Flying at MOCA to airport without IAP

[dtuuri]

Yes, that's what I understood. So my question then is, can you accept a clearance to 2P2 via direct ESC, direct with only a VOR and DME? (regardless of altitude) If so, how is that different from the VOR approach example? Where do you obtain sufficiently accurate data to identify arrival at 2P2?

Pardon me for interjecting my 2 cents, but this is why cruise clearances exist. They even allow the pilot to leave controlled airspace.

dtuuri

 

[peerlesscowboy]

No I don't. As I said, I'm just not sure it's legal. Until John's post earlier in the thread of a route clearance to a private field, I'd never heard of that being done when there was no official data published.


It's not the clearance along a radial to a fix defined by radial+distance that I was questioning, but the ability to identify the clearance limit if it's given in the form of the identifier of an airport for which official data has not been published.

Not sure what you mean by "published official data"? 15MT is in fact a federally designated airport and the exact location is a matter of public record.
http://airnav.com/airport/15MT

 

[azure]

Pardon me for interjecting my 2 cents, but this is why cruise clearances exist. They even allow the pilot to leave controlled airspace.

dtuuri

I'm not too clear on what cruise clearances are for, I thought they were about pilot's discretion as to altitude, and also to allow the pilot to fly any legally flyable approach to the field, without a specific approach clearance. I didn't think they allowed a pilot to locate the field using a sectional and plotter...

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes, that's what I understood. So my question then is, can you accept a clearance to 2P2 via direct ESC, direct with only a VOR and DME? (regardless of altitude)

No.

If so, how is that different from the VOR approach example?

The VOR approach chart has surveyed, flight checked procedures for getting to the airport. Just pulling a distance off an L-chart with a plotter doesn't meet that standard. OTOH, if you have DME, it would be completely legal to measure 21nm of the L-chart to roughly overhead 2P2 and obtain a clearance to the ESC 161 radial 21 DME fix. Yes, that's just a semantic thing, but it's the difference between being technically legal and not being technically legal.

Where do you obtain sufficiently accurate data to identify arrival at 2P2?

Lacking an IFR RNAV system, you don't. But if you have a DME, you can certainly determine your arrival at the ESC161021 fix which is pretty near right over the top of 2P2, and should do for getting you close enough to see it if the weather is good enough.

 

[poadeleted20]

Pardon me for interjecting my 2 cents, but this is why cruise clearances exist. They even allow the pilot to leave controlled airspace.

Cruise clearances do not relieve you of the obligation to follow published procedures.

 

[azure]

Not sure what you mean by "published official data"? 15MT is in fact a federally designated airport and the exact location is a matter of public record.
http://airnav.com/airport/15MT

I meant in a form that an /A aircraft could use to identify the field. If it's published in that form, I don't see a problem.

Or maybe identifying fixes during the enroute phase isn't subject to the same restrictions as identifying fixes along approach segments? I don't know. But if there's a difference, where's the reference for that?

 

[dtuuri]

I'm not too clear on what cruise clearances are for, I thought they were about pilot's discretion as to altitude, and also to allow the pilot to fly any legally flyable approach to the field, without a specific approach clearance. I didn't think they allowed a pilot to locate the field using a sectional and plotter...

From the P/CG:

"Further, it is approval for the pilot to proceed to and make an approach at destination airport and can be used in conjunction with:

a. ...
b. An airport clearance limit at locations that are within/below/outside controlled airspace and without a standard/special instrument approach procedure. Such a clearance is NOT AUTHORIZATION for the pilot to descend under IFR conditions below the applicable minimum IFR altitude nor does it imply that ATC is exercising control over aircraft in Class G airspace; however, it provides a means for the aircraft to proceed to destination airport, descend, and land in accordance with applicable CFRs governing VFR flight operations. Also, this provides search and rescue protection until such time as the IFR flight plan is closed."​

dtuuri

 

[azure]

No.
The VOR approach chart has surveyed, flight checked procedures for getting to the airport. Just pulling a distance off an L-chart with a plotter doesn't meet that standard. OTOH, if you have DME, it would be completely legal to measure 21nm of the L-chart to roughly overhead 2P2 and obtain a clearance to the ESC 161 radial 21 DME fix. Yes, that's just a semantic thing, but it's the difference between being technically legal and not being technically legal.

Agreed.

Lacking an IFR RNAV system, you don't. But if you have a DME, you can certainly determine your arrival at the ESC161021 fix which is pretty near right over the top of 2P2, and should do for getting you close enough to see it if the weather is good enough.

Also agreed, for practical purposes. But again, we're talking about a clearance direct 2P2. So you say it's not legal, and Steven, John, and Richard seem to be saying it's just fine.

 

[azure]

From the P/CG:

"Further, it is approval for the pilot to proceed to and make an approach at destination airport and can be used in conjunction with:

a. ...
b. An airport clearance limit at locations that are within/below/outside controlled airspace and without a standard/special instrument approach procedure. Such a clearance is NOT AUTHORIZATION for the pilot to descend under IFR conditions below the applicable minimum IFR altitude nor does it imply that ATC is exercising control over aircraft in Class G airspace; however, it provides a means for the aircraft to proceed to destination airport, descend, and land in accordance with applicable CFRs governing VFR flight operations. Also, this provides search and rescue protection until such time as the IFR flight plan is closed."​

dtuuri

Yes, that's consistent with what I remember about them. But I still don't see where it allows a pilot to identify that clearance limit using radials and DME distances measured with a plotter.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

I meant in a form that an /A aircraft could use to identify the field. If it's published in that form, I don't see a problem.

Didn't you follow the link? There's published a radial and distance from the GGW VOR/DME & distances and bearings to at least 3 NDBs

 

[peerlesscowboy]

Yes, that's consistent with what I remember about them. But I still don't see where it allows a pilot to identify that clearance limit using radials and DME distances measured with a plotter.

You don't need a cruise clearance to do that.

 

[dtuuri]

So my question then is, can you accept a clearance to 2P2 via direct ESC, direct with only a VOR and DME?

No.

Yes you can, since the clearance you get before takeoff will not contain the cruise clearance you need to finish the flight, but will have the destination airport as the clearance limit.

dtuuri

 

[Palmpilot]

Of course. But say you're flying a VOR (not VOR/DME) approach for which the MAP is the runway threshold, defined via timing from an off-field VOR. Is it legal to determine the MAP by measuring the distance from the VOR using a plotter on a sectional or enroute chart and identify it in flight using DME? I don't have a reference but I'm pretty sure I was taught that this isn't legal. And if it isn't on an approach, why should it be legal in a route clearance?

Here's where I think that analogy breaks down: When you are flying a published instrument approach, it is a detailed procedure that is incorporated into the regulations by reference. I think that would prevent you from using data from a sectional or enroute chart to modify the way you fly the approach (unless an emergency required you to do so for some reason). In contrast to that, the process of getting close enough to an airport to determine whether you can fly a visual approach is not a detailed procedure that is incorporated into the regulations by reference, so I don't see why the same restrictions would apply.

As for why it "should" be legal in a route clearance when it is not on an instrument approach, the level of precision required to safely fly an instrument approach is far greater than the level of precision required to get into a position where you can determine if a visual approach can be successfully flown.

Of course this is all just my opinion.

 

[poadeleted20]

Also agreed, for practical purposes. But again, we're talking about a clearance direct 2P2. So you say it's not legal, and Steven, John, and Richard seem to be saying it's just fine.

What they say doesn't change the FAA's position on the requirement for approved RNAV systems to accept RNAV clearances. See the definition of "suitable RNAV system" in 14 CFR 1.1, and put that together with the requirement for "navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown" in 14 CFR 91.205(d)(2), with emphasis on the use of the word "suitable" in both. If you need official confirmation, just contact the FAA Flight Procedures Branch in AFS-400. BTW, AFS-810 is on board with this, too, so don't try fudging this on an Instrument practical test.

 

[Palmpilot]

I didn't say that. What's not legal is to accept a clearance direct to the airport without equipment that can provide cross-track and fix passage information, i.e., approved RNAV gear. Nothing wrong with getting a clearance via a radial to a radial-radial fix (or with VOR and DME to a radial/DME fix). You just have to make the clearance match the equipment you have.

Do you believe that a pair of VOR receivers, or a VOR receiver and a DME transceiver, cannot provide cross-track and fix passage information to an airport within the respective service volumes? If so, what is your reason for thinking so?

 

[Palmpilot]

Except those compass roses are not official distances for IFR navigation.

What is your basis for making that statement?

 

[azure]

Didn't you follow the link? There's published a radial and distance from the GGW VOR/DME & distances and bearings to at least 3 NDBs

What link? Where is it published (I see it in airnav, but is that legal to use for navigation)?

 

[azure]

Here's where I think that analogy breaks down: When you are flying a published instrument approach, it is a detailed procedure that is incorporated into the regulations by reference. I think that would prevent you from using data from a sectional or enroute chart to modify the way you fly the approach (unless an emergency required you to do so for some reason). In contrast to that, the process of getting close enough to an airport to determine whether you can fly a visual approach is not a detailed procedure that is incorporated into the regulations by reference, so I don't see why the same restrictions would apply.

As for why it "should" be legal in a route clearance when it is not on an instrument approach, the level of precision required to safely fly an instrument approach is far greater than the level of precision required to get into a position where you can determine if a visual approach can be successfully flown.

Of course this is all just my opinion.

That's a pretty good plausibility argument, I agree. I'm just wondering if there's anything in the regs or any FAA document that makes this explicit.

 

[azure]

What they say doesn't change the FAA's position on the requirement for approved RNAV systems to accept RNAV clearances. See the definition of "suitable RNAV system" in 14 CFR 1.1, and put that together with the requirement for "navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown" in 14 CFR 91.205(d)(2), with emphasis on the use of the word "suitable" in both. If you need official confirmation, just contact the FAA Flight Procedures Branch in AFS-400. BTW, AFS-810 is on board with this, too, so don't try fudging this on an Instrument practical test.

Is direct ESC direct 2P2 an RNAV route?

 

[poadeleted20]

Do you believe that a pair of VOR receivers, or a VOR receiver and a DME transceiver, cannot provide cross-track and fix passage information to an airport within the respective service volumes? If so, what is your reason for thinking so?

Yes, I do. The reason is that there is no published fix associated with that airport defined by those radials or radial and DME. Thus, you have no published data to determine that you are actually over that airport when you reach that fix.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

Agreed.

Also agreed, for practical purposes. But again, we're talking about a clearance direct 2P2. So you say it's not legal, and Steven, John, and Richard seem to be saying it's just fine.

Ron doesn't seem to understand that the route clearance is two dimentional (all in the horizontal plane), IOW there's no vertical component to your route clearance.

 

[poadeleted20]

What is your basis for making that statement?

I would ask in return what your basis is for saying it is official distance information. It's just not stated officially as a reliable navigational method the way, for example, route segment distances are depicted on instrument charts.

 

[Palmpilot]

Yes, that's what I understood. So my question then is, can you accept a clearance to 2P2 via direct ESC, direct with only a VOR and DME? (regardless of altitude) If so, how is that different from the VOR approach example? Where do you obtain sufficiently accurate data to identify arrival at 2P2?

If your plan is to fly a visual approach, the accuracy is provided by your eyeballs seeing the airport. And of course if you don't see the airport, then ATC can't clear you for a visual approach. None of that establishes any operational need for your electronic navigation to have the level of accuracy that is required on an instrument approach.

 

[dtuuri]

Yes, that's consistent with what I remember about them. But I still don't see where it allows a pilot to identify that clearance limit using radials and DME distances measured with a plotter.

P/CG:

"FIX- A geographical position determined by visual reference to the surface, by reference to one or more radio NAVAIDs, by celestial plotting, or by another navigational device."​

AIM:

"c. Direct Flights

1. 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. Fixes selected to define the route must be those over which the position of the aircraft can be accurately determined. Such fixes automatically become compulsory reporting points for the flight, unless advised otherwise by ATC. Only those navigational 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."​

Order 7110.65V:

"NOTE−
A point-to-point route segment begins and ends with a published NAVAID, waypoint, fix, or airport."​

Seems clear enough to me. How else can you do it?

dtuuri

 

[poadeleted20]

That's a pretty good plausibility argument, I agree. I'm just wondering if there's anything in the regs or any FAA document that makes this explicit.

14 CFR 91.175 and 14 CFR Part 97. 91.175 says you must use published procedures for approaches, and Part 97 gives you those procedures. If it isn't in the published procedure, you can't use it.

 

[poadeleted20]

Is direct ESC direct 2P2 an RNAV route?

Since there's no navaid on 2P2, and 2P2 isn't a fix officially defined by navaids, yes, that would be an RNAV route. The only definition of 2P2's location is the airport reference point, which is lat/long, and you need an RNAV system to navigate to a lat/long.

 

[Palmpilot]

Cruise clearances do not relieve you of the obligation to follow published procedures.

Are you not allowed to fly a visual approach when you're on a cruise clearance?

 

[peerlesscowboy]

What link? Where is it published (I see it in airnav, but is that legal to use for navigation)?

Airnav gets it's data from the FAA.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron doesn't seem to understand that the route clearance is two dimentional (all in the horizontal plane), IOW there's no vertical component to your route clearance.

That is not true. Every IFR clearance includes altitude information/restrictions, and that includes a cruise clearance.

 

[poadeleted20]

Are you not allowed to fly a visual approach when you're on a cruise clearance?

Sure you can fly a visual approach on a cruise clearance -- but that's a published procedure once you have the airport in sight. Until then, you have to stick to approved instrument procedures.

 

[Palmpilot]

Agreed.

Also agreed, for practical purposes. But again, we're talking about a clearance direct 2P2. So you say it's not legal, and Steven, John, and Richard seem to be saying it's just fine.

I don't think I have the credentials or expertise to say whether it's "just fine," but I am saying that if it's not fine, I haven't yet seen a convincing legal argument to that effect.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

That is not true. Every IFR clearance includes altitude information/restrictions, and that includes a cruise clearance.

Ron, why don't you try actually reading the posts you reply to for a refreshing change? I said plainly that the route clearance doesn't have a vertical component.

 

[B350ATP]

Is direct ESC direct 2P2 an RNAV route?

you answered....

Since there's no navaid on 2P2, and 2P2 isn't a fix officially defined by navaids, yes, that would be an RNAV route. The only definition of 2P2's location is the airport reference point, which is lat/long, and you need an RNAV system to navigate to a lat/long.

No, it would not be an RNAV route. You are providing incorrect information to the guy. An RNAV route is published as such (since everyone loves "official" "published" data on this board).

RNAV Routes required compliance with various equipment and performance requirements, outlined in AC 90-100A

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-100A.pdf

ESC direct 2P2 is called "ESC direct 2P2"

Before you crank out responses please think about the question(s) being asked and be congizant of what folks are actually saying, not what you think they are saying (RE your prior statement that OP has no DME). Also lets stay on the page of the question being asked and not drift off into marginally related items which have minimal nexus to the question being asked.

 

[dtuuri]

No, it would not be an RNAV route. You are providing incorrect information to the guy.

You must be new around these here parts, pardner. Azure is, ahem, a gal.

dtuuri

 

[Palmpilot]

What they say doesn't change the FAA's position on the requirement for approved RNAV systems to accept RNAV clearances. See the definition of "suitable RNAV system" in 14 CFR 1.1, and put that together with the requirement for "navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown" in 14 CFR 91.205(d)(2), with emphasis on the use of the word "suitable" in both. If you need official confirmation, just contact the FAA Flight Procedures Branch in AFS-400.

I'm having trouble convincing myself that a clearance from a VOR to a location that is within its service volume is an RNAV clearance.

As for contacting AFS-400, unpublished communications with individual pilots is an ineffective way to promulgate official interpretations. At least the Chief Counsel puts his interpretations on the Web.

Furthermore, it would be unethical to enforce this interpretation without first taking the necessary steps to stop ATC from issuing the allegedly illegal clearances. Otherwise, it would be the moral equivalent of entrapment.

So I hope you will pardon me for declining to participate in what I consider to be a worthless process solely for the purpose of trying to win an Internet argument.

BTW, AFS-810 is on board with this, too, so don't try fudging this on an Instrument practical test.

Do administrative law judges and the NTSB consider what's accepted on practical tests to be authoritative legal interpretations?

 

[B350ATP]

Original Question, seeking a solution !

I am flying to an airport without an IAP (2P2). There is an airway that crosses right above the airport with a MOCA of 2100 MSL. If I am above a cloud layer trying to land, is the best solution to get on that airway and ask ATC to clear me to the MOCA to see if I break out of the clouds?

One example of "in the weeds, not related to the question" etc etc category !

What they say doesn't change the FAA's position on the requirement for approved RNAV systems to accept RNAV clearances. See the definition of "suitable RNAV system" in 14 CFR 1.1, and put that together with the requirement for "navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown" in 14 CFR 91.205(d)(2), with emphasis on the use of the word "suitable" in both. If you need official confirmation, just contact the FAA Flight Procedures Branch in AFS-400. BTW, AFS-810 is on board with this, too, so don't try fudging this on an Instrument practical test.

Ron, you are killing me and many on this thread

Nobody cares to call AFS-400 or any other AFS. By the way, the FAA and our federal government of course never makes mistakes.

In any event, we are not calling FAA HQ. Nor is anyone on this thread taking an IFR practical test nor did we ask about an IFR practical test. Thank you for the admonishment (why do you feel empowered to issue it, I don't know, but...) to "not try to fudge this" on the IFR practical test nobody is taking nor asking about.

 

[Palmpilot]

That's a pretty good plausibility argument, I agree. I'm just wondering if there's anything in the regs or any FAA document that makes this explicit.

I believe that a general principle in U.S. law (and I think this includes administrative law, such as FAA regulations) is that everything is legal unless or until there is a law, regulation, or court case making it illegal. Consequently, in general, the absence of documentation that something is legal is not definitive.

Ever notice the pervasiveness of FAA regulations that start out with the phrase "No person may..."?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It doesn't matter what you say, it's what you can support with verifiable documentation that matters. Your record is pretty poor.

Here we go...

 

[Palmpilot]

Yes, I do. The reason is that there is no published fix associated with that airport defined by those radials or radial and DME. Thus, you have no published data to determine that you are actually over that airport when you reach that fix.

Sectionals and enroute charts are published data. And if I remember rightly, they are flight checked.

 

[B350ATP]

You must be new around these here parts, pardner. Azure is, ahem, a gal.

dtuuri

Cool, she will be referred to correctly from this point forward.