How to fly ILS 01 at KALB from CIRRU ?

Anyone know examples of other approaches without definitive guidance along depicted (bold-line charted) segments of approach course ?
 
MAKG1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why would you reduce your airspeed and increase your descent rate with a tailwind? You do one or the other, doing both takes you below the glide slope. Flying 90kts IAS with a 45kt tailwind, is the same as flying 135KIAS with no wind. Just increase the rate of descent, no need to slowdown and go into slow flight .

Ugh, I absolutel HATE trying to postonthenewie om mobile. <== translation ==> I absolutely HATE trying to post on the new site on mobile.
 
EdFred said:
Why would you reduce your airspeed and increase your descent rate with a tailwind? You do one or the other, doing both takes you below the glide slope. Flying 90kts IAS with a 45kt tailwind, is the same as flying 135KIAS with no wind. Just increase the rate of descent, no need to slowdown and go into slow flight .

Ugh, I absolutel HATE trying to postonthenewie om mobile.
Click to expand...

60 knots is what you would have to fly to get your numbers. I agree it's too slow.

I fly it at 90, all the time, and just increase the descent rate.
 
MAKG1 said:
60 knots is what you would have to fly to get your numbers. I agree it's too slow.

I fly it at 90, all the time, and just increase the descent rate.
Click to expand...

I was in fact using a 60kt ground speed for my initial comment about 300fpm as I was speaking generically and not digging through POH's for numbers.
 
VTF.

giphy.gif
 
MAKG1 said:
And 1000 FPM with a huge tailwind is doable, but it's pretty damn close to idle with the flaps hanging out
Click to expand...

1000fpm is not doable in a 172 I wouldn't think. That'd be one heck of a tailwind. Or you'd be above Vne.
 
Joegoersch said:
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
Click to expand...

I didn't find it in AIM. Just spent a few minutes looking though. As far as "being protected", I don't think that the direction of the hold at MUJIK would matter. It wouldn't surprise me at all though, to find out that "dead reckoning" segements have some different rules to follow when they are "building" the Approach. They may protect it a little wider, maybe there is a limit on how long the leg can be. It's probably assumed that pilots will just fly the heading. There are some guys here on POA who are experts in this and will probably show up with the answer soon. This could coin a new phrase, "children of the white needle" to go along with "children of the magenta line" LOL
 
I don't know why you're getting wrapped around the axle on "definitive guidance." There's lots of times you aren't using "definitive guidance" in IFR flight. Procedure turns, a good portion of the holding pattern (and certainly the entry), etc.. are all done with a pilot's estimation of what heading he has to fly to achieve the desired course.

There's no shortage of such approaches out there. Here's one from a few airports over from me:

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1607/05326IL16L.PDF

Of course, you rarely get to fly that from the IAF. It's almost always a bunch of circuitous vectors to final on that one. Manne is right in the departure path of IAD
 
Joegoersch said:
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
Click to expand...

Here it is in a nutshell. Dead reckoning(DR) initial approach segments must intercept the extended intermediate course at least 1 mile outside of the intermediate fix for each 2 miles of DR flown. The intercept cannot be more than 90 degrees. The intercept cannot be less than 45 degrees unless DME is used or the DR leg is 3 miles or less. The Maximum DR leg is 10 miles. The width is 6 miles at the beginning and expands by 15 degrees. Obstacle clearance is not less than 1000 feet and there is no secondary area. Optimum descent gradient is 250 feet per mile and the maximum is 500 feet per mile
 
flyingron said:
.....................There's lots of times you aren't using "definitive guidance" in IFR flight. Procedure turns, a good portion of the holding pattern (and certainly the entry), etc.. are all done with a pilot's estimation of what heading he has to fly to achieve the desired course...............
Click to expand...

Well put
 
It's a DR segment. Here is the Jepp chart and the FAA source. The FAA charting folks, for reasons known only by them, refuse to chart "HDG" even though it's stated on source.

KALB Jepp and Source.jpg
 
Joegoersch said:
Anyone know examples of other approaches without definitive guidance along depicted (bold-line charted) segments of approach course ?
Click to expand...
Lots of them with DR segments. DR segments are limited to angle and distance by criteria. On Jeppesen charts they are always indicated with "hdg."
 
aterpster said:
Lots of them with DR segments. DR segments are limited to angle and distance by criteria. On Jeppesen charts they are always indicated with "hdg."
Click to expand...

Hmm. Seems wrong to me that Jepp chooses to call it hdg. It's constructed as a course. Granted, its constructed to protect for it being flown not all that accurately, and Jepp kinda ensures it might not be flown all that accurately by calling it hdg. Either way, you are protected from the rocks. The limits on the length of the leg do make it not all that crucial.
 
luvflyin said:
Hmm. Seems wrong to me that Jepp chooses to call it hdg. It's constructed as a course. Granted, its constructed to protect for it being flown not all that accurately, and Jepp kinda ensures it might not be flown all that accurately by calling it hdg. Either way, you are protected from the rocks. The limits on the length of the leg do make it not all that crucial though.
Click to expand...
Why then, does it state "HDG" on the source? Here are the criteria:
 

Attachments

  • DR Initial Segment Criteria.pdf
    191.5 KB · Views: 7
luvflyin said:
Hmm. Seems wrong to me that Jepp chooses to call it hdg. It's constructed as a course. Granted, its constructed to protect for it being flown not all that accurately, and Jepp kinda ensures it might not be flown all that accurately by calling it hdg. Either way, you are protected from the rocks. The limits on the length of the leg do make it not all that crucial.
Click to expand...

I would think it would be a heading as well because you are not required to have equipment to follow a ground course accurately. I always thought that there are no IFR procedures that would require a course to be followed. ATC can never give you a course, and I have never seen a chart where it was required to follow a ground course, only a given heading.
 
neilw2 said:
I would think it would be a heading as well because you are not required to have equipment to follow a ground course accurately. I always thought that there are no IFR procedures that would require a course to be followed. ATC can never give you a course, and I have never seen a chart where it was required to follow a ground course, only a given heading.
Click to expand...

What happens if you fly a heading of 010 at 100KTAS and have a 50kt wind from 100. Do you think you will follow the final approach COURSE of ILS 1?
 
luvflyin said:
Here it is in a nutshell. Dead reckoning(DR) initial approach segments must intercept the extended intermediate course at least 1 mile outside of the intermediate fix for each 2 miles of DR flown. The intercept cannot be more than 90 degrees. The intercept cannot be less than 45 degrees unless DME is used or the DR leg is 3 miles or less. The Maximum DR leg is 10 miles. The width is 6 miles at the beginning and expands by 15 degrees. Obstacle clearance is not less than 1000 feet and there is no secondary area. Optimum descent gradient is 250 feet per mile and the maximum is 500 feet per mile
Click to expand...
Thanks!

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
aterpster said:
Why then, does it state "HDG" on the source? Here are the criteria:
Click to expand...

I don't know. What is "the source"? Is there something on the Approach Data Worksheet that identifies it as "heading"? The paragraphs you posted from the TERPS manual is "Initial Approach Segment Based on DR." It starts out with "a. Alignment. Each DR course...." The word "course" is used 4 times. "Heading" does not appear at all. "DR" is in there 6 times. It's a "DR course." Simply flying a heading is not "dead reckoning."
 
Yep, here's the JEPP for the Approach (ILS 16L at HEF) I posted the FAA link to earlier:
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0002.jpg
    IMG_0002.jpg
    211.3 KB · Views: 8
EdFred said:
What happens if you fly a heading of 010 at 100KTAS and have a 50kt wind from 100. Do you think you will follow the final approach COURSE of ILS 1?
Click to expand...

Good point, I guess i didn't specify it correctly-

From my experience charts won't give you a course unless you can accurately track the course using standard certified navigational signal (in this case the ILS 01). They won't expect you to follow a ground track without that aid. Without that aid I would just fly the HEADING suggested.

When you get you IFR realease you always get fly xx heading, I have never got fly xx course
 
luvflyin said:
I don't know. What is "the source"? Is there something on the Approach Data Worksheet that identifies it as "heading"? The paragraphs you posted from the TERPS manual is "Initial Approach Segment Based on DR." It starts out with "a. Alignment. Each DR course...." The word "course" is used 4 times. "Heading" does not appear at all. "DR" is in there 6 times. It's a "DR course." Simply flying a heading is not "dead reckoning."
Click to expand...

Order 8260.3C United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS)

Chapter 2. General Criteria

Section 2-4. Initial Approach

2-4-1. Initial Approach Segment. The instrument approach commences at the IAF. In the initial approach, the aircraft has departed the en route phase of flight and is maneuvering to enter an intermediate segment. An initial approach may be made along an arc (DME), radial, course, heading, radar vector, or a combination thereof. PCG is required except when dead reckoning (DR) courses can be established over limited distances. Although more than one initial approach may be established for a procedure, the number should be limited to that which is justified by traffic flow or other operational requirements. Where practical, establish at least one initial segment that does not require a course reversal. Where alignment and/or descent gradient cannot be met and/or where otherwise operationally advantageous, initial segments requiring a course reversal may be established such as a procedure turn (PT), holding pattern descent, or high altitude teardrop turn.
 
Caramon13 said:
Maybe not, but what about those pilots that set their DG's to the track on the GPS instead of the magnetic compass?
Click to expand...

I would argue that they are doing it wrong. ATC accounts for wind correction when they give you headings. How else would they know which people are GPS tracking and which people are using the magnetic compass?
 
neilw2 said:
I would argue that they are doing it wrong. ATC accounts for wind correction when they give you headings. How else would they know which people are GPS tracking and which people are using the magnetic compass?
Click to expand...

roncachamp said:
What pilots do that?
Click to expand...

I'm trying to find the reference for it, but I believe it was a post on here where that whole topic was discussed. It seemed from the conversation that ATC neither cares nor can tell which you use as long as you are going the direction they want you to go. Yeah you might muck up wind-correction for another plane..
 
Caramon13 said:
I'm trying to find the reference for it, but I believe it was a post on here where that whole topic was discussed. It seemed from the conversation that ATC neither cares nor can tell which you use as long as you are going the direction they want you to go. Yeah you might muck up wind-correction for another plane..
Click to expand...

ATC would likely conclude that at least one pilot isn't very good at holding a heading. I just don't understand why anyone would choose to do that.
 
Caramon13 said:
I'm trying to find the reference for it, but I believe it was a post on here where that whole topic was discussed. It seemed from the conversation that ATC neither cares nor can tell which you use as long as you are going the direction they want you to go. Yeah you might muck up wind-correction for another plane..
Click to expand...

According to the aim-

FLY HEADING (DEGREES)− Informs the pilot of

the heading he/she should fly. The pilot may have to

turn to, or continue on, a specific compass direction

in order to comply with the instructions. The pilot is

expected to turn in the shorter direction to the heading

unless otherwise instructed by ATC.
Click to expand...

I know in reality ATC doesn't really "care" most times because the winds aren't that bad they will notice, but if the winds are really howling they are going to have to give you more heading changes because the one they give you is not based on ground track
 
Joegoersch said:
Thanks. I think Jepp chart clearer...

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

Much easier to read and fly
roncachamp said:
Order 8260.3C United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS)

Chapter 2. General Criteria

Section 2-4. Initial Approach

2-4-1. Initial Approach Segment. The instrument approach commences at the IAF. In the initial approach, the aircraft has departed the en route phase of flight and is maneuvering to enter an intermediate segment. An initial approach may be made along an arc (DME), radial, course, heading, radar vector, or a combination thereof. PCG is required except when dead reckoning (DR) courses can be established over limited distances. Although more than one initial approach may be established for a procedure, the number should be limited to that which is justified by traffic flow or other operational requirements. Where practical, establish at least one initial segment that does not require a course reversal. Where alignment and/or descent gradient cannot be met and/or where otherwise operationally advantageous, initial segments requiring a course reversal may be established such as a procedure turn (PT), holding pattern descent, or high altitude teardrop turn.
Click to expand...

Ah ha! C. I was reading the B version. Heading has come out of the closet. Bad Gov Chart. Go to your room!!!!
 
Furhter, every time you do turn if you're setting your heading based on ground track you're going to have to reset your DG. It's stupid...set it to the compass like you're supposed to. If you want to fly ground tracks (which is not what ATC wants) then just watch the numbers on your GPS.
 
neilw2 said:
Good point, I guess i didn't specify it correctly-

From my experience charts won't give you a course unless you can accurately track the course using standard certified navigational signal (in this case the ILS 01). They won't expect you to follow a ground track without that aid. Without that aid I would just fly the HEADING suggested.

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

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."
 
luvflyin said:
Ah ha! C. I was reading the B version. Heading has come out of the closet. Bad Gov Chart. Go to your room!!!!
Click to expand...


Order 8260.3B United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS)

CHAPTER 2. GENERAL CRITERIA

SECTION 3. INITIAL APPROACH

230. INITIAL APPROACH SEGMENT. The
instrument approach commences at the IAF. In the
initial approach, the aircraft has departed the en route
phase of flight and is maneuvering to enter an intermediate
segment. When the IF is part of the en route
structure, it may not be necessary to designate an initial
approach segment. In this case, the approach
commences at the IF and intermediate segment criteria
apply. An initial approach may be made along an arc,
radial, course, heading, radar vector, or a combination
thereof. Procedure turns, holding pattern descents, and
high altitude penetrations are initial segments. Positive
course guidance (PCG) is required except when dead
reckoning (DR) courses can be established over limited
distances. Although more than one initial approach may
be established for a procedure, the number should be
limited to that which is justified by traffic flow or other
operational requirements. Where holding is required
prior to entering the initial approach segment, the
holding fix and IAF should coincide. When this is not
possible, the IAF must be located within the holding
pattern on the inbound holding course.
 
roncachamp said:
Order 8260.3B United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS)

CHAPTER 2. GENERAL CRITERIA

SECTION 3. INITIAL APPROACH

230. INITIAL APPROACH SEGMENT. The
instrument approach commences at the IAF. In the
initial approach, the aircraft has departed the en route
phase of flight and is maneuvering to enter an intermediate
segment. When the IF is part of the en route
structure, it may not be necessary to designate an initial
approach segment. In this case, the approach
commences at the IF and intermediate segment criteria
apply. An initial approach may be made along an arc,
radial, course, heading, radar vector, or a combination
thereof. Procedure turns, holding pattern descents, and
high altitude penetrations are initial segments. Positive
course guidance (PCG) is required except when dead
reckoning (DR) courses can be established over limited
distances. Although more than one initial approach may
be established for a procedure, the number should be
limited to that which is justified by traffic flow or other
operational requirements. Where holding is required
prior to entering the initial approach segment, the
holding fix and IAF should coincide. When this is not
possible, the IAF must be located within the holding
pattern on the inbound holding course.
Click to expand...

Dahmit. I know better than to just go to the paragraph on a subject without reading what leads up to it first. I just went straight to Initial Approach Segment Based On DR because I already had my mind made up that's what it was. I guess you would apply the same obstruction clearance criteria to "heading" as you would to DR because it's still not really Postive Course Guidance. You have a specific heading to fly but the wind can still blow you off to the side of the intended course. The rocks don't know what the wind up there is doing, they just stay right there. It says "An initial approach may be made along an arc, radial, course, heading, radar vector, or a combination thereof." I'm trying to figure out what it would look like on the Chart if it was "radar vector."
 
luvflyin said:
Dahmit. I know better than to just go to the paragraph on a subject without reading what leads up to it first. I just went straight to Initial Approach Segment Based On DR because I already had my mind made up that's what it was. I guess you would apply the same obstruction clearance criteria to "heading" as you would to DR because it's still not really Postive Course Guidance. You have a specific heading to fly but the wind can still blow you off to the side of the intended course. The rocks don't know what the wind up there is doing, they just stay right there. It says "An initial approach may be made along an arc, radial, course, heading, radar vector, or a combination thereof." I'm trying to figure out what it would look like on the Chart if it was "radar vector."
Click to expand...

They typically have a note in bold letters saying RADAR REQUIRED in the planview.
 
luvflyin said:
I don't know. What is "the source"? Is there something on the Approach Data Worksheet that identifies it as "heading"? The paragraphs you posted from the TERPS manual is "Initial Approach Segment Based on DR." It starts out with "a. Alignment. Each DR course...." The word "course" is used 4 times. "Heading" does not appear at all. "DR" is in there 6 times. It's a "DR course." Simply flying a heading is not "dead reckoning."
Click to expand...
Keep in mind those instructions are directed to the procedures specialist. He has to construct a course with increased protection because it will be used by the pilot as DR. If you are flying such a segment and believe you should correct for wind, that certainly would be your prerogative. If I chose to ignore the wind for that short distance I would fly the charted heading. Neither one of us would be wrong. Nonetheless, "HDG" is placed on the source, which is not a worksheet, rather a regulatory amendment to FAR Part 97.
 
Joegoersch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, they are not rare.

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

But, at some other location you might not be and have a DR segment. The area at the entry fix is 6 miles wide at each side of centerline at expands at 15 degrees until the point where you intercept positive course guidance.

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

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top