NoPT for arrivals

J

John Myers

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
May 16, 2017
Messages
168
Location
Denver
Display Name
Display name:
John Myers
Last edited:
Curious where v426 was running. I’ll see if I have an older map with that. Seems like the southbound headings would benefit from a Procedure turn.
 
benyflyguy said:
Curious where v426 was running. I’ll see if I have an older map with that. Seems like the southbound headings would benefit from a Procedure turn.
Click to expand...

§ 95.6426 VOR Federal Airway V426 is Amended to Delete
CARLETON, MI VOR/DME SALFE, OH FIX *4000
*3000—GNSS MEA
SALFE, OH FIX AMRST, OH FIX
AMRST, OH FIX DRYER, OH VOR/DME *3000
*2200—MOCA

Looks like the VOR's that defined it, CRL and DJB, are still around, at least as of the the last Chart cycle date.

Whole buncha other airways got deleted last year
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...-08837/ifr-altitudes-miscellaneous-amendments
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
While the V426 is gone, SALFE is now a waypoint.
Click to expand...
It always was a waypoint for this RNAV IAP.

Entry from the Victor airway structure onto an RNAV IAP is an accommodation that is significantly decreasing with the MON program.
 
aterpster said:
It always was a waypoint for this RNAV IAP.

Entry from the Victor airway structure onto an RNAV IAP is an accommodation that is significantly decreasing with the MON program.
Click to expand...

Yes, but arriving at the waypoint now can on the exact course to the same exact point as was prohibited on V426.
 
Clip4 said:
Yes, but arriving at the waypoint now can on the exact course to the same exact point as was prohibited on V426.
Click to expand...

I actually don’t understand the note now that I think of it. It sounds like it is saying you cannot take a turn in the hold if you arrive via the now non-existent airway. My understanding is you must take a turn in the hold unless told you are cleared “straight in” which begs the question what happens when you are cleared straight in from that airway?
 
John Myers said:
I actually don’t understand the note now that I think of it. It sounds like it is saying you cannot take a turn in the hold if you arrive via the now non-existent airway. My understanding is you must take a turn in the hold unless told you are cleared “straight in” which begs the question what happens when you are cleared straight in from that airway?
Click to expand...
there are a number of "unlesses" not just one. Vectors to final and arrival on a published NoPT route are two others.
 
Clip4 said:
Yes, but arriving at the waypoint now can on the exact course to the same exact point as was prohibited on V426.
Click to expand...
I presume you mean you are cleared direct SALFE. ATC should apply the provisions of a clearance direct to the IF (covered in the AIM) if they intend for you to omit the HILPT. But, let's say they clear you direct and simply say, "Cleared for the approach, maintain 3,000 until SALFE." In that case, if your intercept angle with SALFE is 90 degrees, or less, go straight-in. If the angle is greater than 90 degrees, do the HILPT. That would be compatible with the direct-to-the-IF procedure covered in the AIM.
 
aterpster said:
I presume you mean you are cleared direct SALFE. ATC should apply the provisions of a clearance direct to the IF (covered in the AIM) if they intend for you to omit the HILPT. But, let's say they clear you direct and simply say, "Cleared for the approach, maintain 3,000 until SALFE." In that case, if your intercept angle with SALFE is 90 degrees, or less, go straight-in. If the angle is greater than 90 degrees, do the HILPT. That would be compatible with the direct-to-the-IF procedure covered in the AIM.
Click to expand...
I would do that, but I would do one other thing. My readback would be "maintain 3,000 until SALFE, cleared straight in for the approach." I want ATC and I to be on the same page even more than I want to worry about the rule in this situation.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I would do that, but I would do one other thing. My readback would be "maintain 3,000 until SALFE, cleared straight in for the approach." I want ATC and I to be on the same page even more than I want to worry about the rule in this situation.
Click to expand...
I would let them know either way, because they dropped the ball. What I wouldn't say, "request straight-in approach" because you might get it even if the intercept angle is quite excessive.
 
John Myers said:
I actually don’t understand the note now that I think of it. It sounds like it is saying you cannot take a turn in the hold if you arrive via the now non-existent airway. My understanding is you must take a turn in the hold unless told you are cleared “straight in” which begs the question what happens when you are cleared straight in from that airway?
Click to expand...

You can't arrive via something that does not exist. That is a charting error. But it's no harm, no foul. It simply isn't pertinent because V426 no longer exists. That you happen to remember where it used be to be and are flying along there, changes nothing. The 'cleared straight in' thing is another scenario. It's when you arrive at the fix not on a published route, in other words, you've been cleared direct to it. In that case you must do the PT(usually an HILPT) unless ATC says 'straight in. You could literally be straight in on that direct clearance but the rule still applies. ATC has to say the magic words, straight in. There could be published routes to that fix such as Initial and Intermediate segments. You could coincidentally be directly over these segments, needle centered. But if you were cleared 'direct,' and not 'via' that segment, the rule still applies.
 
luvflyin said:
You can't arrive via something that does not exist. That is a charting error. But it's no harm, no foul. It simply isn't pertinent because V426 no longer exists. That you happen to remember where it used be to be and are flying along there, changes nothing. The 'cleared straight in' thing is another scenario. It's when you arrive at the fix not on a published route, in other words, you've been cleared direct to it. In that case you must do the PT(usually an HILPT) unless ATC says 'straight in. You could literally be straight in on that direct clearance but the rule still applies. ATC has to say the magic words, straight in. There could be published routes to that fix such as Initial and Intermediate segments. You could coincidentally be directly over these segments, needle centered. But if you were cleared 'direct,' and not 'via' that segment, the rule still applies.
Click to expand...

It’s confusing that you can arrive at a large angle and not be permitted to do he procedure turn, and arrive nearly straight on and be required to do one. This is probably related to an old TERPS rule about airway angles, the reasoning of which may or may not still make sense.

It is also confusing that there is an outdated note on a chart that references a non-existent airway. Given how long ago that airway was removed, this does seem to be an error and oversight. I think it is important when reviewing a chart to understand all of it, and that’s harder when there is outdated information on it you have to play detective to figure out.
 
John Myers said:
It’s confusing that you can arrive at a large angle and not be permitted to do he procedure turn, and arrive nearly straight on and be required to do one. This is probably related to an old TERPS rule about airway angles, the reasoning of which may or may not still make sense.

It is also confusing that there is an outdated note on a chart that references a non-existent airway. Given how long ago that airway was removed, this does seem to be an error and oversight. I think it is important when reviewing a chart to understand all of it, and that’s harder when there is outdated information on it you have to play detective to figure out.
Click to expand...

Yup. It's confusing. Controllers were the among those most confused and violators of it once. Mandatory briefings were done to get everyone on the same page. It still happens every now and then though. While it seems to defy the 'logic check' there is a logic behind it. If a controller is sequencing airplane B behind airplane A, he needs to know if airplane A is going to hang a 180 back into airplane B's face or not. The rule as it stands gets this done without playing 20 questions.
 
Last edited:
I reported the error, interested to see what the response time is.
 
John Myers said:
It is also confusing that there is an outdated note on a chart that references a non-existent airway. Given how long ago that airway was removed, this does seem to be an error and oversight. I think it is important when reviewing a chart to understand all of it, and that’s harder when there is outdated information on it you have to play detective to figure out.
Click to expand...
It will be interesting to see the response you get. It was probably just an oversight since nothing about the procedure really changed. If it was intentional, my guess is they figured it was't a big deal. Lots of pilots will, for example, look at the chart notes and just exclude those which don'y apply to them.
 
midlifeflyer said:
It will be interesting to see the response you get. It was probably just an oversight since nothing about the procedure really changed. If it was intentional, my guess is they figured it was't a big deal. Lots of pilots will, for example, look at the chart notes and just exclude those which don'y apply to them.
Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if they are intentionally ignoring deleting a note (given how easy that should be) because of what is really a subjective determination that it wasn't a big deal, especially given how micro detailed they get with approaches and angles, etc. There is already a NOTAM on that plate so I would guess they will correct it along with the DME note mentioned in the NOTAM on the next cycle. We shall see...
 
John Myers said:
It’s confusing that you can arrive at a large angle and not be permitted to do he procedure turn, and arrive nearly straight on and be required to do one. This is probably related to an old TERPS rule about airway angles, the reasoning of which may or may not still make sense.
Click to expand...
Those criteria still apply. 120 degrees maximum for ground-based procedures; 90 degrees for RNAV.
 
John Myers said:
Those are not criteria for prohibiting a PT.
Click to expand...
I was responding to your post:

"This is probably related to an old TERPS rule about airway angles, the reasoning of which may or may not still make sense."
 
I agree with the earlier post, btw, if cleared direct SALFE (regardless of the intercept angle), you're supposed to do PT unless ATC clears you for the straight-in. The presence of a small intercept and crossing altitude matching the IF altitude would certainly mean that a straight-in is PROBABLY what ATC intends, however, it's absolutely an error for them NOT to include "straight-in" in the clearance, and it would be prudent to query them. It's a little passive aggressive to read it back with the straight-in portion added on, since you're reading back something which wasn't there, so I'd argue you're better explicitly seeking clarification. "Verify you're expecting straight-in after SALFE?" At which point,they'll either say "affirmative" and you can read it back with the straight-in phraseology, or they'll just reclear you with the straight-in.

This was a significant issue years ago, but it received a fair amount of focus in the change revisions to the 7110.65. I would hope that it's happening less and less in the field.
 
coma24 said:
It's a little passive aggressive to read it back with the straight-in portion added on, since you're reading back something which wasn't there,
Click to expand...
LOL. It may sound that way, and "confirm cleared straight in" tagged to the end of the readback is probably closer to what I actually would say.

Thread creep: But, FWIW, whatever the language, I think there is actually a psychological benefit to pilots (other than being passive aggressive) in using the words of statement rather than the words of question in these types of situations. There are way to many accidents in the books of people blindly treating ATC as the boss, some with disastrous consequences. The much too underused "Unable" is a statement, not a question. This is a tiny thing, but I think telling ATC as opposed to asking ATC gets one used to a command mentality. So it is my SOP use the readback to state my understanding of a clearance while still keeping communications short and to the point (when I feel it appropriate). I use it in multiple situations, the most common one being the answer to the age-old question, "When ATC tells you to return to your course after a deviation, do you intercept the route or head to the next waypoint?"
 
I got a response this morning, NOTAM was updated and showed up in ForeFlight about an hour later:

Your Aeronautical Inquiry has been closed.

========================================================
FAA Response:

Hi John,

The NOTE will be removed as soon as possible.

Thanks.

========================================================
AI-185669
Category: Procedure Design > US Terminal Procedures
Airport: KPCW
State: OH
Procedure Name: RNAV (GPS) 09
Inquiry: NoPT note near the IAF references V429 which no longer exists.
========================================================
 
John Myers said:
I got a response this morning, NOTAM was updated and showed up in ForeFlight about an hour later:

Your Aeronautical Inquiry has been closed.

========================================================
FAA Response:

Hi John,

The NOTE will be removed as soon as possible.

Thanks.

========================================================
AI-185669
Category: Procedure Design > US Terminal Procedures
Airport: KPCW
State: OH
Procedure Name: RNAV (GPS) 09
Inquiry: NoPT note near the IAF references V429 which no longer exists.
========================================================
Click to expand...
Good work.

They tend to be very responsive to chart error inquiries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top