If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael" wrote in message om... "Chip Jones" wrote The trainee and I did discuss where the "full approach" began. Since we rarely work aircraft approaching RKW from the east, it was a legitimate question in my mind. Chip, I'm honestly not trying to be a pain, but while the question was a legitimate one in your mind, it wasn't legitimate regulatorily. In other words, I think the source of the confusion is a less-than-ideal understanding of the applicable rules. Don't feel too bad - I just saw the same level of understanding in a 1500+ hour multi/IFR pilot I flew with recently. Hey man, I don't feel bad at all and I don't see you being a pain. I was the guy who posted the question, and I'm the guy who was supposed to know the answer before hand. The question shouldn't even come up, hehehe. I imagine my "IFR" time is around 16,000 hours of live air traffic control. I'd say I still do have a less than ideal understanding of the applicable rules pertaining to certain IAP's. That's why I drop in here from time to time. This aircraft had GPS, so I said I though the full approach in this case begins at the IAF (MINES) The full approach ALWAYS begins at the IAF (or an IAF if there is more than one) regardless of how the aircraft is equipped. and we could clear him to MINES via GPS-direct. There's the difference. Since the aircraft had RNAV (not necessarily GPS - any kind of approved RNAV would be fine, since the approach does not start until the IAF is crossed) you could clear him direct to MINES. Without RNAV, you would need an alternate plan. Because of ATC workload, without RNAV equipment the *pilot* would need an alternate plan in this case. We were busy. We have no obligation to vector non-Rnav aircraft on an unpublished route. In this particular event, he'd have likely been sent direct HCH because it was the easy thing for the trainee to do. HCH is on the plate. [snipped] Now I'm wondering what I could have done with this UH-60 if it had been a /A instead of a /G. We don't clear /A's direct to intersections. Where does the "full approach" begin for a non-RNAV on this procedure. I can't vector to final at this location. I'm pretty sure you can vector an aircraft to intercept an airway - can you do the same for a random VOR radial? How about "Fly heading XXX, intercept the HCH-060 radial, track the radial to MINES, cleared for the full approach, report procedure turn inbound?" I can vector to a random VOR radial, but I cannot vector to the final approach course. The HCH-060R is also the final approach course inside of MINES. MINES (and the HCH 27 DME) is not depicted on the scope. Vectors are workload permitting, and we were busy elsewhere. Therefore, I don't know whether I would have vectored here or not in the event. If the Army had crashed and burned (say the tail rotor fell off, nothing related to the approach), how would I explain to the rules lawyers that I was merely vectoring to a random radial that also happened to define the FAC? I cannot clear aircraft operating on non-published routes (like a random vector to join the 060R) for approach until they are established on a segment of the IAP or a published route or I assign an altitude to maintain until they are so established (or they are doing a GPS or RNAV approach). These rules exist as a result of other ATC screw-ups in the past. A vector to intercept the FAC radial, followed by an approach clearance to an aircraft with a horrible UHF radio to read it back with could end up being misconstrued as a vector to final (although the "Report procedure turn inbound" should eliminate the possibility of a misunderstanding). All that aside, I do believe that your example is basically legal (I'd have to clean up the phraseology a little bit to CYA). I may try it next time I work one into RKW from the east, assuming I get to him far enough away from MINES to make a vector workable. I appreciate the insight, Chip, ZTL |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 04:00:48 GMT, "Chip Jones"
wrote: All that aside, I do believe that your example is basically legal (I'd have to clean up the phraseology a little bit to CYA). I may try it next time I work one into RKW from the east, assuming I get to him far enough away from MINES to make a vector workable. How about something like: "Fly heading of 270 until intercepting the HCH 060 radial, then direct Mines. Maintain 5000 (or your MIA/MVA for the area, if higher) until MINES; cleared for the approach"? I would not interpret such a clearance as being a "vector-to-final" --ron |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Chip, there's a website you can check whenever you want that has the
upcoming proposed TERPS procedures on them; http://avn.faa.gov/acifp.asp You can click on the state and it will show the procedures for every city in that state that have been prepared for future publication and are in the coordination stage. You can then click on the folder icon and it will show you the procedure forms, maps of the procedures, graphic depiction, and even the dash-2's (fix forms). JPH Chip Jones wrote: I'd love to find an Airspace and Procedures guy anywhere in my Region who had a clue to begin with. Down here in ZTL, we have a total disconnect between the guys maintaining procedures for the facility, the guys publishing new procedures up at the Regional level (Terps guys) and the men and women keying the mic at the sector. For example, GPS approaches are dropping into my airspace like landmines. We don't get briefed on the changes anymore. Heck they aren't even "read and initial" items these days, likely because the 530 guy doesn't even know about them. They even change things like a missed approach procedure and the only way you can spot it is by reading the paper IAP plate before issuing the clearance. They plop new approaches in the airspace and you discover them when the pilot requests the procedure and you scramble for the plate. We are so short staffed right now at ZTL, we don't even do crew/team training anymore. I haven't had a Team Training in three years. Everyone is months behind on CBI's. Our facility Airspace office doesn't even pretend to try anymore. Yall are probably the same way out there- it's getting pretty bad all over the Enroute community. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"J Haggerty" wrote in message newscdXc.60498$wo.55624@okepread06... Chip, there's a website you can check whenever you want that has the upcoming proposed TERPS procedures on them; http://avn.faa.gov/acifp.asp You can click on the state and it will show the procedures for every city in that state that have been prepared for future publication and are in the coordination stage. You can then click on the folder icon and it will show you the procedure forms, maps of the procedures, graphic depiction, and even the dash-2's (fix forms). HEYYY!!! Thanks!!! Chip, ZTL |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
20 questions time: how does someone positively identify which fix is the
intermediate fix? J Haggerty wrote: Chip, there's a website you can check whenever you want that has the upcoming proposed TERPS procedures on them; http://avn.faa.gov/acifp.asp You can click on the state and it will show the procedures for every city in that state that have been prepared for future publication and are in the coordination stage. You can then click on the folder icon and it will show you the procedure forms, maps of the procedures, graphic depiction, and even the dash-2's (fix forms). JPH Chip Jones wrote: I'd love to find an Airspace and Procedures guy anywhere in my Region who had a clue to begin with. Down here in ZTL, we have a total disconnect between the guys maintaining procedures for the facility, the guys publishing new procedures up at the Regional level (Terps guys) and the men and women keying the mic at the sector. For example, GPS approaches are dropping into my airspace like landmines. We don't get briefed on the changes anymore. Heck they aren't even "read and initial" items these days, likely because the 530 guy doesn't even know about them. They even change things like a missed approach procedure and the only way you can spot it is by reading the paper IAP plate before issuing the clearance. They plop new approaches in the airspace and you discover them when the pilot requests the procedure and you scramble for the plate. We are so short staffed right now at ZTL, we don't even do crew/team training anymore. I haven't had a Team Training in three years. Everyone is months behind on CBI's. Our facility Airspace office doesn't even pretend to try anymore. Yall are probably the same way out there- it's getting pretty bad all over the Enroute community. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
where to ask question about approach? | J Haggerty | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | August 17th 04 06:30 AM |
Canadian holding procedures | Derrick Early | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | July 22nd 04 04:03 PM |
Approach Question- Published Missed Can't be flown? | Brad Z | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | May 6th 04 04:19 AM |
Why is ADF or Radar Required on MFD ILS RWY 32 Approach Plate? | S. Ramirez | Instrument Flight Rules | 17 | April 2nd 04 11:13 AM |
Established on the approach - Checkride question | endre | Instrument Flight Rules | 59 | October 6th 03 04:36 PM |