IFR Approach Question

Armcorp

Armcorp

Pre-Flight
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
43
Location
Tennessee
Display Name
Display name:
RC Flyer
Flying yesterday from Knoxville TN to Athens Ga. Ceilings bounced around from 600 to 1,000 ft.
I made the trip and was vectored to an IAF at Yokuk. Atlanta then provided at clearance direct to Rwy 9.
I made it direct on the Garmin 430, the standard route via the FAF would have made more sense to me.

As I was approaching RWY 9 , Atlanta transfers me to Athens tower. who cleared me to land and then immediately gave me a terrain alert and stated I was far left of course.

Here is my question. If Atlanta gave me a direct to RWY 9, should altitude guidance came with that? Shouldn't I have been vectored to the FAF? I know my Altitude limits there.

I am not looking for justification, just good guidance here. I may have been totally off base here, but terrain alerts in the soup do not make me happy. I think the most important thing I want to do here is learn a good lesson.
 
I don't believe I've ever been cleared direct to the runway, I've only been "cleared for the approach" or "cleared for the visual".

Now, if you were "cleared for the visual", then it sounds like a confusion between the approach and tower controllers, and the controller may not have known you were visual.
 
I would have questioned that one! Seems non-standard and replete with 'possibilities'!
 
Thanks for the responses. This much I know I got right. He had me cross Yokuk at 3000, then direct to RWY 9. Cleared for the Approach would have made perfect sense. I would have flown to the FAF and straight in. Cleared for the visual would not at less than 1,000 ft. ceilings.

There was traffic behind me in the que and I think Atlanta was trying to speed me up a little by going direct to RWY 9.

I totally agree in hindsight that I should have questioned the direct to RWY 9.

I will be investing in a terrain card for my 430.
 
Armcorp said:
Thanks for the responses. This much I know I got right. He had me cross Yokuk at 3000, then direct to RWY 9. Cleared for the Approach would have made perfect sense. I would have flown to the FAF and straight in. Cleared for the visual would not at less than 1,000 ft. ceilings.

There was traffic behind me in the que and I think Atlanta was trying to speed me up a little by going direct to RWY 9.

I totally agree in hindsight that I should have questioned the direct to RWY 9.

I will be investing in a terrain card for my 430.
Click to expand...

"Direct to runway 9" is not a valid approach clearance per FAAO 7110.65S so I would definitely question the controller next time.

A valid approach clearance would have been "Proceed direct YOSUK, cross YOSUK at 3,000, cleared RNAV GPS Runway 9 approach"

The RNAV (GPS) Rwy 9 approach incorporates a standard "T" design pattern used on many GPS approaches which you can read up on in the AIM.

Hope this helps.

Best,
Jason
 
With the weather that low, they couldn't give you a visual approach. Unless you asked for a contact approach (which apparently you did not, and the clearance for which would not have included the phrase "direct runway 9" anyway), they were required to give you a standard instrument approach procedure. If you were sent to YOKUK, with that weather reported, that could only be for the RNAV(GPS) RWY 9 approach. The only possibilities are that either Approach misspoke or you misheard. Next time something like this happens, get clarification, because "direct runway 9" is not among the legally possible choices in those conditions.

The real lesson here is that whenever something sounds fishy, ask for clarification.
 
What was the wx at the time?
From the historical metars seems like it was probably not vmc at any point in the day.
If so you really need to be on the approach, and if they do not offer it, I would ask for the full approach, none of this direct stuff.


http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1001/00983R9.PDF

KAHN 240032Z 07007KT 5SM BR OVC005 06/05 A3009 RMK AO2 CIG 003V008
KAHN 232359Z 07008KT 3SM BR OVC003 06/04 A3009 RMK AO2
KAHN 232351Z 07007KT 2 1/2SM BR OVC005 06/04 A3008 RMK AO2 CIG 003V008 SLP192 T00560044 10056 20050 50006
KAHN 232315Z 08006KT 2 1/2SM BR OVC005 06/04 A3009 RMK AO2 CIG 003V009
KAHN 232303Z 07007KT 3SM BR OVC007 06/04 A3009 RMK AO2 CIG 004V009
KAHN 232251Z 08008KT 2 1/2SM BR OVC007 06/04 A3009 RMK AO2 CIG 005V009 SLP192 T00560044
KAHN 232235Z 08009KT 2 1/2SM BR OVC007 06/04 A3009 RMK AO2
KAHN 232151Z 09006KT 5SM BR OVC007 06/04 A3009 RMK AO2 SLP192 T00560039
KAHN 232051Z 08011KT 6SM BR OVC005 05/03 A3006 RMK AO2 SLP184 T00500033 56015
KAHN 231951Z 08007KT 4SM BR OVC005 06/04 A3007 RMK AO2 SLP186 T00560039
KAHN 231851Z 08005KT 4SM BR OVC005 06/04 A3009 RMK AO2 SLP193 T00560039
KAHN 231751Z 09007KT 7SM OVC007 06/04 A3011 RMK AO2 SLP199 T00560039 10056 20056 58008
KAHN 231651Z 07010KT 8SM OVC007 06/03 A3014 RMK AO2 SLP209 T00560033
KAHN 231551Z 09010KT 7SM OVC007 06/04 A3014 RMK AO2 SLP211 T00560039
KAHN 231451Z 08007KT 8SM OVC007 06/03 A3013 RMK AO2 SLP208 T00560033 53019
 

Attachments

  • AHN09.pdf
    245.2 KB · Views: 3
I'm with Jason and Ron. YOKUK is an IAF for GPS 9. I believe either they misspoke or you misheard.

Joe
 
This happened yesterday? Call ATC, ask for the supervisor, get the tapes pulled for review. You'll find out if you misheard or if an invalid instruction was given, and what the intent was.
 
I have been given "Direct RWY XX".....under VFR conditions..!
sounds like a rookie or mistaken ATC personnel to me...
 
Regardless, file a NASA report. If you are not cleared for the approach, you can't start a descent. This is such a common type of approach, it seems unlikely that a controller could mess up that bad, but stranger things have happened.

Depending on where you were at the time, you might have been cleared something like "Cleared direct SALIN, maintain 2500 feet until SALIN, cleared straight in RNAV runway 9 approach. The "straight in" could be misinterpreted as direct to runway 9, which is not what the approach clearance in this example means. What it means is that you are not expected to perform the hold at SALIN.
 
I think the last suggestion is a great idea! I believe I will call ATC and get the tapes pulled and checked.
OK last question. Was Atlanta handing me to Tower a little early from the IAF? Just curious.
I really appreciate all the input
 
Armcorp said:
Was Atlanta handing me to Tower a little early from the IAF?
Click to expand...
Typically the handoff from Approach to Tower occurs around the FAF during a standard instrument approach procedure, but procedures may vary from airport to airport as agreed by the two facilities in a Letter of Agreement (LOA). A handoff to tower at the IAF would be most unusual. OTOH, when flying a visual approach under IFR, handoff to tower usually occurs after the pilot calls the field in sight and is cleared for the visual approach.
 
Armcorp said:
I think the last suggestion is a great idea! I believe I will call ATC and get the tapes pulled and checked.
OK last question. Was Atlanta handing me to Tower a little early from the IAF? Just curious.
I really appreciate all the input
Click to expand...

When you make that call, ask for the ATC supervisor and explain to him that you simply want to learn what was supposed to happen so you can do better next time. If they don't think you're on a witch hunt I think you'll find them very cooperative and helpful.
 
I am a true believer that confession is good for the soul. I called the ATC and they reviewed the tapes. The phrase Direct to 9 was used prior to crossing Yokuk. However, Cleared for the approach RNAV9 was the last instruction given to this waxy eared pilot.
The good news is, that this has been an invaluable lesson that I won't soon forget.
 
Armcorp said:
I am a true believer that confession is good for the soul. I called the ATC and they reviewed the tapes. The phrase Direct to 9 was used prior to crossing Yokuk. However, Cleared for the approach RNAV9 was the last instruction given to this waxy eared pilot.
The good news is, that this has been an invaluable lesson that I won't soon forget.
Click to expand...
Did ATC explain what they meant by "Direct to 9"?
 
Armcorp said:
Flying yesterday from Knoxville TN to Athens Ga. Ceilings bounced around from 600 to 1,000 ft.
I made the trip and was vectored to an IAF at Yokuk. Atlanta then provided at clearance direct to Rwy 9.
I made it direct on the Garmin 430, the standard route via the FAF would have made more sense to me.
Click to expand...

You WHAT?!? :yikes:

You do realize that could have easily killed you, right? NEVER let any ATC instruction, real or imagined, take you off a published instrument procedure course where the minimum safe altitudes are known and checked. YOU are responsible for the safety of the flight, including your route and navigation, regardless of what ATC tells you.

As I was approaching RWY 9 , Atlanta transfers me to Athens tower. who cleared me to land and then immediately gave me a terrain alert and stated I was far left of course.
Click to expand...

And that should alert you to the seriousness of the situation as well. That tower controller may have saved your bacon.

Here is my question. If Atlanta gave me a direct to RWY 9, should altitude guidance came with that?
Click to expand...

The controller may know what the METAR says, or may have forgotten it, but doesn't ever know whether you're in IMC or not. I'd sure like to know what they meant by "direct to 9" as well - That's not something they should be saying to an IFR aircraft, and it led to confusion that could have killed you.

terrain alerts in the soup do not make me happy. I think the most important thing I want to do here is learn a good lesson.
Click to expand...

I hope the lesson is to NEVER go somewhere in the soup that your mind and an FAA flight-check airplane haven't already gone, with the notable exception of an enroute direct clearance that is at or above all OROCA altitudes published on the chart. Doing otherwise is likely to land you not at an airport, but in two places: The front page, and the obituaries. :(
 
Looking through the available data...

The flight landed at 2034Z according to FlightAware, between the following METAR's:

Let'sgoflying! said:
KAHN 232051Z 08011KT 6SM BR OVC005 05/03 A3006 RMK AO2 SLP184 T00500033 56015
KAHN 231951Z 08007KT 4SM BR OVC005 06/04 A3007 RMK AO2 SLP186 T00560039
Click to expand...

Both show OVC005, so the ceiling was probably between 450 and 550 AGL, or about 1250-1350 AGL. Between YOKUK and the field, there's an obstacle on the sectional (but not on the plate) at 1222 MSL, and another at 1154 MSL. :yikes:

Were you still in IMC when the controller issued the altitude alert? Because you were plotted on radar less than a mile from, and less than 50 feet above an obstacle that you could not see! :hairraise:

A graphic is on the way...
 
flyingcheesehead said:
A graphic is on the way...
Click to expand...

Okay, here we go. I took a screenshot of FlightAware's sectional view, so here's a sectional, with your flight path in blue. I've added the procedure track of the approach in red, with the names and minimum altitudes for each fix in dark blue. Then, I went to the track log and retrieved a few altitudes and marked them at the appropriate spots (green & orange dots w/black text along the blue flight track):

attachment.php


Here's the part that should scare you, and any other pilot: At the spot where you were at 1200 feet, you were almost on top of an 1154-foot obstacle! Also, you were roughly abeam the FAF (min altitude 2400) but you were at 1200, and clearly far enough off the track that even 2400 was well below a safe IFR altitude.

That controller who issued the terrain alert saved your life. I'd call back and have a somewhat sterner word with the ATL folks, but the responsibility falls on you as Pilot In Command to follow proper procedures.

Lesson learned? I hope so. I'd like to keep you around. Welcome to PoA. ;)
 

Attachments

  • oh****.png
    oh****.png
    593.1 KB · Views: 235
gismo said:
You forgot the PoA forum where it would be dissected completely.
Click to expand...

You mean "speculated about." ;)

Besides, I'm not speculating, I'm analyzing. People tell me I'm too analytical. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's the engineer-wannabe in me. Maybe I'm just curious? Maybe I'm just trying to learn from the mistakes of others and be a better pilot. Is there something wrong with being too analytical? I mean, why would they think I'm too analytical? ;) :rofl:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Okay, here we go. I took a screenshot of FlightAware's sectional view, so here's a sectional, with your flight path in blue. I've added the procedure track of the approach in red, with the names and minimum altitudes for each fix in dark blue. Then, I went to the track log and retrieved a few altitudes and marked them at the appropriate spots (green & orange dots w/black text along the blue flight track):

attachment.php


Here's the part that should scare you, and any other pilot: At the spot where you were at 1200 feet, you were almost on top of an 1154-foot obstacle! Also, you were roughly abeam the FAF (min altitude 2400) but you were at 1200, and clearly far enough off the track that even 2400 was well below a safe IFR altitude.

That controller who issued the terrain alert saved your life. I'd call back and have a somewhat sterner word with the ATL folks, but the responsibility falls on you as Pilot In Command to follow proper procedures.

Lesson learned? I hope so. I'd like to keep you around. Welcome to PoA. ;)
Click to expand...

Wow, that's sobering. Thanks for taking the time to put it together. We all learn from stuff like this, and I get the impression from this thread that the original poster is the kind that likes to learn. He'll remember this one for a long time, as will I.
 
Flight Aware now has a Google Earth button on the page, next to the Track Log link. It will open a KML path in Google Earth. You can see the two towers location marked with blue dots in this shot of the final path points Kent was talking about. Pretty close. I'm hoping he had visual on the tower, and was just below the bases.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • ScreenShot050.jpg
    ScreenShot050.jpg
    224.3 KB · Views: 223
flyingcheesehead said:
You mean "speculated about." ;)

Besides, I'm not speculating, I'm analyzing. People tell me I'm too analytical. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's the engineer-wannabe in me. Maybe I'm just curious? Maybe I'm just trying to learn from the mistakes of others and be a better pilot. Is there something wrong with being too analytical? I mean, why would they think I'm too analytical? ;) :rofl:
Click to expand...
Kent, my comment was in reference to the unavoidable tendency to pick apart any aviation accident we come across (mea culpa), and was NOT directed at your comments on what happened on this approach. I think your "analysis" here is very informative.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
That controller who issued the terrain alert saved your life. I'd call back and have a somewhat sterner word with the ATL folks, but the responsibility falls on you as Pilot In Command to follow proper procedures.
Click to expand...

How about a word to the controller who called out the terrain alert offering mucho thanks? Sure he was just doing his job but if it were my butt that got saved I'd sure appreciate the heck out of it and want the controller know how I felt.
 
gismo said:
Kent, my comment was in reference to the unavoidable tendency to pick apart any aviation accident we come across (mea culpa), and was NOT directed at your comments on what happened on this approach. I think your "analysis" here is very informative.
Click to expand...

I was just joking anyway. :yes:

gismo said:
How about a word to the controller who called out the terrain alert offering mucho thanks? Sure he was just doing his job but if it were my butt that got saved I'd sure appreciate the heck out of it and want the controller know how I felt.
Click to expand...

That too! Definitely buy them a beer. We had a "save" here locally that involved a Cirrus that was only 100 AGL and nowhere near any approach course. Controller got an Archie League award for it.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Besides, I'm not speculating, I'm analyzing. People tell me I'm too analytical. I'm not sure why. Maybe it's the engineer-wannabe in me. Maybe I'm just curious? Maybe I'm just trying to learn from the mistakes of others and be a better pilot. Is there something wrong with being too analytical? I mean, why would they think I'm too analytical? ;) :rofl:
Click to expand...

I am an engineer and I found your analysis to be excellent, albeit as another poster said, sobering. Pay no attention to any jackasses that criticize.

No, you can't be too analytical, in fact, I can't imagine such a state--must be the engineer in me.
 
Thanks for the additional info guys. Sobering to say the least. I assure you I will never forget this one.
 
Also, I did express my gratitude for the controllers prompt actions. After giving this a lot of thought, whether I heard him say direct runway 9 or not, it was a silly mistake not to explicitly question what i thought I heard and follow the RNAV for 9.
It is tough to swallow, knowing you did something really dumb, that could have cost you dearly.
I don't like being wrong, but sometimes you got to man up.
 
Armcorp said:
Also, I did express my gratitude for the controllers prompt actions. After giving this a lot of thought, whether I heard him say direct runway 9 or not, it was a silly mistake not to explicitly question what i thought I heard and follow the RNAV for 9.
It is tough to swallow, knowing you did something really dumb, that could have cost you dearly.
I don't like being wrong, but sometimes you got to man up.
Click to expand...

To do something wrong/stupid and dismiss it as no big deal is common, to actually learn something from it is very good.
 
Armcorp said:
Also, I did express my gratitude for the controllers prompt actions. After giving this a lot of thought, whether I heard him say direct runway 9 or not, it was a silly mistake not to explicitly question what i thought I heard and follow the RNAV for 9.
It is tough to swallow, knowing you did something really dumb, that could have cost you dearly.
I don't like being wrong, but sometimes you got to man up.
Click to expand...

Wonderful that nothing went wrong.
If I might make a suggestion (s). Did you brief the approach? If you did, you should have a clear mental picture of what is to happen. There should be no surprises; this is all very logically laid out. While there may be approach options, once on an approach, it's supposed to be very clear what one will do. On a GPS approach, there are sector altitudes until on the approach segments.

If a controller gives you something different than what you have mentally pictured and in front of you on the chart; ask for clarification or to hold until it's cleared up. We could be hearing about this on an accident forum instead of here if you were just a bit more off course.

We ALL error. Approach has erred with me, center, tower and I have erred. It's a cooperative effort. I've corrected them and they have helped me many times. If you get a clearance like that again where you hear it wrong or don't understand it, please call back and so state.

This is a small community and we like to keep good folks around <g>

Best,

Dave

P.S. if you really didn't fully understand what was going on, consider getting with a good CFI and talking through this and other approaches after reading up on instrument procedures.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Wonderful that nothing went wrong.
If I might make a suggestion (s). Did you brief the approach? If you did, you should have a clear mental picture of what is to happen. There should be no surprises; this is all very logically laid out.
Click to expand...

That's a good point; the self-briefing should include being aware of where all tall objects are in relation to the approach course.
 
I guess that is what makes me so mad at myself. I did brief the approach and was ahead of it on the inbound. I knew that most likely I would get the IAF Yokuk and then on into the FAF. (which i did and didnt understand it).
My issue was clearly recieving instruction, reading it back correctly and ASKING for clairification about what did not look right. Of course, I wondered why
Trust me guys. This one will set up like concrete. And as Forrest Gump says "thats all I have to say about that"
 
Armcorp said:
Trust me guys. This one will set up like concrete. And as Forrest Gump says "thats all I have to say about that"
Click to expand...

That really strikes a cord with me. Some of the things at which I became most proficient were after errs (not must mine) were made and I really over compensated later to be sure something like that wouldn't occur again.(being pretty hard on myself).

When one fully understands the consequences of making an error, they work harder to be sure it doesn't happen. When we fly an approach in instrument conditions, a seemingly small error can have catastrophic consequences.

Best,

Dave
 
TangoWhiskey said:
That's a good point; the self-briefing should include being aware of where all tall objects are in relation to the approach course.
Click to expand...

While that's a good idea, in this particular case, the object that could have made this into an NTSB report was not on the approach plate. I'm guessing that TERPS has standards for what objects go on the plate - You wouldn't want the way-off-course, short-ish ones cluttering up the plate, but in this case one of those would have been the problem.

I would guess that the only ones depicted are the ones within the lateral limits of the approach course. :dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top