Filing to IAF

[Ed Guthrie]

I'm can't quote any additional information than that which has been already been repeatedly quoted, but my thoughts, and those from the linked Don Brown article, are how are you going to get to the airport without having some way to transition from the enroute environment?

How would you do it non-radar? Hint: 91.117(a) applies. Hint: NORDO w/ radar the answer is the same.

Without a GPS, there is no way to know for sure you are directly over the airport in IMC unless you have a navaid on the field, or a way to navigate from a feeder route or IAF...please correct me if I'm wrong.

If you hear "...cleared xyz approach..." when approaching a non-IAF fix in the en route structure, how do you comply? Hint: The answer to your previous question is the same.

While I think this is a good discussion, perhaps it is one of those where we should all agree to disagree and let the horse have it's peace.

Question: You still maintain filing an IAF is "common sense best practice"? You still intend to teach it? If so, how do you intend to justify your position? You haven't a reference to support it except some non-FAA web rag. If it's a "best practice" you should be able to find an FAA document supporting your position. The fact that you can't find an FAA reference should be telling you something.

 

[poadeleted20]

How would you do it non-radar? Hint: 91.117(a) applies. Hint: NORDO w/ radar the answer is the same.

What the heck does the 250 knot speed limit have to do with this discussion?

In any event, if you poll every controller in the FAA, and ask them about the filed-through-IAF case, I'll bet virtually all of them expect you to hold at the IAF when you get there, and not go to over the airport and then back to the IAF. I'll also bet that virtually all of them want you to commence your approach upon arrival at the IAF, even if your ETE has not yet expired, whether that's what it says in 91.185 or not.

Recognize that lost comm in IMC is an emergency situation, and that means 91.3(b) says you can deviate from 91.185(c) to the extent necessary to deal with that emergency, i.e., to get the airplane on the ground as soon as you deem necessary, with respect to 91.7(b)'s requirement that when an unairworthy condition occurs in flight you discontinue the fight (and "no comm" is unairworthy for IFR operations -- 91.205(d)(2) refers).

Finally, keep in mind that:

1. ATC will be clearing the airspace ahead of and below you, as well as praying that you get on the ground quickly and safely, and
2. While the NTSB has burned pilots who keep a sick plane in the air, they have repeatedly said they are very reluctant to second-guess the judgement of a pilot who deviates from the rules to get a sick airplane on the ground expeditiously.

Bottom line: When you've filed via an IAF, and you lose comm in IMC, the fact that the clearance limit is technically the destination airport does not override all other considerations and demand that you blindly fly to the IAF, to the airport, and back to the IAF before holding or commencing the approach without regard to any other fact or regulation.

You're the PIC -- if you get in this situation, make a good decision.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

What the heck does the 250 knot speed limit have to do with this discussion?

Simple typo--but you knew that. Why you'd not simply correct the regulation reference number only you could explain.

In any event, if you poll every controller in the FAA, and ask them about the filed-through-IAF case, I'll bet virtually all of them expect you to hold at the IAF when you get there, and not go to over the airport and then back to the IAF. I'll also bet that virtually all of them want you to commence your approach upon arrival at the IAF, even if your ETE has not yet expired, whether that's what it says in 91.185 or not.

Poll every controller in the FAA regarding if the final fix isn't an IAF and the answer will be identical--proceed to an IAF (per 91.185) and then commence the approach without holding.

With respect to the question in this thread (file IAF or no), what's your point?

Recognize that lost comm in IMC is an emergency situation, and that means 91.3(b) says you can deviate from 91.185(c) to the extent necessary to deal with that emergency, i.e., to get the airplane on the ground as soon as you deem necessary, with respect to 91.7(b)'s requirement that when an unairworthy condition occurs in flight you discontinue the fight (and "no comm" is unairworthy for IFR operations -- 91.205(d)(2) refers).

Again, equally true whether the last filed fix is an IAF or not.

Again, with respect to the question in this thread (file IAF or no), what's your point?

Finally, keep in mind that:

1. ATC will be clearing the airspace ahead of and below you, as well as praying that you get on the ground quickly and safely, and
2. While the NTSB has burned pilots who keep a sick plane in the air, they have repeatedly said they are very reluctant to second-guess the judgement of a pilot who deviates from the rules to get a sick airplane on the ground expeditiously.

Again, equally true whether the last filed fix is an IAF or not.

Again, with respect to the question in this thread (file IAF or no), what's your point?

Bottom line: When you've filed via an IAF, and you lose comm in IMC, the fact that the clearance limit is technically the destination airport does not override all other considerations and demand that you blindly fly to the IAF, to the airport, and back to the IAF before holding or commencing the approach without regard to any other fact or regulation.

Again, equally true whether the last filed fix is an IAF or not.

Again, with respect to the question in this thread (file IAF or no), what's your point?

You're the PIC -- if you get in this situation, make a good decision.

Yes, agreed, but the start of that good decision making process is understanding the procedures. Blindly following an OWT (must or should file an IAF as the last fix) isn't a good way to start the process.

 

[poadeleted20]

Simple typo--but you knew that.

Not so simple as I can figure. I thought about transposition, but 91.171 is the VOR check reg, and 91.711 covers foreign aircraft. I thought stumble-fingering, but 91.177 is for minimum IFR altitudes and 91.111 covers operating near other aircraft.

Why you'd not simply correct the regulation reference number only you could explain.

Simple -- I have no idea what reg you were talking about. So perhaps you can enlighten us?