ILS question

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

From a purely instructor-centric point of view, I would prefer that
controllers treat VFR practice approaches *exactly* like IFR ones. It's
a training exercise; the more things you do differently from real life,
the less effective the training is.

I can understand that from the trainees point of view, but alas it isn't
that way.

In any case, you end up eating up brain cycles sorting out how high you
should be, when the issue would never come up on an IFR flight.

Yep.

Roy Smith wrote in
:

From a purely instructor-centric point of view, I would
prefer that controllers treat VFR practice approaches
*exactly* like IFR ones. It's a training exercise; the
more things you do differently from real life, the less
effective the training is.

If you want it treated *exactly* like IFR, then file IFR.
Controllers don't know if you're an instructor training a
student, or just playing around, or what if you're VFR. If
you're IFR, then they have to do everything by the IFR book,
regardless of the weather. Do you feel that filing and flying
IFR is really that difficult, or restrictive, when teaching?

--
Regards,

Stan

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

From a purely instructor-centric point of view, I would prefer that
controllers treat VFR practice approaches *exactly* like IFR ones. It's
a training exercise; the more things you do differently from real life,
the less effective the training is.


So do your training under IFR.

Newps wrote:

"Chris Brooks" wrote in message
...

We need more information. Exactly where were you and exactly what did the
controller say? If you were VFR and practicing approaches while VFR then it
doesn't matter what he said because the last thing he'll say is maintain
VFR. When you are VFR it is not necessary for the controller to follow the
regs as if you were IFR.

He stated he was "cleared for the ILS approach." Perhaps he was issued a VFR
restriction, but absent his having added the qualifier the discussion is more
meaningful assuming IFR. This isn't an inquistion. ;-)



When does a published part of the approach begin?

On any thick black line.

At HAIGS?

Sure.

Can you be
considered on a published part of the approach before crossing HAIGS?

While doing the procedure turn.

In the case, the hold in lieu course reversal. ;-)




Also, if he said cross HAIGS at or above 4,000 feet, is that a clearence
to
descend to 4,000 feet?

Yes.


Most of the time when shooting ILS's the controller will step you down to
the altitude that is on the chart.

Were you IFR at the time? If you were VFR then the controller does not ever
have to mention an altitude.

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:20:40 -0400, "Chris Brooks"
wrote:

When does a published part of the approach begin? At HAIGS?

Yes.

Can you be considered on a published part of the approach before crossing HAIGS?


For the purposes of altitude, only if you are receiving "vectors to final"


Also, if he said cross HAIGS at or above 4,000 feet, is that a clearence to
descend to 4,000 feet?

Yes.

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

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
news

Yes.


So when you turn inbound on the hold you're not on a published part of the
approach?



For the purposes of altitude, only if you are receiving "vectors to final"


Which he was in this case.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:36:13 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

So when you turn inbound on the hold you're not on a published part of the
approach?

Of course you are. What sort of question is that?


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

Chris Brooks wrote:

When does a published part of the approach begin? At HAIGS? Can you be
considered on a published part of the approach before crossing HAIGS?


No.


Also, if he said cross HAIGS at or above 4,000 feet, is that a clearence to
descend to 4,000 feet?

Yes. But, if you have an iota of doubt you request clarification.



Most of the time when shooting ILS's the controller will step you down to
the altitude that is on the chart.


That's what they're supposed to do.


wrote in message ...

wrote in message ...

That's what they're supposed to do.


What do you base that on?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

That's what they're supposed to do.


What do you base that on?

5-9-1 requirement to issue an altitude compatible with an NPA or an altitude
below the G/S for a PA.

"b. For a precision approach, at an altitude not above the
glideslope/glidepath or below the minimum glideslope intercept altitude
specified on the approach procedure chart.
c. For a nonprecision approach, at an altitude which will allow descent in
accordance with the published procedure."

Even if he was vectored onto "final" 50 miles out, 5-9-4 leads to 5-9-1.
This stuff is written to make the IAP flyable, not to provide loopholes for
controllers. ;-)