Is there something I'm missing about this approach?

luvflyin said:
Yeah. I was mostly replying to Russ's Canada's TERPs is pretty much the same as the US. It brings up questions about this Approach. They had him at 3000. Would you climb to 3100 when you got Cleared?? I wouldn't have. I think maybe their rule is that if the plane is below the MSA, then an altitude to maintain until established must be given and the Controller didn't?? None of that changes that the OP did descend prematurely regardless.
Click to expand...
It's perhaps a fine point, but "TERPS" refers to the procedure design itself, obstacle clearances, and such. Whether MSA is treated as a procedure altitude or not, and other similar regulatory issues, isn't a TERPS issue, but a policy one.

For example, with TWA 514, the descent that caused the mishap wasn't a TERPS issue, it was a policy/regulatory hole, or lack of guidance. The procedure design itself was fine.
 
luvflyin said:
He may not have but he intended to. Said Auto Pilot is in Approach mode cleared to descend, I'm at 3000 not quite to BOXON yet and I'm going to force it down to begin the descent toward 2800. Maybe by the time he got the buttons pushed and plane configured to descend he was at the point where a flyby descent could legally begin. At any rate it's no harm no foul. It's his home drome, he's shot the Approach many times. He picked 2800 instead of the recommended 2600 because he knew it would work.
Click to expand...
This is not uncommon, I do a similar thing fairly regularly at work when flying VOR approaches (so, no vertical guidance for the autopilot to latch onto - unlike the video in that regard though). I know it takes the autopilot several seconds to even start the descent, so I will often put it into VS mode a few tenths before the FAF, knowing the altitude will have barely changed if at all by the time we get there. But that means that when we get to the FAF, we're now getting close to the desired descent rate and can make the published altitudes easier.
 
RussR said:
This is not uncommon, I do a similar thing fairly regularly at work when flying VOR approaches (so, no vertical guidance for the autopilot to latch onto - unlike the video in that regard though). I know it takes the autopilot several seconds to even start the descent, so I will often put it into VS mode a few tenths before the FAF, knowing the altitude will have barely changed if at all by the time we get there. But that means that when we get to the FAF, we're now getting close to the desired descent rate and can make the published altitudes easier.
Click to expand...
You can see our discussion on YouTube but basically, Steve was just over a mile from BOXAM at 3,000. He knew that if he remained at 3,000 through the turn, he'd have to dive to capture the glidepath. So, knowing that there is protected airspace surrounding BOXAM, he decided to start down early. Having flown the approach before, he knew that 2800' by the time turn anticipation began would be enough to allow the autopilot to capture the GP.
 
midlifeflyer said:
You can see our discussion on YouTube but basically, Steve was just over a mile from BOXAM at 3,000. He knew that if he remained at 3,000 through the turn, he'd have to dive to capture the glidepath. So, knowing that there is protected airspace surrounding BOXAM, he decided to start down early. Having flown the approach before, he knew that 2800' by the time turn anticipation began would be enough to allow the autopilot to capture the GP.
Click to expand...
I just read the discussion you had with him, and I cannot support his decision given the reasons he provides.

As you know, I know a lot more than average about procedure design. I do know exactly how much protected area there is left and right, front and back, at various fixes on a procedure. I know how much altitude buffer is applied to obstacles. i know which obstacles are considered and which ones fall under various exception criteria. But that doesn't give me the authority to deviate from what's published just because I "know" there's enough clearance, etc.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I was interested enough in the question to ask Steve via the video comments. I received a response. We went back and forth a little. I could summarize, but the best bet is to go to the video and find our discussion if you are interested.
Click to expand...
It took me a while to find it given that there are 600ish comments on the video, so... Here it is:

Screenshot 2024-12-17 at 1.29.34 AM.png


Screenshot 2024-12-17 at 1.29.57 AM.png
 
RussR said:
I just read the discussion you had with him, and I cannot support his decision given the reasons he provides.

As you know, I know a lot more than average about procedure design. I do know exactly how much protected area there is left and right, front and back, at various fixes on a procedure. I know how much altitude buffer is applied to obstacles. i know which obstacles are considered and which ones fall under various exception criteria. But that doesn't give me the authority to deviate from what's published just because I "know" there's enough clearance, etc.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t going to change the YT discussion into a big argument but I think you can tell that’s my view as well.

(I have not yet seen that last question about the multiple circling attempts without going missed in the graphic @flyingcheesehead pasted)
 
midlifeflyer said:
I tried to find a way to link directly to the comment. Saw a few methods, but none worked. @flyingcheesehead took care of it.
Click to expand...
Thanks to @flyingcheesehead for taking the time to find it. Interesting about the "cleared out of controlled airspace" thing. In the US it happens all the time when you get an Approach Clearance to an airport that is not in a Surface Area. We don't state the obvious here though.
 
luvflyin said:
Thanks to @flyingcheesehead for taking the time to find it. Interesting about the "cleared out of controlled airspace" thing. In the US it happens all the time when you get an Approach Clearance to an airport that is not in a Surface Area. We don't state the obvious here though.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about its usage in this situation, but I suspect the language is there because, unlike the US where pretty much everything above 1200 AGL is at least Class E, IFR enroute operations take place in uncontrolled airspace in Canada. So it probably has real meaning.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I don’t know about its usage in this situation, but I suspect the language is there because, unlike the US where pretty much everything above 1200 AGL is at least Class E, IFR enroute operations take place in uncontrolled airspace in Canada. So it probably has real meaning.
Click to expand...
Yeah. It wasn't all that long ago that there was a lot of Uncontrolled Airspace in the US below 14,500. As I recall IFR Traffic that would get Direct to somewhere that took them through it, because they requested it, would be advised they were leaving Controlled Airspace. But not a 'clearance out of it'
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah. It wasn't all that long ago that there was a lot of Uncontrolled Airspace in the US below 14,500. As I recall IFR Traffic that would get Direct to somewhere that took them through it, because they requested it, would be advised they were leaving Controlled Airspace. But not a 'clearance out of it'
Click to expand...
"Cleared into controlled airspace" makes some kind of sense but "cleared out" does seem weird. Maybe it's more advisory than permissive. The Canadian guidance isn't that clear to me either.
 
midlifeflyer said:
"Cleared into controlled airspace" makes some kind of sense but "cleared out" does seem weird. Maybe it's more advisory than permissive. The Canadian guidance isn't that clear to me either.
Click to expand...
Could that be analogous to "radar services terminated"?
 
luvflyin said:
Thanks to @flyingcheesehead for taking the time to find it. Interesting about the "cleared out of controlled airspace" thing. In the US it happens all the time when you get an Approach Clearance to an airport that is not in a Surface Area. We don't state the obvious here though.
Click to expand...
Well, it's different. It's very rare to be flying the entire approach outside controlled airspace here - Usually, you'll be in controlled airspace at least down to 700 AGL. In the case of the video, the entire approach (everything below 3000) is in uncontrolled airspace, and theoretically there could be VFR traffic there "clear of clouds" 50 feet after you exit the cloud. Yikes.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Well, it's different. It's very rare to be flying the entire approach outside controlled airspace here - Usually, you'll be in controlled airspace at least down to 700 AGL. In the case of the video, the entire approach (everything below 3000) is in uncontrolled airspace, and theoretically there could be VFR traffic there "clear of clouds" 50 feet after you exit the cloud. Yikes.
Click to expand...
If you want "different," watch some UK aviation videos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top