How to fly ILS 01 at KALB from CIRRU ?

aterpster said:
The source, as charted by Jeppesen, makes it apparent that you fly the heading. The organization I work for recently asked the person in charge of FAA charting. Her answer, "We don't chart it because it is obvious that it is a heading." We're taking it as an issue to this October's Aeronautical Charting Forum.
Click to expand...

Until the day GPS becomes mandatory, I have to agree with her assessment that it's obviously a heading (although it wouldn't kill them to chart it as such). Short of utilizing the TRK field of a GPS, I'm not sure how anyone can practically be expected to fly a course without any navigational guidance.

Maybe this seems intuitive to me because it was spelled out pretty clearly in the Machado text that taught me all about instrument approaches prior to my formal instrument training, so this is all I've ever known, but even so, I don't see a reliable, practical alternative unless GPS becomes mandatory.

Once you realize how much protection is afforded, how far outside of the IF the non-corrected angle puts you, the steep intercept angle, etc, it's clear that it doesn't really matter what the winds are, you're going to be fine flying the heading.
 
coma24 said:
Until the day GPS becomes mandatory, I have to agree with her assessment that it's obviously a heading (although it wouldn't kill them to chart it as such). Short of utilizing the TRK field of a GPS, I'm not sure how anyone can practically be expected to fly a course without any navigational guidance.

Maybe this seems intuitive to me because it was spelled out pretty clearly in the Machado text that taught me all about instrument approaches prior to my formal instrument training, so this is all I've ever known, but even so, I don't see a reliable, practical alternative unless GPS becomes mandatory.

Once you realize how much protection is afforded, how far outside of the IF the non-corrected angle puts you, the steep intercept angle, etc, it's clear that it doesn't really matter what the winds are, you're going to be fine flying the heading.
Click to expand...
What Machado text us that?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
coma24 said:
luvflyin, you finally came around :)

Lol. Not completely. If the "source" says it's heading then that's what it says. There is still one thing I'm having trouble with. When the approach is constructed, to TERP out that leg, more space is needed between the planes and the rocks because there is not Positive Course Guidance. No needles to follow. It's TERP'd out with the 6 mile width with the expanding 15 degrees etc etc. That protects you if you fly the heading that corresponds to the intended course even if the wind is pushing you away. This is done by applying the criteria in the paragraph in the TERPS manual titled "Initial Approach Segment Based on DR," not "based on heading." The rules obviously account for the innacuracies of Dead Reckoning, including just flying the corresponding heading with no attempt to actually "dead reckon." All that being said, I agree that the Jepp chart is much easier to read and follow. Personally, I will "dead reckon" if I feel like the wind is going to make me a little "higher and tighter" than I'd really like to be. Maybe the "chart builders," Jepp and Gov alike, can come up with something that makes it easier to read without implying that you have no choice but to "fly THAT heading."
Click to expand...
 
It's an 80 deg intercept (before wind). It's 5nm from the MAP to the radial intercept, then ~6nm from that point to the MAP holding fix. I'd fly the heading as published, wind be damned, join the radial, then hold at WITNY. You?
 
I did a search of just the KAxx airports and came up with these that have a DR initial segment:


KACJ ILD RWY 23

KAEL VOR RWY 17

KAEX VOR DME RWY 32

KAJR VOR DME RWY 6

KALB ILS RWY 1

KALS VOR DME-B

KALW ILS Z RWY 20

KAPC ILS RWY 36

KARR VOR RWY 15

KAST ILS RWY 36

KASX LOC DME RWY 2

KAUG VOR DME RWY 8

KAXH LOC DME RWY 9
 
coma24 said:
luvflyin, you finally came around :)


ILS RWY 11 at KSBP: http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1607/00989I11.PDF
Click to expand...

Lol. Not completely. If the "source" says it's heading then that's what it says. There is still one thing I'm having trouble with. When the approach is constructed, to TERP out that leg, more space is needed between the planes and the rocks because there is not Positive Course Guidance. No needles to follow. It's TERP'd out with the 6 mile width with the expanding 15 degrees etc etc. That protects you if you fly the heading that corresponds to the intended course even if the wind is pushing you away. This is done by applying the criteria in the paragraph in the TERPS manual titled "Initial Approach Segment Based on DR," not "based on heading." The rules obviously account for the innacuracies of Dead Reckoning, including just flying the corresponding heading with no attempt to actually "dead reckon." All that being said, I agree that the Jepp chart is much easier to read and follow. Personally, I will "dead reckon" if I feel like the wind is going to make me a little "higher and tighter" than I'd really like to be. Maybe the "chart builders," Jepp and Gov alike, can come up with something that makes it easier to read without implying that you have no choice but to "fly THAT heading."
 
roncachamp said:
You seem to be saying that a heading cannot be a course, but "course" is defined as the intended direction of flight in the horizontal
plane measured in degrees from north.
Click to expand...
Isn't it the intended track??

I do remember some charts specified the word "heading" in similar cases.
 
EdFred said:
Different than the standard of a 3º glide slope? Why would a tailwind make that different than standard? You still need to descend the same amount over the same distance. Doesn't matter if you are going 70kts or 170kts. 3 degrees is 3 degrees. Oh no, someone has to descend at 600fpm rather than 300fpm, the horror!
Click to expand...
But the feet per minute is drastically different.
 
Waaaaaay back ^^^ up there I got a kick out of the folks worrying about a tailwind who didn't notice the plate does have Circling minima on it. LOL...

neilw2 said:
When you get you IFR realease you always get fly xx heading, I have never got fly xx course
Click to expand...

luvflyin said:
Yeah. You should never get "fly course." Fly heading means just that. Fly heading. It's when pilots start "interpreting" what heading means that things get mucked up. That was an issue even before GPS came around when pilots would "correct" for wind and "dead reckon" their way out the extended centerline of a runway when given "fly runway heading."
Click to expand...

"Fly runway heading" vs "Fly straight out"... You can get either one. And they are two different things in a howling crosswind... ;)
 
Kritchlow said:
Isn't it the intended track??

I do remember some charts specified the word "heading" in similar cases.
Click to expand...
Lots of SID charts specify heading and that is exactly what they mean.
 
Nate,

Never heard of "fly straight out" on an IFR departure. When and where did you hear that?
 
coma24 said:
Nate,

Never heard of "fly straight out" on an IFR departure. When and where did you hear that?
Click to expand...

Have only heard it VMC myself, and usually to VFR aircraft but it's available to the controller if they want to say it, I suppose. Would be kinda hard to do in low IFR... You'd have to pick a heading with a crosswind correction angle and hold it, and hope you got it right.

(I'd be asking if that's what they really wanted if they said it.)

Just pointing out there's two phraseologies and they're not the same thing.
 
denverpilot said:
Have only heard it VMC myself, and usually to VFR aircraft but it's available to the controller if they want to say it, I suppose. Would be kinda hard to do in low IFR... You'd have to pick a heading with a crosswind correction angle and hold it, and hope you got it right.

(I'd be asking if that's what they really wanted if they said it.)

Just pointing out there's two phraseologies and they're not the same thing.
Click to expand...

"Fly runway heading" is standard phraseology, "fly straight out" is not.
 
roncachamp said:
"Fly runway heading" is standard phraseology, "fly straight out" is not.
Click to expand...

I'll start correcting all the controllers that use it around here, then. Hahaha. Not.

They seem to use it to hint that we shouldn't drift over the parallel runway or the course to/from it once further away, with simultaneous parallel runway ops going on nearly continuously.

I could probably record or grab from LiveATC that phrase combined with "I'll call your turn" multiple times a day at APA.
 
denverpilot said:
I'll start correcting all the controllers that use it around here, then. Hahaha. Not.

They seem to use it to hint that we shouldn't drift over the parallel runway or the course to/from it once further away, with simultaneous parallel runway ops going on nearly continuously.
Click to expand...

"They seem to use it to hint..." So you agree it's ambiguous phraseology. Are they doing this with simultaneous IFR departures?
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
"They seem yo use it to hint..." So you agree it's ambiguous phraseology. Are they doing this with simultaneous IFR departures?
Click to expand...

They almost never launch IFRs from the parallel, they put everyone doing laps over there. The admonition to "fly straight out" [alternatively with "I'll call your turn"] is given to pretty much anyone not turning east to deconflict the continuous pattern work being done on the shorter runway.
 
Never heard "fly straight out".

That said, I believe that's the norm in foreign countries vs "heading". Not sure how some airplanes accomplish that, but the Airbus defaults to "runway track" mode after liftoff.
 
The 767, at least the early model, also defaulted to track mode. We were cautioned to selected heading mode when assigned runway heading for departure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top