Established on the approach - Checkride question

What approach is that?

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.

This was brought to ATPAC a couple of years ago, and supposedly
controllers were reminded of the difference in an Air Traffic
Bulletin.

They were. I have a copy of that publication with that reminder in
it, and used it as part of a package to persuade local instructors
that they were incorrect to permit descent before being on a black
line.

However, our controllers only very rarely used that phraseology.

One of our instructors talked to a Flight Procedures guy in OKC, who
raised the FAF to an altitude compatible with the vectoring altitude,
which caused no end of headaches with ATC. :-) Their fault for not
doing it right in the first place.

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.

Good points. I agree. But I'm not sure I would be able to decipher the
problem during an actual single pilot approach. This analysis certainly
helps.

"Greg Esres" wrote in message
news
So as a practical matter, assuming you are able to figure out the
misleading nature of the clearance, what would you do?

This is a difficult question when the ATC guy doesn't understand the
approach. Like the case I mentioned at my own airport, ATC vectored
us at 2,500, but expected us to descend to 2,000 once on the
localizer, even though the chart didn't permit the descent.

My requests for "lower" were met with a bit of disdain when the
controller told me to fly the approach chart, which he *thought* said
2,000.

Some of your suggested dialog makes me a little uncomfortable, because
it seems to lend itself to some miscommunication between ATC and the
pilot about who is providing terrain clearance. (This was the essence
of the TWA514 accident.)

I suppose the easiest answer is to ask ATC to inform you when you're
within 10 nm of the NDB.

But I'm not sure I would be able to decipher the problem during an
actual single pilot approach.

Me either. Most of my learning experiences occur after something
unexpected happens on an approach, and I come home and research the
issue by looking at my reference material or calling up ATC on the
telephone or maybe even flight procedures folk.

It's amazing that the system works at all. :-)

Greg Esres wrote:

What approach is that?

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.

Those Radar Required, no intermediate segment IAPs were the subject of
some considerable debate between ALPA and the FAA a few years ago. AFS
finally agreed they made no sense, and AVN-100 launched a program to add
published intermediates to all of them. Most of them should be done by
now.

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.

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.

: 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.

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

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

Most of them should be done by now.

I keep the plate around because I think it's instructive.


Vaguely related issue:

What are your thoughts about being vectored to final on an approach
whose intermediate segment is defined by a 1 minute hold-in-lieu that
you aren't doing?

I know that the protected area on a hold-in-lieu stretches a little
over 9 miles from the fix (template #4), but I'm not certain that it's
legit to use that information, since the segment is defined by timing.

Greg Esres wrote:

Most of them should be done by now.

I keep the plate around because I think it's instructive.

Vaguely related issue:

What are your thoughts about being vectored to final on an approach
whose intermediate segment is defined by a 1 minute hold-in-lieu that
you aren't doing?

I know that the protected area on a hold-in-lieu stretches a little
over 9 miles from the fix (template #4), but I'm not certain that it's
legit to use that information, since the segment is defined by timing.

That has been mentioned to AFS-420 and their eyes just fog over. They
aren't inclined to solve such "minor" problems because they don't like
dealing with Washington ATP staff very much. ;-)

It's a good example of the terrible, disfunctional disonnect within the
FAA between Flight Standards and Air Traffic Service.