How to fly ILS 01 at KALB from CIRRU ?

J

Joegoersch

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Messages
110
Display Name
Display name:
JoeGoersch
I know it's unlikely, but let's say you are flying WITH DME and WITHOUT GPS into KALB and approaching KALB northbound on V91 towards CIRRU. At CIRRU you receive clearance for ILS 01. You are using NACO charts.

How would they expect you to navigate to the FAF ? The bold face line is to IYIYO,a GPS only fix, a heading is given towards MUJIC but that's not really charted. And what exactly do the mean by LOC (2.7) ? Do they mean flying to MUJIC the localizer will be alive in 2.7 NM ?

Anyone with Jep charts have any input/insights? If so can you scan the chart?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
Joegoersch said:
I know it's unlikely, but let's say you are flying WITH DME and WITHOUT GPS into KALB and approaching KALB northbound on V91 towards CIRRU. At CIRRU you receive clearance for ILS 01. You are using NACO charts.

How would they expect you to navigate to the FAF ?
Click to expand...

Fly heading 296, join the localizer, proceed inbound.

The bold face line is to IYIYO,a GPS only fix, a heading is given towards MUJIC but that's not really charted. And what exactly do the mean by LOC (2.7) ? Do they mean flying to MUJIC the localizer will be alive in 2.7 NM ?
Click to expand...

IYIYO is a Computer Navigation Fix, as you don't have GPS you can ignore it. It's 2.7 miles from IYIYO to MUJIK along the localizer, assuming no wind. The actual point of intercept will vary with the wind. You would fly this just as you would if the controller had told you to fly a heading and join the localizer.
 
DME or RADAR required. You either identify, or they identify for you.
 
Yes. But you should be able to fly approach without radar since DME equipped!

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
You can. You don't need to Identify IYIYO as it's not even given a distance, nor is it an IAF or FAF.
 
Do they just expect you to fly heading 296 until localizer intercept and head inbound.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
Joegoersch said:
Do they just expect you to fly heading 296 until localizer intercept and head inbound.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yup. You're protected. Now if that was say, a 20 mile leg as opposed to a 4.7 mile leg, you'd probably need RNAV/GPS. To navigate. There's a few approaches out there that it's similar. If GPS was required, it would say so in the title, or on the plate.
 
Joegoersch said:
Do they just expect you to fly heading 296 until localizer intercept and head inbound.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yes. And I think roncachamp misspoke, since it's 2.7 from CIRRU to IYIYO and 4.7 from CIRRU to MUJIK along the charted course, so apparently it's 2.0 from IYIYO to MUJIK. And it isn't LOC (2.7) but 2600 NoPT to LOC (2.7), i.e. 2.7 to the localizer at IYIYO.
 
Yeah I guess I don't see the problem. CIRRU to Localizer alive, then inbound on 011, no PT required, after MUJIK down to 1900, if you're on an ILS once established and cleared, down to 484 ft MSL.

OR if you are doing a Loc after FLEIG start descent from 1900 with the VDP being 2.8 DME.
 
azure said:
Yes. And I think roncachamp misspoke, since it's 2.7 from CIRRU to IYIYO and 4.7 from CIRRU to MUJIK along the charted course, so apparently it's 2.0 from IYIYO to MUJIK. And it isn't LOC (2.7) but 2600 NoPT to LOC (2.7), i.e. 2.7 to the localizer at IYIYO.
Click to expand...

iFlightPlanner says it's 4.6nm from CIRRU to IYIYO and 2.7 from IYIYO to MUJIK so I have no idea what they are trying to say with that note now that we know what the distances are.
 
EdFred said:
iFlightPlanner says it's 4.6nm from CIRRU to IYIYO and 2.7 from IYIYO to MUJIK so I have no idea what they are trying to say with that note now that we know what the distances are.
Click to expand...

Maybe that to get from CIRRU to MUJIK you should fly to IYIYO (which is is 4.7nm and 296 degrees from CIRRU) and then to MUJIK (which is 2.7nm from IYIYO on the LOC course)? Still seems like an odd note, though.
 
azure said:
Yes. And I think roncachamp misspoke, since it's 2.7 from CIRRU to IYIYO and 4.7 from CIRRU to MUJIK along the charted course, so apparently it's 2.0 from IYIYO to MUJIK. And it isn't LOC (2.7) but 2600 NoPT to LOC (2.7), i.e. 2.7 to the localizer at IYIYO.
Click to expand...
CIRRU IYOYO MUJIK.jpg
 
mjburian said:
Maybe that to get from CIRRU to MUJIK you should fly to IYIYO (which is is 4.7nm and 296 degrees from CIRRU) and then to MUJIK (which is 2.7nm from IYIYO on the LOC course)? Still seems like an odd note, though.
Click to expand...

Knowing the distances we can figure that's what the note means, but the way it's written doesn't seem intuitive.
 
mjburian said:
Maybe that to get from CIRRU to MUJIK you should fly to IYIYO (which is is 4.7nm and 296 degrees from CIRRU) and then to MUJIK (which is 2.7nm from IYIYO on the LOC course)? Still seems like an odd note, though.
Click to expand...

The distances immediately follow the segments; 4.7 miles along the 296 degree course and 2.7 miles along the LOC.
 
EdFred said:
Knowing the distances we can figure that's what the note means, but the way it's written doesn't seem intuitive.
Click to expand...
Yes. I couldn't make heads or tails of the notes....

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
roncachamp said:
The distances immediately follow the segments; 4.7 miles along the 296 degree course and 2.7 miles along the LOC.
Click to expand...
Yes. I think you are right.
Anyone have Jep chart ? I wonder if it is clearer?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
EdFred said:
iFlightPlanner says it's 4.6nm from CIRRU to IYIYO and 2.7 from IYIYO to MUJIK so I have no idea what they are trying to say with that note now that we know what the distances are.
Click to expand...
Nope, rereading the chart it gives the segment distances: 4.7 along the 296 heading and 2.7 along the localizer (LOC). I misread the chart, mea culpa.
 
296 is no more the heading you're supposed to fly after CIRRU than 011 is when your on the Localizer. It's a "course." Depending on the wind, what your flying and what direction you arrive at CIRRU from, just turning to heading 296 when you're right smack dab over CIRRU could get you pretty busy. Ya may wanna lead/delay the turn a tad bit and pick a different heading.
 
luvflyin said:
296 is no more the heading you're supposed to fly after CIRRU than 011 is when your on the Localizer. It's a "course." Depending on the wind, what your flying and what direction you arrive at CIRRU from, just turning to heading 296 when you're right smack dab over CIRRU could get you pretty busy. Ya may wanna lead/delay the turn a tad bit and pick a different heading.
Click to expand...

If flown without GPS 296 is a heading as there is no course guidance between CIRRU and the localizer.
 
luvflyin said:
296 is no more the heading you're supposed to fly after CIRRU than 011 is when your on the Localizer. It's a "course." Depending on the wind, what your flying and what direction you arrive at CIRRU from, just turning to heading 296 when you're right smack dab over CIRRU could get you pretty busy. Ya may wanna lead/delay the turn a tad bit and pick a different heading.
Click to expand...

Let's do the math. It's 5 miles. A 30 deg WCA will get you off by 2.5 miles. If life truly sucks and it's blowing right down the localizer, and no other approach is available, you get plunked in right before MUJIK. But, you're already at the right altitude -- 2600 -- so you just descend when passing 12.5 DME.

30 deg WCA is FN HUGE. At 90 KIAS, that's a 45 knot tailwind down the approach. In a 172, that exceeds your stall speed, and a diversion is called for. Even if it's a whole lot less at the ground, that's a lot of shear, and you're gonna get your 'nads ripped off by the turbulence.

So, I'm just not seeing a problem here unless the wind is so large as to be unmanageable. And then, the larger issue is managing the descent, and then the really hairy CTL at 600 AGL. You'll need much less throttle than normal.
 
MAKG1 said:
Let's do the math. It's 5 miles. A 30 deg WCA will get you off by 2.5 miles. If life truly sucks and it's blowing right down the localizer, and no other approach is available, you get plunked in right before MUJIK. But, you're already at the right altitude -- 2600 -- so you just descend when passing 12.5 DME.

30 deg WCA is FN HUGE. At 90 KIAS, that's a 45 knot tailwind down the approach. In a 172, that exceeds your stall speed, and a diversion is called for. Even if it's a whole lot less at the ground, that's a lot of shear, and you're gonna get your 'nads ripped off by the turbulence.

So, I'm just not seeing a problem here unless the wind is so large as to be unmanageable. And then, the larger issue is managing the descent, and then the really hairy CTL at 600 AGL. You'll need much less throttle than normal.
Click to expand...

Why would a tailwind in relation to stall speed be of any concern other than eating up a ton of runway if you landed with said tailwind? And even with 8500 feet of runway, you could in theory land with a 45kt tailwind. Granted I wouldn't want to be going 90kts on the ground in a 172, but there's no reason to divert at all. I flew to Philly once with a 65kt on-the-tail-tailwind and I didn't fall out of the sky.
 
EdFred said:
Odd, I don't see circling to land prohibited on the approach. And why would a tailwind in relation to stall speed be of any concern other than eating up a ton of runway if you landed with said tailwind? I flew to Philly once with a 65kt on-the-tail-tailwind and I didn't fall out of the sky.
Click to expand...

A large tailwind is an issue on an approach because you'll need to descend very quickly. And it makes the CTL that much more difficult. Once on the ground, you will have a BIG risk of getting flipped, especially during turns with a wind bigger than the stall speed, as you will be taxiing at flying speed in some directions and not others. Taxi is often more hazardous than landing in a big wind.

A more operational issue is that shooting an approach with a tailwind places you directly into departing traffic. There is a possibility of legal NORDO VFR traffic just underneath the ceiling at Class G airports (at least in daytime).
 
roncachamp said:
If flown without GPS 296 is a heading as there is no course guidance between CIRRU and the localizer.
Click to expand...

From the Instrument Procedures Handbook. "In cases where the IAF is part of the en route structure and feeder routes are not required, a transition or terminal route is still needed for aircraft to proceed from the IAF to the intermediate fix (IF). Theses routes are initial approach segments because they begin at the IAF. Like feeder routes, they are depicted with course, minimum altitude, and distance to the IF." Granted, on this segement there is no "radial" thats going to give you a "needle" to follow, but it is a course. I'm pretty sure I've seen approaches before that do have "headings" to fly and it is noted as heading on the chart.
 
MAKG1 said:
A large tailwind is an issue on an approach because you'll need to descend very quickly. And it makes the CTL that much more difficult. Once on the ground, you will have a BIG risk of getting flipped, especially during turns with a wind bigger than the stall speed, as you will be taxiing at flying speed in some directions and not others. Taxi is often more hazardous than landing in a big wind.

A more operational issue is that shooting an approach with a tailwind places you directly into departing traffic. There is a possibility of legal NORDO VFR traffic just underneath the ceiling at Class G airports (at least in daytime).
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, why would I need to descend any more quickly than a Cat C or D airplane flying the same approach with no wind? Is there something that doesn't allow a 172 to descend at more than 300fpm? I fly my approaches at 120kts IAS, which oddly enough is 45kts faster than a lot of people fly them in a 172 and I don't have any issues descending.

I'm pretty sure the plate also lists a frequency for Albany Tower. They ain't sending anyone your direction when you're on the ILS.
 
luvflyin said:
From the Instrument Procedures Handbook. "In cases where the IAF is part of the en route structure and feeder routes are not required, a transition or terminal route is still needed for aircraft to proceed from the IAF to the intermediate fix (IF). Theses routes are initial approach segments because they begin at the IAF. Like feeder routes, they are depicted with course, minimum altitude, and distance to the IF." Granted, on this segement there is no "radial" thats going to give you a "needle" to follow, but it is a course. I'm pretty sure I've seen approaches before that do have "headings" to fly and it is noted as heading on the chart.
Click to expand...

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.
 
EdFred said:
Hmmmm, why would I need to descend any more quickly than a Cat C or D airplane flying the same approach with no wind? Is there something that doesn't allow a 172 to descend at more than 300fpm? I fly my approaches at 120kts IAS, which oddly enough is 45kts faster than a lot of people fly them in a 172 and I don't have any issues descending.

I'm pretty sure the plate also lists a frequency for Albany Tower. They ain't sending anyone your direction when you're on the ILS.
Click to expand...

Ed, you're instrument rated and you know this, so stop being intentionally dense.

No one said anything about Class C or D, only that the numbers would be different than standard.

Though there IS a difference. Most larger aircraft have speed brakes.

And there are plenty of Class G airports with plates that list a tower. They are Class G when the tower is closed. This time of year, that's not necessarily night. Though ALB has a full time tower, you can't tell that from the plate.
 
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...

Well, kinda. Not really. Uh. Maybe. Ah hell, that's exactly what I'm saying. Course is course. Heading is heading. Flying a a heading of 296 is a really good choice to stay on a course of 296 in a calm wind. Not such a good choice in a significant crosswind. The terminal route from CIRRU to the Localizer is a course of 296.
 
Have to agree, the dead reckoning leg is designed to be flown without wind correction since there is no course guidance unless you happen to be able to navigate to the CNF. I recall Machado talking about this in his instrument survival guide.
 
MAKG1 said:
Ed, you're instrument rated and you know this, so stop being intentionally dense.

No one said anything about Class C or D, only that the numbers would be different than standard.

Though there IS a difference. Most larger aircraft have speed brakes.

And there are plenty of Class G airports with plates that list a tower. They are Class G when the tower is closed. This time of year, that's not necessarily night. Though ALB has a full time tower, you can't tell that from the plate.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Let's keep on topic.

I brought this approach up for discussion because I haven't seen too many approaches where there is an approach course without definitive guidance along all portions on the depicted course.

The consensus seems to be to fly from CIRRU to IYIYO either by flying a heading of 296 or to try to use wind correction angle to fly a ground track of the same.

It probably doesn't matter too much you are on the protected side of the holding pattern.

Is there any guidance in the AIM or FARs explaining how one should fly this portion?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
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...

Well, I end up flying a 3 deg glideslope in a 172 at close to 500 FPM, not 300, in no wind. And 1000 FPM with a huge tailwind is doable, but it's pretty damn close to idle with the flaps hanging out. 60 knots is DAMN slow for an instrument approach. That's slower than Vy, so a missed is going to have little margin for error. I'll take it at 90, thank you very much. Dumping the flaps and slowing down a 172 for a short field landing isn't that hard from 200 AGL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top