Established on the approach - Checkride question

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...

Agreed, but the *pilot* must know when he's established on a segment
of the approach.


The pilot should practice the fine art of navigation.



I'm not questioning the clearance, but I'm questioning whether the
pilot should rely on ATC's interpretation of what it means to be
established.


If the pilot doesn't know what it means to be established he shouldn't be
flying IFR.



No, they descended to published altitudes BEFORE they reached the
point where those altitudes applied. They were not on a "black line".


How does that differ from what I wrote?

You can review the incident he

http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9806.html


I don't have a copy of the VOR/DME RWY 12 approach from 1974, but the
transcript has the pilot referring to a step-down fix on it.

Capt: "You know, according to this dumb sheet [referring to the instrument
approach chart] it says thirty-four hundred to Round Hill--is our minimum
altitude." The FE asked where the captain saw that, and the captain replied,
"Well, here. Round Hill is eleven-and-a-half DME."

Note that that conservation took place about three and a half minutes after
they were cleared for the approach and the pilot started a descent to 1800
feet. The pilot saw a minimum altitude applicable to the route in front of
them and he elected to descend through it.

wrote in message
...

The VOR/DME Runway 12 approach in effect at IAD at the time, which was
used by TWA 514, was defective in that the profile began at the FAF, even
though the intermediate segment was in the plan view. That did not meet
charting specs in effect at the time.


That may be, but the transcript shows the pilot was aware of the higher
altitude that applied to Round Hill and descended below it anyway.

wrote in message
...

Doesn't this imply that ATC was providiong terrain clearance?


Yes.



While "established" is a bit ambiguous when shortcutting an IAP, it seems
that this 2000' clearance (should) provide safe operation between the
current position and the point of intersecting the 052 radial.

Is this true?


Yes. If that's a verbatim quote of the approach clearance it's pretty
sloppy on the part of the controller. I suspect the writer didn't remember
it quite right, even the sloppiest controllers tend to include the C-word in
their approach clearances.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...

Wrong. There is no intermediate segment. The approach begins at
MANDD, period.


Did you look at the chart I posted?



I've already discussed this approach with the Flight Procedures folk,
who all agree that the chart doesn't permit a descent until you get on
a black line, which starts at the FAF.


Well, then, the flight procedures folks are wrong, the chart clearly permits
a descent to 2000 MSL once established on the localizer outside of MANDD.
Do you see the underlined 2000 figure immediately left of the maltese cross
in the profile view? Did you think that was just there for decorative
purposes?



How could you conceivably think otherwise?


Because that's the way it is. Whatever gave you the idea you couldn't
descend to a published altitude once established on an instrument approach
procedure?



The controller has already admitted he was wrong; after making a lot
of phone calls, he found the guy that designed the approach.


Sounds like the controller was just humoring you.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
. ..

I think his point was just becuase you are on the localizer doesn't
mean you're on the published approach (and allowed to descend).


His points seem to change as he's asked questions about them. His statement
that I queried was; "Yes, it is. Still, sometimes we get 'until established
on the localizer', but it has the same meaning as 'established on the
approach'. ATC just doesn't understand the difference." The question I
asked was; "Assuming that you're being vectored to a localizer, what is the
difference?" Obviously, if what you're being vectored to on the approach is
a localizer there's no difference at all. His answer; "Because the
localizer extends out *much* further than does the intermediate segment."
made no sense at all. When one is being vectored to a localizer one is
generally being vectored to the intermediate segment.



Is ATC prohibited form vectoring you farther out on the localizer than the
approach begins?


There is no such prohibition. If the vector will have the aircraft join
beyond a published segment an altitude to maintain to a specific fix must be
issued with the approach clearance, or the approach clearance must be
withheld until the aircraft is on a published segment.

His answer; "Because the
localizer extends out *much* further than
does the intermediate segment."
made no sense at all.


I've been enroute to DXR and been vectored to follow the localizer in while 25
miles away. I'm clearly not on an "approach segment" and just using the
localizer for enroute course guidance. (I was also not cleard for the approach
at that point)


If the vector will have the aircraft join
beyond a published segment an altitude to maintain to a specific fix must be
issued with the approach clearance, or the approach clearance must be
withheld until the aircraft is on a published segment.


That's what happened in my case.

Jose





--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
...

OLV Loc 18.

It's been replaced now by an ILS, so it's no longer an issue.

The approach started at the FAF. No intermediate or initial segment.


You misunderstood that approach. I have a US Terminal Procedures book SC-4
dated 26 Feb 1998, I scanned and posted a copy of this procedure to
alt.binaries.pictures.aviation so you can review it. ATC cleared you to
2500 until established on the localizer because that's the MVA in that area.
Once you were cleared for the approach and had joined the localizer you were
to descend in accordance with FAR 91.175(i) to the 2000 minimum altitude
until MANDD, upon reaching MANDD you descend to the MDA, 800 feet. See the
profile view.

Not so, Steve. The 2,000' shown on that 1998 chart is evaluated by the
procedures specialist only at the FAF, including any fix displacement factors.
If the MVA were 2,500, then the airspace below 2,500 until reaching the fix
displacement area for MANDD would be "TWA 514-land." Further, you cannot be
established on the LOC in that procedure prior to MANDD, in the context that
"established" when issued by ATC, means established in a published segment of
the approach.in accordance with FAR 91.175(i) and related AIM/7110.65 guidance.

Further, because controllers were misapplying the long-standing requirements of
the 7110.65 to NOT use the word "established" when vectoring an aircraft to an
unpublished extension of a published segment of an IAP, Air Traffic Bulletin
2001-04 was issued to provide clarification of *existing* air traffic policy.
The link and bulletin title follow:

http://www2.faa.gov/ATpubs/atbarc/01-4.htm

"Vectors to Final Approach Course Prior to Published Segment of an Instrument
Approach Procedure (IAP)"

The correct clearance in 1998 for that approach would be, "Intercept the
localizer, cross MANDD at 2,500, then cleared for the LOC/DME 18 approach."

And, this approach, and many other "Radar Required" IAPs without an intermediate
segment, not only resulted in confusion, but could also force the aircraft to
maintain MVA to the FAF, which in some cases (like this one) was higher than a
TERPsed intermediate segment would apply.

ALPA complained about this lack of intermediate segments in 1998, or so, and
over 100 such IAPs were identified and scheduled for correction. Most of them
have since been corrected. AVN-100 has a worksheet, which they present at the
Aeronautical Charting Forum each 6 months to show the progess on the repair of
these "intermediateless" IAPs.

How you read 91.175(i) to permit the pilot to depart MVA and descend to 2,000'
prior to MANDD escapes me. That is pretty much what the crew of TWA 514 did,
and which resulted in 91.175(i) being written; i.e., *published* route or
segment.

Greg Esres wrote:

Once you're established on a published segment you can descend to
the appropriate altitude for that segment.

Agreed, but the *pilot* must know when he's established on a segment
of the approach. A random controller is not qualified to determine
that.

There's a question here about the clearance; either ATC issued an
improper clearance or it was quoted incorrectly. But ATC did issue an
altitude to maintain until established, 2000 feet.


I'm not questioning the clearance, but I'm questioning whether the
pilot should rely on ATC's interpretation of what it means to be
established.

Bad example. TWA514 was not vectored for the approach, they simply
descended below the published altitude for their route.

No, they descended to published altitudes BEFORE they reached the
point where those altitudes applied. They were not on a "black line".

I think this example is appropriate because

1) involves the definition of "established", and
2) involves confusion between who is providing terrain clearance.

You're spot on. See example #3 in AIM 5-9-4.

Thanks for all your posts. Makes a lot of sense. Just to clarify. The
controller did also clear me for the NDB approach as part of his
clearance. Just did not put it into the verbatim.


"Kobra" wrote in message ...
How would you know when you're at the 10nm circle? Not sure, but I'll throw
this in for debate: lay your plotter's compass rose on KITSAP and line up
the 203 bearing. Read the radial off the compass rose that points to the
circle's edge. It looks like 180 might do it. Fly the final approach
course at 2000' until you intercept the 180 bearing from KITSAP and you're
at the 10nm ring.

Some might say that what's outside the circle is not to scale. But the
fact that there's no squiggly line in front of KITSAP says to me that it is
to scale.

Personally, this is the best reason to pick up that Garmin 295 or 196. You
can't use it for the approach, but you can use it for situational awareness
and identifying certain fixes that would otherwise be allusive.

Kobra
PP-SEL IA
"endre" wrote in message
om...
I did my instrument checkride the other day and passed...

Question for this group.

I was being radar vectored for the SHN NDB approach. I was cleared in
the following way: Cessna 61786 14 miles from NDB descend and maintain
2000 until established.

The problem: I was outside the 10 mile ring on the plate, established
on the inbound course, no way to tell when I would be inside 10 mile.
However, I would need to descend to 1400 before the NDB to have a
chance to descend to MDA of 900.

What would you all do?

Endre

Greg Esres wrote:


Bad example. TWA514 was not vectored for the approach, they simply
descended below the published altitude for their route.

No, they descended to published altitudes BEFORE they reached the
point where those altitudes applied. They were not on a "black line".

I think this example is appropriate because

1) involves the definition of "established", and
2) involves confusion between who is providing terrain clearance.

TWA 514 is a good example. Contrary to what Steve asserts, they were
vectored and they were not on a published route at the terminous of that
vector.

Washington Center took them off their published route and vectored them to
an extension of the final approach course for the IAD VOR/DME RWY 12 IAP.
The intercept occurred some 30 miles NW of the VOR and told to descend to
and manintain 7,000. The center then handed them off to IAD TRACON. The
approach controller simply cleared them for the approach without issuing
any crossing fixes or altitude restrictions. The flight was still on an
unpublished extension of the final approach course when cleared for the
approach.

At the NTSB hearing the FAA alleged that the flight was a non-radar
arrival, thus the approach controller had no duties or responsibilities to
monitor the flight in any manner on radar. Needless to say, that didn't
sit well in most quarters.