NoPT Poll

[aterpster]

Every approach has an intermediate segment.

Three types come to mind which do not, including the procedure that is the subject of this thread:

The TERPs criteria are the authority, not other FAA publications.

 

[dmspilot]

Three types come to mind which do not, including the procedure that is the subject of this thread

Sorry, I made an error. You are correct that VOR and NDB approaches in which the NAVAID is located on the field and there is no FAF that the intermediate segment does not exist.

I do not agree with your 3rd point with regard to the localizer approach discussed in the thread. From the perspective of the approach designer, the intermediate segment is not "constructed" because it is redundant with the initial approach segment. From the pilot's perspective, the intermediate segment begins when the aircraft intercepts the final approach course and continues until the FAF.

 

[aterpster]

. From the pilot's perspective, the intermediate segment begins when the aircraft intercepts the final approach course and continues until the FAF.

I previously agreed with that by stating that the inbound course of the HILPT in the approach at issue is the functional equivalent of an intermediate segment from the pilot's perspective.

From a design perspective, though, there is no taper and no reduction in obstacle clearance from that required for an initial approach segment. The HILPT is the only initial approach segment on this IAP.

 

[John Collins]

John, what is the reference for doing the straight in from a FAF based in "VMC or the pilot requests it."? That criteria could be loosely based on 5-9-1 (1&2) but I'm not sure that could be applied in this case. It would seem that 4-8-1 c is the overriding rule here and I don't see any way of getting out of the HILPT when the aircraft is direct a IAF that also serves as a FAF.

I said:

Even if radar was available on this approach, a controller is not permitted by FAA guidance to intercept the aircraft at the FAF unless the conditions are effectively VMC or the pilot requests it.

That is a paraphrase of 5-9-1. I was merely pointing out that when VTF is available (I know it is not in this case) that you are not supposed to get dumped direct to the FAF which is roughly analogous to going direct to the FAF on the feeder route.

 

[Velocity173]

I said:



That is a paraphrase of 5-9-1. I was merely pointing out that when VTF is available (I know it is not in this case) that you are not supposed to get dumped direct to the FAF which is roughly analogous to going direct to the FAF on the feeder route.

Understand now.

 

[dmspilot]

From a design perspective, though, there is no taper and no reduction in obstacle clearance from that required for an initial approach segment. The HILPT is the only initial approach segment on this IAP.

By virtue of the design of the initial segment and its relation to the final segment, the intermediate segment already exists and as such there is no need to "construct" one.

 

[GCA319]

Unless you're cleared for the straight in by ATC, you have to do a lap in the hold at TKH before proceeding inbound. The reason that there isn't a "NoPT" note is that the IAP doesn't actually begin until TKF. The route from BARNE is a feeder route designed to get from the enroute structure onto the approach, it's not an actual transition route (if that were the case, BARNE would actually be marked as an IAF).

 

[midlifeflyer]

Unless you're cleared for the straight in by ATC, you have to do a lap in the hold at TKH before proceeding inbound. The reason that there isn't a "NoPT" note is that the IAP doesn't actually begin until TKF. The route from BARNE is a feeder route designed to get from the enroute structure onto the approach, it's not an actual transition route (if that were the case, BARNE would actually be marked as an IAF).

I think the discussion has gone past the regulatory issue (with which I think everyone agrees) and to the practicality and advusability of asking for that straight in clearance.

 

[dtuuri]

Looks like a chink exists in the advice that a HILPT is complete upon the second passing of the fix (for aircraft doing the parallel entry and resulting in a big intercept). Maybe the old original idea of flying the race track every time had some merit after all.

dtuuri

 

[midlifeflyer]

Looks like a chink exists in the advice that a HILPT is complete upon the second passing of the fix (for aircraft doing the parallel entry and resulting in a big intercept). Maybe the old original idea of flying the race track every time had some merit after all.

dtuuri

Well, it doesn't work well if one uses the AIM guidance (quite often taught) to turn directly to the fix on a parallel entry. OTOH, it will work if one (also per the AIM guidance, which describes alternatives) turns inbound with an intercept. But the pilot still needs to know that, in no wind conditions, a 30° intercept will bring her directly to the fix, while a 45° will actually allow them to intercept the localizer before the fix. Headwind for the approach, it's better; tailwind worse.

My point is only that there are condition related variables that make a "correct" approach from the northwest as problematic from an operational standpoint as an "incorrect" approach from BARNE.

But, like asking for an extra turn for a HILPT to get better aligned further out, they are the types of choices pilots need to be able to make.

 

[luvflyin]

I don't agree.



It is not as difficult to intercept the localizer before the FAF with a parallel entry HILPT as you make it seem. You aren't supposed to backtrack on the inbound course during a parallel entry, and your intercept angle is quite shallow, I recommend a minimum of 45º. While it would normally be difficult to intercept a localizer at such a large angle, you have an NDB to help you.

On the other hand, flying from BARNE direct to the NDB makes it impossible to intercept the localizer before the FAF.

Exactly. Fly to the NDB, wait for the needle to reverse, THEN make your turn to the outbound parallel heading corrected for wind. Don't start the clock until you are established on that heading. Do what the GPS whiz box says, at least the one I use, Garmin430, and it wants to lead the turn going into the NDB and track the course itself outbound. Yeah I know, why the hell shoot this approach if you have GPS. It does it on any holding pattern entry for any kind of approach. I hand fly them to avoid this. What about other GPS units? Do they all want to lead the entry turn and track the localizer, radial or bearing outbound? Or do any of them know how to do a parallel entry?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Exactly. Fly to the NDB, wait for the needle to reverse, THEN make your turn to the outbound parallel heading corrected for wind. Don't start the clock until you are established on that heading. Do what the GPS whiz box says, at least the one I use, Garmin430, and it wants to lead the turn going into the NDB and track the course itself outbound. Yeah I know, why the hell shoot this approach if you have GPS. It does it on any holding pattern entry for any kind of approach. I hand fly them to avoid this. What about other GPS units? Do they all want to lead the entry turn and track the localizer, radial or bearing outbound? Or do any of them know how to do a parallel entry?

Yes, GPS boxes want to lead the entry. But how is leading a turn for efficiency (GPS or no GPS) not knowing how to do a parallel entry? Or are you just a purist about it - that since the AIM guidance talks about paralleling the outbound course, that is the one true only way to do it and it's completely improper to track an inbound course outbound.

BTW, I agree - why would one bother to do this approach at all when there is a good RNAV one.

 

[GCA319]

I think the discussion has gone past the regulatory issue (with which I think everyone agrees) and to the practicality and advusability of asking for that straight in clearance.

Yeah..I neglected to notice there were 6 pages in the thread before posting.

 

[aterpster]

Unless you're cleared for the straight in by ATC, you have to do a lap in the hold at TKH before proceeding inbound. The reason that there isn't a "NoPT" note is that the IAP doesn't actually begin until TKF. The route from BARNE is a feeder route designed to get from the enroute structure onto the approach, it's not an actual transition route (if that were the case, BARNE would actually be marked as an IAF).

You are correct except I would quibble with the term "transition route." Terminal route is more commonly used. A feeder route is a terminal route, but not an initial approach segment.

 

[GCA319]

You are correct except I would quibble with the term "transition route." Terminal route is more commonly used. A feeder route is a terminal route, but not an initial approach segment.

I've been cleared for tons of approaches like this: "cleared for the ILS 12 via the xyz transition."

 

[luvflyin]

Yes, GPS boxes want to lead the entry. But how is leading a turn for efficiency (GPS or no GPS) not knowing how to do a parallel entry? Or are you just a purist about it - that since the AIM guidance talks about paralleling the outbound course, that is the one true only way to do it and it's completely improper to track an inbound course outbound.

BTW, I agree - why would one bother to do this approach at all when there is a good RNAV one.

"not knowing" was kind of harsh, of course they have the processing power to do it. It's not about being a purist. There is an advantage to doing the parallel entry properly, well documented in posts above about the problems with arriving back at the fix practically right on top of it instead of with a little lead time joining the approach course inbound before arriving at the fix. I figure why not just have the GPS do it properly. The gain in efficiency by leading the turn is tiny. No, the AIM entry recommendations are not the only way to do it. The whole direct, teardrop, parallel 70 degree thing is not set in stone by regulation anyway. If your flying the pattern pretty fast, close to the max holding speed though, probably a pretty good idea to use them.
The more I think about it I'm making a big deal out of it anyway. We're all big boys and know how the entry is going to effect the outcome and can do it the way that works best.

 

[aterpster]

I've been cleared for tons of approaches like this: "cleared for the ILS 12 via the xyz transition."

Quite reasonable from an ATC perspective.