"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Stan Prevost" wrote:

Just to be clear, it applies only to RNAV approaches and an RNAV-capable
aircraft. The ILS approach you were on does not meet that criterion.

The 7110.65 provides for controllers to issue the instruction. It is
5-4-7i
in the AIM.

Ah, thanks. 5-4-7-i says:

i. ATC may clear aircraft that have filed an Advanced RNAV equipment
suffix
to the intermediate fix when clearing aircraft for an instrument approach
procedure. ATC will take the following actions when clearing Advanced RNAV
aircraft to the intermediate fix:

1. Provide radar monitoring to the intermediate fix.

2. Advise the pilot to expect clearance direct to the intermediate fix at
least 5 miles from the fix.

NOTE-
This is to allow the pilot to program the RNAV equipment to allow the
aircraft to fly to the intermediate fix when cleared by ATC.

Which is fine. If the guy had told us 5 miles earlier, "expect direct
FARAN", that would have given us a couple of minutes to set the box up.
I'm not going to pick nits about RVAV vs. ILS, I'm just looking for a the
time it takes to do all the button pushing I have to do to comply with his
instruction.

The other thing I don't understand is why the controller preferred "direct
FARAN" to "fly heading 200 to intercept the localizer". They both boiled
down to about the same ground track. They both required that he monitor
our progress on radar. The heading to intercept was certainly easier for
us to execute. Was there some advantage to the controller to issue it the
way he did?


Not sure why you call it a nit. Your question related to whether the
instructions you received were legit. They were not. They were not issued
in accordance with the 7110.65 which is quite clear on this. When the rule
was changed to allow vectors to an IF, it was very specifically limited to
RNAV approaches.

From the 7110.65:

======================
4-8-1. APPROACH CLEARANCE

snip


b. For aircraft operating on unpublished routes, issue the approach
clearance only after the aircraft is:


...........snip
4. Established on a heading or course that will intercept the intermediate
segment at the intermediate fix, when an initial approach fix is published,
provided the following conditions are met:

(a) The instrument approach procedure is a GPS or RNAV approach.

(b) Radar monitoring is provided to the Intermediate Fix.

(c) The aircraft has filed an Advanced RNAV equipment suffix.

(d) The pilot is advised to expect clearance direct to the Intermediate Fix
at least 5 miles from the fix.

(e) The aircraft is assigned an altitude to maintain until the Intermediate
Fix.

(f) The aircraft is on a course that will intercept the intermediate segment
at an angle not greater than 90 degrees and is at an altitude that will
permit normal descent from the Intermediate Fix to the Final Approach Fix.

=========================

Note that (d) addresses your concern for more advance notice.

This controller did not seem to understand the rule, as did not the one who
gave me direct to an IF on a non-RNAV approach. The controller also did not
seem to know the IAP, based on your statement about his thinking FARAN was
an IAF.

Another "nit" is that your instructions did not meet the criteria for
skipping the PT.