Cleared - Straight in - another question

[Clip4]

That may be the lowest altitude he can issue but he can get you lower than that before reaching KACBY. There is no valid non-radar route that "takes you almost straight in for runway 31." The controller can put you on the FAC outside of KACBY, issue 5500' until established, and you cross KACBY at 4,100'.

How far outside KACBY can the controller authorize 55 until established?

 

[aterpster]

How far outside KACBY can the controller authorize 55 until established?

Under these circumstances you can't be established because there is no route outside of KACBY that is lined up with final.

The correct clearance would be:

1. Cross KACBY at 5,500, cleared for the approach; or,

2. Cleared for the approach, cross KACBY at 5,500.

The limit would be the controller's airspace and being within the 5,500 MVA box.

 

[roncachamp]

How far outside KACBY can the controller authorize 55 until established?

To the boundary of the 5500' MVA area.

 

[roncachamp]

Under these circumstances you can't be established because there is no route outside of KACBY that is lined up with final.

The correct clearance would be:

1. Cross KACBY at 5,500, cleared for the approach; or,

2. Cleared for the approach, cross KACBY at 5,500.

The limit would be the controller's airspace and being within the 5,500 MVA box.

The controller can vector to the final approach course outside of KACBY. He'd issue 5500 until established, the aircraft can descend upon joining the FAC and cross KACBY at 4100.

 

[aterpster]

The controller can vector to the final approach course outside of KACBY. He'd issue 5500 until established, the aircraft can descend upon joining the FAC and cross KACBY at 4100.

So, you are saying it is okay to descend 1,400 feet below MVA on a course that is not published? If nothing else what about 91.175 (i)?

 

[roncachamp]

So, you are saying it is okay to descend 1,400 feet below MVA on a course that is not published? If nothing else what about 91.175 (i)?

The aircraft would be descending on the published IAP.

 

[poadeleted20]

Which was not the scenario in the OP. My question as to why is no one cancelling was directed to the scenario presented. Which did not have clouds, and visibility was over 10. So again, I ask...

Why is no one cancelling in the air?

Now that you've clarified and delineated your previously very general question, I'll say the answer is because nobody else here was in the same situation, at the same time, in the same place as the OP.

 

[poadeleted20]

The controller can vector to the final approach course outside of KACBY. He'd issue 5500 until established, the aircraft can descend upon joining the FAC and cross KACBY at 4100.

No, the pilot cannot, as the pilot has no way of knowing how far from KACBY s/he is, and thus no way to know when it's safe to descend below 5500 until reaching KACBY. There is nothing on that approach chart telling the pilot how far out 4100 is safe other than staying within the protected area of the HPILPT, and that is not charted, and can thus only be determined by flying the HPILPT within standard parameters (1 minute hold).

And yes, I've talked this over with the folks at AFS-400, who talked it over with ATO, and they said vectors to final is not allowed without the existence of a delimited segment outside the FAF so the pilot knows when s/he is actually established on the approach. So, if there was an IF/IAF some distance outside KACBY with a published altitude to KACBY, then vectors to final at 5500 with a descent to that published altitude would be OK, but otherwise, the pilot cannot leave 5500 until reaching KACBY. We had a problem with controllers at Patuxent River and Dover doing this 20 miles out, and after involving AFS-400 and the Regional ATO, that practice stopped.

 

[roncachamp]

No, the pilot cannot, as the pilot has no way of knowing how far from KACBY s/he is, and thus no way to know when it's safe to descend below 5500 until crossing KACBY.

Really? A pilot has no way of knowing how far he is from a fix on a GPS approach? Are you sure you wanna go with that?

And yes, I've talked this over with the folks at AFS-400, who talked it over with ATO, and they said vectors to final without the establishment of a delimited segment outside the FAF so the pilot knows when s/he is actually established on the approach is not allowed. We had a problem with controllers at Patuxent River doing this 20 miles out, and after involving AFS-400 and the Regional ATO, that practice stopped.

It's possible they misunderstood your question, but more likely you misunderstood their answer.

 

[poadeleted20]

Really? A pilot has no way of knowing how far he is from a fix on a GPS approach? Are you sure you wanna go with that?

Didn't say that, so I'm not going with that. What I did say, and what I am "going with", is the pilot has no way of knowing from the approach chart when it's safe to descend out of 5500 when on the extended final approach course outside KACBY unless the pilot has done a 1-minute holding pattern off KACBY. Thus, knowing how far s/he is from KACBY isn't sufficient -- s/he also must know at what distance from KACBY it is safe to leave the last assigned altitude when established inbound other than out of the HPILPT, and that information is not on the approach chart.

It's possible they misunderstood your question, but more likely you misunderstood their answer.

It's also possible my phone call was misrouted to the Martian FAA, but I don't think so, especially since the practice stopped and the facility managers thanked me for bringing this unsafe practice to their attention.

 

[Velocity173]

Really? A pilot has no way of knowing how far he is from a fix on a GPS approach? Are you sure you wanna go with that?



It's possible they misunderstood your question, but more likely you misunderstood their answer.

It's a 1 min pattern. There's no way of knowing when you'd be established within the protected airspace for the procedure.

 

[poadeleted20]

It's a 1 min pattern. There's no way of knowing when you'd be established within the protected airspace for the procedure.

...without flying that holding pattern entry. And that's the problem for the pilot. Only way I can legally descend to 4100 before KACBY is if the controller explicitly clears me to do so, and "maintain 5500 until established" doesn't meet that standard. See the accident report for TWA514 for what happens when someone gets vectored onto the final approach course outside the first fix with an altitude, and descends from their last assigned altitude to that first fix altitude as soon as they're established.

 

[roncachamp]

Didn't say that, so I'm not going with that.

Yes you did:

No, the pilot cannot, as the pilot has no way of knowing how far from KACBY s/he is, and thus no way to know when it's safe to descend below 5500 until reaching KACBY.

What I did say, and what I am "going with", is the pilot has no way of knowing from the approach chart when it's safe to descend out of 5500 when on the extended final approach course outside KACBY unless the pilot has done a 1-minute holding pattern off KACBY.

How far on the extended final approach course outside KACBY could a pilot that has done a 1-minute holding pattern off KACBY be?

It's also possible my phone call was misrouted to the Martian FAA, but I don't think so, especially since the practice stopped and the facility managers thanked me for bringing this unsafe practice to their attention.

That seems unlikely, but it is possible none of those phone calls were actually made.

 

[roncachamp]

It's a 1 min pattern. There's no way of knowing when you'd be established within the protected airspace for the procedure.

When flying the pattern?

 

[aterpster]

When flying the pattern?

This was settled at the ACF years ago, which resulted in the following AIM language:

5-4-7-b:

When operating on an unpublished route or while being radar vectored, the pilot, when an approach clearance is received, must, in addition to complying with the minimum altitudes for IFR operations (14 CFR Section 91.177), maintain the last assigned altitude unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC, or until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or IAP. After the aircraft is so established, published altitudes apply to descent within each succeeding route or approach segment unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC. Notwithstanding this pilot responsibility, for aircraft operating on unpublished routes or while being radar vectored, ATC will, except when conducting a radar approach, issue an IFR approach clearance only after the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or IAP, or assign an altitude to maintain until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure. For this purpose, the procedure turn of a published IAP must not be considered a segment of that IAP until the aircraft reaches the initial fix or navigation facility upon which the procedure turn is predicated.

A HILPT is considered a procedure turn for this purpose.

 

[aterpster]

Didn't say that, so I'm not going with that. What I did say, and what I am "going with", is the pilot has no way of knowing from the approach chart when it's safe to descend out of 5500 when on the extended final approach course outside KACBY unless the pilot has done a 1-minute holding pattern off KACBY. Thus, knowing how far s/he is from KACBY isn't sufficient -- s/he also must know at what distance from KACBY it is safe to leave the last assigned altitude when established inbound other than out of the HPILPT, and that information is not on the approach chart.

Note that earlier Mr. Retired Controller said anywhere within the 5,500' MVA sector. The boundary of the 5,500 MVA sector is 18.36 miles southeast of KACBY. Sort of TWA 514-like.

 

[roncachamp]

Note that earlier Mr. Retired Controller said anywhere within the 5,500' MVA sector. The boundary of the 5,500 MVA sector is 18.36 miles southeast of KACBY. Sort of TWA 514-like.

Not at all.

 

[aterpster]

Not at all.

That is vague.

But, for sake of discussion how does a controller determine when the airplane is within one minute of the HILPT fix?

 

[poadeleted20]

This was settled at the ACF years ago, which resulted in the following AIM language:

5-4-7-b:

When operating on an unpublished route or while being radar vectored, the pilot, when an approach clearance is received, must, in addition to complying with the minimum altitudes for IFR operations (14 CFR Section 91.177), maintain the last assigned altitude unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC, or until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or IAP. After the aircraft is so established, published altitudes apply to descent within each succeeding route or approach segment unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC. Notwithstanding this pilot responsibility, for aircraft operating on unpublished routes or while being radar vectored, ATC will, except when conducting a radar approach, issue an IFR approach clearance only after the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or IAP, or assign an altitude to maintain until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure. For this purpose, the procedure turn of a published IAP must not be considered a segment of that IAP until the aircraft reaches the initial fix or navigation facility upon which the procedure turn is predicated.

A HILPT is considered a procedure turn for this purpose.

That pretty much settles it. Thanks for looking it up.

 

[aterpster]

Not part of the thread per se:

This IAP is horribly obsolete and should have been revised a long time ago during a periodic review. HILPTs at RNAV FAFs were "outlawed" for good reasons some 15 years, or so, ago. I checked on the FAA coordination website. It is not scheduled for a revision.

So it goes for Podunk airports. Then again, perhaps the airport cannot meet criteria for a revised IAP. Sometimes, that is the case, and the FAA looks the other way to keep the existing IAP in effect.

 

[midlifeflyer]

This was settled at the ACF years ago, which resulted in the following AIM language:

5-4-7-b:

When operating on an unpublished route or while being radar vectored, the pilot, when an approach clearance is received, must, in addition to complying with the minimum altitudes for IFR operations (14 CFR Section 91.177), maintain the last assigned altitude unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC, or until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or IAP. After the aircraft is so established, published altitudes apply to descent within each succeeding route or approach segment unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC. Notwithstanding this pilot responsibility, for aircraft operating on unpublished routes or while being radar vectored, ATC will, except when conducting a radar approach, issue an IFR approach clearance only after the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or IAP, or assign an altitude to maintain until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure. For this purpose, the procedure turn of a published IAP must not be considered a segment of that IAP until the aircraft reaches the initial fix or navigation facility upon which the procedure turn is predicated.

A HILPT is considered a procedure turn for this purpose.

roncachamp doesn't believe in the AIM.

 

[roncachamp]

roncachamp doesn't believe in the AIM.

Roncachamp believes the AIM is not regulatory.

 

[poadeleted20]

Roncachamp believes the AIM is not regulatory.

While roncachamp is technically correct, if you read the front of the book, it says that the AIM tells you how to comply with the regulations. In this case, the regulations you'd be violating if you didn't follow what the AIM says would be 91.175 and 97.1.

 

[midlifeflyer]

While roncachamp is technically correct, if you read the front of the book, it says that the AIM tells you how to comply with the regulations. In this case, the regulations you'd be violating if you didn't follow what the AIM says would be 91.175 and 97.1.

You mean like #1 in my signature block?

I had to take a written driving test for a new state recently. Clearly the study book is non-regulatory. So I guess I can ignore what it says about not passing stopped school buses with their lights flashing.

 

[aterpster]

You mean like #1 in my signature block?

I had to take a written driving test for a new state recently. Clearly the study book is non-regulatory. So I guess I can ignore what it says about not passing stopped school buses with their lights flashing.

Same idea.

 

[aterpster]

Roncachamp believes the AIM is not regulatory.

That gets back to KCPU, how do you tell when an airplane arriving along an extension of the final approach course is within one minute of the FAF? (the published holding pattern length).

 

[roncachamp]

That gets back to KCPU, how do you tell when an airplane arriving along an extension of the final approach course is within one minute of the FAF? (the published holding pattern length).

I use arithmetic and logic.

 

[aterpster]

I use arithmetic and logic.

Since you don't care to share it must be a tad flimsy.

 

[skidoo]

That gets back to KCPU, how do you tell when an airplane arriving along an extension of the final approach course is within one minute of the FAF? (the published holding pattern length).

My G1000 does provide a distance and estimated time to that fix... And I suppose that would be a lot further back in a faster airplane...

Is there a method or chart for pilots to know well in advance how low ATC will get you prior to any IAF? Something like that chart someone provided a few posts back.. Are they available to pilots?

 

[aterpster]

My G1000 does provide a distance and estimated time to that fix... And I suppose that would be a lot further back in a faster airplane...

Is there a method or chart for pilots to know well in advance how low ATC will get you prior to any IAF? Something like that chart someone provided a few posts back.. Are they available to pilots?

ATC cannot clear you below their MIA (center) or MVA (approach control) unless you are on a published route or approach segment.

I was the one who posted that chart. No, the FAA chooses not to let pilots have MVA or MIA charts.

 

[nosehair]

But, for sake of discussion how does a controller determine when the airplane is within one minute of the HILPT fix?

Do u mean how does the PILOT determine when he is within one minute?
Because the controller says "maintain xx altitude until established.."
It is up to the PILOT to determine when he is established. There are many ways to determine that.
But I don't think that's what you're asking, is it?

 

[Palmpilot]

Which was not the scenario in the OP. My question as to why is no one cancelling was directed to the scenario presented. Which did not have clouds, and visibility was over 10. So again, I ask...

Why is no one cancelling in the air?

On approach to an uncontrolled field, one reason not to cancel in the air is that if you do, and then you crash or have a forced landing, it could be a long time before someone comes looking for you.

 

[aterpster]

Do u mean how does the PILOT determine when he is within one minute?
Because the controller says "maintain xx altitude until established.."
It is up to the PILOT to determine when he is established. There are many ways to determine that.
But I don't think that's what you're asking, is it?

Nope. The pilot that knows the rules knows he is not established until crossing KACBY. Since he must maintain 5,500 until KACBY he also should know it is not, cannot, be a straight-in procedure. The controller shouldn't have even offered straight-in as an option. It's what I call the "Frick and Frack" syndrome.

The controller, OTOH, is violating one of the fundamental principles of his handbook if he clears you below MVA (or MIA) when you are on an unpublished route.

 

[Captain]

This thread had some good info.
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=60751&highlight=straight+circling

But, I have a question regarding the following scenario.

Say you are flying IFR in VFR conditions into KCPU
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KCPU

You are on a course that takes you almost straight in for runway 31. ATC is ready to clear you for the visual approach, but you see a bunch of thick smoke ahead and don't know for sure if it is VFR all the way in there. So, you choose to follow the only approach available, the GPS RWY 31 approach. ATC then asks you if you plan a straight in or course reversal. You would like to go straight in. You are descending to 5500 ft and getting close to the IAF/FAF. ATC says 5500 ft is a low as he can get you, clears you for straight-in, cross KACBY at or above 5500 ft, frequency change approved. You read back the clearance, change frequency and then quickly reach the IAF/FAF a few hundred feet above 5500. From this point, you can see the field and well beyond because the smoke has thinned.

What do you do:

1) Do the course reversal because you are too high.
2) Continue down as quickly as you can because you were cleared straight-in, and circle to land if necessary.
3) Continue down as quickly as you can because you were cleared straight-in, and go missed if you can not land straight-in.
4) You would have said unable when given that clearance.
5) Other - Discuss.

Also, I'm looking for discussion as to what is legal, appropriate, safe, practical, and proper. I'm thinking that a straight in clearance allows you to not do the course reversal but you would have the option to circle or land straight-in when you see the field. Educate me as to the proper procedure.

You don't have to maintain VFR to accept a visual. Just maintain visual contact with the runway.

Field in-sight 7 miles out, I'd call and cancel IFR before I got below radio range. If I had to fly the approach, I'd circle as needed, the approach is protected from other IFR traffic until you call to cancel. I would not under any circumstances(other than calling ATC again) do the course reversal as they could have someone already on the way there to hold until you cancel.

You DO have to maintain VFR if you cancel IFR.


Break,

In my life I've never heard of a procedure turn on a visual approach.

 

[EdFred]

On approach to an uncontrolled field, one reason not to cancel in the air is that if you do, and then you crash or have a forced landing, it could be a long time before someone comes looking for you.

Which would/could happen if flying VFR. So we should never fly VFR?

 

[Palmpilot]

Which would/could happen if flying VFR.

Only if you are flying VFR without a flight plan, or close your VFR flight plan while you are still in the air.

So we should never fly VFR?

I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do. I'm just pointing out one possible consequence of the decision to cancel while airborne.

 

[skidoo]

You don't have to maintain VFR to accept a visual. Just maintain visual contact with the runway.



You DO have to maintain VFR if you cancel IFR.


Break,

In my life I've never heard of a procedure turn on a visual approach.

I don't recall being instructed or studying the definition of what a visual approach actually is. I think it has just been assumed when you could see the field at or before the IAF. All my training was focused on all the other instrument procedures. I think I had better go back and study some more - specifically for the visual approach.

On a visual approach, can one go missed and the airspace be protected the same? Say there was a fog bank and clouds at the end of the DER and something goes wrong needing a go around?

 

[Captain]

I don't recall being instructed or studying the definition of what a visual approach actually is. I think it has just been assumed when you could see the field at or before the IAF. All my training was focused on all the other instrument procedures. I think I had better go back and study some more - specifically for the visual approach.

On a visual approach, can one go missed and the airspace be protected the same? Say there was a fog bank and clouds at the end of the DER and something goes wrong needing a go around?

IAF has nothing to do with it.

It's ironic and I see it all the time. Guys are all boned up on an ILS and fly it to mins following every procedure to the letter. Then proceed to screw up a visual approach. All over the place, unable to figure out a steady glide path or ground track, left or right of centerline...

Weird.

 

[Velocity173]

I don't recall being instructed or studying the definition of what a visual approach actually is. I think it has just been assumed when you could see the field at or before the IAF. All my training was focused on all the other instrument procedures. I think I had better go back and study some more - specifically for the visual approach.

On a visual approach, can one go missed and the airspace be protected the same? Say there was a fog bank and clouds at the end of the DER and something goes wrong needing a go around?

Yeah IAF doesn't have anything to do with the visual. You can get cleared from various distances.

If you do a "go around" because of weather the air space is still protected if you haven't cancelled yet. Call ATC and get vectored around for another one. If you've already cancelled then it'll be treated just as any other VFR going IIMC.

 

[John Collins]

The controller was not following the most current guidance in 7110.65 if the pilot was cleared straight in on this approach.

It states:

c. Except for visual approaches, do not clear an aircraft direct to the FAF unless it is also an IAF, wherein the aircraft is expected to execute the depicted procedure turn or hold-in-lieu of procedure turn.