Without looking at that airport, that is just what I do (or request minimum vectoring altitude) when going to a field without an IAP.
I haven't looked this up at this time, but I thought contact approaches can't be used as a "poor man's approach." Meaning, they can only be assigned when the destination airfield has an SIAP, and the PIC reasonably believes he can navigate to the field via ground reference under visual conditions.
2P2 has no instrument approaches, therefore you won't be issued a contact approach.
Might work better to file .....ESC --D-> 2P2, then after crossing ESC request a cruise clearance. That would almost certainly allow you to descend as low as MOCA on the airway perhaps lower.
Good point.
There is no MOCA for ESC -> 2P2, only for V271. Since that direct line to 2P2 is not the same as V271, you cannot use the V271 MOCA. If you file direct 2P2, since a cruise clearance allows descent only to the "minimum IFR altitude", you'd have to get in the sectional and determine the highest obstruction within 4nm either side of that direct route, and stay at least 1000 above that obstruction. Further, since that would be an "off-route" clearance, you cannot use even that altitude unless ATC can provide radar monitoring that low -- you'd have to ask them. Finally, since there is no navaid on the airport at 2P2, this clearance cannot be accepted legally without an IFR GPS or other approved RNAV system because you could not determine arrival at that point with only a VOR.
Well, you got THAT part right, Ron. Beyond that you've got so many misconceptions I hardly know where to begin.....
On a direct route from ESC --D-> 2P2 your minimum IFR altitude is as Ron suggests no lower than 1000' above the highest obstacle within 4 nm of your course, MEA and MOCA on the airway are irrelevant as you're not on the airway. The circumstances under which your minimum IFR altitude might likely be lower than MOCA on the airway are that airway MOCA is based on obstacle clearance on the whole airway segment between ESC and ??? thus there may well be higher obstructions south of 2P2 that effect airway MOCA but wouldn't effect your ESC --D-> 2P2 route. OTOH there may be higher obstructions in close to the west of your route that wouldn't effect MOCA on the airway? You just have to study the sectional chart to determine that.
I'm pretty sure that's in keeping with things that Steven has said... that a random route clearance cannot be issued outside of a radar environment.
This has been hashed out so many times I doubt if anyone is going to change their minds. But that's what one school of thought says, that as far as the FAA is concerned, it's not legal to navigate direct to a random fix with only a VOR receiver.
This is a direct route from a VOR within the navaid service volume, you don't need radar to do that.
Assuming you have an official source for those coordinates, I think everyone would agree that's a legal clearance. Just not direct from a random point.
Yes, but that's not what C'Ron was talking about. "Direct" means point to point, not along a VOR radial. That's what ATC will not clear you for outside of a radar environment.
Good grief, we do this all the time!
I beg to differ. "Random routes" mean not along a VOR radial. "Direct routes" have been described in the AIM for longer than the capabilities to make random routes have existed.
ESC --D-> 2P2, since ESC is in fact a VOR station explain how that route is "not along a VOR radial"?
We're talking past each other. You're talking about flying out a radial from a VOR. Everyone agrees that's completely legal to fly /A. The argument comes in when someone says they can navigate *direct* to that point along a random route. Obviously it's doable, since rho-theta RNAV computers are using some algorithm to do it and if you know it, and are good enough, you can carry out the necessary calculations yourself without the KNS-81 or whatever. Or maybe there's an easier way. But lots of people (C'Ron included unless he's changed his position) say the FAA doesn't recognize that as legit. Steven has argued the opposite position. But since you're talking about flying a radial, that whole argument doesn't matter.
Okay, I'll stick to saying "random route" then. I did use that term earlier, but thought "point to point" was a clear enough synonym for the same idea.
I meant "along a random route".
Sure, provided Happy Town is (charted as) along the ESC 180 radial AND you have a (charted) cross radial or DME to identify when you've reached Happy Town.
Filed "......GGW --D-> " destination "15MT".
Sure, I agree with that and wrote as much a few posts up. But that is a clearance to a specified position -- not the same thing as 2P2 or some airport without a charted radial/DME position.
And I've done stuff like the above when VFR... but since airnav isn't official data, I wonder if "direct ESC direct" or "direct ESC, direct via the 161 radial" is a legitimate clearance with 2P2 as the clearance limit.
must'a been magic?Cherokee One Alpha Bravo, cleared direct to the Escanaba one six one radial two one point three mile fix.”
(John how did we ever fly before moving maps and GPS)
Wonder no more, it is a legitimate clearance.
