ILS 4 into KUIN - file to?

[midlifeflyer]

I have put in the IAF as the fix before my destination airport in an attempt to "plan" the approach from there. However, center had no idea what the IAF was for the broadcast approach and cleared my direct to destination, then when I contacted approach, was told to go back to the IAF fix. So, double the work.

Dunno if this was the case with yours, but if If the IAF is only an approach fix and not an enroute fix, it's common for ATC for a different sector, even an adjoining one, to be clueless about it. I don't generally file to an IAF but I have had the experience of asking an adjoining center for direct to an IAF like and received a "where is that?" in response.

More often than not, the conversation moves forward with me telling them it's the iIAF for the approach I want, they asking me my on-course heading to it, and then them clearing me direct. It's not that much different than when ATC asks for your on-course heading to anywhere they don't know, including the destination.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I guess if you file to the IAF then that’s where your clearance would be given? It’s better to file to the airport then so you are cleared to land.

No one was suggesting filing to an IAF instead of the destination airport. It's including the desired IAF in the flight plan before the destination. Just like any flight plan to a destination with enroute navaids, intersection, waypoint, except one of them happens to be an IAF or other transition to an approach.

 

[Terry M - 3CK (Chicago)]

@mandm and @luvflyin i think I see my error now.

I was originally thinking/trying to say file to the airport with the IAF the last step before destination on your flight plan (last waypoint?).

But there are other waypoints along the approach so I guess that wouldn’t really work. Now I see what you are saying about two clearance limits.

I was thinking cleared to the airport via blah blah blah IAF, maintain 3,000 Expect 6,000 in 10 minutes, departure on 120.55 squawk 1234.

But that doesn’t accomplish what I was thinking in the lost comms scenario.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I was thinking cleared to the airport via blah blah blah IAF, maintain 3,000 Expect 6,000 in 10 minutes, departure on 120.55 squawk 1234.

Now I'm confused. I don't do it this way but why do you think filing and being cleared to the destination airport via blah blah blah IAF wouldn't work? If the whole idea is to include an IAF what do the other fixes on the approach have to do with it? All you care about is getting to where you start the approach.

Perhaps if you use a real example instead of a bunch of blahs...

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

@mandm and @luvflyin i think I see my error now.

I was originally thinking/trying to say file to the airport with the IAF the last step before destination on your flight plan (last waypoint?).

But there are other waypoints along the approach so I guess that wouldn’t really work. Now I see what you are saying about two clearance limits.

I was thinking cleared to the airport via blah blah blah IAF, maintain 3,000 Expect 6,000 in 10 minutes, departure on 120.55 squawk 1234.

But that doesn’t accomplish what I was thinking in the lost comms scenario.

Here was the last one I did. Going to KSNH from Central IL. Original TAF had me landing north at SNH. I filed 3MY-EPVIC-KSNH.

Fat Dude in the Lance you're cleared to Savannah as filed, climb and maintain 7k, departure 125.8, squawk 1234.

That easy. Once enroute, Memphis Center says "hey fat dude in the Lance, you still want to land north"
I say "no, and I'll take the visual."
"Fat dude in the Lance, you're cleared direct Savannah. Expect visual approach runway 19."

 

[Plano Pilot]

KIUN, I always file to the destination airport. Add SIDS and STARS as needed. We are based in the DFW area so every departure is a SID. I have gotten to where almost every fltplan is the last fix of the SID direct to the first fix of the arrival fix or if there is no STAR the airport.

 

[flyingron]

Ditto. I usually look to see what approaches I'll expect but frankly if you're in comms, it's not an issue. If you lose comms, go safely to an IAF for an approach you can fly and head in.

 

[noahfong]

@mandm and @luvflyin i think I see my error now.

I was thinking cleared to the airport via blah blah blah IAF, maintain 3,000 Expect 6,000 in 10 minutes, departure on 120.55 squawk 1234.

But that doesn’t accomplish what I was thinking in the lost comms scenario.

Like Midlifeflyer, I'm also confused. Would you explain what you said and why you concluded what you did?

 

[Terry M - 3CK (Chicago)]

@noahfong i was originally asking if you included the IAF in your requested/filed routing in case of lost comms. Then you’d have a way to get onto the approach.

Most came back and said that was dumb, and I thought the final point was, even if you had the IAF in your riuting you didn’t have the whole approach in the routing.

Why is it dumb to have the IAF in your files route then? I’m learning here. Haven’t trained IR in 10 years (and got laid off so never got the rating). Just picking things back up.

 

[midlifeflyer]

@noahfong i was originally asking if you included the IAF in your requested/filed routing in case of lost comms. Then you’d have a way to get onto the approach.

Most came back and said that was dumb, and I thought the final point was, even if you had the IAF in your riuting you didn’t have the whole approach in the routing.

Why is it dumb to have the IAF in your files route then? I’m learning here. Haven’t trained IR in 10 years (and got laid off so never got the rating). Just picking things back up.

I think most of the "dumb" comments thought you were going to make it your clearance limit, which would be pretty silly. Others (including me) questioned whether it was necessary or even helpful for a lost comm situation, but that's hardly calling the choice to do it "dumb." I sure don't think so.

i don't think anyone said you need the rest of the approach listed to make it useful. If someone did, that was dumb!

Counterpoint to that, as I mentioned earlier, some pilots and instructors, including nationally-known instructors like Gary Reeves, recommend including an IAF to the destination in the flight plan as a good routing choice, independent of its usefulness (or not) for lost comm.

And the fact that someone likes a different technique than you doesn't make your or theirs "dumb." That's what choices and options are about.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

I have put in the IAF as the fix before my destination airport in an attempt to "plan" the approach from there. However, center had no idea what the IAF was for the broadcast approach and cleared my direct to destination, then when I contacted approach, was told to go back to the IAF fix. So, double the work.

This.

File to the airport and request direct to the fix when talking to the controller that will be clearing you for said approach.

No reason to make it more complicated for no real benefit

 

[luvflyin]

@noahfong i was originally asking if you included the IAF in your requested/filed routing in case of lost comms. Then you’d have a way to get onto the approach.

Most came back and said that was dumb, and I thought the final point was, even if you had the IAF in your riuting you didn’t have the whole approach in the routing.

Why is it dumb to have the IAF in your files route then? I’m learning here. Haven’t trained IR in 10 years (and got laid off so never got the rating). Just picking things back up.

As to lost comms, have you read AIM 6-4-1. If not, do so. It sounds like you are thinking you should have an IAF in your Clearance so things fit with FAR 91.185. It has been amended over the years to include when being Radar vectored scenarios. But it was basically written based on planes flying on airways. With the now wide spread use of RNAV, allowing planes to not have to navigate via airways, it just doesn’t cover many lost comm scenarios. Trying to make 91.185 fit in many lost comm situations is like trying to use a hammer to screw in a screw. It is simply the wrong tool. Hence, AIM 6-4-1

 

[midlifeflyer]

As to lost comms, have you read AIM 6-4-1. If not, do so. It sounds like you are thinking you should have an IAF in your Clearance so things fit with FAR 91.185. It has been amended over the years to include when being Radar vectored scenarios. But it was basically written based on planes flying on airways. With the now wide spread use of RNAV, allowing planes to not have to navigate via airways, it just doesn’t cover many lost comm scenarios. Trying to make 91.185 fit in many lost comm situations is like trying to use a hammer to screw in a screw. It is simply the wrong tool. Hence, AIM 6-4-1

Except for the very first paragraph (my favorite in all the AIM), I'm not sure how it helps with the question. Aside from that. the AIM says, "A pilot experiencing two-way communications failure should (unless emergency authority is exercised) comply with 14 CFR Section 91.185 quoted below."

If not visual, the very first lateral preference is, "By the route assigned in the last ATC clearance received," i.e., "direct destination." If anything, RNAV capability means one actually is able to fly to the destination airport and then to an IAF, something they could not dp when the reg was written unless the airport happened to have on on-field VOR or NDB (in which case it was usually also the IAF also).

 

[luvflyin]

Except for the very first paragraph (my favorite in all the AIM), I'm not sure how it helps with the question. Aside from that. the AIM says, "A pilot experiencing two-way communications failure should (unless emergency authority is exercised) comply with 14 CFR Section 91.185 quoted below."

If not visual, the very first lateral preference is, "By the route assigned in the last ATC clearance received," i.e., "direct destination." If anything, RNAV capability means one actually is able to fly to the destination airport and then to an IAF, something they could not dp when the reg was written unless the airport happened to have on on-field VOR or NDB (in which case it was usually also the IAF also).

I was just responding to his "...i was originally asking if you included the IAF in your requested/filed routing in case of lost comms. Then you’d have a way to get onto the approach..." And that he's getting back into it after 10 years off and getting caught up with things. Hope he reads the AIM about lost com and it helps. Other than that I'm not going down into the lost comm rabbit hole any more than to say;

"...If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins..." was meant to say 'if the clearance is a fix from which an approach does not begin' and that if the Clearance Limit is the Airport, the concept of going to it and then going to some fix is absurd. If your Clearance Limit is the Airport you should get off the runway when you get to it. Even if something dictates you should leave the airplane on the runway and get yourself off of it. Like maybe it's on fire something

 

[midlifeflyer]

the concept of going to it and then going to some fix is absurd. I

Of course it's absurd. In more ways than one. No way I am going to tie up the airspace around an airport for a half hour or more with even a non-emergency pilot-side com failure in a radar environment when I know ATC is going to clear the way and hopes I get safely out of the way ASAP.

But I posted the FAA Chief Counsel letter earlier which says going to the airport and then to the IAF is exactly what you are supposed to do, ridiculous as it is (one of those, "don't ask if you are not going to like the answer" questions). And it's not even some old interpretation we can dismiss with, "things have changes since then." It's from 2018.

With lost comm, I think we are in one of those areas where it's essential to understand three things. First, what the rule technically requires. Second, its limitations and when it makes absolutely no sense in the real world. And when it actually might make sense to follow.

And no, I don't and would not include an IAF in case of lost comm. And in this scenario I would not include either of the two DME arc IAFs if I were going to include a transition fix in my flight plan for another reason.