![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Mark Hansen wrote: I haven't looked at this particular approach, but I'll assume you're referring to the fact that your clearance limit is the airport, and that the regs require you to go to the clearance limit first? Correct. First of all, this is what the regulations tell you to do, and this is what you must do. Period. I'm not asking what is the required course of action. I am asking what is the wisest course of action. The fact that some controllers tell you that they would rather you do something different is irrelevant. They will not be defending you in a certificate action case. Quite so, but keeping my ticket is not my only consideration. There is also the safety of the flight to consider. Following the regs requires more time in the air, more maneuvering, more fuel consumption, and unnecessary traversal of extremely crowded airspace in IMC. All this entails additional risk. If I'm faced with a choice of risking my ticket or risking my safety I'll take the former. Incidentally, when I file an IFR flight plan, I select a fix which I can use to initiate my approach, and put a note in the remarks section which states: "In the event of lost communications, XYZ shall be treated as my clearance limit." This way, I don't have to do the back and forth - and it's legal (and expected by ATC). That seems like a sensible idea. I think I'll try that. This procedure is manifestly more dangerous than just flying the approach straight in (because it involves more maneuvering, more time in the air, more time over water). Moreover, under normal conditions the approach is ALWAYS flown straight in (via vectors) and under NORDO conditions the controllers expect you to fly the approach straight in (I know because I asked them) notwithstanding that this technically violates the regs. And fourth, the regs leave a lot of stuff unspecified. If you go by the regs in the current situation, you end up over KVNY at 11,000 feet, at which point you're supposed to initiate your descent. But there's no published hold at KVNY (to say nothing of the fact that KVNY is not an IAF for any approach to KVNY) so you have no choice but to improvise at that point. Not really. According to the regs, you go to your clearance limit, then to a point where you can begin your approach. Once you're on a published leg of the approach, you fly it's altitudes. This means you can begin your descent once you're on the IAP. If you need to hold at the fix to lose altitude, you do that. And what if there is no published hold (as is the case in the current situation)? rg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Real-world IFR currency | Paul Folbrecht | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | March 23rd 05 04:19 PM |
Real World Problem in FS9 | The Real Cali Kid | Simulators | 12 | December 6th 03 11:15 AM |
Real World Weather (Isabelle) | [email protected] | Simulators | 1 | September 21st 03 09:53 PM |
Real-time real world air traffic in flight sims | Marty Ross | Simulators | 6 | September 1st 03 04:13 AM |
Real World Specs for FS 2004 | Paul H. | Simulators | 16 | August 18th 03 09:25 AM |