CFG,
Procedural Approach in the context under discussion is a misnomer. HK ATC is a Surveillance environment and doesn't use Procedural control. (Which leads me to ask why its called Approach and not Arrivals). Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP) is the correct term and Procedural Approach is comparable to saying, Procedural STAR or Procedural SID.
The original 07 STAR limit was GUAVA. This caused a discontinuity, and some operators (rightly) demanded a clearance to proceed beyond the STAR - either in the form of vectors or an IAP clearance. Subsequently the 07 IAF has been moved to LIMES (also to accommodate the CANTO/SIERA STARs). The problem still remains and my guess is that the STAR termination points will eventually be moved to new common IAF's near RIVER & LOTUS for RWY25 and STELA/TONIC for RWY07.
On topic, I agree with 744drv's reply - and I find it rather chilling that there are crew out there that cannot fly an IAP.
The chart's, "or as directed by ATC" is a nuisance term because it creates ambiguity. In BB's example; once ATC clears to a lower altitude, the "or as directed by ATC" implies that the lower altitude shall be reached by the IAF. To further confuse us, the charts show that the LIMES 4500 IAF altitude can be cancelled by ATC but the TD 8000 IAF level cannot. The charts are distinctly different, which implies the author must have good reason.
I see the incoming RNAV charts RWY07 are better written and do not include "or as directed by ATC" which implies that the original inclusion might have been an unintended cock-up and has thus been dropped.
Sighs and returns to Star Trek the Original Series.
Last edited by Unionist2010; 24th September 2013 at 23:31.