Interesting GPS approach at KMTV
- Thread starter W. Stewart
- Start date
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Sure, that's an option. But why would I want to do that and have to fly 30 miles out of my way?
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
I was relying on ATC for terrain avoidance for decades before GPS and moving maps were invented. Sure, I did my best to verify that my trust was not misplaced, but there was no way I could accurately determine my exact position as I can now with modern systems. But today, if there was an obstruction clearance problem, my GNS530 (without which I can't fly that approach anyway) would warn me about it and I'd take appropriate action.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
I infer you are arriving from the west on your hypothetical clearance. Why not request direct LEAKS?
dtuuri
Final Approach
What would the GNS530 do? Order 8260.54A seems to require a course reversal, but there isn't one. Under TERPS, the transition would be from an airway only. I'm trying to find out if making the turn like you say is anticipated under the design guidelines and, if so, what is the reference.
Let's say someone without a moving map filed via a 'direct route' from the northwest to ULAKE and has been "cleared as filed". Descending en route toward MTV, some tobacco farmer shoots a woodchuck knawing on a fiber optic cable--and blows up ATC's communications network in the process. Does this pilot have reason to know that a U-turn at ULAKE in any direction has met obstruction clearance standards? There is protected airspace for the missed approach holding pattern, that much we know, and that's what I'd make sure to utilize unless someone can show me a better way.
dtuuri
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
It was from the northwest in the original post, and why go even five miles out of my way?
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Give me a Terrain alert if there was anything sticking up in my way.
That Order is not my concern as a pilot, and does not change how one flies the approach once it's been published.
Beyond the scope of the discussion from a pilot's perspective.
Yes -- the fact that it's published as it is without a restriction.
dtuuri
Final Approach
No, what heading does it turn to at ULAKE? Does it take the shortest turn or enter the hold?
I'm not yet convinced. I see that this airport has a diverse departure procedure, but is more than 40 nm south of a VOR. In Boston Center they won't give you an IFR clearance under similar conditions. I bet they do here, though. The point being: The FAA's not perfect.
dtuuri
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
The only legal way to fly the approach without either vectors to final or ATC lining you up for a 90 degree or less intercept to the IF (which would be similar to identical to V-143) is to enter the approach via V-143.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
Order 8260.54A doesn't mandate a HILPT in these circumstances. The authority for using V-143 to ULAKE comes from Chapter 2 of 8260.3B.
BTW, Order 54A has been superseded by Order 8260.58.
Last edited:
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
There is no course reversal hold there for it to enter, so it just turns shortest direction. There is some internal logic which allows it to decide when to use turn anticipation to start the turn before the fix so you roll out on the next leg beyond the fix, or when the turn is too sharp so it crosses the fix and then starts the turn to intercept the next leg. John Collins probably knows the details of that, but I've seen it happen.
Last edited:
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
ULAKE is an IAF with no course reversal, so the 90-degree limit in 7110.65 for entry at the IF doesn't apply.
dtuuri
Final Approach
I agree that there's no HILPT requirement if arriving on V143, but my comment was meant for arrivals from the northwest, as in the OP. In that case this reference from 8260.54A seems to require one (my emphasis):
2.8.1 Course Reversal.
The optimum design incorporates the basic Y or T configuration. This design eliminates the need for a specific course reversal pattern. Where the optimum design cannot be used and a course reversal is required, establish a holding pattern at the initial or intermediate approach fix.
In that case, do you still say one is not required?The optimum design incorporates the basic Y or T configuration. This design eliminates the need for a specific course reversal pattern. Where the optimum design cannot be used and a course reversal is required, establish a holding pattern at the initial or intermediate approach fix.
As for Order 8260.58, I couldn't find a link for anything but the cover page. After downloading Flash Player that's all I got. I figured the FAA screwed that up too. Maybe I did something wrong.
Anyway, I figure this approach was most likely designed under the older Order anyway.dtuuri
John Collins
En-Route
This is a different discussion and your information is out of date as Boston Center does give an IFR clearance to RNAV (GPS) equipped aircraft. They have done so since the NOTAM that permitted it. They would even provide an IFR clearance at this airport if /U or /A as it is within the service volume of at least 3 different Navaids.
John Collins
En-Route
Ron, the wording in 7110.65 has changed on this topic. According to the most recent version of 4-8-1, a clearance direct to the IAF from the northwest would not be permitted along a random route:
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
I agree that there's no HILPT requirement if arriving on V143, but my comment was meant for arrivals from the northwest, as in the OP. In that case this reference from 8260.54A seems to require one (my emphasis):
2.8.1 Course Reversal.In that case, do you still say one is not required?
The optimum design incorporates the basic Y or T configuration. This design eliminates the need for a specific course reversal pattern. Where the optimum design cannot be used and a course reversal is required, establish a holding pattern at the initial or intermediate approach fix.
As for Order 8260.58, I couldn't find a link for anything but the cover page. After downloading Flash Player that's all I got. I figured the FAA screwed that up too. Maybe I did something wrong.
dtuuri
With the FAA shutdown who knows about order availability. It was there before the shutdown. Order 8260.54A was basically rolled into Volume 6 of Order 8260.58.
Yes, I am saying that the language you cite does not require a HILPT because the airway satisfies the optimum design. Having said that, had ATC wanted a feeder route from the west, then a HILPT would have been required.
I suspect there are some airspace issues with the center boundary to the west, coupled with Greensboro TRACON requirements.
Or, maybe it was just lazy design to, more or less, emulate the LOC 30. Nonetheless, the design meets criteria.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
That was the intent from day one of the direct-to-the-IF. Perhaps it wasn't worded correctly before. I don't recall. In any case, ULAKE is an IF as well as an IAF, so that removes any doubt.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
I would disagree since ULAKE is also an IF.
dtuuri
Final Approach
With apologies to the OP for thread drift, here at MTV, going north, it's beyond 40 nm from Roanoke. Are you saying Boston has seen the light and no longer refuses TERPs compliant diverse departures for /U & /A aircraft heading toward such a Navaid?
dtuuri
dtuuri
Final Approach
Ok, this is the crux of the problem. Someone like Cap'n Ron is as current as anybody, yet comes to a conclusion contrary to what the designers assumed. He understandably feels the purpose for ULAKE is to be an RNAV waypoint which enables "direct to" flight. But the designers are still stuck in airway/TERPs mode and expect him to arrive on an airway. That is not intuitive. Pilots would have to be thinking, "In order to make this RNAV flight with my state of the art system, I should fly first to an airway intersection, then come up the airway to the IAF." Never gonna happen.
dtuuri
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
As I said, there is no HILPT for some reason.
I guess I would be the oddball because I would arrive via airways unless I really knew the area and could expect vectors to final. Even then, I would still be on airways until then. This isn't an area that lends itself to low altitude random routing.
Out west on airways for normally aspirated light tin is the order of the day for those who like living.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
Pick one or two VORs that are closer.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Well, I'd be an oddball too I guess. But then you come across one like this and just scratch your head because arriving on an airway doesn't seem to solve the issue either:
http://imageserver.fltplan.com/merge/merge1310/Single/06565VDGA.PDF
Say you filed southwest on V453 to BUVBE..direct OMH. Now, BUVBE happens to be right over the airport and most of the time you can get a visual. When you can't, you might continue to GVE for the VOR/DME or GPS-A, but there's no course reversal charted there. If that's TERPed to make a U-turn without need of a PT, who can blame Cap'n Ron for thinking it's alright at MTV too?
So you say, "Well, the minimums are too high anyway, so I'll just do the GPS RWY 8 approach by flying direct OKOZE (IAF) instead."
http://imageserver.fltplan.com/merge/merge1310/Single/06565G8.PDF
Guess what? No HILPT there either. So you either take the bait like Cap'n Ron or go around the horn to GVE first, then to OKOZE. No wonder pilots get confused.
dtuuri
Last edited:
John Collins
En-Route
No.
This is an incorrect analysis of 4-1-1 at MTV. While it is true that it is beyond 40 NM from Roanoke, MTV is not outside the service volume of other Navaids including the Localizer at MTV, the NDB UV, and the VOR at Danville. Furthermore, radar service is available so the exception in 4-1-2 applies.
I was also commenting on your Boston reference in that the title of this thread was regarding a "GPS" approach and an aircraft capable of performing a GPS approach would qualify under the GPS exemption from 4-1-1 that was issued via a NOTAM. Boston Center still follows the rules and if MTV was inside their airspace they would have no problem issuing a clearance at this airport. If all the nearby Navaids were OOS and radar was OOS, they could still issue an IFR clearance if the aircraft was GPS equipped, but not if the aircraft was /A or /U.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
Not if they are well trained and fly the system on a regular basis. No one ever said IFR flying was easy, especially as a hobby and especially in the complex airspace along the eastern seaboard.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
That sounds like you are advocating using TAWS as a tactical tool.
dtuuri
Final Approach
I wasn't analyzing Par 4-1-1 of Order 7110.65 at all. In fact, I think departure procedures are an inappropriate place to apply that Order. The purpose of a DP is to get a pilot to the enroute structure and are designed with the coordination and approval of ATC. To say, after the fact, that the airport lies beyond service volume is to trump previous approval without due process. It makes no sense, either, since most all airports are "beyond service volume"--they're below it, even if within 40 nm. The DP is there precisely to allow the aircraft to safely climb into that service volume area, i.e., the "enroute structure". But let's let the OP have his thread back. :wink2:
dtuuri
dtuuri
Final Approach
Well, I've thought Cap'n Ron could use some training a time or two that's for sure, but here I sympathize with him.
It seems to me that TERPS and Order 8260.54 (or .58 chap 6) aren't necessarily meant to co-exist in hybrid approaches. In other words, when you say the airway "satisfies the optimal requirement" of a "Y" or "T" standard, I don't see the associated TAAs. Seems to me, an RNAV approach ought to be all RNAV on it's own merits, not relying on partial TERPS here and there that can lead to wrongful assumptions about obstacle clearance. YMMV.
dtuuri
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
You can't have an obstacle clearance flying airways.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Thanks, John -- I'd missed that in the change. Previously, the 90-degree limit had applied only to entry at the IF.
So, what happens if the controller issues the clearance anyway? As a pilot, you're not responsible to know the controller's rules, but you are responsible to know your rules, and executing a course reversal where none is depicted is prohibited by 91.175 and the published SIAP without ATC authorization. If you do happen to know the controller's restrictions, then it would probably be a good idea to question the clearance. But if you don't, the FAA isn't going to hold you responsible for having arrived at ULAKE and made a 91-degree turn (or even a 180 degree turn) to the next leg -- you have not violated any regulation applicable to pilot even if the controller has violated an FAA Order applicable to controllers.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
Naw, let's not.
This airport's ODP is an inappropriate application of the departure order. Before the designer results to a climb gradient he/she is supposed to provide a route ODP that has "the least onerous" climb gradient. And, that route must be flight inspected, thus removing the service volume issue.
This is not the only location where climb gradients have been used instead of a route ODP. KSVC is absurd in this regard.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
I sure as heck am. I'll use anything I have in the cockpit to stay alive. I once used the terrain following radar in the F-111 to stay alive when a Turkish controller misidentified us and tried to send us into the mountains below the tops. My pilot didn't want to turn away from them since the controller was insisting the vector was correct, but I did manage to convince him that there wouldn't be anyone else out there to hit at 400 AGL in the clouds amongst the rocks even if we climbed above our assigned MSL altitude.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Don't put words in my mouth. You've brought up an entirely different situation on an entirely different approach, and assumed what I'd do without even stating the clearance I was given, no less asking me what I'd do if given whatever clearance it is you failed to state.
dtuuri
Final Approach
dtuuri
Final Approach
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
I'd comply with my clearance, but you haven't told me what my clearance was.
dtuuri
Final Approach
That's something "new" to me. Not trying to argue the point, but what I remember is first was a diverse study, then apply restrictions and finally a "route" procedure if absolutely necessary. Since routes are much less flexible for operators I would think they would still be a last resort.
The visual departure at MTV allows you to be at 2700' over the airport with another 800 feet to climb to MEA of 3500' and right on the centerline of V103. At 200'/nm, you'll be 4 nm north which is 1.3 nm south of HENBY by the time you reach MEA. That's under 40 nm from ROA--a safe procedure even with minimum climb gradient and no enroute progress during the climb. At 3B1, and Milton, NY, IIRC, Boston won't (wouldn't?) grant a clearance under similar circumstances unless you're in the privileged class (RNAV). But, we digress...
dtuuri
dtuuri
Final Approach
You can make your own. My scenario has you coming from the north on the airway to BUVBE, not being able to get a visual and then possibly requesting the VOR/DME approach. But there's no course reversal at GVE and the minimums are real high. If you do that approach, is it properly TERPed for a U-turn? How would you make the turn if simply cleared for the requested approach?
Or, maybe you'd prefer the GPS RWY 8 from BUVBE, so are cleared for that. What would you do then?
Or, here's a new wrinkle, say you simply can't communicate with ATC at BUVBE anymore for some reason at whatever altitude you might have been descended to while under radar, so you're on your own, what then?
dtuuri
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
Give me the exact situation and clearance, I'll give you my answer.
Give me the exact situation and clearance, I'll give you my answer.
What was my filed route and last clearance?
It's all situations, and I can't tell you what I'd do without my location and the exact details of my clearance -- and any change to either might change my answer. No "possibly this/maybe that" about it.
dtuuri
Final Approach
It was here in Post #63, assume you were cleared as filed and being very user friendly, ATC will clear you for whatever approach you ask for after BUVBE, if they can hear you that is: