Still trying to understand approaches?

peerlesscowboy said:
So then, at least in this case ATC won't issue the approach clearance until you're established on the final approach course and within 10 nm of the VOR? IOW, as soon as you're issued the approach clearance you can assume you can descend to the minimum altitudes depicted on the final approach course, right?
Click to expand...

That is one possibility that follows the guidance. The other allows the controller to issue an altitude to maintain until established, so my example would involve a clearance prior to being established, which is the more typical case for a vector to final. Of course, in that case you may not descend until you are established, and then one could descend.
 
peerlesscowboy said:
And what if you happen to be inbound (267*) on the 087 radial or nearly so? Without DME you wouldn't know how far out you are. Arguably you might be "established" on the radial inbound too far out to safely descend to 1500'.
Click to expand...

The controller is required to provide a distance to the VOR or to JOBGO in this case. If they don't follow their guidance to provide you a distance to a fix or the faculity and you don't have a DME, then it is up to you to ask.
 
azure said:
I'm not sure whether it's CALLED the final approach course, but they do give you a vector to intercept it, then clear you for the approach. Whatever the correct terminology, my point was that you will typically not fly the full procedure approach - and I don't think I ever have, at least not on my checkride nor during my training leading up to it.
Click to expand...
They may be doing it, and I've seen them do it on such approaches before, but it's contrary to FAA Order 7110.65, Section 5-9-1. Without a final approach fix and associated final approach gate on the controller's scope, VTF is not authorized.
 
peerlesscowboy said:
I fly this type of approach quite often but always below radar coverage, always just cross XYZ aa # thousand cleared approach so you cross the IAF and fly the full approach. I'm curious? If ATC vectored you to the final approach course at what point would you consider yourself "established" on the approach and OK to descend to the published minimum altitudes depicted for that segment?
Click to expand...
And that's why it's not authorized.
 
John Collins said:
The controller is required to provide a distance to the VOR or to JOBGO in this case. If they don't follow their guidance to provide you a distance to a fix or the faculity and you don't have a DME, then it is up to you to ask.
Click to expand...
It's been nearly two years, but IIRC they do in fact give you a distance to JOBGO.
 
Ron Levy said:
They may be doing it, and I've seen them do it on such approaches before, but it's contrary to FAA Order 7110.65, Section 5-9-1. Without a final approach fix and associated final approach gate on the controller's scope, VTF is not authorized.
Click to expand...

Ron,

That is a misreading of 7110.65V, 5-9-1. With the sole exception of the case for vectoring inside the approach gate and only at the pilot request, all vector to final restrictions are in terms of the approach gate and not in terms of the FAF, which does not exist for this type of approach. That is why in 5-9-4 they provide the following instructions:

5−9−4. ARRIVAL INSTRUCTIONS
Issue all of the following to an aircraft before it reaches the approach gate:

a. Position relative to a fix on the final approach course. If none is portrayed on the radar display or if none is prescribed in the procedure, issue position information relative to the navigation aid which provides final approach guidance or relative to the airport.

b. Vector to intercept the final approach course if required.

c. Approach clearance except when conducting a radar approach. Issue approach clearance only after the aircraft is:

1. Established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure,

2. Assigned an altitude to maintain until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure.
Click to expand...

There is guidance in 4-8-1 when not using VTF, that clearing an aircraft direct to an IAF which is also a FAF, the aircraft is expected to fly a PT, but that is not the case here or with a VTF.
 
John Collins said:
That is one possibility that follows the guidance. The other allows the controller to issue an altitude to maintain until established, so my example would involve a clearance prior to being established, which is the more typical case for a vector to final. Of course, in that case you may not descend until you are established, and then one could descend.
Click to expand...
In this case and others similar;
is the published final approach segment defined as starting at 10 nm?
 
peerlesscowboy said:
In this case and others similar;
is the published final approach segment defined as starting at 10 nm?
Click to expand...

Yes in this case, see the following two quotes from the TERPS manual:

234. INITIAL APPROACH SEGMENT BASED ON A PT.
A PT must be specified when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or FAC, except as specified in paragraph 234e. A PT begins by overheading a facility or fix which meets the criteria for a holding fix (see paragraph 287b), or for a FAF (see paragraph 287c). The procedure must specify the PT fix, the outbound and inbound course, the distance within which the PT must be completed, and the direction of the PT. When a teardrop turn is used, the angle of divergence between the outbound courses and the reciprocal of the inbound course must be a MINIMUM of 15 degrees or a MAXIMUM of 30 degrees (see paragraph 235a for high altitude teardrop penetrations). When the beginning of the intermediate or final approach segment associated with the procedure turn is not marked by a fix, the segment is deemed to begin on the inbound procedure turn course at the maximum distance specified in the procedure. Where neither segment is marked by a fix, the final segment begins at the maximum distance specified in the procedure.
Click to expand...

413. FINAL APPROACH SEGMENT. The final approach begins where the PT intersects the FAC.
Click to expand...
 
I'm thinking OP Melissa is feeling like she threw a lit match into a gas filled room.

Welcome aboard.
 
bobmrg said:
The MSA plays no part in an instrument approach procedure. Look it up in the P/C Glossary, with special attention to where it says
"...for emergency use..."

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

Ron Levy said:
MSA is not a part of flying an SIAP. The MSA is there for emergency use only when you're off the published procedure and do not have an ATC-assigned altitude to fly.
Click to expand...

You guys are both right, obviously. In IMC, I'd already have an altitude assignment from ATC and would follow that until cleared for the approach. At which time I'd descend as appropriate per the approach chart.

I tend to use the MSA as an entry altitude when doing VFR practice approaches and mistakenly included that step in my "how I would fly this approach" narrative in post #6. Apologies for the error.
 
mjburian said:
You guys are both right, obviously. In IMC, I'd already have an altitude assignment from ATC and would follow that until cleared for the approach. At which time I'd descend as appropriate per the approach chart.

I tend to use the MSA as an entry altitude when doing VFR practice approaches and mistakenly included that step in my "how I would fly this approach" narrative in post #6. Apologies for the error.
Click to expand...

MSA is sometime useless for any purpose:

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1412/06941r18.pdf
 
mjburian said:
You guys are both right, obviously. In IMC, I'd already have an altitude assignment from ATC and would follow that until cleared for the approach. At which time I'd descend as appropriate per the approach chart.
Click to expand...

NO!!!!!! You must maintain your previous altitude until you are cleared for the approach AND on a published segment of the approach. Of course ever since a 727 hit a hill down the road from me, ATC has made that explicit in your clearance
I tend to use the MSA as an entry altitude when doing VFR practice approaches and mistakenly included that step in my "how I would fly this approach" narrative in post #6. Apologies for the error.
Click to expand...
I don't even think that it's particularly useful for that.
 
flyingron said:
NO!!!!!! You must maintain your previous altitude until you are cleared for the approach AND on a published segment of the approach. Of course ever since a 727 hit a hill down the road from me, ATC has made that explicit in your clearance

I don't even think that it's particularly useful for that.
Click to expand...

Right. Which is why I said "I'd descend as appropriate per the approach chart" (emphasis added this time).

As for the MSA, around here it seems to fall pretty closely (within a few hundred feet) to where I'm flying around VFR anyway... so it's as easy to use that as any other made up altitude. I'm open to critiques of this, though.
 
I know the high msa at Key West is because of the balloon and cable, but why do they not split the msa so it is lower in the sector where it is ok to be lower, like they often do in mountainous areas ?
 
Last edited:
c310flyr said:
I know the high msa at Key West is because of the balloon and cable, but why do they not split the msa so it is lower in the sector where it is ok to be lower, like they often do in mountainous areas ?
Click to expand...

They don't sectorized MSAs for RNAV approaches.
 
flyingron said:
Yep, you need to account for wind. Approaches are one of the few times that Ground Speed really matters. Holds and procedure turns may need to have the "rule of thumb" times adjusted.
...
Click to expand...

Flying a VOR approach like this is a good example of a case where having a GPS of any sort comes in really handy.

If you use the school standard course reversal then to account for wind just verify that your outbound TRACK is 042, inbound intercept TRACK is 222 and your final approach TRACK is 267. Fly the correct tracks, stay within 10nm on the reversal, and you'll be fine.

You'll also gain a good feel for the winds at your altitude.
 
aterpster said:
They don't sectorized MSAs for RNAV approaches.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks, that answers it. But why don't they sectorize rnav approaches?


You actually have better ability to determine where you are within the sector with rnav, where, for instance, on an ndb, you have little to go on to determine when you are 25 or whatever from the ndb.

:dunno:
 
c310flyr said:
Ok, thanks, that answers it. But why don't they sectorize rnav approaches?


You actually have better ability to determine where you are within the sector with rnav, where, for instance, on an ndb, you have little to go on to determine when you are 25 or whatever from the ndb.

:dunno:
Click to expand...

It was a compromise. Some FAA TERPS folks want to do away with MSA altogether with RNAV, based on the premise if you are so messed that that you get lost on an RNAV IAP, MSAs probably wouldn't help.
 
aterpster said:
It was a compromise. Some FAA TERPS folks want to do away with MSA altogether with RNAV, based on the premise if you are so messed that that you get lost on an RNAV IAP, MSAs probably wouldn't help.
Click to expand...

Hearing that makes me think those individuals have never had a "What's it doing now?" moment while using an GPS receiver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top