VOR/DME Approach Question

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

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? ;-)

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.

(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.

"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

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 hlink.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