SbestCFII
Line Up and Wait
Ask ATC if you can be cleared "straight in" the activate the leg leading from the course reversal towards the FAF. I've never been told no.
GPS straight-in
- Thread starter Let'sgoflying!
- Start date
John Collins
En-Route
On the intermediate leg, the purpose is to get slowed down and configured for the final approach leg. TERPS prefers 150 feet/NM as ideal and allows up to 318 ft/NM (a 3 degree GS). If the hold was not at TIFME and one flew inbound as an IF, the descent would require 583 ft/NM. As it is, with a descent in the hold to 8000, the intermediate leg calls for 1500 feet of descent over 6 NM, or 250 feet/NM, steeper than desired, but allowable.
John Collins
En-Route
ATC can let you do a lot of things and on this procedure, it would not be smart to go straight in.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
The pilot has the final responsibility to not delete the HILPT when the terminal route leading to the HILPT does not state "NoPT. But the AIM makes it ambiguous by stating:
5−4−9. Procedure Turn and Hold−in−lieu of Procedure Turn
a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold−in− lieu−of−PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart, unless cleared by ATC for a straight−in approach.
Just a dose of reality. In the situation we have been discussing, for example, there is no terrain or obstruction issue since everything is taking place on published routes. If there is somehow a traffic issue, that's for ATC which won't clear the routing. The issues in this approach are configuration and descent rate, things which are in the exclusive control of the pilot. I guess if the pilot does something stupid and disappears, the system pays a price by closing off that airspace, but although stupidity can be fatal, it's difficult to effectively regulate.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Again, this is where we differ. Instrument approaches are controlled by the TERPS gods, unless the radar gods assume control. Pilots control the airplane and whether or not they exceed legal limitations. I'm fascinated that a lawyer sees this differently. Maybe because you get paid to argue either side of an issue?
OTOH, I'm fascinated you think an arcraft's descent rate and configuration are controlled by TERPS gods, ATC, or anyone other than the PIC.Again, this is where we differ. Instrument approaches are controlled by the TERPS gods, unless the radar gods assume control. Pilots control the airplane and whether or not they exceed legal limitations. I'm fascinated that a lawyer sees this differently. Maybe because you get paid to argue either side of an issue?
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
The descent gradient is governed by TERPs criteria. If you believe the HILPT for Runways 19 and 23 are optional when arriving via the FST feeder, why even request a straight-in from ATC? They certainly aren't "TERPs gods." If you feel it is okay to go straight-in, just delete the HILPT and dive for the LPV GS when crossing the IF/IAF. I believe that is violating 91.175(a) because you have modified the procedure that was prescribed by Part 97.33. ("NoPT" does not appear on the 8260-3 for the FST feeder route on either procedure).
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
Then, there is this language in the AIM:
When a holding pattern replaces a procedure turn, the holding pattern must be followed, except when RADAR VECTORING is provided or when NoPT is shown on the approach course. The recommended entry procedures will ensure the aircraft remains within the holding pattern’s protected airspace. As in the procedure turn, the descent from the minimum holding pattern altitude to the final approach fix altitude (when lower) may not commence until the aircraft is established on the inbound course. Where a holding pattern is established in−lieu−of a procedure turn, the maximum holding pattern airspeeds apply.
When a holding pattern replaces a procedure turn, the holding pattern must be followed, except when RADAR VECTORING is provided or when NoPT is shown on the approach course. The recommended entry procedures will ensure the aircraft remains within the holding pattern’s protected airspace. As in the procedure turn, the descent from the minimum holding pattern altitude to the final approach fix altitude (when lower) may not commence until the aircraft is established on the inbound course. Where a holding pattern is established in−lieu−of a procedure turn, the maximum holding pattern airspeeds apply.
You are misreading what I wrote exactly the same way as Dave. Maybe worse since I specifically said "an aircraft's descent rate and configuration" to point out Dave's misreading.
If you review my posts you will see not one word or sentence that says what you said in bold. Not in that post, not in this thread, not in any post I have written in the past 20 years. If you look through the posts, you will see that this is what I said...
As you quoted and emphasized from the AIM, the HILPT "is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart, unless cleared by ATC for a straight−in approach." In response, I said, the language in the AIM allowing ATC to clear straight-in is a dose of practical reality. It comes up in various situations, but the problem in the posted scenario is not terrain or obstructions because everything is on published routes. The problem with this approach is and has been the descent gradient and the HILPT is designed to allow for a normalized descent to the lower altitude. As some else pointed out, drop your approach speed to 60 or 70 and the descent rate becomes more "normalized." In this situation, I am saying, if the pilot thinks she can accomplish it (I would not) in her aircraft with a configuration and descent rate acceptable to her, the pilot is free to ask ATC to be cleared straight in (not simply disregard the mandatory nature of the procedure without the appropriate clearance). No guarantee, of course, that ATC will say OK.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
...if the pilot thinks she can accomplish it (I would not) in her aircraft with a configuration and descent rate acceptable to her, the pilot is free to ask ATC to be cleared straight in (not simply disregard the mandatory nature of the procedure without the appropriate clearance). No guarantee, of course, that ATC will say OK.
They can say “ok” because they would not be violating Part 91.175(a) and 97.33. That would be the pilot.
Not as modified by the AIM paragraph you quoted. Unless you are saying one cannot be cleared to an IF and straight in.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
Yes, I am saying that unless the direct-to-the-IF procedures are appropriately applied. Proper alignment and descent gradient within the limits set forth in the 7110.65 and in radar, and straight-in stated twice by the controller.
Quote of the year! I think that belongs in your signature line.