Filing to IAF

[121Dispatch]

I am in agreement with all the folks that believe an IFR flight plan should be filed to an IAF at the destination airport. I am teaching a class next week, and plan to include this practice as part of the course material...the problem is that I am having a difficult time finding a reference that backs this up. The closest reference I can find is 91.185, but that only discusses what to do in case of comm failure, not necessarily how the route must be filed. For those of you that live and die by this, can you point me to a source that requires this, or is it mainly a common sense best practice?

Brian

 

[KennyFlys]

I understand the point of filing to the IAF but approach is usually going to assign an IAP based on what is currently in use even if you've specified one in your flight plan. The only difference may be a smaller field like GVL with limited options.

When I've asked for a particular approach, they query if I want the full approach or vectors. Even filing to an IAF, they will likely vector you to a given point for intercepting the final course; at which point you can decline and request the full approach. But, why?

I guess I wonder more about it because Atlanta TRACON has been so dang easy to work with.

 

[121Dispatch]

Even filing to an IAF, they will likely vector you

yeah, but what if you go nordo right at wheels up, and it's solid IMC all the way to destination? How are you going to get established on the approach segment without vectors (if you haven't filed to an IAF)...or more specifically, become established without ATC having to guess how you will become established?

 

[midlifeflyer]

There doesn't have to be a rule for everything. Filing a flight plan with a route that you could fly unassisted (no radios, no radar) is just one of those things that make sense

BTW, I don't think it even has to be an IAF. A fix that starts a feeder route for an approach will do just fine. For example, when returning to Centennial, I typically file to FQF which has a feeder to the IAF for all the approaches . For example, here's the ILS:

http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0705/05715I35R.PDF

Of course, I've never had to actually fly it.

 

[KennyFlys]

yeah, but what if you go nordo right at wheels up, and it's solid IMC all the way to destination? How are you going to get established on the approach segment without vectors (if you haven't filed to an IAF)...or more specifically, become established without ATC having to guess how you will become established?

If you're NORDO, you definitely fly the entire approach or at least a published approach that works best with reported weather without having to circle.

But, if you specify an approach in the flight plan I'm sure they will expect that. I'd rather have the freedom to conform with weather, or at least the wind to avoid circling.

One solution... keep a charged handheld in the flight bag.

 

[121Dispatch]

There doesn't have to be a rule for everything. Filing a flight plan with a route that you could fly unassisted (no radios, no radar) is just one of those things that make sense

BTW, I don't think it even has to be an IAF. A fix that starts a feeder route for an approach will do just fine.

I agree, however, the group I am teaching have a history of not taking an instructor's word without a reference to back it up. It's a bit rediculous, but some folks don't care how much sense it makes, without a reference they think we're asking them to do something that isn't necessary.

Let's look at this example...ATL-CSG, with the CSG VORTAC OTS. (sorry, I don't know a way to link to the enroute charts) CSG is outside the ATL VOR service volume, so we are left finding a way to route the flight...only real NAVAID (after Radar Vector to departure gate) is an NDB and finally a LOM, which is the IAF. Come to think of it...the Missed approach is based on the CSG VORTAC as well. I'm going to have to check the historical FDCs to see if an alternate missed approach procedure was ever issued.

http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20070412/SE-4/csg_ils_or_loc_rwy_06.pdf

 

[gismo]

yeah, but what if you go nordo right at wheels up, and it's solid IMC all the way to destination? How are you going to get established on the approach segment without vectors (if you haven't filed to an IAF)...or more specifically, become established without ATC having to guess how you will become established?

First, I'd probably divert to somewhere along the way or a relatively nearby airport with decent wx if that's available. Second, even if I did spend four hours chugging along towards my destination, why can't I pick a IAF when I get near, just like I would if I still had comm? Third, assuming that you had some means of receiving wx at the destination, what are you gonna do if said wx isn't compatible with the approach your filed IAF leads to?

 

[121Dispatch]

why can't I pick a IAF when I get near, just like I would if I still had comm?

You could, but ATC would be forced to keep a closer eye on you to figure out what you're going to do once you get close to the airport, whereas if you had filed to an IAF, they would have a pretty good idea what you were going to do, and that's the point of filing a flight plan isn't it?

Third, assuming that you had some means of receiving wx at the destination, what are you gonna do if said wx isn't compatible with the approach your filed IAF leads to?

You got me on that one.

 

[Joe B]

The closest reference I can find is 91.185, but that only discusses what to do in case of comm failure, not necessarily how the route must be filed. For those of you that live and die by this, can you point me to a source that requires this, or is it mainly a common sense best practice?

See AIM 5-1-8 b & c, which basically says "file via airway, or file direct to a radio fix":

...pilots are requested to file via airways or jet routes...All or any portions of the route which will not be flown on the radials or courses of established airways or routes, such as direct route flights, must be defined by indicating the radio fixes over which the flight will pass....Only those navigation aids established for use in a particular structure; i.e., in the low or high structures, may be used to define the en route phase of a direct flight within that altitude structure.

Airports aren't naviads, they aren't intersections, and they aren't "on" any airways (because the airway doesn't go all the way to the ground). So your flight plan has to go to some fix from which you can then get to the airport. IAFs fit that requirement extremely well. The start of a feeder route would accomplish the same thing, I think. Anything else would leave you still "enroute", holding the bag.

Regards,
Joe

 

[poadeleted20]

There is no rule that says you have to file to an IAF. The only issue is your options if you get into a situation where you're following the 91.185 lost comm rule. If you've filed to something other than an IAF (in most cases, that means direct to the airport from the last enroute fix), you may have a problem following 91.185(c)(3)(ii), which says you go all the way to your clearance limit (i.e., the destination airport), and then back to an IAF to hold until expiration of your ETE. If you don't have a GPS, you may not be able to do that unless there's a radio navaid to/from which you can navigate on the airport to which you filed, as well as a route from that navaid to an IAF. If you've filed to an IAF, you should have no problem getting to it from the last enroute fix, and ATC will expect you to hold at the IAF when you get there until your ETE expires (although they'll be hoping you start your approach on arrival).

 

[nosehair]

I agree, however, the group I am teaching have a history of not taking an instructor's word without a reference to back it up. It's a bit rediculous, but some folks don't care how much sense it makes, without a reference they think we're asking them to do something that isn't necessary.

Sounds to me like this is a good example of why students should always get a reference.

Sounds like you are trying to impose a 'good common sense rule' onto students as if it is The Gospel.

You are 100% correct that it is a good operating practice to file to an IAF, but it isn't a law. Stop trying to teach it as if it were.

This is the Primary Problem with all Aviation Instructors: Teaching HereSay as if it were Regulatory.

Again, I encourage you to teach filing to an IAF as a Good Practice, but also keep your teaching techniques seperated from teaching regulation.

Teach only the Written Word, then add-in your personal preferences.

 

[121Dispatch]

This is the Primary Problem with all Aviation Instructors: Teaching HereSay as if it were Regulatory.

That's why I am doing some research before I start this class...to make sure I am not teaching heresay. I will not teach something as regulatory if it is not.

Thank you all for your responses and quoted references as well. I think this will be more of a guided discussion which will end up with a 'what do we do now' expression. The point should be made that filing to an IAF (or even feeder route if available) will alleviate this problem. While there is no specific regulation to do so, it makes the most sense, and resolves most of the doubt between both the pilot and ATC as to what is expected.

 

[ScottM]

There is no rule that says you have to file to an IAF. The only issue is your options if you get into a situation where you're following the 91.185 lost comm rule. If you've filed to something other than an IAF (in most cases, that means direct to the airport from the last enroute fix), you may have a problem following 91.185(c)(3)(ii), which says you go all the way to your clearance limit (i.e., the destination airport), and then back to an IAF to hold until expiration of your ETE. If you don't have a GPS, you may not be able to do that unless there's a radio navaid to/from which you can navigate on the airport to which you filed, as well as a route from that navaid to an IAF. If you've filed to an IAF, you should have no problem getting to it from the last enroute fix, and ATC will expect you to hold at the IAF when you get there until your ETE expires (although they'll be hoping you start your approach on arrival).

Ron every time I have ever gotten a clearance it is to the airport. As in "you are cleared to the KXYZ airport via" then the routing. So essentially, in those types of clearances. the clearance limit is the airport isn't it?

So even if you did file with an IAF in the routing it is not you clearance limit. In a NORDO situation you should not be holding there at the IAF. But in the real world I have talked to controllers and they would like you to not hold awaiting your ETA time anyways. They would like you shoot your approach and get on the ground so that they can clear the airspace.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Scott and all:

I file from my home airport in the Dallas area to Rockford and many other places direct all the time. My enroute time is over 3 hours. Lots can change in that period of time. There are a lot of approach options at RFD, as you know. I can't imagine if I lost com that I wouldn't pull up somewhere enroute, but, if I couldn't, getting to an IAF and holding might not be my priority. I could have a lot of problems in the plane and be squawking 7600 or 7700, depending how bad things were. If 7700, I'm coming in--period. If just lost com, I'd probably try to figure out which way the traffic was landing and get on the most likely approach; like the ILS or BC loc at RFD. If I was cleared into a major, busy airport, I would approach it differently, but a radar serviced secondary airport, I'd probably come on in; get my feet on the ground; then worry about what others thought. If I had a full com loss, I can't imagine I wouldn't have other issues to worry about even if I couldn't diagnose them in the air.

In airspace where I flew on an airway, the IAF normally is a much more doable procedure; normal transition off an airway. The entire system is changing and the rules aren't really keeping up with those changes. This is a pretty unlikely scenario to me because in addition to dual nav/coms, I have a back up hand held radio. Last time someone couldn't hear me in class C, I could hear them and so indicated by identing on the transponder

Good to think through these things, I just think it's not as practical in the areas like the midwest where we file and are cleared direct a lot. In a radar environment to a secondary air field, the controllers I've spoken with would just clear things out for a NORDO like this. Now, I could see how one wouldn't want to shut down ORD or a similar airfield. Filing to somewhere besides the airfield direct makes more sense. There's an arrival to deal with also.

Great thoughts; I've followed this for some time and many people share the thoughts I've set forth above. If I was teaching new folks, I would point out both sides of this. It really seems to depend quite a bit on where one is going and conditions. Non-radar environment would be different; the only way to space you is by time.

My 2 cents <g>

Best,

Dave

 

[dparter]

It doesn't answer the direct question, but for the case of non-airway ("random") routes, the AIM says:

5-1-8. Flight Plan- IFR Flights
c. Direct Flights
...d.2. Area Navigation (RNAV)
...
(a) File airport-to-airport flight plans.
...
(c) Plan the random route portion of the flight plan to begin and end over appropriate arrival and departure transition fixes or appropriate navigation aids for the altitude stratum within which the flight will be conducted. The use of normal preferred departure and arrival routes (DP/STAR), where established, is recommended.

(d) File route structure transitions to and from the random route portion of the flight.
...

To me that says:

• you shouldn't file Aiport-direct-Airport (using your GPS) or any variation of that, you need to put both a departure fix (does anyone do that?) and an arrival fix -- an IAF or a feeder route transition fix
• there is an implication that airway routes already include the transition/arrival fixes

But maybe I'm reading it wrong...

 

[Areeda]

Before I start let me say I'm not arguing with you. I want to discuss teaching philosophy.

Sounds to me like this is a good example of why students should always get a reference.

If there is one, the reference should be the final word.

Sounds like you are trying to impose a 'good common sense rule' onto students as if it is The Gospel.

You are 100% correct that it is a good operating practice to file to an IAF, but it isn't a law. Stop trying to teach it as if it were.

This is the Primary Problem with all Aviation Instructors: Teaching HereSay as if it were Regulatory.

I agree don't teach it as if it were law, teach it as good practice.

Again, I encourage you to teach filing to an IAF as a Good Practice, but also keep your teaching techniques seperated from teaching regulation.

Teach only the Written Word, then add-in your personal preferences.

Here's my problem. The "Written Word" is the minimum. I agree we must teach it. BUT we must address judgement and good common practice.

What I got from this thread and I support Brian, is that he should not say "you have to file to an IAF or Feeder Fix" but rather "It is good practice if you do because ...".

That's my 2¢.

Joe

 

[Dave Siciliano]

It doesn't answer the direct question, but for the case of non-airway ("random") routes, the AIM says:
To me that says:

• you shouldn't file Aiport-direct-Airport (using your GPS) or any variation of that, you need to put both a departure fix (does anyone do that?) and an arrival fix -- an IAF or a feeder route transition fix
• there is an implication that airway routes already include the transition/arrival fixes

But maybe I'm reading it wrong...

David:

Well, let's talk through the practicalities of this rule.

I don't think you're reading anything wrong; you mayor may not have followed what I was trying to point out. Let's take Dallas to Rockford since you should be familiar with Rockford. There is a DP here and it's in my clearance; so, I follow it. Somewhere on the way to RFD, I lose com and can't get to VFR; so, I sludge on (which I may or may not do--I may find the first place with a good instrument approach that will get me down and divert--depends on what else is going on with the plane, weather, etc. I was cleared direct to RFD. (By the way, this has been discussed adnausium on several forums and I brought it up at Operation Rain Check at FW Center.)

Now, for filing purposes what is more practical? There is no transition because I'm not on an airway. I could just look and pick one out, but what good does that do? I could pick out an IAF on one of the approaches; what does that accomplish? The weather can change; the airport could be landing the opposite direction when I get there. At the end of my clearance time do I then fly over to another IAF and fly that approach in? How have I assisted approach while doing all this?

It's a radar environment with approach control. I'd be squawking at least 7600 and more probably 7700. They would see me coming and not know what I was going to do; they could guess, but they wouldn't be sure (Don't forget, I may not even know what runway is appropriate). They will clear the area until I either get down or they are very certain what I intend to do. If you talk to controllers; they just flat want you down--it's a real PITA for me to be circling around out there without com.

In a non-radar environment, it would be different. They can't see you and don't know where you are. Clearance and void time is very important.

If going into Class B, there should be an arrival. I don't know if I will be able to ascertain which is being used if I have no com, but may be able to judge winds and at least get onto one coming from the correct direction; the difference would be what to do when the arrival splits to go to the appropriate runway. If I come in on one and am wrong, I'll have to go missed and return, or stay VFR if I break out and circle to land. In any case, that area will probably be shut down when approach sees me coming in NORDO. I would sure try to stay away from class B if that was an option.

So, what has been accomplished filing a transition? Maybe a place to hold like the VOR at RFD, but, at some point, I still have to leave and go out and return on an approach appropriate for the weather.

In the old, non-radar systems, this makes all the sense in the world if NORDO with no other substantial problem. In a radar environment, most controllers don't want you hanging around NORDO.

In my plane, if this much has gone wrong, it's very likely I have other issues and have an emergency; am squawking 7700 and am coming it the best I can; not circling around somewhere waiting for a void time to burn off <g>

There are a lot of folks simply filing direct now in light of what I just said. Not low time, part time pilots--guys flying for a living.

It's great to think through these things in advance; so, if the situation ever actually arises, one has a plan. On the East and West coast, folks are flying around much more on the airway--makes all the sense in the world if one's on an airway and there's a transition to an approach.

BTW, there used to always be a way to get from a DP to an airway to an arrival and approach; not anymore. I've discussed this with approach controllers; Center, the head of DUATS and a lot of other folks flying around out there. The system is really in transition. One really has to be more careful in this environment. When I fly to Orlando from here, there is no transition from the jet route to the arrival. I understand that's not unique. Airlines are getting a DP and direct Orlando out of here (maybe with an arrival or it may be issued once they get in Florida).

Best,

Dave

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Don Brown has lots to say about the issue...

http://www.avweb.com/news/sayagain/185690-1.html

His other columns are excellent for understanding the other side of the radio too.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Several folks talked to Don quite a bit about it <g>. In his neck of the woods, he was putting folks on airways. When I tried to file as he recommended out of the D/FW area, I got a lot of grief. Discussed it with him <g>

This is all great to review! Graduate level discussion of the system. It certainly can be different in various areas of the country. So Cal is big on TEC.

Best,

Dave

 

[121Dispatch]

Unfortunately Don has retired both from his ZTL job and article writing for AVweb. Thinking about it, that article is probably where I started to really think about the subject quite some time ago. Whether or not you agree with Don, I always found his articles thought provoking. I will miss his column.

But moving on...this board, and the pilotcasts also, have also brought up some good subjects and many different viewpoints.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron every time I have ever gotten a clearance it is to the airport. As in "you are cleared to the KXYZ airport via" then the routing. So essentially, in those types of clearances. the clearance limit is the airport isn't it?

You are technically correct, but....

So even if you did file with an IAF in the routing it is not you clearance limit. In a NORDO situation you should not be holding there at the IAF.

...note that I said above was "ATC will expect you to hold at the IAF when you get there," not "you are required to hold at the IAF when you get there." Yes, a strict interpretation of the regs would tell you to go to the IAF, fly straight to the airport, and then back to the IAF, but that's not what anyone in the FAA wants or expects you to do if you've filed via an IAF.

But in the real world I have talked to controllers and they would like you to not hold awaiting your ETA time anyways. They would like you shoot your approach and get on the ground so that they can clear the airspace.

Absolutely true -- as noted in Don Brown's articles and many controller-written articles in IFR magazine and other publications, they want you on the ground and out of their airspace as fast as is safely possible.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Just to clarify...are we discussing filing TO an IAF, or filing THROUGH an IAF TO an AIRPORT?

Fly safe!

David

 

[121Dispatch]

Just to clarify...are we discussing filing TO an IAF, or filing THROUGH an IAF TO an AIRPORT?

Fly safe!

David

Through an IAF to the airport.

 

[ScottM]

I have filed to the IAF before.

My flight plan was direct EON direct (to the IAF) then to Smith field.

My clearance was radar vector Peoton (EON) then as filled. 5 miles north of Peotone I go was handed off to Chicago Center and got "can you go direct to Smith?" yes I replied and they cleared me direct Smith NOT to the IAF. No I just don't bother and I file direct EON direct Smith.

The lesson there is that even if you file to the IAF you may get something else. So stay loose, be situationally aware and always have a plan in the back of your head.

 

[gprellwitz]

I have filed to the IAF before.

My flight plan was direct EON direct (to the IAF) then to Smith field.

My clearance was radar vector Peoton (EON) then as filled. 5 miles north of Peotone I go was handed off to Chicago Center and got "can you go direct to Smith?" yes I replied and they cleared me direct Smith NOT to the IAF. No I just don't bother and I file direct EON direct Smith.

The lesson there is that even if you file to the IAF you may get something else. So stay loose, be situationally aware and always have a plan in the back of your head.

And coming back the other day I skipped the IAF and filed direct 1C5. On the way back Center called me with a new clearance: direct JOT direct 1C5. In other words, they changed it to include the IAF.

Leslie was good and filed Victor airways all the way down.

 

[ScottM]

And coming back the other day I skipped the IAF and filed direct 1C5. On the way back Center called me with a new clearance: direct JOT direct 1C5. In other words, they changed it to include the IAF.

Leslie was good and filed Victor airways all the way down.

I file my return from KSMD as direct EON direct 10C and they amend that also to direct EON direct JOT direct. They just use JOT to keep you out west. It must have just been a coincidence that JOT is an IAF for 1C5 as it most is not for 10C.

 

[Lance F]

I personally don't file using an IAF as a waypoint, but I have a question for those that do. Will the system accept these 5 letter GPS identifier fixes for GPS approaches?

 

[poadeleted20]

I personally don't file using an IAF as a waypoint, but I have a question for those that do. Will the system accept these 5 letter GPS identifier fixes for GPS approaches?

Yes -- I just tried it on DUATS filing to SBY VOR and then the OKKOE IAF for the GPS 23 into KSBY -- works like a champ.

 

[KennyFlys]

I personally don't file using an IAF as a waypoint, but I have a question for those that do. Will the system accept these 5 letter GPS identifier fixes for GPS approaches?

Ditto to Ron. On my trips to the west, I use NELLO then direct to stay away from Atlanta Class B. The first time, I used SUMMT but they kicked me another ten miles out to NELLO. Although in my case, I use DUAT.

 

[121Dispatch]

The first time, I used SUMMT but they kicked me another ten miles out to NELLO. Although in my case, I use DUAT.

I suspect you were kicked out to NELLO 'cause SUMMT is one of the RNAV departures for ATL.

On a side note...I always thought it a bit odd to get a clearance to an intersection (NELLO) while filing /A. I suppose it makes sense if you have a DP for the airport (such as the Atlanta 5), but without a specific departure procedure I have a hard time ethically filing this way. Of course I will accept the clearance as 'radar vectors to NELLO, then as filed' because I should get a general direction prior to wheels up.

 

[Lance F]

Ditto to Ron. On my trips to the west, I use NELLO then direct to stay away from Atlanta Class B. The first time, I used SUMMT but they kicked me another ten miles out to NELLO. Although in my case, I use DUAT.

NELLO is not a GPS waypoint. I was wondering about the GPS fixes that only are shown on the GPS approach plates like Ron checked.

Although the computer apparently will accept one of these as a waypoint, I still wonder about the controllers. There is no way a controller is going to know where these are like they do the navaid waypoints.

I am a great fan of Don Brown, but disagree with him on this point.

 

[gismo]

NELLO is not a GPS waypoint. I was wondering about the GPS fixes that only are shown on the GPS approach plates like Ron checked.

Although the computer apparently will accept one of these as a waypoint, I still wonder about the controllers. There is no way a controller is going to know where these are like they do the navaid waypoints.

I am a great fan of Don Brown, but disagree with him on this point.

If you are going to file to a GPS IAF like OKKOE you'd best also put some kind of intermediate fix prior to that IAF that controllers will be able to recognize. I wish there was a way to put the general direction to any fix in a flight plan as that's what most controllers really want to know anyway.

Something like KEAU (HDG-087)SKIPR KACB would tell ATC where I want to go without them having to ask me in the air.

 

[Everskyward]

Although the computer apparently will accept one of these as a waypoint, I still wonder about the controllers. There is no way a controller is going to know where these are like they do the navaid waypoints.

I think the controllers who work the sector where the airport is located know the different GPS IAFs, but someone in another center hundreds of miles away very likely does not. Filing an IAF probably works better when you are staying nearby. Many controllers, in the middle of the country anyway, will clear you "direct destination" which negates the reasons people have given here for filing an IAF as an intermediate point. Of course you can ask for the IAF, but you will probably get a puzzled response as to where that is until you get closer to your destination.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think the controllers who work the sector where the airport is located know the different GPS IAFs, but someone in another center hundreds of miles away very likely does not.

It even happens locally. When doing practice approaches around KAPA, you will hear someone periodically ask for a full approach on a GPS approach with one of the IAFs on the ends of the T and Denver Approach say they don't know where that is. It may be a computer update issue for them, but I've periodically described where it is in relation to ground references and have it okayed.

 

[EdFred]

I don't file to an IAF because conditions may change that have me flying a different approach which may have an IAF 20 miles or more from the IAF I filed.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Assume two examples:

a. filed via IAF as last en route
b. filed via other fix as last en route fix

Assume in both cases the clearance began, "...cleared to destination airport via...".

Assumen in both case the aircraft losses COM.

For both cases, what's the clearance limit?

For both cases, where does compliance with 91.185 send you before heading to an IAF?

IOW, for those who feel that filing an IAP as the final en route fix is "common sense" or "good practice", given "....cleared to destination airport via..." filing to the IAP changed the lost COM scenario how? Site regulations and note deviations from those regulations in explaining your answer. Compare scenarios with and without the filed IAP.

Note that the regulations and deviations are identical in either case.

 

[jdwatson]

The only regulation that I can cite is 91.185 and here's a link to the non-regulatory AIM.

The relevant section in the CFAR 91.185(c):
(3) Leave clearance limit. (i) When the clearance limit is a fix from which an approach begins, commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or if one has not been received, as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.

(ii) If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins, leave the clearance limit at the expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or if none has been received, upon arrival over the clearance limit, and proceed to a fix from which an approach begins and commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.


The relevant section from the AIM is 6-4-1: (looks familar)
(c) Leave clearance limit.

(1) When the clearance limit is a fix from which an approach begins, commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the expect further clearance time if one has been received, or if one has not been received, as close as possible to the Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) Estimated Time En Route (ETE).

(2) If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins, leave the clearance limit at the expect further clearance time if one has been received, or if none has been received, upon arrival over the clearance limit, and proceed to a fix from which an approach begins and commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.

 

[121Dispatch]

For both cases, where does compliance with 91.185 send you before heading to an IAF?

To the clearance limit - in your example - the airport

filing to the IAP changed the lost COM scenario how? Site regulations and note deviations from those regulations in explaining your answer. Compare scenarios with and without the filed IAP.

Note that the regulations and deviations are identical in either case.

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? 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.

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.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I don't think there is much doubt it's the folks with the IFR certified GPSs that are stating this doesn't work any more. If one doesn't have a certified GPS, I'd sure be in the other court.

Best,

Dave

 

[TMetzinger]

To the clearance limit - in your example - the airport



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? 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.

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.

If you've got GPS, you can of course navigate direct to an appropriate IAF. Without it, you should still be able to know where you are, and either fly to a navaid that's an IAF, or a navaid that defines the IAF (and all IAFs on non-GPS approaches are defined by navaids). Once you know where you are - and you should ALWAYS know where you are when IFR, it should be easy enough to navigate to an IAF. Ded Reckon from current postion and intercept the radial/bearing that defines the IAF, then track it to the IAF, then start the approach.