ATC says wrong position

When being vectored, and ATC says your 4 miles from X, I noticed
occasionally that they state the wrong X. They confuse the FAF with
the IF. For this reason, I tell students to never rely on ATC's
distance statements to make a descent.

How often do others see this?

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:06:39 GMT, Greg Esres wrote:

When being vectored, and ATC says your 4 miles from X, I noticed
occasionally that they state the wrong X. They confuse the FAF with
the IF. For this reason, I tell students to never rely on ATC's
distance statements to make a descent.

How often do others see this?

I guess I'm not understanding the circumstance clearly, that might lead
someone to use that kind of information as an "OK to descend" point.

If ATC is giving an approach clearance, and you are being radar vectored or
on a random route, you should have received an "altitude to maintain until
...."

If you are approaching an IAF that has a procedure turn, and you are NOT
receiving radar vectors to final, I was taught that being on a published
portion of the approach meant that I had to cross the IAF first.

?????


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

I guess I'm not understanding the circumstance clearly, that might
lead someone to use that kind of information as an "OK to descend"
point.

When being vectored outside the FAF, ATC will say, "You're 4 miles
from x, turn left heading 210, maintain 2,500 until established,
cleared for the approach".

If you are between the IF and the FAF (as they said you were), then
the published altitude is 2,000. If you are outside the IF, the
published altitude remains 2,500.

If ATC says you're 4 miles outside the FAF, but you're really 4 miles
outside the IF, then if you descend based on that info, you've screwed
up.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:28:40 GMT, Greg Esres wrote:

I guess I'm not understanding the circumstance clearly, that might
lead someone to use that kind of information as an "OK to descend"
point.

When being vectored outside the FAF, ATC will say, "You're 4 miles
from x, turn left heading 210, maintain 2,500 until established,
cleared for the approach".

If you are between the IF and the FAF (as they said you were), then
the published altitude is 2,000. If you are outside the IF, the
published altitude remains 2,500.

If ATC says you're 4 miles outside the FAF, but you're really 4 miles
outside the IF, then if you descend based on that info, you've screwed
up.



OK, I understand now. I'm not an instructor, so I can only repeat back
what I learned years ago. I think my approach would be to emphasize to the
student the importance of situational awareness in all instances, and the
attitude that he is the one flying and responsible.

An intermediate segment is usually at least five miles long. So if all of
a sudden ATC places the pilot 5+ miles from where the pilot thinks he is,
that should trigger an immediate reaction to verify position.

I think students (and advanced pilots) sometimes fall into the trap of
allowing/expecting too much hand-holding from ATC. That may be more true
in certain areas of the country than others. So I think it's extremely
important to emphasize SA, responsibility, and the importance of being on a
published segment of the approach (and knowing exactly where you are)
before beginning a descent.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

I think my approach would be to emphasize to the student the
importance of situational awareness in all instances, and the
attitude that he is the one flying and responsible...I think students
(and advanced pilots) sometimes fall into the trap of
allowing/expecting too much hand-holding from ATC.

I agree with all you said.

I've been aware of this problem with ATC for a while and use it to
illustrate to students how important it is for THEM to be in charge.

I was just curious as to 1) how often others had noticed this, and 2)
who was using this information in order to descend to intermediate
altitudes.

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 19:49:50 GMT, Greg Esres wrote:

I think my approach would be to emphasize to the student the
importance of situational awareness in all instances, and the
attitude that he is the one flying and responsible...I think students
(and advanced pilots) sometimes fall into the trap of
allowing/expecting too much hand-holding from ATC.

I agree with all you said.

I've been aware of this problem with ATC for a while and use it to
illustrate to students how important it is for THEM to be in charge.

I was just curious as to 1) how often others had noticed this, and 2)
who was using this information in order to descend to intermediate
altitudes.


I cannot recall ever hearing ATC give me a "distance from" an incorrect fix
during an approach clearance. 90% of my flying is in the NE receiving
radar services.

Also, my recollection (and I could be wrong here), is that during the times
I get a "maintain ....ft until established" clearance, it's for a precision
approach. For non-precision approaches, I've received a "maintain ...ft
until crossing xyz"


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Greg Esres wrote:

When being vectored, and ATC says your 4 miles from X, I noticed
occasionally that they state the wrong X. They confuse the FAF with
the IF. For this reason, I tell students to never rely on ATC's
distance statements to make a descent.

How often do others see this?

That's one of the many valuable purposes that a moving map of the MVA
chart would serve. Of course, with GPS, the pilot can, and should be,
the final authority on the distance to the final approach fix or point.

Of course, with GPS, the pilot can, and should be, the final
authority on the distance to the final approach fix or point.

Agreed.

However, this "service" provided by ATC occured (I suppose) long
before we had means to always verify the information. Seems a bit
unsafe.

Greg Esres wrote:

Of course, with GPS, the pilot can, and should be, the final
authority on the distance to the final approach fix or point.

Agreed.

However, this "service" provided by ATC occured (I suppose) long
before we had means to always verify the information. Seems a bit
unsafe.

Go back to TWA 514 in 1974 and they didn't provide much information at
all with vectors to approach courses.

There have been more unsafe situations resulting from vectors over the
years than anyone really knows. The NASA database is full of them, but
the FAA ignores the issue. Some are controller errors, some are pilot
errors, and some are a combination of the two.

wrote in message ...


Greg Esres wrote:

Of course, with GPS, the pilot can, and should be, the final
authority on the distance to the final approach fix or point.

Agreed.

However, this "service" provided by ATC occured (I suppose) long
before we had means to always verify the information. Seems a bit
unsafe.

Go back to TWA 514 in 1974 and they didn't provide much information at
all with vectors to approach courses.

There have been more unsafe situations resulting from vectors over the
years than anyone really knows. The NASA database is full of them, but
the FAA ignores the issue. Some are controller errors, some are pilot
errors, and some are a combination of the two.

That is because FAA is afraid of opening ATC controllers up to civil
liability. What FAA fails to comprehend is that "gross negligence", or
"restraint of trade", is required to win a lawsuit in such a situation.
Human error is not gross negligence and the issue could be safely addressed.