IAF, and then you turned down the approach
> > > course. When they slipped GPS into the system, they changed the IAP and
> > > eliminated the arc. Of course, no one told the controllers about the
> > > change- as usual they just published it. I never thought about the
> > > difference. Looks like I need some refresher training...
> >
> > Chip, not to be argumentative, but IMO the change to the procedure
> > makes absolutely no difference here.
>
> Obviously it made a difference to me. :-)
>
> >
> > What the pilot did was absolutely correct. Had the DME arc been
> > charted as before, his actions would still have been correct provided
> > the hold-in-lieu was still charted. Removal of the DME arc is not a
> > function of adding the GPS overlay; there are VOR/DME approaches with
> > GPS overlays out there that include a DME arc as an option. UTS
> > VOR/DME or GPS-A (http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0408/05813VDGA.PDF) is
> > one example, though it's NoPT all the way around.
>
> I have no doubt that the pilot made no mistake.
>
> >
> > The key here is this - if you're vectoring the guy to the FAC, no
> > procedure turn. If you've cleared him direct to the IAF, he does the
> > PT. It's just that simple.
>
> No kidding...
>
> >
> > I guess my question is this - why was this a problem? The pilot asked
> > for the full procedure, and your traineed cleared him for it. The
> > phraseology was not quite perfect, but well within the range of
> > variation, at least based on my experience. What am I missing?
> >
>
> No one said this was a problem. I posted this to gain personal insight, and
> nothing more. I don't think you're missing a thing.
>
> Chip, ZTL

[Michael]

"Chip Jones" > wrote
> The trainee and I did discuss where the "full approach" began. Since we
> rarely work aircraft approaching RKW from the east, it was a legitimate
> question in my mind.

Chip, I'm honestly not trying to be a pain, but while the question was
a legitimate one in your mind, it wasn't legitimate regulatorily. In
other words, I think the source of the confusion is a less-than-ideal
understanding of the applicable rules. Don't feel too bad - I just
saw the same level of understanding in a 1500+ hour multi/IFR pilot I
flew with recently.

> This aircraft had GPS, so I said
> I though the full approach in this case begins at the IAF (MINES)

The full approach ALWAYS begins at the IAF (or an IAF if there is more
than one) regardless of how the aircraft is equipped.

> and we could clear him to MINES via GPS-direct.

There's the difference. Since the aircraft had RNAV (not necessarily
GPS - any kind of approved RNAV would be fine, since the approach does
not start until the IAF is crossed) you could clear him direct to
MINES. Without RNAV, you would need an alternate plan.

> The trainee thought that the
> "full" approach began at HCH Vor

Well, he was wrong - but as a trainee he has every right to be wrong.

> Now I'm wondering what I could have done with this UH-60 if it had been a /A
> instead of a /G. We don't clear /A's direct to intersections. Where does
> the "full approach" begin for a non-RNAV on this procedure. I can't vector
> to final at this location.

I'm pretty sure you can vector an aircraft to intercept an airway -
can you do the same for a random VOR radial? How about "Fly heading
XXX, intercept the HCH-060 radial, track the radial to MINES, cleared
for the full approach, report procedure turn inbound?"

Michael

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:43:33 GMT, "Chip Jones" >
wrote:

>I wasn't vectoring to the FAC. I do not/cannot/would not vector to the FAC
>at this airport anyway because nothing of this approach is depicted on the
>radar scope except for the airport. None of the fixes on the approach even
>exist in the ATC database. I had no intention of vectoring for the FAC. My
>mistake was in misunderstanding the procedure.

I understand.

But others have brought that up that possibility in this thread and I
thought it worthwhile that the point be absolutely clear to everyone (not
just to you).


--ron

[J Haggerty]

FAAO 8260.19 requires any arcs in a radar environment to be removed
unless they are operationally required. It appears that someone deemed
that they were not needed back in 1992, when they were removed from the
procedure. GPS was overlayed later, so had nothing to do with removal of
the arcs.
The arcs probably had the annotation "NoPT" on them, since a course
reversal would not have been required from the arcs based on the TERPS
criteria in effect back in 1992.
An interesting point that might help ATC understand the PT/NoPT question
is that anytime a route is published that allows elimination of the
course reversal, then the procedure specialist must indicate that by
publishing "NoPT" on that route segment. Otherwise, the PT is expected.
Since ATC was substituting radar flight following (not vectors) combined
with center's MIA to protect the GPS equipped aircraft on his flight to
MINES, then it would be up to ATC to indicate that the course reversal
was not necessary by stating that to the pilot.
In the case of the UH-60, though, once he asked for the "full approach"
it would have alerted me that he wanted a little more than a quick
straight-in, and I would have queried him further to confirm exactly
what he wanted, (hold-in lieu, clearance to Hinch Mountain for the
feeder, or what?).
We used to routinely vector military aircraft to intercept the final,
but whenever one requested the full procedure, that was our clue to
clear them via non-radar routes to the IAF, even if it was 20 miles
further out.

JPH

wrote:
> As a procedures sort of guy I think it was stupid to remove the DME ARC,
> especially since it is a VOR/DME IAP. If the system worked the way it should,
> AVN-100 would not have removed the ARC because GPS overlay was added; rather,
> they would have removed it because your airspace staff for that area asked for
> it to be removed. Or, in the alternative the DME ARC might have failed a
> periodic flight inspection, which is more common these days as the VORs get old.
>

[J Haggerty]

Chip, there's a website you can check whenever you want that has the
upcoming proposed TERPS procedures on them;
http://avn.faa.gov/acifp.asp

You can click on the state and it will show the procedures for every
city in that state that have been prepared for future publication and
are in the coordination stage.
You can then click on the folder icon and it will show you the procedure
forms, maps of the procedures, graphic depiction, and even the dash-2's
(fix forms).

JPH

Chip Jones wrote:
>
> I'd love to find an Airspace and Procedures guy anywhere in my Region who
> had a clue to begin with. Down here in ZTL, we have a total disconnect
> between the guys maintaining procedures for the facility, the guys
> publishing new procedures up at the Regional level (Terps guys) and the men
> and women keying the mic at the sector. For example, GPS approaches are
> dropping into my airspace like landmines. We don't get briefed on the
> changes anymore. Heck they aren't even "read and initial" items these days,
> likely because the 530 guy doesn't even know about them. They even change
> things like a missed approach procedure and the only way you can spot it is
> by reading the paper IAP plate before issuing the clearance. They plop new
> approaches in the airspace and you discover them when the pilot requests the
> procedure and you scramble for the plate. We are so short staffed right now
> at ZTL, we don't even do crew/team training anymore. I haven't had a Team
> Training in three years. Everyone is months behind on CBI's. Our facility
> Airspace office doesn't even pretend to try anymore. Yall are probably the
> same way out there- it's getting pretty bad all over the Enroute community.

[Chip Jones]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Chip Jones" > wrote
> > The trainee and I did discuss where the "full approach" began. Since we
> > rarely work aircraft approaching RKW from the east, it was a legitimate
> > question in my mind.
>
> Chip, I'm honestly not trying to be a pain, but while the question was
> a legitimate one in your mind, it wasn't legitimate regulatorily. In
> other words, I think the source of the confusion is a less-than-ideal
> understanding of the applicable rules. Don't feel too bad - I just
> saw the same level of understanding in a 1500+ hour multi/IFR pilot I
> flew with recently.

Hey man, I don't feel bad at all and I don't see you being a pain. I was
the guy who posted the question, and I'm the guy who was supposed to know
the answer before hand. The question shouldn't even come up, hehehe. I
imagine my "IFR" time is around 16,000 hours of live air traffic control.
I'd say I still do have a less than ideal understanding of the applicable
rules pertaining to certain IAP's. That's why I drop in here from time to
time.

>
> > This aircraft had GPS, so I said
> > I though the full approach in this case begins at the IAF (MINES)
>
> The full approach ALWAYS begins at the IAF (or an IAF if there is more
> than one) regardless of how the aircraft is equipped.
>
> > and we could clear him to MINES via GPS-direct.
>
> There's the difference. Since the aircraft had RNAV (not necessarily
> GPS - any kind of approved RNAV would be fine, since the approach does
> not start until the IAF is crossed) you could clear him direct to
> MINES. Without RNAV, you would need an alternate plan.

Because of ATC workload, without RNAV equipment the *pilot* would need an
alternate plan in this case. We were busy. We have no obligation to vector
non-Rnav aircraft on an unpublished route. In this particular event, he'd
have likely been sent direct HCH because it was the easy thing for the
trainee to do. HCH is on the plate.

[snipped]

> > Now I'm wondering what I could have done with this UH-60 if it had been
a /A
> > instead of a /G. We don't clear /A's direct to intersections. Where
does
> > the "full approach" begin for a non-RNAV on this procedure. I can't
vector
> > to final at this location.
>
> I'm pretty sure you can vector an aircraft to intercept an airway -
> can you do the same for a random VOR radial? How about "Fly heading
> XXX, intercept the HCH-060 radial, track the radial to MINES, cleared
> for the full approach, report procedure turn inbound?"
>


I can vector to a random VOR radial, but I cannot vector to the final
approach course. The HCH-060R is also the final approach course inside of
MINES. MINES (and the HCH 27 DME) is not depicted on the scope. Vectors
are workload permitting, and we were busy elsewhere. Therefore, I don't
know whether I would have vectored here or not in the event.

If the Army had crashed and burned (say the tail rotor fell off, nothing
related to the approach), how would I explain to the rules lawyers that I
was merely vectoring to a random radial that also happened to define the
FAC? I cannot clear aircraft operating on non-published routes (like a
random vector to join the 060R) for approach until they are established on
a segment of the IAP or a published route or I assign an altitude to
maintain until they are so established (or they are doing a GPS or RNAV
approach). These rules exist as a result of other ATC screw-ups in the
past. A vector to intercept the FAC radial, followed by an approach
clearance to an aircraft with a horrible UHF radio to read it back with
could end up being misconstrued as a vector to final (although the "Report
procedure turn inbound" should eliminate the possibility of a
misunderstanding).

All that aside, I do believe that your example is basically legal (I'd have
to clean up the phraseology a little bit to CYA). I may try it next time I
work one into RKW from the east, assuming I get to him far enough away from
MINES to make a vector workable.

I appreciate the insight,

Chip, ZTL

[Chip Jones]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> "Chip Jones" > wrote:
[snipped]
>
> This brings me back to something you mentioned in your original post,
> that got my attention. You said:
>
> > There is a large thunderstorm sweeping south
> > over the Knoxville airport and the TYS controllers are busy holding
their
> > own arrivals for the storm to pass. To ease their workload, TYS calls
my
> > trainee and begs him to work the approach into RKW.
>
> How does this work? Can two facilities really swap airspace back and
> forth between themselves with something as informal as a phone call?
> There's a reason I ask...

ATC is flexible in everything but basic separation minima. Two controllers
can work out all kinds of thngs with a simple phone call between them,
including swapping airspace. We do this a lot here in ZTL and I'm sure it
happens all over the country. It's all in the name of efficiency. I can
think of six airports in or near my airspace for which I might swap
approach/departure control service with an adjacent sector or facility.
Sometimes it makes more sense for me to work you into an airport just across
a boundary than for me to hand you off to the controlling sector facility.
All of this can be done with a simple coordination land line call between
controllers.

Controllers can even swap separation standards between terminal and Center,
or between non-radar and radar. Here's a quick example of one aspect of
this:

Tracon: "Hey Center, can ya give me a higher on Air Wisconsin? I need to
top this ATR I'm shipping you at ten..."

Center: "You can have higher on the Air Wisconsin if you use your radar to
separate him from the Mooney on a code of 0735 at 11,000 crossing five miles
off his nose. Reference the Mooney, give AWI FL180."

Tracon: "Mooney traffic observed, show it..."

In this quickie, the terminal guy is using 3 miles separation with his local
ASR radar to top traffic in the Center, where the Center controller needs 5
miles minima using Center ARSR. With a quick phone call, ATC applies
terminal separation minima using terminal radar to aircraft in Center
airspace.

>
> A while back, I was flying into MMK (Meriden, CT) on a training flight
> with a student. We were IFR, conditions were night, but clear skies.

[snipped]

>
> So, could you fill me in on what was happening behind the scenes? Once
> I went lost comm, how did ATC deal with that? Did the Bradley guy just
> hand me off to NY when he saw me leaving his airspace? And, most
> interesting to me, how was the NY controller able to clear us for an
> approach to an airport that he didn't own?

When you went lost comm, the Bradley controller probably cursed out loud
before he did anything else. But he wasn't cursing you, he was likely
cursing the FAA radio coverage for the area. I betcha that the BDL
controller knows that aircraft into MMK at certain altitudes on certain
approaches may lose comm. That is also probably the controller's
experience. Probably happens fairly often at MMK and he wonders why his
radios still suck after all the reports he has filed to AF. Like you said,
your experience is that comm with BDL has been pretty poor into this
airport. He was likely prepared with a Plan B and also a Plan C for comm.

BDL loses you, they probably played musical ATC transmitters/receivers on
the frequency to get you back. In the Center, I can toggle between primary,
secondary and back-up transmitters and receivers. I imagine BDL has the
same capability with their comm equipment. After he BDL fails to get you
with his in-house radio tricks, he resorts to an air to air relay. The air
to air relay is a failure. The BDL guy, realizing that you are still
tooling downwind on his vector, calls up his buddy at N90 and explains the
situation. Most likely, if the BDL/N90 boundary is so close to MMK, this is
not the first time this exact scenario has played out.

The N90 controller likely had either taken a "point-out" from BDL on your
aircraft or else N90 was doing a simple airspace block for your approach.
If it was a point out, it meant that the N90 controller was already watching
you and protecting your target from his own traffic as BDL vectored you near
the facility boundary. If N90 was blocking the airspace around MMK for you,
then they had simply sterilized N90 airspace that conflicts with your
approach into MMK. Either way, the BDL guy probably called his N90 partner
on the land line and explained that you were NORDO. The N90 guy then tagged
your target up and watched you come his way, lost comm.

Meanwhile, the ARTCC controller who took your radio transmission had to call
either N90 or BDL, most likely N90. From his perch in the Center airspace
above the lowly tracons, the Center controller probably saw you down below,
inside N90 airspace. The New York controller probably told Boston Center to
"put him on me" when Center called to say you'd come up on Center freq.
ARTCC switched you to N90. Meanwhile, the N90 guy called the BDL guy and
said that N90 was working you now in good comm. Since BDL couldn't talk to
you anyway, they released the airspace at MMK to N90, in essence reversing
the tactical situation at MMK between N90 and BDL. For the time it took you
to make the approach, N90 controlled the airspace around MMK and BDL was
blocking for you.

Because the BDL guy released the airspace to N90, the N90 guy could clear
you in. The New York Approach controllers are among the best in the
business anywhere, and this guy probably had a working knowledge of MMK
since it was so close by. Once you were cleared to the CTAF and given the
comm instructions for the Missed, N90 was done with you. N90 called BDL and
gave them your approach clearance time and the details. They probably kept
a tag on you just in case your comm problems with Bradley continued after
the miss. BDL resumed control of MMK once you got cleared for approach and
both facilities had to block the airspace until you missed. Once you got
back into two-way comm with BDL after the missed, BDL called N90 and told
them to cancel the block at MMK. N90 dropped their tag on you and life went
on.

Chip, ZTL

[Chip Jones]

"J Haggerty" > wrote in message
news:pcdXc.60498$wo.55624@okepread06...
> Chip, there's a website you can check whenever you want that has the
> upcoming proposed TERPS procedures on them;
> http://avn.faa.gov/acifp.asp
>
> You can click on the state and it will show the procedures for every
> city in that state that have been prepared for future publication and
> are in the coordination stage.
> You can then click on the folder icon and it will show you the procedure
> forms, maps of the procedures, graphic depiction, and even the dash-2's
> (fix forms).

HEYYY!!! Thanks!!!

Chip, ZTL

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:36:41 -0500, J Haggerty >
wrote:

>then it would be up to ATC to indicate that the course reversal
>was not necessary by stating that to the pilot.

By what authority can ATC do this, on this particular approach?

Chip has already indicated that ATC could not issue vectors to final for
this approach; and I am not aware of any authority given ATC to modify
published SIAP's by eliminating required course reversals, absent VTF or
timed approaches.



--ron

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 04:00:48 GMT, "Chip Jones" >
wrote:

>All that aside, I do believe that your example is basically legal (I'd have
>to clean up the phraseology a little bit to CYA). I may try it next time I
>work one into RKW from the east, assuming I get to him far enough away from
>MINES to make a vector workable.

How about something like:

"Fly heading of 270 until intercepting the HCH 060 radial, then direct
Mines. Maintain 5000 (or your MIA/MVA for the area, if higher) until
MINES; cleared for the approach"?

I would not interpret such a clearance as being a "vector-to-final"




--ron

[[email protected]]

J Haggerty wrote:

> FAAO 8260.19 requires any arcs in a radar environment to be removed
> unless they are operationally required. It appears that someone deemed
> that they were not needed back in 1992, when they were removed from the
> procedure. GPS was overlayed later, so had nothing to do with removal of
> the arcs.

The ARCs were, and would be, of significant operational benefit at this location.

>
> The arcs probably had the annotation "NoPT" on them, since a course
> reversal would not have been required from the arcs based on the TERPS
> criteria in effect back in 1992.

Do you know of any ARC intitial approach segments that require a course reversal? The
ARCs would have certainly had "NoPT" on them with a hold-in-lieu, not "probably."

>
>
> Since ATC was substituting radar flight following (not vectors) combined
> with center's MIA to protect the GPS equipped aircraft on his flight to
> MINES, then it would be up to ATC to indicate that the course reversal
> was not necessary by stating that to the pilot.

By what authority?

[[email protected]]

SeeAndAvoid wrote:

>
>
> Regardless, I still dont see the "necessary" part of the PT in this
> scenario. Ya, I know that's only in the AIM, but how would you
> be able to defend that part if you were set up a mile outside of
> the IAF on the radial, or 10 miles, or 100 miles out. I can easily
> see an FAA attorney using this argument.

There has been a project underway for several years now to authorize direct-to
straight-ins from an intermediate fix (which is what the fix in question really
is), with a 90 degree course change limitation and an MVA or MIA assignment
compatible with descent gradient requirements.

It's anyone's guess when the proposal will see the light of day, but it is
progressing..slowly.

[[email protected]]

20 questions time: how does someone positively identify which fix is the
intermediate fix?

J Haggerty wrote:

> Chip, there's a website you can check whenever you want that has the
> upcoming proposed TERPS procedures on them;
> http://avn.faa.gov/acifp.asp
>
> You can click on the state and it will show the procedures for every
> city in that state that have been prepared for future publication and
> are in the coordination stage.
> You can then click on the folder icon and it will show you the procedure
> forms, maps of the procedures, graphic depiction, and even the dash-2's
> (fix forms).
>
> JPH
>
> Chip Jones wrote:
> >
> > I'd love to find an Airspace and Procedures guy anywhere in my Region who
> > had a clue to begin with. Down here in ZTL, we have a total disconnect
> > between the guys maintaining procedures for the facility, the guys
> > publishing new procedures up at the Regional level (Terps guys) and the men
> > and women keying the mic at the sector. For example, GPS approaches are
> > dropping into my airspace like landmines. We don't get briefed on the
> > changes anymore. Heck they aren't even "read and initial" items these days,
> > likely because the 530 guy doesn't even know about them. They even change
> > things like a missed approach procedure and the only way you can spot it is
> > by reading the paper IAP plate before issuing the clearance. They plop new
> > approaches in the airspace and you discover them when the pilot requests the
> > procedure and you scramble for the plate. We are so short staffed right now
> > at ZTL, we don't even do crew/team training anymore. I haven't had a Team
> > Training in three years. Everyone is months behind on CBI's. Our facility
> > Airspace office doesn't even pretend to try anymore. Yall are probably the
> > same way out there- it's getting pretty bad all over the Enroute community.

[Chip Jones]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 04:00:48 GMT, "Chip Jones" >
> wrote:
>
> >All that aside, I do believe that your example is basically legal (I'd
have
> >to clean up the phraseology a little bit to CYA). I may try it next time
I
> >work one into RKW from the east, assuming I get to him far enough away
from
> >MINES to make a vector workable.
>
> How about something like:
>
> "Fly heading of 270 until intercepting the HCH 060 radial, then direct
> Mines. Maintain 5000 (or your MIA/MVA for the area, if higher) until
> MINES; cleared for the approach"?
>
> I would not interpret such a clearance as being a "vector-to-final"
>

Ron, that sounds basically good to me. I would "chunk" that information so
it didn't all go out in the same transmission. My stab at it:

"Fly heading 270 to intecept the HCH060R, direct MINES when able."

Followed by:

"Maintain 5000 until MINES, cleared VOR/DME approach Rockwood, report
procedure turn inbound."

With the PT language there is no doubt that I didn't vector to final.

Chip, ZTL

[Doug]

The way I understand it is this:
If the procedure turn is in BOLD line.
1. If ATC vectors me onto the final approach course, I don't have to
do the procedure turn. (Note I say final approach course, I can be
outside the FAF).
2. Otherwise, I have to do the procedure turn.

If the procedure turn is not bold lined, then its optional.

But frankly, if I were the controller, I'd space other aircraft so the
pilot could do it either way, unless you are vectoring him past the
FAF. You never know when some pilot will decide he has to do the
procedure turn if you cut him loose outside the FAF.

As a pilot I see ABSOLUTELY no COMMON SENSE in having to make a course
reversal if I don't have to loose altitude and am on the final
approach course (or even within a few degrees of final approach
course) outside of the FAF. I mean, why do it? It takes time, burns
fuel, and increases risk.

I'm probably wrong somewhere on all this, but heck, I bet a lot of
other pilots are too.

It doesn't really come up very often.

[Roy Smith]

(Doug) wrote:
> As a pilot I see ABSOLUTELY no COMMON SENSE in having to make a course
> reversal if I don't have to loose altitude and am on the final
> approach course (or even within a few degrees of final approach
> course) outside of the FAF. I mean, why do it? It takes time, burns
> fuel, and increases risk.

Of course it makes no sense. But it's the law. Since when did the law
have to make sense :-)

The real problem is this was all laid down long before radar and RNAV
capabilities were common. The Terminal Arrival Area concept that's
being introduced with GPS approaches resolves a lot of this stupidity.

[SeeAndAvoid]

"Doug" wrote...
> As a pilot I see ABSOLUTELY no COMMON SENSE in having to
> make a course reversal if I don't have to loose altitude and am on the
> final approach course (or even within a few degrees of final approach
> course) outside of the FAF. I mean, why do it? It takes time, burns
> fuel, and increases risk.

I can. FAR 61.57c, IFR currency requirements. In the case of this
approach, the course reversal is a hold. I dont know for sure but
I bet that was the intent with this pilot, get credit for the hold AND
the approach. As a pilot there were times I wanted to do something
like this only for currency, but the controller couldnt understand
why I WANTED to hold at, usually, the missed approach point.
But I always would say "request the approach with a turn in holding
at XXXX" or something like that to make it real clear, not this
"full approach" stuff.
As a controller when I'm running approaches I'll get the request
for a hold that seems to have no reason behind it, then I remember
this currency requirement. Problem is there's not enough pilot
controllers, and even less that are IFR rated or current.

Chris
- -
Steve Bosell for President 2004
"Vote for me or I'll sue you"
www.philhendrieshow.com

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:10:56 GMT, "Chip Jones" >
wrote:

>Ron, that sounds basically good to me. I would "chunk" that information so
>it didn't all go out in the same transmission. My stab at it:
>
>"Fly heading 270 to intecept the HCH060R, direct MINES when able."
>
>Followed by:
>
>"Maintain 5000 until MINES, cleared VOR/DME approach Rockwood, report
>procedure turn inbound."
>
>With the PT language there is no doubt that I didn't vector to final.

Yes, it's probably more difficult for the pilot to screw things up when you
"chunk" it.

And when he got to MINES, absent a further clearance (radio congestion or
whatever) there'd be no question that he should go into the hold, until
cleared for the approach.


--ron

[J Haggerty]

I didn't find any written authority that directly authorizes this. It
would be more a compilation of bits and pieces from several regulations.
Unfortunately, there's not much out there in the books that relates
directly to GPS overlay procedures.

Example; FAAH 7110.65 Para 4-8-1 b. "For aircraft operating on
unpublished routes, issue the approach clearance only after the aircraft
is:
3. Established on a heading or **course** that will intercept the
initial segment at the initial approach fix, or intermediate segment at
the intermediate fix when no initial approach fix is published, for a
GPS or RNAV instrument approach procedure at an angle not greater than
90 degrees. Angles greater than 90 degrees may be used when a hold in
lieu of procedure turn pattern is depicted at the fix for the instrument
approach procedure. (See FIG 4-8-2.)"
EXAMPLE- Aircraft 1 can be cleared direct to CENTR. The intercept
angle at that IAF is 90 degrees or less. The minimum altitude for IFR
operations (14 CFR Section 91.177) along the flight path to the IAF is
3,000 feet. "Cleared direct CENTR, maintain at or above three thousand
until CENTR, cleared R-NAV Runway One Eight approach."

In this example, they are talking about RNAV procedures, but the UH-60
was navigating to the IAF using the GPS. If he didn't have GPS, he would
not have been on an unpublished non-radar route to the IAF and this
paragraph would not apply.

On the procedure in question, the only purpose of the "hold in lieu of
PT" is to allow an aircraft on the feeder from HCH to complete a course
reversal so that he can align himself with the final approach course. It
is not used to get a lower altitude and consequent descent gradient as
it might be on some course reversal procedures. The UH-60 was already
aligned within the parameters of the TERPS criteria (90 degrees). If the
route that the UH-60 flew just magically appeared as a published route
on this procedure, it would be required to be published as NoPT.

JPH

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:36:41 -0500, J Haggerty >
> wrote:
>
>
>>then it would be up to ATC to indicate that the course reversal
>>was not necessary by stating that to the pilot.
>
>
> By what authority can ATC do this, on this particular approach?
>
> Chip has already indicated that ATC could not issue vectors to final for
> this approach; and I am not aware of any authority given ATC to modify
> published SIAP's by eliminating required course reversals, absent VTF or
> timed approaches.
>

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:10:00 -0500, J Haggerty >
wrote:

>I didn't find any written authority that directly authorizes this. It
>would be more a compilation of bits and pieces from several regulations.
>Unfortunately, there's not much out there in the books that relates
>directly to GPS overlay procedures.

Then I don't understand you making up new rules.

>
>Example; FAAH 7110.65 Para 4-8-1 b. "For aircraft operating on
>unpublished routes, issue the approach clearance only after the aircraft
>is:
> 3. Established on a heading or **course** that will intercept the
>initial segment at the initial approach fix, or intermediate segment at
>the intermediate fix when no initial approach fix is published, for a
>GPS or RNAV instrument approach procedure at an angle not greater than
>90 degrees. Angles greater than 90 degrees may be used when a hold in
>lieu of procedure turn pattern is depicted at the fix for the instrument
>approach procedure. (See FIG 4-8-2.)"
> EXAMPLE- Aircraft 1 can be cleared direct to CENTR. The intercept
>angle at that IAF is 90 degrees or less. The minimum altitude for IFR
>operations (14 CFR Section 91.177) along the flight path to the IAF is
>3,000 feet. "Cleared direct CENTR, maintain at or above three thousand
>until CENTR, cleared R-NAV Runway One Eight approach."
>
>In this example, they are talking about RNAV procedures, but the UH-60
>was navigating to the IAF using the GPS. If he didn't have GPS, he would
>not have been on an unpublished non-radar route to the IAF and this
>paragraph would not apply.
>
>On the procedure in question, the only purpose of the "hold in lieu of
>PT" is to allow an aircraft on the feeder from HCH to complete a course
>reversal so that he can align himself with the final approach course. It
>is not used to get a lower altitude and consequent descent gradient as
>it might be on some course reversal procedures. The UH-60 was already
>aligned within the parameters of the TERPS criteria (90 degrees). If the
>route that the UH-60 flew just magically appeared as a published route
>on this procedure, it would be required to be published as NoPT.

I think what you are proposing is potentially dangerous. The fact of the
matter is that there is no published route. There also is no TAA.

Are we supposed to believe that ATC is now able to apply all of the
appropriate TERPS criteria "on the fly" in off route areas, and also have
the authority to legally and safely allow pilots to circumvent the
published regulations and SIAP?

I think that more than a compilation of bits and pieces from several
regulations is required to justify this conclusion.

Not all obstacles are on our charts. At my local airport, the controlling
obstacle for the GPS and/or NDB 15 approach appears on no aviation charts
at all.

It may be that a TAA could be established around MINES, and then this
discussion would be moot. But with a TAA, we pilots know that the area has
been surveyed.

It may also be that local pilots who are familiar with the area can safely
(although not legally, in my opinion) circumvent the published approach.

I just don't think you have shown that ATC has the authority to make that
circumvention legal. And I don't buy the "bits and pieces".


--ron

[[email protected]]

J Haggerty wrote:

> aligned within the parameters of the TERPS criteria (90 degrees). If the
> route that the UH-60 flew just magically appeared as a published route
> on this procedure, it would be required to be published as NoPT.

Not necessarily. Intercept angle is one of two criterion for publishing "NoPT."
The other is descent gradient.

[Chip Jones]

"J Haggerty" > wrote in message
news:65uXc.61810$wo.23863@okepread06...
> I didn't find any written authority that directly authorizes this. It
> would be more a compilation of bits and pieces from several regulations.
> Unfortunately, there's not much out there in the books that relates
> directly to GPS overlay procedures.

I agree the books are spotty for GPS overlay procedures.


>
> Example; FAAH 7110.65 Para 4-8-1 b. "For aircraft operating on
> unpublished routes, issue the approach clearance only after the aircraft
> is:
[snipped]
>
> On the procedure in question, the only purpose of the "hold in lieu of
> PT" is to allow an aircraft on the feeder from HCH to complete a course
> reversal so that he can align himself with the final approach course. It
> is not used to get a lower altitude and consequent descent gradient as
> it might be on some course reversal procedures. The UH-60 was already
> aligned within the parameters of the TERPS criteria (90 degrees). If the
> route that the UH-60 flew just magically appeared as a published route
> on this procedure, it would be required to be published as NoPT.

Good points. However, FAAO 7110.65, paragraph 5-9-1 is the controlling
paragraph relating to radar vectors to FAC for Center controllers. 5-9-1d
says:

"d. EN ROUTE. The following provisions are required before an aircraft may
be vectored to the final approach course:

1. The approach gate and a line (solid or broken), depicting the final
approach course starting at or passing through the approach gate and
extending away from the airport, be displayed on the radar scope; for a
precision approach, the line length shall extend at least the maximum range
of the localizer; for a nonprecision approach, the line length shall extend
at least 10NM outside the approach gate; and

2. The maximum range selected on the radar display is 150 NM; or

3. An adjacent radar display is set at 125 NM or less, configured for the
approach in use, and is utilized for the vector to the final approach
course.

4. If unable to comply with subparas 1, 2, or 3 above, issue the clearance
in accordance with para 4-8-1 Approach Clearance."



In the case of every non-precision approach in my airspace, including RKW,
the FAC is not displayed on the radar scope. We fail the test at provision
#1. The weenie language that applies to this particular approach into RKW
clearly forbids the controller from vectoring to FAC. Even if the pilot can
fly this approach without the course reversal, it looks like Center ATC
can't clear him to do so. Too bad those DME arc's disappeared...

Thanks for the input, I've learned a lot.



Chip, ZTL

[Doug]

Well, you have come up with a reason to do the hold, currency. I
wouldn't do it your way. If I am under an IFR flight plan, I pretty
much just do what the controller tells me to do (so long as it is
safe). I don't do any special requests. Why gum up the airspace? But
then, I get my currency while operating VFR, so it never comes up
much. There is enough confusion between pilots and ATC as it is
without adding training requests to IFR flight plans. Although I guess
if he's in a good mood and not busy, he'd probably go along with it.
Anyway, those mandatory procdure turns when you are already on the
approach course never made any sense to me. Rules that don't make
sense, shouldn't be there. This is because when we don't know the rule
(and who does know them all), we do it the sensible way. All law
should be based on common sense.

"SeeAndAvoid" > wrote in message . net>...
> "Doug" wrote...
> > As a pilot I see ABSOLUTELY no COMMON SENSE in having to
> > make a course reversal if I don't have to loose altitude and am on the
> > final approach course (or even within a few degrees of final approach
> > course) outside of the FAF. I mean, why do it? It takes time, burns
> > fuel, and increases risk.
>
> I can. FAR 61.57c, IFR currency requirements. In the case of this
> approach, the course reversal is a hold. I dont know for sure but
> I bet that was the intent with this pilot, get credit for the hold AND
> the approach. As a pilot there were times I wanted to do something
> like this only for currency, but the controller couldnt understand
> why I WANTED to hold at, usually, the missed approach point.
> But I always would say "request the approach with a turn in holding
> at XXXX" or something like that to make it real clear, not this
> "full approach" stuff.
> As a controller when I'm running approaches I'll get the request
> for a hold that seems to have no reason behind it, then I remember
> this currency requirement. Problem is there's not enough pilot
> controllers, and even less that are IFR rated or current.
>
> Chris
> - -
> Steve Bosell for President 2004
> "Vote for me or I'll sue you"
> www.philhendrieshow.com

[J Haggerty]

The route flown by the UH-60 was using Center's IFR altitude at 5000.
Descent gradient was not a problem, as the IAF altitude was also 5000.

wrote:

>>aligned within the parameters of the TERPS criteria (90 degrees). If the
>>route that the UH-60 flew just magically appeared as a published route
>>on this procedure, it would be required to be published as NoPT.
>
>
> Not necessarily. Intercept angle is one of two criterion for publishing "NoPT."
> The other is descent gradient.
>

[J Haggerty]

Ron,
If you read the paragraph, you'll note that the requirement is that the
aircraft be on a route or vector to an IAF. It's not unusual for an
aircraft to be cleared direct to a fix even though there's not a
published route. ATC would be required to ensure the aircraft was at a
suitable altitude for IFR operations on this route, but the navigation
would be provided by the pilot, in this case using GPS.
The paragraph I quoted actually gives the authority for ATC to give an
approach clearance by clearing him direct to MINES at 5000. If the
intercept angle was greater than 90 degrees, then a hold-in-lieu of PT
would have to be published, and on this procedure there is one
published, but it's not needed in the example because a course reversal
is not needed. Note that we're talking about a holding pattern in lieu
of a PT, and not an actual PT. An aircraft flying the VOR from the
feeder fix would be required to complete the hold-in-lieu for course
reversal.
Stand-alone RNAV procedures are published either with a TAA or without a
TAA. If there was a TAA, then the controller would not have to provide
the 5000 altitude restriction if the aircraft was within the TAA area,
because he would be on a published portion of the approach and could use
Para 4-8-1 b subpara 1 and 2 as directed by 4-8-1 e instead of 4-8 b
subpara 3. The situation I'm talking about is using subpara 3. The
aircraft was using a route rather than vectors, so the rules regarding
vectors do not apply.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:


>
> Then I don't understand you making up new rules.
>
I didn't make up para 4-8-1 b.
>
>>Example; FAAH 7110.65 Para 4-8-1 b. "For aircraft operating on
>>unpublished routes, issue the approach clearance only after the aircraft
>>is:
>> 3. Established on a heading or **course** that will intercept the
>>initial segment at the initial approach fix, or intermediate segment at
>>the intermediate fix when no initial approach fix is published, for a
>>GPS or RNAV instrument approach procedure at an angle not greater than
>>90 degrees. Angles greater than 90 degrees may be used when a hold in
>>lieu of procedure turn pattern is depicted at the fix for the instrument
>>approach procedure. (See FIG 4-8-2.)"
>> EXAMPLE- Aircraft 1 can be cleared direct to CENTR. The intercept
>>angle at that IAF is 90 degrees or less. The minimum altitude for IFR
>>operations (14 CFR Section 91.177) along the flight path to the IAF is
>>3,000 feet. "Cleared direct CENTR, maintain at or above three thousand
>>until CENTR, cleared R-NAV Runway One Eight approach."
>>
>>In this example, they are talking about RNAV procedures, but the UH-60
>>was navigating to the IAF using the GPS. If he didn't have GPS, he would
>>not have been on an unpublished non-radar route to the IAF and this
>>paragraph would not apply.
>>
>>On the procedure in question, the only purpose of the "hold in lieu of
>>PT" is to allow an aircraft on the feeder from HCH to complete a course
>>reversal so that he can align himself with the final approach course. It
>>is not used to get a lower altitude and consequent descent gradient as
>>it might be on some course reversal procedures. The UH-60 was already
>>aligned within the parameters of the TERPS criteria (90 degrees). If the
>>route that the UH-60 flew just magically appeared as a published route
>>on this procedure, it would be required to be published as NoPT.
>
>
> I think what you are proposing is potentially dangerous. The fact of the
> matter is that there is no published route. There also is no TAA.

The paragraph is talking about **unpublished** routes. TAA's use a
different paragraph of the 7110.65.
>
> Are we supposed to believe that ATC is now able to apply all of the
> appropriate TERPS criteria "on the fly" in off route areas, and also have
> the authority to legally and safely allow pilots to circumvent the
> published regulations and SIAP?
No, they use the criteria contained in the paragraph shown.

>
> I think that more than a compilation of bits and pieces from several
> regulations is required to justify this conclusion.
>
> Not all obstacles are on our charts. At my local airport, the controlling
> obstacle for the GPS and/or NDB 15 approach appears on no aviation charts
> at all.

True, but TRACONS and CENTERS have to have their charts approved by AVN
and they have to ensure the same IFR altitudes as the feeder routes and
TAA's. The TAA's and feeder routes don't normally depict obstacles either.
>
> It may be that a TAA could be established around MINES, and then this
> discussion would be moot. But with a TAA, we pilots know that the area has
> been surveyed.
Overlay procedures do not have TAA's. The GPS portion is treated just as
the paragraph above explains.

>
> --ron

JPH