CFII question for Approach Gurus

On 08/29/07 06:07, 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...

That's certainly *not* what I've been taught. If the plate shows a PT,
then the PT is required unless you're getting radar vectors. Actually,
the conditions where you should/should not execute the PT is covered
(more or less) in the AIM...

Being in radar contact has nothing to do with it.

I'm willing to be taught something new as well, however ;-)

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)



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

Roy Smith wrote:
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.

You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
effective February, 2006

Roy Smith wrote:
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.
Roy,
You are correct about my error, it should have been NE.
The procedure (not PT) is not available for arrivals AT Mercy northbound
because a course reversal is required with no charted way to do it.
Should be same at Volan for EAST arrivals, but it says WEST which is
nonsense. Of course in real life, noone would arrive at Mercy
northbound and then decide to do the approach. They would have been
vectored off the airway or cleared to Zarto much further south and in
that case the hold would be required to reverse course.

Hope this clears up your questions,
Bill

Roy Smith wrote:




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





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.

Roy,
You are correct about my error, it should have been NE.
The procedure (not PT) is not available for arrivals AT Mercy northbound
because a course reversal is required with no charted way to do it.
Should be same at Volan for EAST arrivals, but it says WEST which is
nonsense. Of course in real life, noone would arrive at Mercy
northbound and then decide to do the approach. They would have been
vectored off the airway or cleared to Zarto much further south and in
that case the hold would be required to reverse course.

Hope this clears up your questions,
Bill

In article , B wrote:

You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
effective February, 2006

5-5-7-i doesn't say anything about procedure turns. In fact, it says
nothing about pilot actions at all, only ATC actions. Now, it does
impose requirements on ATC that would make it possible to fly the
approach without the PT, which strongly implies that under these
circumstances one ought to fly the approach without a PT, but it doesn't
actually say so. Personally, if something went awry, I would much
rather stand up in front of the NTSB board and explain why I did fly the
PT than why I didn't.

In any case, it seems to me that an ASRS form is in order.

rg

"BillJ" wrote in message
...

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.)


Agreed.



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).


Few degrees required? If you were 25 NW of UCP when you were cleared direct
to ZARTO it sure looks like a turn of more than a few degrees would be
required to head inbound upon reaching ZARTO.



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?


Arc? What arc?



Do controllers have a different plate that we use?


Controllers use NACO charts. There's no arc. He's fulla crap.

"BillJ" wrote in message
...

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


Ah, that's different. In that case I'd have turned inbound upon reaching
ZARTO.

Ron Garret wrote:
In article , B wrote:


You all seems to need some recurrent training; i.e. AIM 5-4-7-i,
effective February, 2006


5-5-7-i doesn't say anything about procedure turns. In fact, it says
nothing about pilot actions at all, only ATC actions. Now, it does
impose requirements on ATC that would make it possible to fly the
approach without the PT, which strongly implies that under these
circumstances one ought to fly the approach without a PT, but it doesn't
actually say so. Personally, if something went awry, I would much
rather stand up in front of the NTSB board and explain why I did fly the
PT than why I didn't.

In any case, it seems to me that an ASRS form is in order.

rg

I guess you mean 5-4-7-1, not 5-5-7-i.

What part of number 4 do you not understand?

"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."

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

5-5-7-i doesn't say anything about procedure turns. In fact, it says
nothing about pilot actions at all, only ATC actions. Now, it does
impose requirements on ATC that would make it possible to fly the
approach without the PT, which strongly implies that under these
circumstances one ought to fly the approach without a PT, but it doesn't
actually say so. Personally, if something went awry, I would much
rather stand up in front of the NTSB board and explain why I did fly the
PT than why I didn't.


The AIM poses no requirements on ATC. ATC requirements are found in FAA
Order 7110.65.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

5-5-7-i doesn't say anything about procedure turns. In fact, it says
nothing about pilot actions at all, only ATC actions. Now, it does
impose requirements on ATC that would make it possible to fly the
approach without the PT, which strongly implies that under these
circumstances one ought to fly the approach without a PT, but it doesn't
actually say so. Personally, if something went awry, I would much
rather stand up in front of the NTSB board and explain why I did fly the
PT than why I didn't.



The AIM poses no requirements on ATC. ATC requirements are found in FAA
Order 7110.65.


The related language in 7110.65 reads pretty much the same as the AIM.