CFII question for Approach Gurus

I had a surprise reaction from approach controller while entering the
GPS 23 at UCP:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0709/05842R23.PDF
I was doing a final pre-checkride lesson, and about 25 NW of UCP. In
IMC, assigned heading 250 at 4000. I expected the next word would be
"advise when you have the New Castle weather" and then "what approach
would you like?" But instead we got proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23
approach. OK, so student stayed at 4000, entered the procedure in the
530W and headed to Zarto, no problem.

Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all
agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no
sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.)

Anyway I thought the student might get to Zarto still at 4000 realize
there was time to descend to 2600 before Wobut and just turn inbound the
few degrees required. The 530 asks "do you want to hold at Zarto" and I
saw him pause and think about it and he selected "yes", which seemed
like a good answer (the only really correct answer I thought).

So as we turned outbound for the hold the controller comes on rather
gruffly and says "1234X, where are you going?" I got on and said
"...entering the hold as published " and he says "why, that is not
authorized, if you want to do it you have to ask.." I pointed out that
the only NoPT enteries were from the airways, and anyway we needed to
loose altitude in the hold.

So controller says "...that is incorrect. All entries in the arc from
Volan to Mercy are NoPT!! So where does that come from? Do controllers
have a different plate that we use? Also you would think the typo about
Volan would have been discovered and corrected. I have pointed out this
to NACO, controllers, etc. but it stays in the book. I am sure there
have been numerous arrivals at Volan westbound cleared for the approach,
which is common sense but violates the plate.

So can anyone help to clairfy my understanding and/or straighten out the
published word? Would you have entered the hold?

By the way I queried the student later about why he did the hold and he
said he didn't want to intercept the glide slope (LNAV+V...will be LPV
soon) from above in a descent. He thought there might be a "false lobe"
or phantom glideslope above as in ILS. We talked about that, so all in
all it was a good learning experience for him.

BillJ wrote:
So as we turned outbound for the hold the controller comes on rather
gruffly and says "1234X, where are you going?" I got on and said
"...entering the hold as published " and he says "why, that is not
authorized, if you want to do it you have to ask.." I pointed out that
the only NoPT enteries were from the airways, and anyway we needed to
loose altitude in the hold.

Bill,
It is my understanding that, when in radar contact, ATC does NOT expect
you to fly holding patterns no matter where depicted on the plates...
BUT
I cannot recall where I learned that, nor what publication would support
my statement, so I will be watching this thread with interest.

Ran into as situation last month at a strange airport (KHIO) where the
tower was expecting me to make a turn for the departure procedure and I
was waiting for them to tell me to start the turn. I guess I should
have spoken up ("when in doubt, shout it out").

Rich
(CFII for 30 years and still learning stuff)

Rich wrote:


BillJ wrote:

So as we turned outbound for the hold the controller comes on rather
gruffly and says "1234X, where are you going?" I got on and said
"...entering the hold as published " and he says "why, that is not
authorized, if you want to do it you have to ask.." I pointed out that
the only NoPT enteries were from the airways, and anyway we needed to
loose altitude in the hold.


Bill,
It is my understanding that, when in radar contact, ATC does NOT expect
you to fly holding patterns no matter where depicted on the plates...
BUT
I cannot recall where I learned that, nor what publication would support
my statement, so I will be watching this thread with interest.

Ran into as situation last month at a strange airport (KHIO) where the
tower was expecting me to make a turn for the departure procedure and I
was waiting for them to tell me to start the turn. I guess I should
have spoken up ("when in doubt, shout it out").

Rich
(CFII for 30 years and still learning stuff)
Well, many times I have done this same approach, coming from the south,
cleared direct Zarto, and you have to do the hold to reverse course.
They don't tell you to do that, you just do it.
Of course if they offer vectors, that's eliminated the hold.

So controller says "...that is incorrect. All entries in the arc from
Volan to Mercy are NoPT!! So where does that come from?

Where the sun doesn't shine most-likely. I've never heard of such a thing,
but as others here will attest, I'm no great source of wisdom. As I look at
the plate ZARTO is an IAF and that is where you were sent. There is no
where listed on the chart that NoPT is required of ZARTO.

No matter who's correct here, if I was NW of the AP I would have proceeded
with a parallel entry at ZARTO. If the turn was just right and my altitude
ok I would have proceeded immediately with the approach once back at ZARTO.
After all once cleared for the approach and you are established on a
published segment of the approach, you can proceed with that approach.
Correct? I guess my question is: After the parallel entry, even if one's
altitude and line-up are perfect at ZARTO, is one complete circuit around
the hold required anyway?

Kobra

BillJ wrote:
I had a surprise reaction from approach controller while entering the
GPS 23 at UCP:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0709/05842R23.PDF
I was doing a final pre-checkride lesson, and about 25 NW of UCP. In
IMC, assigned heading 250 at 4000. I expected the next word would be
"advise when you have the New Castle weather" and then "what approach
would you like?" But instead we got proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23
approach. OK, so student stayed at 4000, entered the procedure in the
530W and headed to Zarto, no problem.

Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all
agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no
sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.)

Anyway I thought the student might get to Zarto still at 4000 realize
there was time to descend to 2600 before Wobut and just turn inbound the
few degrees required. The 530 asks "do you want to hold at Zarto" and I
saw him pause and think about it and he selected "yes", which seemed
like a good answer (the only really correct answer I thought).

So as we turned outbound for the hold the controller comes on rather
gruffly and says "1234X, where are you going?" I got on and said
"...entering the hold as published " and he says "why, that is not
authorized, if you want to do it you have to ask.." I pointed out that
the only NoPT enteries were from the airways, and anyway we needed to
loose altitude in the hold.

So controller says "...that is incorrect. All entries in the arc from
Volan to Mercy are NoPT!! So where does that come from? Do controllers
have a different plate that we use? Also you would think the typo about
Volan would have been discovered and corrected. I have pointed out this
to NACO, controllers, etc. but it stays in the book. I am sure there
have been numerous arrivals at Volan westbound cleared for the approach,
which is common sense but violates the plate.

The controller was almost certainly applyin the provision where he is
authorized to clear you directly to an RNAV IAP's intermediate fix. If
he told you to expect clearance direct to ZARTO at least 5 miles from
ZARTO then you were expected to proceed straight-in in accordance with
AIM 5-4-7 i:

"i. ATC may clear aircraft that have filed an Advanced RNAV equipment
suffix to the intermediate fix when clearing aircraft for an instrument
approach procedure. ATC will take the following actions when clearing
Advanced RNAV aircraft to the intermediate fix:
1. Provide radar monitoring to the intermediate fix.
2. Advise the pilot to expect clearance direct to the intermediate fix
at least 5 miles from the fix.
NOTE-
This is to allow the pilot to program the RNAV equipment to allow the
aircraft to fly to the intermediate fix when cleared by ATC.
3. Assign an altitude to maintain until the intermediate fix.
4. Insure the aircraft is on a course that will intercept the
intermediate segment at an angle not greater than 90 degrees and is at
an altitude that will permit normal descent from the intermediate fix to
the final approach fix."

So can anyone help to clairfy my understanding and/or straighten out the
published word? Would you have entered the hold?

No, you were required to go straight-in IAW AIM 5-4-7-i. That is,
unless he did it really quick and did not give you at least 5 miles to
delete the hold-in-lieu. Then it was up to up to suspect 5-4-7-i was
being applied and say "unable straight in, we will need a turn in the
hold at ZARTO."

By the way I queried the student later about why he did the hold and he
said he didn't want to intercept the glide slope (LNAV+V...will be LPV
soon) from above in a descent. He thought there might be a "false lobe"
or phantom glideslope above as in ILS. We talked about that, so all in
all it was a good learning experience for him.

Well, at 4,000 the descent gradient from ZARTO to WOBUT is well under 3
degrees; 2.09 degrees actually.

You're right about the airway entry note at VOLAN, but that had nothing
to do about your handling.

Seems like pilots as a group have been very slow to understand AIM
5-4-7-1, which came into effect in February, 2006.

Kobra wrote:

So controller says "...that is incorrect. All entries in the arc from
Volan to Mercy are NoPT!! So where does that come from?


Where the sun doesn't shine most-likely. I've never heard of such a thing,
but as others here will attest, I'm no great source of wisdom. As I look at
the plate ZARTO is an IAF and that is where you were sent. There is no
where listed on the chart that NoPT is required of ZARTO.

No matter who's correct here, if I was NW of the AP I would have proceeded
with a parallel entry at ZARTO. If the turn was just right and my altitude
ok I would have proceeded immediately with the approach once back at ZARTO.
After all once cleared for the approach and you are established on a
published segment of the approach, you can proceed with that approach.
Correct? I guess my question is: After the parallel entry, even if one's
altitude and line-up are perfect at ZARTO, is one complete circuit around
the hold required anyway?

Kobra


Sorry, I should have said I was 25 NE , not NW

B wrote:


BillJ wrote:
I had a surprise reaction from approach controller while entering the
GPS 23 at UCP:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0709/05842R23.PDF
I was doing a final pre-checkride lesson, and about 25 NW of UCP. In
IMC, assigned heading 250 at 4000. I expected the next word would be
"advise when you have the New Castle weather" and then "what approach
would you like?" But instead we got proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23
approach. OK, so student stayed at 4000, entered the procedure in the
530W and headed to Zarto, no problem.

Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all
agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no
sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.)

Anyway I thought the student might get to Zarto still at 4000 realize
there was time to descend to 2600 before Wobut and just turn inbound the
few degrees required. The 530 asks "do you want to hold at Zarto" and I
saw him pause and think about it and he selected "yes", which seemed
like a good answer (the only really correct answer I thought).

So as we turned outbound for the hold the controller comes on rather
gruffly and says "1234X, where are you going?" I got on and said
"...entering the hold as published " and he says "why, that is not
authorized, if you want to do it you have to ask.." I pointed out that
the only NoPT enteries were from the airways, and anyway we needed to
loose altitude in the hold.

So controller says "...that is incorrect. All entries in the arc from
Volan to Mercy are NoPT!! So where does that come from? Do controllers
have a different plate that we use? Also you would think the typo about
Volan would have been discovered and corrected. I have pointed out this
to NACO, controllers, etc. but it stays in the book. I am sure there
have been numerous arrivals at Volan westbound cleared for the approach,
which is common sense but violates the plate.

The controller was almost certainly applyin the provision where he is
authorized to clear you directly to an RNAV IAP's intermediate fix. If
he told you to expect clearance direct to ZARTO at least 5 miles from
ZARTO then you were expected to proceed straight-in in accordance with
AIM 5-4-7 i:

"i. ATC may clear aircraft that have filed an Advanced RNAV equipment
suffix to the intermediate fix when clearing aircraft for an instrument
approach procedure. ATC will take the following actions when clearing
Advanced RNAV aircraft to the intermediate fix:
1. Provide radar monitoring to the intermediate fix.
2. Advise the pilot to expect clearance direct to the intermediate fix
at least 5 miles from the fix.
NOTE-
This is to allow the pilot to program the RNAV equipment to allow the
aircraft to fly to the intermediate fix when cleared by ATC.
3. Assign an altitude to maintain until the intermediate fix.
4. Insure the aircraft is on a course that will intercept the
intermediate segment at an angle not greater than 90 degrees and is at
an altitude that will permit normal descent from the intermediate fix to
the final approach fix."

So can anyone help to clairfy my understanding and/or straighten out the
published word? Would you have entered the hold?

No, you were required to go straight-in IAW AIM 5-4-7-i. That is,
unless he did it really quick and did not give you at least 5 miles to
delete the hold-in-lieu. Then it was up to up to suspect 5-4-7-i was
being applied and say "unable straight in, we will need a turn in the
hold at ZARTO."

By the way I queried the student later about why he did the hold and he
said he didn't want to intercept the glide slope (LNAV+V...will be LPV
soon) from above in a descent. He thought there might be a "false lobe"
or phantom glideslope above as in ILS. We talked about that, so all in
all it was a good learning experience for him.

Well, at 4,000 the descent gradient from ZARTO to WOBUT is well under 3
degrees; 2.09 degrees actually.

You're right about the airway entry note at VOLAN, but that had nothing
to do about your handling.

Seems like pilots as a group have been very slow to understand AIM
5-4-7-1, which came into effect in February, 2006.
Thanks, thats the answer I was looking for. I was thinking of Zarto only
as an IAF.

Bill

B wrote:


BillJ wrote:
I had a surprise reaction from approach controller while entering the
GPS 23 at UCP:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0709/05842R23.PDF
I was doing a final pre-checkride lesson, and about 25 NW of UCP. In
IMC, assigned heading 250 at 4000. I expected the next word would be
"advise when you have the New Castle weather" and then "what approach
would you like?" But instead we got proceed direct Zarto, cleared GPS 23
approach. OK, so student stayed at 4000, entered the procedure in the
530W and headed to Zarto, no problem.

Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all
agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no
sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.)

Anyway I thought the student might get to Zarto still at 4000 realize
there was time to descend to 2600 before Wobut and just turn inbound the
few degrees required. The 530 asks "do you want to hold at Zarto" and I
saw him pause and think about it and he selected "yes", which seemed
like a good answer (the only really correct answer I thought).

So as we turned outbound for the hold the controller comes on rather
gruffly and says "1234X, where are you going?" I got on and said
"...entering the hold as published " and he says "why, that is not
authorized, if you want to do it you have to ask.." I pointed out that
the only NoPT enteries were from the airways, and anyway we needed to
loose altitude in the hold.

So controller says "...that is incorrect. All entries in the arc from
Volan to Mercy are NoPT!! So where does that come from? Do controllers
have a different plate that we use? Also you would think the typo about
Volan would have been discovered and corrected. I have pointed out this
to NACO, controllers, etc. but it stays in the book. I am sure there
have been numerous arrivals at Volan westbound cleared for the approach,
which is common sense but violates the plate.

The controller was almost certainly applyin the provision where he is
authorized to clear you directly to an RNAV IAP's intermediate fix. If
he told you to expect clearance direct to ZARTO at least 5 miles from
ZARTO then you were expected to proceed straight-in in accordance with
AIM 5-4-7 i:

"i. ATC may clear aircraft that have filed an Advanced RNAV equipment
suffix to the intermediate fix when clearing aircraft for an instrument
approach procedure. ATC will take the following actions when clearing
Advanced RNAV aircraft to the intermediate fix:
1. Provide radar monitoring to the intermediate fix.
2. Advise the pilot to expect clearance direct to the intermediate fix
at least 5 miles from the fix.
NOTE-
This is to allow the pilot to program the RNAV equipment to allow the
aircraft to fly to the intermediate fix when cleared by ATC.
3. Assign an altitude to maintain until the intermediate fix.
4. Insure the aircraft is on a course that will intercept the
intermediate segment at an angle not greater than 90 degrees and is at
an altitude that will permit normal descent from the intermediate fix to
the final approach fix."

So can anyone help to clairfy my understanding and/or straighten out the
published word? Would you have entered the hold?

No, you were required to go straight-in IAW AIM 5-4-7-i. That is,
unless he did it really quick and did not give you at least 5 miles to
delete the hold-in-lieu. Then it was up to up to suspect 5-4-7-i was
being applied and say "unable straight in, we will need a turn in the
hold at ZARTO."

By the way I queried the student later about why he did the hold and he
said he didn't want to intercept the glide slope (LNAV+V...will be LPV
soon) from above in a descent. He thought there might be a "false lobe"
or phantom glideslope above as in ILS. We talked about that, so all in
all it was a good learning experience for him.

Well, at 4,000 the descent gradient from ZARTO to WOBUT is well under 3
degrees; 2.09 degrees actually.

You're right about the airway entry note at VOLAN, but that had nothing
to do about your handling.

Seems like pilots as a group have been very slow to understand AIM
5-4-7-1, which came into effect in February, 2006.
Thanks, that is the answer I was looking for. I was viewing Zarto only
as an IAF, not also an IF.
BUT, the controller seemed to also not understand this very well, having
given the bogus story of an arc of NoPT entries. Its the angle of
intercept that allowed it to happen.

Bill

BillJ wrote:
..

Thanks, that is the answer I was looking for. I was viewing Zarto only
as an IAF, not also an IF.
BUT, the controller seemed to also not understand this very well, having
given the bogus story of an arc of NoPT entries. Its the angle of
intercept that allowed it to happen.

Bill

They often receive just enough training on stuff like this to get by.
Although the national policy is 90 degrees, the airspace manager at that
facility may have established the limits as defined by those two fixes,
which is certainly their local option since it is more conservative than
what the national policy permits.

In article , BillJ
wrote:

I had a surprise reaction from approach controller while entering the
GPS 23 at UCP:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0709/05842R23.PDF
I was doing a final pre-checkride lesson, and about 25 NW of UCP. In
IMC, assigned heading 250 at 4000.

I'm confused. If you're 25 NW of the airport, why were on on a heading 250
vector? That takes you further away from the airport.

Side note: Notice the two other IAFs at Mercy and Volan. Mercy is on
North/South airway, and Volan on East/West. (First question: do we all
agree that the note that approach is NA from Volan WESTBOUND makes no
sense, it should be EASTBOUND? Similar to NA from Mercy northbound.)

I don't understand the note at all. Both the MERCY-ZARTO and VOLAN-ZARTO
segments are marked NoPT. Given that, I don't understand why the note is
needed at all, and why it only applies to arriving at those fixes from
certain directions. Other than that, making the PT NA for westbound
arrivals at VOLAN makes sense, but the prohibition for northbound arrivals
at MERCY seems backwards to me.

Anyway I thought the student might get to Zarto still at 4000 realize
there was time to descend to 2600 before Wobut and just turn inbound the
few degrees required.

Um, I'm guessing you made a typo up above and you really started this
approach 25 NE of the airport, not 25 NW?

The 530 asks "do you want to hold at Zarto" and I
saw him pause and think about it and he selected "yes", which seemed
like a good answer (the only really correct answer I thought).

Yeah, by my book, that's the only correct answer too. Unless you are on
vectors to the FAC (being cleared direct to the IAF is *NOT* vectors to the
FAC), or established on a NoPT segment, you need to do the PT. One lap
around a racetrack and drop 1000 feet in the process, to cross ZARTO
inbound at 3000. Makes sense to me.

If the controller didn't want to have you do the PT, there were two
reasonable things he could have done. One was vector you to the FAC, the
other was to clear you "direct MERCY, cleared GPS 23 approach" (assuming
you really were 25 NE of the airport).

So controller says "...that is incorrect. All entries in the arc from
Volan to Mercy are NoPT!!

Not the way the chart is drawn. Look at, for example, the ACY GPS 13;
that's got terminal arrival areas (I think that's the right name) charted.
If they're not charted that way, they don't exist. The controller is just
plain wrong.