roncachamp
Final Approach
Nice theory, but experience says it's not guaranteed they'll know what is/is not on the chart for any given approach.
The operative word there was SHOULD.
Nice theory, but experience says it's not guaranteed they'll know what is/is not on the chart for any given approach.
You mean "Hold northeast of Lawrence as published"? Yes, he should have said that, and may have, but it still didn't help much since we didn't which radial or direction of turn.Even if the hold had been charted, assuming Ron's quote of the controller is correct, the controller erred in not issuing the holding direction.
You mean "Hold northeast of Lawrence as published"?
That's the main lesson. Whether or not controllers should know what holding patterns are depicted on what charts and whether or not pilots should be able to find the published hold on their own charts is irrelevant. Sometime things do not work out as they should because people are imperfect and so is the system.In any event, the lesson for pilots is that when a controller says "hold as published," you may need more information to find out where it's published, and if you're close to the fix, don't be afraid to say, "Can't find it, request detailed instructions."
Well, assuming there were several people waiting for THAT approach into THAT airport, where do you think ATC would put them?
What issue with the missed approach?
In a hold on a feeder route somewhere.
If ATC DOES stack planes in that hold, they would have to be at a significantly higher altitude than the missed approach hold altitude for obvious reasons.
While an airplane is on an approach to an uncontrolled field, or basically any time they are not in radar contact, all of that airspace belongs to the airplane on the approach. If that airplane needs to do a missed approach, ATC can't really clear another airplane for the approach until he deals with the missed.
Where would the second missed approach airplane go?
It appears you'd prefer to use lateral separation over vertical separation, you tend to run out of airspace rather quickly that way.
Not at all. I just think that if you are going to stack people up in the same hold as the missed approach, things can get bottled up in a hurry.
Reality is, at a place like Washington, MO it won't be an issue because you more than likely won't have more than two airplanes AT MOST vying for that airspace at the same time. Moot point.
This is an academic exercise, for the most part.
Okay. What's the reason the aircraft are holding in your academic exercise?
Ok, you have a Cessna Pilot's Association convention in Washington, Missouri. It starts at a given time of day and 10 of the attendees end up arriving at the same time. Weather has been up and down all day long. More or less at minimums for the approach. And, for whatever reason, radar coverage is not available so the full approach has to be done.
Obviously they cannot all shoot the approach at the same time. So they have to be stacked in a hold somewhere. Foristell VOR seems like the logical place.
The first airplane to shoot the approach gets in but the weather is right at minimums. Since he has canceled his IFR, the airspace is now clear for the next person in line to shoot the approach. But the ceiling has dropped enough that he has to miss the approach and does the published missed approach back to Foristell. Explain to me how this would work.
Hey, I am just trying to learn here. It just seems to me like you wouldn't want a missed approach hold at the same place as where people are stacked up to shoot the approach to the same runway.
Doesn't seem to be a problem to me.
This is not that uncommon. In some areas different approaches, even similar ones, have different holds.While my trainee is going around in the hold, I look further -- guess what I find -- the ILS 05 approach (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0811/00654I5.PDF) has a published missed approach hold at the LWM VOR -- northeast, 057 radial, right turns. Not on the other approach charts, not on the L-chart.
This is so true.That's the main lesson. Whether or not controllers should know what holding patterns are depicted on what charts and whether or not pilots should be able to find the published hold on their own charts is irrelevant. Sometime things do not work out as they should because people are imperfect and so is the system.
What exactly was the route you were giving them?The routing was departing KAUS, intercept the R-222 radial for V-17 off CWK then direct BETTI. Intercept the R-105 STV for BETTI then fly direct STV via V-222. Then, outbound STV on R-345 for V-568 direct to LLO. Afterward, outbound to KAQO. All of this can be seen on the L-19 Low Altitude Enroute Chart. Access it here then click on the "L-19" button at the top right corner of the chart.
I think the problem here is that the system will not allow you to file from the airport to intercept a radial or an airway. The system wants you to file to a fix first.According to the FSS briefer, the only option the system would accept was depart KAUS, fly direct to CWK (North of KAUS) then outbound to BETTI during which we would pass by KAUS to the west. Also, I remarked "Student XC. No DPs, No STARS."
It is my understanding that there are canned routes between departure and destination airports which are automatically assigned. Sometimes what you put in remarks is ignored. Other times they will not issue you the SID per se, but they will read off the exact procedure from the text of the SID. I have heard them do that to someone before.When I called for a clearance, I specifically requested a clearance as filed. But, the system automatically plugged in the Austin Two Departure which is what the clearance controller saw.
The best strategy I have found to get the routing you want is to negotiate with the controller themselves.After getting handed off to departure, I asked him if we could get direct BETTI, Stonewall then Llano. He said Stonewall was not on my routing. I responded that it was originally but had been removed by the "automated" system. Apparently the other note of "Student XC" had also been ignored by the system. The controller ask me if this was IFR training. "Affirmative."
He said, "Let me see what I can do." A minute later, he came back with "Fly heading 220, direct BETTI, direct Stonewall, direct Llano, direct Llano airport." My reply: "Awesome, thank you very much!" He told me the problem was the system would not recognize "BETTI."
My first point in the route was a fix. It was "BETTI."I think the problem here is that the system will not allow you to file from the airport to intercept a radial or an airway. The system wants you to file to a fix first.
That pretty much describes what happen.It is my understanding that there are canned routes between departure and destination airports which are automatically assigned. Sometimes what you put in remarks is ignored. Other times they will not issue you the SID per se, but they will read off the exact procedure from the text of the SID. I have heard them do that to someone before.
The exact act that got us what we wanted.The best strategy I have found to get the routing you want is to negotiate with the controller themselves.
That was hard to tell from what you wrote here. You seem to imply that you want to intercept the radial then go direct BETTI.My first point in the route was a fix. It was "BETTI."
Were you using this many words with the FSS briefer? All you needed to say was departure KAUS direct BETTI V222 STV V568 LLO destination KAQO.The routing was departing KAUS, intercept the R-222 radial for V-17 off CWK then direct BETTI. Intercept the R-105 STV for BETTI then fly direct STV via V-222. Then, outbound STV on R-345 for V-568 direct to LLO. Afterward, outbound to KAQO.
What exactly was the route you were giving them?
Departing: KAUS
Routing: V17 BETTI V222 STV V568 LLO
Destination: KAQO
It didn't specify an intercept but apparently if your initial place of routing involves a victor airway, the initial point must be the VOR just prior to that segment of the victor airway. Even so, you'd think the clearance controller would look at it and simply issue BETTI as the initial fix, particularly if a student XC is specified. Maybe the controllers aren't allowed to rethink what the computers kick out.
That's the funny thing. I asked clearance for direct BETTI.Yeah you need to get something 'solid' before that airway. V17 isn't exactly a defined point in space. Some sort of fix before it.
Agreed. I think the two choices are to go direct BETTI, if you can, and eliminate V17, or if you don't have an IFR GPS do what the controller suggested and file to CWK.Yeah you need to get something 'solid' before that airway. V17 isn't exactly a defined point in space. Some sort of fix before it.
The intended practice was for navigation via only VORs. The GPS was... shall we say? "INOP"?Agreed. I think the two choices are to go direct BETTI, if you can, and eliminate V17, or if you don't have an IFR GPS do what the controller suggested and file to CWK.
This is so true.
Today, I attempted to file through a flight planner. It wouldn't accept the routing. So, I called flight service. His system would not accept it, either.
The routing was departing KAUS, intercept the R-222 radial for V-17 off CWK then direct BETTI. Intercept the R-105 STV for BETTI then fly direct STV via V-222. Then, outbound STV on R-345 for V-568 direct to LLO. Afterward, outbound to KAQO. All of this can be seen on the L-19 Low Altitude Enroute Chart. Access it here then click on the "L-19" button at the top right corner of the chart.
According to the FSS briefer, the only option the system would accept was depart KAUS, fly direct to CWK (North of KAUS) then outbound to BETTI during which we would pass by KAUS to the west. Also, I remarked "Student XC. No DPs, No STARS."
When I called for a clearance, I specifically requested a clearance as filed. But, the system automatically plugged in the Austin Two Departure which is what the clearance controller saw. So, I was given that departure with a Llano transition. This would completely bypass the intended training route. The controller said my only option was fly to AMUSE and then to Llano.
Just prior to departure, I called clearance again asking if we could modify. He started mentioning the presidential TFR near Temple. I was more than confused as we were going nowhere near Temple. I pretty much gave up in hopes of getting something changed when handed off to center. He did say we could ask for a specific radial with DME. I'm wondering, how is that better than specifying a very specific fix in the system?
After getting handed off to departure, I asked him if we could get direct BETTI, Stonewall then Llano. He said Stonewall was not on my routing. I responded that it was originally but had been removed by the "automated" system. Apparently the other note of "Student XC" had also been ignored by the system. The controller ask me if this was IFR training. "Affirmative."
He said, "Let me see what I can do." A minute later, he came back with "Fly heading 220, direct BETTI, direct Stonewall, direct Llano, direct Llano airport." My reply: "Awesome, thank you very much!" He told me the problem was the system would not recognize "BETTI."
Another instructor later told me I might try GARDS which is not on a victor airway but it should go through on a flight plan. The question remains, will it always give me a DP regardless of my remark of "No DP"?
There has to be an easier way to plan a student XC while on an active IFR flight plan.
Next time you might want to bypass FSS and file it yourself via DUAT. The format for the route is:
KAUS*..BETTI.V222.STV.V568.LLO..KAQO
Two periods between unlike elements (elements are fixes or routes), one period between unlike elements, the asterisk after KAUS suppresses the preferential departure.
Departing: KAUS
Routing: V17 BETTI V222 STV V568 LLO
Destination: KAQO
It didn't specify an intercept but apparently if your initial place of routing involves a victor airway, the initial point must be the VOR just prior to that segment of the victor airway. Even so, you'd think the clearance controller would look at it and simply issue BETTI as the initial fix, particularly if a student XC is specified. Maybe the controllers aren't allowed to rethink what the computers kick out.
I first tried it via AOPA RTFP. That failed. It seems if the briefer can't put it in manually, why would a computer be able to?BETTI is an airway fix, there's no way the FDP computer isn't going to recognize it. Next time you might want to bypass FSS and file it yourself via DUAT. The format for the route is:
KAUS*..BETTI.V222.STV.V568.LLO..KAQO
Two periods between unlike elements (elements are fixes or routes), one period between unlike elements, the asterisk after KAUS suppresses the preferential departure.
I used to use DUAT. I'll start trying that again.I tried this route
BETTI.V222.STV.V568.LLO
via DUATS and it worked fine as long as you omit the punctuation like:
BETTI V222 STV V568 LLO
Now, whether you get it as filed or not is a completely different story.
Fltplan.com took it just like that for me.[SIZE=-1]BETTI V222 STV V568 LLO[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
[SIZE=-1]KAUS to KAQO: TC=305° : MC= 299° : [SIZE=-1]ST. LINE= 62nm : [SIZE=-1]AIRWAY=104nm : [SIZE=-1]Extra=68%[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
As far as a DP, it's a given thanks to the computer that gives AUS clearance. A DP is automatically added to every clearance.
It was.... "NO DP" in remarks. It was ignored. Clearance gave me the Austin Two Departure with the Llano transition.Not if it's suppressed.
It was.... "NO DP" in remarks. It was ignored. Clearance gave me the Austin Two Departure with the Llano transition.
BETTI is an airway fix, there's no way the FDP computer isn't going to recognize it. Next time you might want to bypass FSS and file it yourself via DUAT. The format for the route is:
KAUS*..BETTI.V222.STV.V568.LLO..KAQO
Two periods between unlike elements (elements are fixes or routes), one period between unlike elements, the asterisk after KAUS suppresses the preferential departure.
I tried this route
BETTI.V222.STV.V568.LLO
via DUATS and it worked fine as long as you omit the punctuation like:
BETTI V222 STV V568 LLO
It was.... "NO DP" in remarks. It was ignored. Clearance gave me the Austin Two Departure with the Llano transition.
When I give the routing to FSS, I would reasonably expect them to code the information to provide what I'm requesting. Then again, although Lockheed is doing much better than they started out, I guess they don't know all those "tricks" and tools to better input flight plans. This might be worth filing a note on their web site.Kenny...
Read the man's post. He's a controller. He knows his stuff. You don't suppress anything with "NO DP" in the remarks - The remarks aren't touched by the computers. The route is. Go back and read the post again, and you'll see that you suppress the DP by putting an asterisk after KAUS in the route.
No, but the controller is supposed to.The Flight Data Processing computer doesn't read remarks.
I don't think either one will suppress the preferential departure. Just because DUAT or DUATS or any other service will let you file a certain route doesn't mean that is the route you are going to be assigned in your clearance. Kenny was having problems getting the system to accept his flight plan.... I think.duat.com /= duats.com Wonder if DUATS will suppress the preferential departure somehow like DUAT?
Correct. I did try both; DUAT and DUATS. Neither took the KAUS* entry and both rejected V17 as the initial "fix." Only BETTI was accepted.I don't think either one will suppress the preferential departure.
...and having the system grant the route he filed which is never guaranteed even if the system "takes" the route you file.Kenny was having problems getting the system to accept his flight plan.... I think.
Two periods between unlike elements (elements are fixes or routes), one period between unlike elements, the asterisk after KAUS suppresses the preferential departure.