Question about entry into Reversal Procedure

[shortcut_approved]

Hello everyone,

ICAO DOC 8168 PANS-OPS Figure I-4-3-4 shows a diagram that has a +/- 30 degree segment where you can go straight into the outbound leg for a 45/180 Reversal procedure. The remaining 300 degree segment has a note that says:

"Arrivals from this sector must enter the holding prior to the reversal procedure"

My question is whether a hold entry manoeuvre, eg flying a teardrop or parallel entry to then be established on the inbound track towards the beacon satisfies "enter the holding", or whether it is required to complete the entry, and then actually go once around the hold, before commencing the outbound leg of the reversal procedure.

I've read before the debates/questions on entry into Racetrack procedures, but couldn't find anything specifically about Reversal procedures.

Many thanks,
Shortcut

[Zeffy]

My question is whether a hold entry manoeuvre, eg flying a teardrop or parallel entry to then be established on the inbound track towards the beacon satisfies "enter the holding", or whether it is required to complete the entry, and then actually go once around the hold, before commencing the outbound leg of the reversal procedure.


http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa92/zeffy_bucket/PANSOPS1-4-3-4entry.png

It's not necessary to fly another circuit once the entry into the alignment hold has been completed.

Think about it -- once you're headed back to the fix following the entry, aren't you established in the "direct" sector?

:ok:

[minimumunstick]

Agree with Zeffy.

However, the real issue is: what do you do when there is no depicted holding pattern, only the reversal procedure?

[aterpster]

minimumunstick:

However, the real issue is: what do you do when there is no depicted holding pattern, only the reversal procedure?

Do you have an example?

[sevenstrokeroll]

make sure you reverse course on the procedure turn side.

know the terrain

if a holding pattern is depicted along with the above instructions, there is probably a darn good reason...mountain for example.

I get a kick out of your european terms, yet in one of the diagrams it is called, wwhat we call it: a procedure turn

45/180 reversal indeed...though you could probably do a 90/270 if you like.

also, the holding pattern is nice as you get a chance to determine the winds...assuming you don't have a magic box doing the thinking for you.

[aviatorhi]

As far as operating in the US and associated areas is concerned as long as you accomplish a reversal on the correct side within the alloted distance (unless a specific entry type is depicted, and a 45/180 is not a "specific" entry, it's just a guideline) you can do any sort of entry you like, personally I prefer a teardrop starting over the fix if the hold is on the "far" side from me or a 90/270 if its on the same side.

[aterpster]

You guys are missing the point. Zeffy posted the PANS-OPS illustration. PANS-OPS (not TERPS) requires that a holding pattern first be entered to properly align with the procedure turn (typically a base-turn) unless you are approaching the base-turn within 30 degrees.

[galaxy flyer]

Neither sevenstrokeroll or aviatorhi understand PANS-OPS instrument procedures. Say what you about "European terms", PANS-OPS are different and until you learn the difference, may I humbly suggest you not fly outside the US.

Aterpster

I don't have an example handy, but it is possible not to have either a hold or a routing that puts one on the correct track to the course reversal. I'll look

GF

[aviatorhi]

Are you gonna ban me from flying into places which are within US oversight and US regulations apply but are outside the US as well?

I prefaced my statement with where it would apply, and whenever I go to a place where non US regs are in place I review the Jepps for any pertinent procedural information. :ok:

I don't think the original question had anything to do with how you enter a hold, rather it had more to do about when you are established in the hold, the conversation had drifted towards the direction of entry.

[galaxy flyer]

I did not suggest, in any way, banning anyone from anywhere. To the OP, the question was about accomplishing the holding entry to be aligned with the course reversal track. The answer to which s once aligned with the outbound course, that is within 30* of the course reversal track and cleared for the approach, there is no need to fly the hold. Conventional holding entry procedures apply.

GF

[aterpster]

gf:

Here is the directive to the designers in PANS-OPS:

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/PANSOPSCourseReversalEntry.jpg

[Zeffy]

aviatorhi, sevenstrokeroll -- perhaps you've answered a question that is different from the OP's?

whenever I go to a place where non US regs are in place I review the Jepps for any pertinent procedural information.
Please forgive if this appears to be advice on how to suck eggs, but honestly, I don't think that the Jeppesen Chart Legend pages provide adequate guidance on how PANS OPS procedures are flown.

As aterpster, gf and upper air have noted, in a non-radar environment, PANS OPS (http://dcaa.slv.dk:8000/icaodocs/Doc%208168%20-%20Aircraft%20Operations/Volume%202%20-%20Construction%20of%20Visual%20and%20Instrument%20Flight%20 Procedures.pdf) procedures may require an alignment hold that is flown prior to the course reversal.

The requirement to fly or not-fly the alignment hold is dependent on the direction of arrival at the specified fix.

If the arrival route is outside of the "direct" entry sector -- i.e., "Entry Sector" and "Sector 1" below, the alignment hold becomes a mandatory part of the Initial approach segment.

Following are the figures cited in aterpster's "red boxed" directive.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa92/zeffy_bucket/BaseTurnEntryI-4-3-5.png

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa92/zeffy_bucket/ReversalProcedureI-4-3-6.png



The following charts illustrate alignment hold concepts.

Prior to Base Turn (not required from TISAD):
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa92/zeffy_bucket/LRSM_16-1.png



Prior to "Procedure Turn":

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa92/zeffy_bucket/LFRD_13-3.png


If your FMS is approach-capable, it's important to note that the approach in the database won't contain the alignment hold. When required, the hold pattern will have to be manually inserted into the active route by the pilot and flown prior to executing the specified course reversal.

These PANS OPS concepts are frequently omitted in TERPS/USA IFR training so it's not surprising that the core of the OP's question may have been missed.

[galaxy flyer]

Thanks, Zeffy

As an addendum, using PANS-OPS procedures, in a non-radar environment, there is no using FAA "holding" entries for the course reversal. The pilot MUST fly the course reversal as charted, whether it is a procedure turn, 80-260, base turn or racetrack. US pilots frequently miss this requirement.

GF

[minimumunstick]

aterpster

At your request.

I am a little short on time but found this one in a hurry.

https://www.ippc.no/norway_aip/current/AIP/AD/ENDU/EN_AD_2_ENDU_5-6_en.pdf

I don't expect you to be familiar with this type of chart so in case you are wondering the dotted line is a holding pattern, not a racetrack.

How do you enter the approach if you come in outside the base turn entry limits?

[aterpster]

minimumunstick:

aterpster

At your request.

I am a little short on time but found this one in a hurry.

I don't expect you to be familiar with this type of chart so in case you are wondering the dotted line is a holding pattern, not a racetrack.

How do you enter the approach if you come in outside the base turn entry limits?


As a matter of fact I am familiar with that airport, having just done a bit of TAWS assessment there.

I read Jepps a lot better than AIP source. Here is the Jepp for the IAP you reference and for the VOR IAP in the opposite direction. Note the second chart uses the same holding pattern, which makes a better fit for alignment prior to entry into the base leg. Nonetheless, the designers presumed the holding pattern "is suitable" for alignment to the base leg for either of these two IAPs.

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/13-2.jpg

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/13-1.jpg

[aterpster]

gf:

As an addendum, using PANS-OPS procedures, in a non-radar environment, there is no using FAA "holding" entries for the course reversal. The pilot MUST fly the course reversal as charted, whether it is a procedure turn, 80-260, base turn or racetrack. US pilots frequently miss this requirement.

Not if they are properly trained in international procedures.:)

If they have to first use the alignment holding pattern to properly align for the base leg or procedure turn reversal, they certainly can use the FAA/ICAO recommened pattern entries into the alignment holding pattern.

As an aside, anyone who really understands TERPS and its containment assumptions does not buy into the FAA's AIM garbage about the various options for flying a standard procedure turn in a TERPS IAP. It should be flown with positive course guidance both outbound and inbound. But, I digress.

[Zeffy]

...the dotted line is a holding pattern, not a racetrack.

How do you enter the approach if you come in outside the base turn entry limits?

You are correct -- the holding pattern is not a racetrack. However, the holding pattern is depicted for the purpose of alignment when arriving outside of the direct entry sector for the base turn.

And your original question is now more clear -- i.e., "once the holding entry has commenced, will it be necessary to fly a circuit in the alignment holding pattern?"

Perhaps scaling of the holding pattern on the Norway AIP version is a bit confusing -- aterpster has kindly provided the Jeppesen chart.

If arriving from outside of the "direct" entry sector for the base turn, one should enter the published alignment hold.

The base turn leg is joined from the outbound track of the alignment hold. This is accomplished by turning beyond the 109-deg outbound track to intercept the (Cat C/D) 089-deg radial.

Thus the requirement to simply fly the holding entry and join the 089 radial or to return to the VOR and begin the base turn will depend upon the method used to enter the alignment hold.

For examples: Arriving from the North on the 360 radial, use a "Parallel" holding entry and return to the VOR -- arriving from the East on the 090 radial, use a "Direct" entry and turn to intercept the 089 radial to begin the base turn.

[minimumunstick]

Thanks guys. So basically you would enter the hold, and when turning outbound you just continue until you intercept the baseturn outbound leg?


Another question just to clarify:

When flying in the US doing a procedure turn (I always do the 45/180), even though ICAO rules say you must be within 30 degrees of the outbound leg, is it ok not to be? I am a little confused on this.

When I flew in the states everyone would just turn to intercept outbound leg no matter where they came from.. is this legal / the proper way to do it?

[aterpster]

minimumunstick:

When I flew in the states everyone would just turn to intercept outbound leg no matter where they came from.. is this legal / the proper way to do it?

That is correct with TERPs in the U.S. The only restriction is descent to procedure turn completion altitude where a minimum altitude is shown in the profile view over the procedure turn fix. In that case that altitude is the minimum altitude until established outbound in the procedure turn; i.e., the entry maneuver is completed.

More and more FAA IAPs that have course reversals are using holding patterns instead of conventional procedure turns. In that case, the holding pattern rules apply both as to entry and speed limits.

There are a few(very few actually) FAA IAPs with teardrop procedure turns. Those must be flown exactly as shown.

[minimumunstick]

Thanks, that clarifies my doubts!

Another question I have never really seen a proper answer to written anywhere:

Let's say you are on a long final for a straight in approach. You have not reached the IAF yet but you are on the inbound course. On the approach plate there is a racetrack procedure depicted (I use racetrack for this example, might as well be any type of procedure turn or baseturn) to get you established on the inbound course.

If ATC clears you for the approach, without having to clarify with ATC, are you cleared to continue straight in from the IAF, assuming you are already established at the correct altitude? Or are you still required to complete a lap in the racetrack, as it is "bolded out" on the chart and thereby a mandatory part of the approach procedure?


I have heard so many different versions on this, but what I hear most often is that you must actually do the racetrack unless specifically allowed by ATC to continue straight in. But to me that seems a bit odd as you are already established and doing a lap in the racetrack would just take up extra time and fuel..

Thanks once again

[aterpster]

minimumunstick:

Another question I have never really seen a proper answer to written anywhere:

Let's say you are on a long final for a straight in approach. You have not reached the IAF yet but you are on the inbound course. On the approach plate there is a racetrack procedure depicted (I use racetrack for this example, might as well be any type of procedure turn or baseturn) to get you established on the inbound course.

If ATC clears you for the approach, without having to clarify with ATC, are you cleared to continue straight in from the IAF, assuming you are already established at the correct altitude? Or are you still required to complete a lap in the racetrack, as it is "bolded out" on the chart and thereby a mandatory part of the approach procedure?


I have heard so many different versions on this, but what I hear most often is that you must actually do the racetrack unless specifically allowed by ATC to continue straight in. But to me that seems a bit odd as you are already established and doing a lap in the racetrack would just take up extra time and fuel..

Your present position would presumably be on an unpublished extension of the final approach course. It is difficult to comment without an example IAP. In the U.S. ATC would be required to provide you an altitude to maintain until entering a published segment of the IAP. If this was in fact an extenstion of the final approach course presumably this would be a vector to "the final approach," which would supercede the course reversal, also presuming an altitude compatible with the altitude inbound from the course reversal.

[Sciolistes]

Minimumunstick,

As the following phases constitute an instrument approach (arrival, initial, intermediate, final and missed) you have not started the initial approach until you cross the IAF, so you must continue to the IAF and join the racetrack accordingly unless you can ask for and are given a visual approach or vectors.

[minimumunstick]

Sciolistes, you will cross the IAF, it's just that instead of wasting a lap in the racetrack which is completely unnecessary as you are already established on course and altitude, you continue straight in.

There is absolutely no valid reason to complete a racetrack or course reversal procedure if you are already established on the desired and depicted track and altitude to continue an approach. This is not even a discussion, the question is whether it is legal to do so or not as the racetrack is depicted as part of the approach procedure on the approach plate.


aterpster:

I understand your example, but it does not necessarily have to be vectoring. Just to give you an example let's say you are on an airway somewhere or whatever (doesn't really matter) and ATC says "descend to X feet (altitude for final approach segment) proceed direct to X (name of IAF), cleared X approach" and as a complete coincidence when you turn direct you see you are established on the exact inbound course. You maintain this inbound course as you navigate towards the IAF which also is the start of a course reversal procedure to establish you on the course you are already on.

Assuming these conditions, would you complete a lap in the racetrack or not?

[Sciolistes]

Well no you are not required to do a lap if you can cross the IAF and follow the initial track without manouevering. The reacetrack is a reversal procedure and not required if aleady on track.

Edited to add that I used the term "reversal" too glibly. There are reversal procedures and there are racetracks.

Also this is what ICAO says:
Note.— Racetrack procedures are used where sufficient distance is not available in a straight segment to accommodate the required loss of altitude and when entry into a reversal procedure is not practical. They may also be specified as alternatives to reversal procedures to increase operational lexibility (in this case, they are not necessarily published separately).
So, strictly speaking, your example not their intended use.

Anyway, I thought the answer was obvious, but ICAO does not specify, I presume assuming the above quote. So strictly speaking you should do a lap! But that defies common sense when clearly a 30º cone entry is safe for a reversal procedure, it must be safe for a racetrack too (again, assuming the altitude criteria are met).

[aterpster]

minimumunstick:
I understand your example, but it does not necessarily have to be vectoring. Just to give you an example let's say you are on an airway somewhere or whatever (doesn't really matter) and ATC says "descend to X feet (altitude for final approach segment) proceed direct to X (name of IAF), cleared X approach" and as a complete coincidence when you turn direct you see you are established on the exact inbound course. You maintain this inbound course as you navigate towards the IAF which also is the start of a course reversal procedure to establish you on the course you are already on.
Assuming these conditions, would you complete a lap in the racetrack or not?

Again, I can only speak for FAA-dom. Here is what I believe is an example that is on point. The graphic below shows both the VOR or GPS-A IAP for KEMT (east of LAX), and the associated airway structure, which is in very busy airspace. Often, a peashooter arrives from the east on V-264.

Case A: The aircraft is assigned the MEA (6,000) and simply cleared for the shown IAP. Can the pilot go straight-in or does he have to do the course reversal holding pattern (called HILPT in FAAese)? 6,000 is not compatible with the procedure so the pilot is obligated to do the HILPT. But, he had better well advise approach control of his intentions, otherwise the pilot and the controller won't be on the same page. They should be, but FAA ATC, especially in busy radar terminal airspace, tend to invent their own "rules."

Case B: 15 miles east of POM on V264 ATC clears the pilot to descend to and maintain 4,000. This is "legal" because the minimum vectoring altitude along the airway in this area is 4,000. (Of course, this invokes the fine point: can the pilot fly the airway below its MEA or does he have to be provided a direct-to-POM clearance? Not resolved for many years). In any case, at 4,000 everything is set up for a straight-in approach from POM. But, is it legal since it is not a "vector to final?" No, it isn't. It will be one of these days for ground-based IAPs (it is now for RNAV IAPs) but only if the clearance is to a charted intermediate fix (IF). There isn't any charted IF on this IAP. There should be, it is POM. But, this IAP is so old that that it was last issued before the FAA was charting IFs.

Would I go straight-in in Case B? Yes, it would be "counter-productive" not to, even though technically not "legal." But, what if I were receiving a check ride from a disgruntled FAA inspector? Well, in that case I would query ATC, "Am I cleared for a straight-in IAP from over POM?" If the controller's response was ambiguous I would then advise him that I have to do a circuit in the HILPT. He would probably go a bit nuts at that point. But, he also may then resolve the issue by saying, "maintain present heading for vectors to the final approach course."

I know for a fact these ambiguities go on all the time with this particular IAP. Some controllers (but not all by any means) vector the aircraft slightly south of POM, descend them to 3,000 and then point them at the segment between POM and FLYIN, which is clearly a vector to the final approach course. (although it should be at 3,700, not 3,000, but that is another issue for another day.)

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/EMTPOM.jpg

[BOAC]

Begging pardons for thread drift here, but how could I ascertain that MVA is 4000 on V264 from that chart?

What sort of clearance would you get if descended to 4000'? It could not be on the airway. I would shoot for a requirement for a clearance "maintain the 073 radial route POM cleared to POM" (or words to that effect) at 4000ft (with an MEA of 6000) and since POM is an IAF I would have thought you would then be OK for the approach?

[aterpster]

BOAC:

Begging pardons for thread drift here, but how could I ascertain that MVA is 4000 on V264 from that chart?

Unlike most ICAO-compliant member states, the FAA refuses to provide MVA charts to pilots. So, you have to take it on faith that ATC is not giving you a bad altitude.

What sort of clearance would you get if descended to 4000'? It could not be on the airway. I would shoot for a requirement for a clearance "maintain the 073 radial route POM cleared to POM" (or words to that effect) at 4000ft (with an MEA of 6000) and since POM is an IAF I would have thought you would then be OK for the approach?

A clearance at 4,000 via the 073 radial or simply direct would be acceptable. And, once you arrive at POM the IAF is for purposes of the course reversal. Note that PRADO fix and PDZ VOR are also IAFs, but with NoPT annotated on the route between them at POM.

[9.G]

When accepting direct to clearance the obstacle clearance responsibility rests with the PIC, I wouldn't descent below MEA unless radar vectored.:ok:

[aterpster]

9.G:

When accepting direct to clearance the obstacle clearance responsibility rests with the PIC, I wouldn't descent below MEA unless radar vectored.:ok:

Caveat: I am speaking only of U.S./FAA procedures. When ATC initiates a descent clearance below MEA, that becomes a direct clearance and ATC is clearly responsible for terrain clearance. That does not negate, however a pilot check/verification at an unfamiliar location.

In other jursidictions, especially the mountainous areas of Latin America such operations probably won't occur, but if they do pilots are best left to not accept them.

[Zeffy]

Dude, Ask ATC if in doubt. If in doubt ask ATC. Better to be embarrassed than dead. Talk to them as you would us. "do you want me to hold at the . . . .`charlie hold`(for example) or continue inbound . ."

Yes, but...

The problem with over-reliance on ATC is that due to any number of factors (training, difficulties with language, cultural issues etc.) ATC may inadvertently approve an illegal or unwise clearance.

"...Can American 965 go direct Rozo and the Rozo One Arrival?..."

An approach procedure may only be "amended" by a properly-issued radar vector or direct-to clearance.

There have been countless examples of illegal direct-to clearances here in the U.S. -- the proliferation of GPS/RNAV seems to be increasing the temptations and opportunities.

[aterpster]

FAA MVAs in vicinity of POM VOR:

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/POMMVA.jpg

[galaxy flyer]

Aterpster

What is curious about the MVA overlay is, why can't a MOCA be established on the inbound radios to POM? Set a waypoint or DME fix and lower the minimum altitude nearing the VOR. I am not sure though about the secondary zone for airway obstacle clearance, might be a problem on the north side of V264

GF

[aterpster]

GF:

What is curious about the MVA overlay is, why can't a MOCA be established on the inbound radios to POM? Set a waypoint or DME fix and lower the minimum altitude nearing the VOR. I am not sure though about the secondary zone for airway obstacle clearance, might be a problem on the north side of V264.

Difficult to say without an obstacle assessment. The primary area of the airway has to have not less than 2,000 feet of ROC because this area is within a Designated Mountainous Area. OTOH, the MVA over flat areas like this needs only 1,000 feet of ROC.

The fact the MCA for V-264 from the west side of POM is 5,600 for V-264 on the east side of POM tells me there is an obstacle issue. Then again, the MCA for V-197 NW of POM is 11,800, which makes no sense at all.

Added: I see now the 11,800 is for minimum turn area. That would be interesting if your clearance was to climb to and maintain 11,000.

[Escape Path]

"...Can American 965 go direct Rozo and the Rozo One Arrival?..."

As long as one respects the altitude for the procedure, how is that unwise or illegal?

In other jursidictions, especially the mountainous areas of Latin America such operations probably won't occur, but if they do pilots are best left to not accept them.

Given that we operate around lots of cumulus-granitus, it's been always promoted by flight schools and enforced by airlines that we should brief MEA's and MSA's when operating into airports in mountainous terrain. We also have in hand MVA charts and since we already briefed the MEA, if we ever get a vector with an altitude below the MEA we confirm the instruction is correct via the MVA.

[BOAC]

That would be interesting if your clearance was to climb to and maintain 11,000. - not really - happens all the time in some places. Initial clearance climb and maintain xxx which is below MEA/MSA whatever. Quite common around the Alps. If you argue you stay on the ground, so you get airborne and ensure you are cleared higher when necessary. Just airmanship.

[Zeffy]

Quote:
"...Can American 965 go direct Rozo and the Rozo One Arrival?..."


Escape path

As long as one respects the altitude for the procedure, how is that unwise or illegal?


The example was paraphrased, but IIRC, it's pretty close to the CVR transcript.

[edit]:
At 9:37:29 the pilots asked Approach, "Can American Airlines, uh, 965 go direct to Rozo and then do the Rozo arrival, sir?" The controller replied, "Affirmative. Take the Rozo One and Runway One-Niner, the wind is calm." The captain responded, "All right, Rozo, the Rozo One to one-nine, thank you, American 965." The controller: "Report Tulua and twenty-one miles, ah, five thousand feet." The captain responded, "OK, report Tulua twenty-one miles and five thousand feet, American 965."

American Airlines Flight 965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_965)

I had assumed that the requested clearance would be recognizable to pilots familiar with the accident.

[aterpster]

BOAC:

- not really - happens all the time in some places. Initial clearance climb and maintain xxx which is below MEA/MSA whatever. Quite common around the Alps. If you argue you stay on the ground, so you get airborne and ensure you are cleared higher when necessary. Just airmanship.

Thanks for the airmanship assistance. But, that isn't the issue here. The MEA is 10,500, the altitude assignment is 11,000, but the MTA is 11,800 if turning from V-264 to the west to V-197 to the NW. Do they have MTAs in the Alps?

[Escape Path]

I had assumed that the requested clearance would be recognizable to pilots familiar with the accident.

I am familiar with the accident indeed, since I am Colombian and obviously I have flown lots of times into Cali. I'm just objecting your example given that it bears no relation with the topic of this thread nor with what you stated in your previous post:

ATC may inadvertently approve an illegal or unwise clearance.

"The investigation examined the performance of the Cali approach controller to determine what role, if any, he may have played in the cause of the accident. The evidence indicates that he provided clearances in accordance with applicable ICAO and Aeronautica Civil rules and requirements, maintained separation of the aircraft he was controlling, and sequenced flights expeditiously and efficiently. His offer to AA965 to land on runway 19 was consistent with standards of safety and airspace management."

"Consequently, Aeronautica Civil concludes that the Cali controller neither caused nor contributed to the cause of this accident."

"Aeronautica Civil determines that the probable causes of this accident were:

1. The flightcrew's failure to adequately plan and execute the approach to runway 19 at SKCL and their inadequate use of automation.
2. Failure of the flightcrew to discontinue the approach into Cali, despite numerous cues alerting them of the inadvisability of continuing the approach.
3. The lack of situational awareness of the flightcrew regarding vertical navigation, proximity to terrain, and the relative location of critical radio aids.
4. Failure of the flightcrew to revert to basic radio navigation at the time when the FMS-assisted navigation became confusing and demanded an excessive workload in a critieal phase of the flight."

From:

Cali Accident Report (http://sunnyday.mit.edu/accidents/calirep.html)

Best regards,

Escape Path :ok:

[172_driver]

Apart from LAX, SNA, ONT and LGB most traffic in the LA area is general aviation/flight training. To accommodate all that traffic and keep separation from the flows into the major airports it's always radar vectors and rarely any procedural flying. At some point you simply have to rely on ATC's altitude assignments for it to work. It can be very busy at times. Good local knowledge of terrain helps, even though it shouldn't be necessary. The MSA's are usually quite useless since many of them are in the order of 10-11000 ft, esp for bugsmashers. Due to the mountains north of LA. I second that ATC in the area, although good at "pushing tin", has annoying tendency to invent their own procedures. Often leaves pilots in the unknown.

[theficklefinger]

While quick little entries can work under ideal conditions, I could put a guy in a jet at 250kts and 10k, 3 miles N of POM and say 'cleared direct to POM, cleared for the approach'

it happens, and would be fun to see him try to scrub off 6k and 100 kt in a tear drop that over POM at 250kts to stay in protected airspace, he has to start turning right away in bound for the intercept.

Chances are he will be flying down the approach high and fast, and might not make the FAF at gear speed. Throw in a little malfunction, turn up the heat, and he might be wishing he took the circuit to slow down, read a checklist, get set up for the circle to land, get some winds, oops, didn't turn on the runway lights...thats why he couldn't find the runway...

I might add that if ATC has someone on the approach, and you hot dog it, ATC might slow you down having expected the circuit....I might also add that if you are a charter, or corporate, and this is a new approach with mountains all around, maybe single pilot, it wouldn't hurt my feelings to take things slow, and go around once to make sure your set up right, especially if it's down to minimums and the runway is short.

And on that note, I had a client that told me that he didn't want me using speed brakes, scared the kids, so there ya go...dropping in at 5k a minute with the plane chattering isn't in his program.....and you take the circuit if your high.

[BOAC]

fickle - if your 'guy' has so little situation awareness as that then he deserves what he gets.

aterp - yet another TLA? Since neither I nor Google know what an 'MTA' is apart from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority I cannot answer. If you explain I will try to answer. I thought mention of 'airmanship' might be appropriate - I once was f/O to a captain who insisted I refused a clearance out of VCE to LGW to FL80 as it was 'below en-route MSA'. Caused some consternation in ATC and eventually I persuaded him that I would do my utmost (it was CAVOK and you could see the Alps) to stop us flying into the rocks. We got airborne.

[Zeffy]

I am familiar with the accident indeed, since I am Colombian and obviously I have flown lots of times into Cali. I'm just objecting your example given that it bears no relation with the topic of this thread nor with what you stated in your previous post:

Quote:
ATC may inadvertently approve an illegal or unwise clearance.

My apologies for the misunderstanding.

We are in full agreement that the ATC on duty at the Cali accident did indeed issue appropriate clearances.

The example was offered to illustrate that sole reliance on ATC to confirm or approve a request for what may be an illegal shortcut or omission of a procedure segment is not an entirely reliable method.

The pilot has the primary responsibility to make proper and legal requests to ATC.

At the time of the Captain's inappropriate request for "Direct to Rozo", the flight was already in dire jeopardy and operating well outside of the published procedure track. The "Affirmative" portion of the ATC response may have been misinterpreted by the crew.

(I too, have operated to/from Cali -- but it was well prior to 1995.) :)

Best regards,
Z

[aterpster]

fickle:

While quick little entries can work under ideal conditions, I could put a guy in a jet at 250kts and 10k, 3 miles N of POM and say 'cleared direct to POM, cleared for the approach'

You would then need to be decertified as a controller for the Ontario area (Empire sector of SoCal TRACON), because the Los Angeles sector owns that airspace above 7,000 where the holding pattern is located. :=

[aterpster]

BOAC:

MTA, never heard of them until yesterday. An FAA friend who works with this stuff tells me they have been around since 1970. But, I guess they haven't been charted until recently.

Expansion of RNAV Off (http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/notices/2011-03-10/GEN11001.cfm)

[BOAC]

I don't think we have them, even where rock is above 10, but I stand to be corrected.

[Escape Path]

The example was offered to illustrate that sole reliance on ATC to confirm or approve a request for what may be an illegal shortcut or omission of a procedure segment is not an entirely reliable method.

The pilot has the primary responsibility to make proper and legal requests to ATC.

I agree with both of those statements.

Check your PM's

[theficklefinger]

Aterpster - People end up on the IAP high and fast all the time. It's not a perfect world out there, ATC got busy, Center got busy, the pilot didn't descend fast enough, etc. How about the pilot never intended to land at El Monte, but had engine problems, or a passenger is having a heart attack.....so he's right over POM at 15k and wants down, they give him the clearance....Now he's scrubbing off 6k fpm and 300kts to 10k then 250kts and 6fpm to 4k for the inbound course. I could sit here and come with probably another 30 scenarios where I would be over an airport, I am high, fast, and I want down.

Your assumption that you wouldn't end up over POM at 10k and 250 is naive and inexperienced.

[galaxy flyer]

Ficklefinger

One thing aterpster isn't is inexperienced! Especially in matters of TERPS and Instrument Procedures. Double especially in SoCal Airspace.

GF

[john_tullamarine]

Your assumption that you wouldn't end up over POM at 10k and 250 is naive and inexperienced.

(a) Procedures are based on presumptions - doesn't matter whether we are talking about letdowns or how to operate a rowing boat. If the reality matches the presumption then everything runs a lot smoother ...

(b) Clearly, we don't always match the procedural presumptions for any of a host of reasons. There would be few pilots who haven't been caught out hot and high somewhere on a letdown on the odd occasion.

(i) if the pilot then perseveres in blind faith with the hope that things will work out OK - he/she ought to be in another line of business

(ii) the competent pilot simply does what he/she does routinely - recognises that the reality doesn't match the plan, figures a way to fix the problem, and then fixes it. In the case of a letdown, that might involve ATC, comms with other aircraft OCTA, whatever

... and, aterpster does have a passing knowledge of this stuff .. somewhat beyond that possessed by most of the rest of us.

[aterpster]

theficklefinger:

Your assumption that you wouldn't end up over POM at 10k and 250 is naive and inexperienced.

Could be. But, I think you are clueless about that airspace.

I learned how to fly at KEMT, went on to teach IFR flying there, went on to use the airport as my light aircraft home base well after I went with TWA.

But, hey, help me out with my naivete and inexperience.

My credentials are posted in my profile. Where are yours?

Are you perhaps a troll? I hope not.

[theficklefinger]

Aterpster - What's your contention? That a plane can't be over POM VOR at 10,000 feet and request the VOR approach? The Bracket SID to POM then LHS had me flying to 14k almost every time...inside of 2 miles, doing 3000 FPM I was blowing through 10k easy...what if I lost an engine there? Your saying I couldn't get the approach back to Bracket or El Monte? Seriously.....who's the troll.

[aterpster]

theficklefinger:
Aterpster - What's your contention? That a plane can't be over POM VOR at 10,000 feet and request the VOR approach? The Bracket SID to POM then LHS had me flying to 14k almost every time...inside of 2 miles, doing 3000 FPM I was blowing through 10k easy...what if I lost an engine there? Your saying I couldn't get the approach back to Bracket or El Monte? Seriously.....who's the troll.

I made my "contention" clear in my previous response to you. The HILPT for the El Monte IAP would be in Los Angeles's airspace at 10,000 feet.

As to SIDS over POM, Brackett (KPOC) doesn't have any, but Ontario (KONT) does. Once approaching POM northwest bound, the airspace belongs to the Ontario (Empire) division of SoCal for a climb to 14,000, or higher.

The entry into the EMT IAP is to the southeast. There is a big difference between a NW and SW bound aircraft over POM at 10,000.

In any case, no one with an enginge failure on a SID out of KONT would go into El Monte, except perhaps in a MSFS session.:*

[aterpster]

POM 7 SID out of KONT showing 7,000' crossing restriction at POM northwest bound:

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/POMSEVEN.jpg

[theficklefinger]

I think you're flogging a dead horse here and needlessly getting toward the boundary fence of reasonable criticism. We all can, and probably have, started letdowns well above minimum heights (providing there be no contrary limitation) without any problems. I can recall several locations where that was pretty standard procedure in high wind conditions for pax comfort considering turbulence, for instance ..

aterpster is speaking to the chart rather than out of left field exception problems ..

regards, J_T

[photofly]

Aterpster: going back to your discussion of the EMT plate:

Would I go straight-in in Case B? Yes, it would be "counter-productive" not to, even though technically not "legal." But, what if I were receiving a check ride from a disgruntled FAA inspector? Well, in that case I would query ATC, "Am I cleared for a straight-in IAP from over POM?" If the controller's response was ambiguous I would then advise him that I have to do a circuit in the HILPT.
In 1996 Wally Roberts wrote that the controller wouldn't be authorised to clear you for a straight in from POM, and if he or she did you should refuse the clearance. http://www.terps.com/ifrr/nov96.pdf - is particularly interesting. It's a bit old now, but do you know if that's still the official position?

I have to say the situation is entirely different in Canada, where you can (with the cooperation of ATC) fly direct to any fix on the plate using the MSA and commence the approach from there.

[aterpster]

photofly:

In 1996 Wally Roberts wrote that the controller wouldn't be authorised to clear you for a straight in from POM, and if he or she did you should refuse the clearance. http://www.terps.com/ifrr/nov96.pdf (http://www.terps.com/ifrr/nov96.pdf) - is particularly interesting. It's a bit old now, but do you know if that's still the official position?

What's changed since I wrote that article is some 15 years of ever increasing use of GPS RNAV. Further, the provision for controllers to clear RNAV aircraft direct to the published intermediate fix of an RNAV IAP came into effect a few years ago although controllers tend to use this provision on all types of IAPs, and even where the IF isn't charted, such as the KEMT VOR or GPS-A IAP. POM is the IF and should have long since been charted. And, since it is an overlay IAP, it is arguably an RNAV IAP. So, although the article is still valid except as to the recent RNAV direct-to-the-IF provision, I would simply accept the clearance today unless I were receiving a check ride. Why tick off the controllers and end up being "punished" in ways they are so capable of doing.

I have to say the situation is entirely different in Canada, where you can (with the cooperation of ATC) fly direct to any fix on the plate using the MSA and commence the approach from there.

MSAs are operational altitudes in Canada, unlike the U.S. But, going to just any fix places the burden on you to assure containment in perhaps a very narrow TERPs segment if you descend out of the MSA while still in the course change maneuver.

[photofly]

What's changed since I wrote that article ..I had no idea that was you ... I feel foolish for quoting you to yourself.

But, going to just any fix places the burden on you to assure containment in perhaps a very narrow TERPs segment if you descend out of the MSA while still in the course change maneuver.Yes: noting that you may not leave the MSA until established on a charted portion with a lower altitude, if you so erred your terrain clearance could be compromised more severely than a similar error while flying a charted course reversal.

[photofly]

Are course reversals in the form of 'racetrack', 'modified racetrack' and 's-turn' approved for use in a) the US and b) Europe?

[theficklefinger]

JT - Play by the rules and don't post for me. Your a Mod, act like one.

Aterpster - Look up the departure procedure for POC. I guess you can't read, or you never flew IFR out of there to know this.

I used to teach jets out of Chino. Seriously dude, I flew over POM so many times, I can't count the amount of SIDS, STARs and approaches that I did in that area.

[galaxy flyer]

fickle

Just to interject,

You wrote:

Bracket SID to POM then LHS

Well, there isn't a SID from Brackett (KPOC), I just looked in the Jepps. There is, however, a DP, so I really do believe we, including aterpster can read, but only if what is written is accurate.

Next, the DP from KPOC does not go over POM, in any case, so what is the point?

Lastly, you could not get a clearance from over POM at 10,000 because the KZLA controller cannot give a clearance for an approach that is not in his airspace. If the LA controller owns 7,000 and above, he does not have the authority to clear you into KEMT for an approach, only a SoCal controller can give that clearance. Or get a "point out" from SoCal, but I don't think "point outs" are used for approach clearances.

What jets did you fly out of KPOC, the approaches are all Cat A and Cat B ONLY? A Citation, perhaps? And, if you are doing 6000 fpm down to 4,000 MSL, the Standards Captain might want to have a conversation. Mine would, I know.

GF

Sorry for the interruption.

[theficklefinger]

After the DP to Prado, it's direct POM to 7k, when you hit that, you usually get 10k, crossing POM you get 14k.

Don't believe me, call POC tower. Tag your it.

In the real world when you bang into that next sectors airspace...oh my god, they have you change frequencies, to the that next sector and you get a higher alt.

Surprised?

[galaxy flyer]

ficklefinger

Still, the DP is not a SID and routing after PRADO is not specified.

In 11,000 hours around the world, I understand frequency changes. I also understand that controllers can only clear you for routes and approaches in THEIR airspace. KZLA cannot overrule a SoCal Approach controller and issue an approach clearance. You seem to not understand that procedure.

GF

[theficklefinger]

Look I will check out...it's obviously too difficult for people on this forum to understand that a pilot, in a real plane, can actually be above a VOR at 10,000ft and need to scrub off some altitude while descending in a holding pattern.

lol.....

[galaxy flyer]

Ficklefinger

No problem understanding that, did it twice in the last year. Tirupati, India, holding overhead at FL310 due to an unNOTAM'd airport closure, procedural control, eventually cleared to descend from FL 310. Once, in contact with the tower, Chennai sent over to the tower for the approach clearance. See the airspace division?

Second time, entered holding at PTRO at FL 240 overhead the field, "leg length and direction at pilot's discretion". Two airliners shuttled down in the hold, below us, until each was given a cruise clearance into uncontrolled airspace. Once down to FL 160, Oakland OAC issued our cruise clearance. Took about 40 minutes with all the SELCALs and HF clearances.

So, yes, I and rest of us fully understand flying airplanes. A wee dram of patience and less condescension would allow us all to learn something here at TechLog, the web's best source of practical knowledge.

GF

[aterpster]

g.f.

In 11,000 hours around the world, I understand frequency changes. I also understand that controllers can only clear you for routes and approaches in THEIR airspace. KZLA cannot overrule a SoCal Approach controller and issue an approach clearance. You seem to not understand that procedure.

Call POC tower and they will likely respond, "Say what?" They are a VFR tower.

The SIDs over POM VOR are for KONT. SoCal TRACON controls the airspace over POM for terminal area IFR traffic. POC is a small general aviation airport that happens to have the POM VOR on a hill very close to the airport.

This all reeks of past arguments with a nerd in France who had zero flying time, but lots of pizza eating and MSFS, coupled with extensive reading of aviation directives. He was the ultimate authority over all real pilots on the now defunct IFR Usenet group.

[aterpster]

theficklefinger:

Aterpster - Look up the departure procedure for POC. I guess you can't read, or you never flew IFR out of there to know this.

Why are you consistently so abrasive?

The only departure procedure POC has is an Obstacle DP that goes to PRADO intersection.

But, I do learn stuff here that I never knew before, such as POC Tower controls IFR operations for KONT SIDs. Next time I drive up that way (60 miles for me) I'll visit the POC Tower so I can see all their radar arrays.

[galacticosh]

Back to reversal procedures;

Cleared for the approach, if I am approaching the procedure outside of the 30 degrees, but above the MSA, can I self position directly onto the outbound radial and then descend according to procedure altitudes?

Regards

[galaxy flyer]

Assuming the original topic--PANS-OPS procedures--ATC could authorize just that and many procedures seem to anticipate pilots doing so because there is no other obvious way to get into the 30 degree "cone" for the outbound leg.

GF

[theficklefinger]

Galaxy...ATC wouldn't authorize diddly.

'Cleared direct to xyz (IAP)...cleared for the approach'

It's up to the pilot to stay inside of the protected airspace...unless ATC sees the pilot flying outside of it, I rather doubt they will be placing bets on whether the pilot does a tear drop, parallel, or direct entry.

[minimumunstick]

that is not correct ficklefinger. What galaxy says is correct, at least in Europe. As far as I understand perhaps not in the US..

As long as you are above MSA and it is fine with ATC you can basically do whatever you want.

[aterpster]

fickleboy:

It's up to the pilot to stay inside of the protected airspace...unless ATC sees the pilot flying outside of it, I rather doubt they will be placing bets on whether the pilot does a tear drop, parallel, or direct entry.

How does ATC "see" the pilot flying "outside of it?"

Between Aterpster that can't find the DP for POC, and your advice

Following is the only ODP that I can find for KPOC. I can't find any DP, because those haven't existed in the U.S. for several years now. There are ODPs, and there are SIDs. I can't find any SIDs for KPOC either. Perhaps you make a positive contribution to this thread (and forum) by pointing out the KPOC SID or SIDs for those of us who are less able.

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/KPOC11-1.jpg

[galaxy flyer]

Glacticosh


I reread your question and to be more precise, you would have to receive clearance for maneuvering airspace above the MSA and be on established on the outbound course before the IAF was passes. How far before? Just enough to be wings level at an appropriate speed for the plane--minimum holding airspace with an additive for 30 degrees of bank should be right.
Ficklefinger

I was answering the original post on PANS-OPS drawn procedures, not TERPS drawn procedures. I'm not running a international procedures class here, but a PANS-OPS course reversal must be entered from within 30 degrees either side of the outbound course and flown as depicted; the US FAA "stay within the airspace, but any holding entry is OK" technique will NOT work. But, as Aterpster has pointed out, there are good reasons to fly the outbound course in TERPS procedures.

At neither of those locations I posted (VOTP and PTRO), there wasn't radar for ATC to see excursions, avoiding mountains was entirely up to the pilots to fly the "black lines".

GF

PS. just to point out, I have been thru the USAF Instrument school and FAA TERPS, it's been awhile, so I could be mistaken in some areas.

[aterpster]

gf:

I reread your question and to be more precise, you would have to receive clearance for maneuvering airspace above the MSA and be on established on the outbound course before the IAF was passes. How far before? Just enough to be wings level at an appropriate speed for the plane--minimum holding airspace with an additive for 30 degrees of bank should be right.

I can appreciate that local practices can vary significantly from country to country. The ICAO Obstacle Clearance Panel (OCP) has labored for many years that PANS-OPS will be implemented and used operationally the same in all PANS-OPS countries. That is still an elusive goal. Nonetheless, the design criteria, as it comes from ICAO, is that a course reversal will be preceded by an alignment holding pattern except where the course reversal can be entered with a maximum of a 30 degree course change.


I was answering the original post on PANS-OPS drawn procedures, not TERPS drawn procedures. I'm not running a international procedures class here, but a PANS-OPS course reversal must be entered from within 30 degrees either side of the outbound course and flown as depicted; the US FAA "stay within the airspace, but any holding entry is OK" technique will NOT work. But, as Aterpster has pointed out, there are good reasons to fly the outbound course in TERPS procedures.

My comments pertained to the conventional procedure turn (PT), of which there are less and less in the U.S. and the few other places that use FAA TERPs. The entry zone on a TERPs conventional procedure turn permits omni-directional entries (you may call the TERPs criteria for conventional PTs is divided into an entry zone and a maneuvering zone.) In the unusual case where altitude must be restricted until the aircraft passes from the entry into the maneuvering zone, and altitude restriction will be charted over the PT fix, example KJAC ILS 19: http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1104/00504ILZ19.PDF link valid for 40, or so days).

But, more and more common in U.S. TERPs is the holding pattern in lieu of PT (HILPT). With the HILPT all of the U.S. holding pattern rules must be observed, including speed and outbound time or distance limits (all RNAV IAPs have distance limits that increase with altitude). And, although the FAA asserts that their three methods of holding pattern entry (depending upon angle of entry) are optional, in fact they really are not, at least for jet airplanes flying right at the maximum authorized speed.

[aterpster]

gf:

At neither of those locations I posted (VOTP and PTRO), there wasn't radar for ATC to see excursions, avoiding mountains was entirely up to the pilots to fly the "black lines".

Worth noting that PTRO uses TERPs.

[galaxy flyer]

Indeed it does use TERPS, pretty much an FAA field by appearances.

GF

[theficklefinger]

Aterpster - Your certainly welcome to rant and rave insensibly, on and on..

Or you can actually read the DP you so nicely outlined, then imagine that you were in a real plane departing 26 on the DP, for a Northbound flight plan...and when you made the turns, and got direct to POM, which is typical for an IFR depature, then you would quickly find yourself at 10k right over POM talking to center....

And like I said, in how many posts now? There you are, over POM at 10k needing to get down quick, because the engine died, because the passenger is having a heart attack..

You request an immediate approach, get a heading and alt and start down...and now one will really care how you do the procedure turn, as long as your in the protected airspace of the hold, which by the way is in a radar environment, which is how they will know if you are in the protected airspace or flying off to China when you botch the entry...

Now what you need to do, is go call POC tower and ask them if they are a 'VFR tower' or IFR tower....

When the laughing stops, you ask them what the typical clearance is for a Northbound departure is...when you see the 'direct POM' is on the clearance...then you can ask them what would happen if you needed to get back down over POM at 10k...and when they stop laughing at the idea of them caring how you do the procedure turn, you could then ask them if there is a big alien forcefield over Los Angeles that precludes flying over POM VOR at 10,000 feet. This should give the guys at POC tower a nice break from the monotony of watching planes go up and down all day. :)

[galaxy flyer]

ficklefinger

Well, you, sort of, admit that KPOC does not have a SID. You had stated that KPOC had a SID, so this is progress.

So, we are over POM at 10,000 feet with an emergency. An emergency is, by FAA definition, a non-normal situation. I, in the back of your plane have a heart attack. It is going to a lot worse when you tell me you are going to get back into KPOC. This will require a 3000 fpm descent and lots of clever orientation to land, IFR, at KPOC. You will be going 250 knots and accelerating, so you want to slow down, go down and do a fancy, off the cuff procedure turn.

Why not load the ILS into KONT, where you are perfectly positioned, over POM, to enter final for 8 or downwind for 26 and land at an airport with on-field CFR coverage in the FMS?

Your statements indicate that you have some deep knowledge of TERPS templates allowing you to always stay within the protected airspace. My GLEX does not have overlays of the protected airspace, does you plane? Do you know TERPS standards in a way that allows you to stay within protected airspace?

You are quite correct, ATC does not care, in the least, how a pilot goes about the course reversal. They don't die in the crash, so why should they? Professional pilots do NOT take a blase attitude toward procedural requirements.

A "VFR Tower" is, by the way, a term meaning one not qualified to provide IFR separation for their airspace, either radar or non-radar. Should you inquire on their status, I suspect they would start laughing, then crying. A VFR airport is not paid like an IFR airport, I was responsible for one once. The controllers and the Chief tried everything to get radar qualified in an effort to increase their pay. Still haven't succeeded, yet.

GF

[theficklefinger]

And what are you saying? That a plane can't fly over a VOR at 10k, isn't that the original assertion? That a plane can't try to take the approach from high and circle down on a hold and shoot an approach?

As far a shooting an emergency approach into ONT or somewhere else in the area, sure why not, but I posit that after I departed IFR out of POC, and now find myself right over POM VOR wanting a quick fast IFR approach, I personally would consider flipping over the airport diagram for the ILSPOC instead of trying to dig through my charts, get ONT weather, find out what is available, start changing frequencies, and getting set up on a new airport, all the while as you just lost an engine and the boss is dying in the back.

Might just be easier to zip back to POC, when I know what's going on, the one I departed from.

Well your certainly free to take your boss in the back where you choose, and feel free as your dumping 6k a minute into a new airport full of unknowns, to be flipping through charts and get set up for a new airport.

Me, I think I am going for the easiest, safest choice, with the least workload.

Hey if your the captain, it's your choice. Me, I am the captain and it's mine.

And you know, it's like this, everyone has an opinion, but what actually works is what counts.

[photofly]

With the HILPT all of the U.S. holding pattern rules must be observed, including speed and outbound time or distance limits Aterpster, just for clarity: in regular holds one adjusts the outbound time to make the inbound leg one minute (or 1.5 minutes) - is it a deliberate difference to make the outbound leg 1 minute for a HILPT?

[aterpster]

photofly:

Aterpster, just for clarity: in regular holds one adjusts the outbound time to make the inbound leg one minute (or 1.5 minutes) - is it a deliberate difference to make the outbound leg 1 minute for a HILPT?

No, the rules are the same. I didn't say fly outbound for one minute (at least I don't think I did:)) but there is an outbound limit that must be observed in order to fly inbound for one minute. Where distance limits are shown, they are an outbound limit. Unfortunately, the ARINC/FMS (and RTCA?) folks screwed that one up by making the distance limit an inbound limit. When the wind is very strong that can screw things up, but that is a subject for a different thread.

[galaxy flyer]

I don't flip thru charts, paper is so 20th Century, when I enter the new destination into the FMS, the new charts are available on a large screen. Which, if geo-referenced, show exactly where the plane is.

The question wasn't whether one could spiral down, it was could KZLA could clear one for an approach to KPOC.

Enuf!

GF

[theficklefinger]

Can center clear an airplane for an instrument approach?

Seriously? You've never flown into an airport at night where the tower and approach were shut down for the evening?

What would happen if approach control went down? Who do you think would handle the IFR traffic?

No way you fly a Galaxy. C'mon, now, that's not really necessary or pertinent to the discussion. - JT

[galaxy flyer]

Of course, center can you clear one for an approach, as an OAC can, IF it has control of the airspace. The airspace at KPOC is controlled, normally, by SoCal, so KZLA cannot issue an approach clearance to an aircraft in its airspace that would then exit it's airspace I to SoCal airspace, except with coordination with SoCal or a hand-off to SoCal with a frequency change.

My background is posted, I don't fly the Jet Commander Mode 10. The Galaxy is a Lockheed Georgia product.

GF

Are you SSG V10?

[john_tullamarine]

Can I ask that theficklefinger - and any others who might have a tendency to needless agitation and arm waving - has a Bex and a lie down/nice cup of tea (pick one) and takes ten deep breaths prior to continuing ?

FYI,

galaxy flyer (whom I know) was a military flyer and has extensive experience (including check and training, if I recall correctly) on Lockheed's product. His present mounts are matters for my envy. He has more than enough runs on the board to speak with authority on flight standards issues.

aterpster (whom I don't know personally but correspond with occasionally), likewise, is a very experienced pilot and an expert on procedural design matters.

I, for one, would hesitate to jump into criticising either unless I knew that I was on VERY solid ground ....

[galaxy flyer]

Hat, coat, door, by your leave now.

GF

[Sciolistes]

Back to reversal procedures;

Cleared for the approach, if I am approaching the procedure outside of the 30 degrees, but above the MSA, can I self position directly onto the outbound radial and then descend according to procedure altitudes?

Regards

That is what I am interested in too. We often debate this one! As far as I am concerened, if entering a procedure, not under radar control, in uncontrolled airspace and above MSA, you can manouvre as you see fit to get into the 30 deg cone. As long as you have tower clearance you can proceed past the IAP, if not then you have to hold anyway, but the tower clearance has nothing to do with how you choose to get to the IAP. I guess they may assume a direct routing, but even a slight offset of a mile or two won't change the ETA.

[aterpster]

Sciolistes:

That is what I am interested in too. We often debate this one! As far as I am concerened, if entering a procedure, not under radar control, in uncontrolled airspace and above MSA, you can manouvre as you see fit to get into the 30 deg cone. As long as you have tower clearance you can proceed past the IAP, if not then you have to hold anyway, but the tower clearance has nothing to do with how you choose to get to the IAP. I guess they may assume a direct routing, but even a slight offset of a mile or two won't change the ETA

What individual states may or may not tolerate is impossible to determine. I do know the ICAO OCP, the panel that writes, and modifies PANS-OPS, did not envision such an operation. MSA direct to the course reversal (within 30 degrees) or direct to the alignment holding pattern if not within 30 degrees is what the OCP envisioned in criteria.

Having said that, practices in some states may have very well resulted in interpretations that it is permissible to do exactly what you are asking. In the U.S. similar ad hoc procedures have evolved that are the result of pilot or controller "inventiveness." This was not the case until RNAV became common.

If it were me I would want an authoritative answer from the aviation authority of the state in which I intended to use such a procedure.

[theficklefinger]

JT - Come on. I could come in here and say I was a Shuttle Commander, it doesn't change the fact that you can hit POM at 35,000 Ft, and circle down on the hold until intercepting the final approach.

And what would a pilot do with a radio communications failure while he was at FL450 in his Galaxy? Well, technically, he could stay at FL450 and hit POM and circle all the way down, which is probably the safest route, vs coming down and hoping he didn't bump into any planes as he descended early for the IAP.

Unless there is an alien force field over LA that I don't know about, center clears people direct all the time for approaches, at gawd awful altitudes, from way the heck out.

I've been cleared for approaches by center in Canada 200 NMs out, when I was at 18000 feet. It was up to me to figure out how to get down.

Guys, this is instrument rating 101 stuff. F.F. out.

[john_tullamarine]

you can hit POM at 35,000 Ft, and circle down on the hold until intercepting the final approach.

I must be getting slower as I get older. Surely we all understand that your comment is OK ? I can recall occasional letdowns where we ran over the facility (for this reason or that, including finger trouble) at levels up to 10-15,000 ft .. and the odd circuit joined downwind at FL300 or so .. just for fun. Have I missed the point somewhere ?

And what would a pilot do with a radio communications failure while he was at FL450 in his Galaxy?

Galaxy or whatever, the relevant AIP will prescribe the requirement, will it not ?

[theficklefinger]

Maybe it's a language barrier....if your 200 miles out of POM at FL450, radio failure...what are you going to do? No tower, no approach, no center...I guess all the relevant airspace arguments, transitions, clearances just went out the door didn't they?

I personally don't think it's that hard to consider that flying to the IAP, to descend in the procedure (HP) for the approach IS how one would do it.

Of course others would probably descend down to 6k for the IAP, flying through all sorts of traffic, with tower, approach and center, moving all sorts of traffic out of your way. Expect a nice phone call on the ground wondering why you took it upon yourself to descend from your last known assigned altitude...

Anyway...take a look at no radio procedures, last assigned altitudes, clearances and all that, you'll find I am right, that you can and will descend over POM in the hold, as gawd knows what altitude you were last assigned to.

[9.G]

Sciolistes, I avoid the discussions by ordering full compliance with the published procedure. It's the same grey area as DIR TO descending below MEA unless I have RVC I don't accept this, over. :ok:

[photofly]

Much as I'm enjoying this thread, somewhere along the way I've lost track of what the protagonists actually disagree about. Could someone fill me in please?

[aterpster]

photofly:

Much as I'm enjoying this thread, somewhere along the way I've lost track of what the protagonists actually disagree about. Could someone fill me in please?

The PANS-OPS graphic in Post #2.

[photofly]

I got that - I was wondering about the argument over descents over POM. That makes no sense to me, and I was wondering if I was missing something that might be helpful.

aterpster: question about your posting with the Bardufoss plate. How *do* the designers expect you to use BDF hold to align for the RWY 28 teardrop, since it's the wrong way?

[aterpster]

photofly:

I got that - I was wondering about the argument over descents over POM. That makes no sense to me, and I was wondering if I was missing something that might be helpful.

Originally, it was about descending SE bound on V-197 to POM, then fly the KEMT VOR-A IAP. The course reversal hold would be required, and it lies beneath the Los Angeles Class B airspace. You would have to be below the airspace the the Los Angeles sector of SoCal owns, which is above So Cal's Ontario sector. There was apparently a lot of disagreement about that. Then, the focus on that aspect was lost.

aterpster: question about your posting with the Bardufoss plate. How *do* the designers expect you to use BDF hold to align for the RWY 28 teardrop, since it's the wrong way?

The holding pattern provides a lot of airspace to enter either the Runway 10 or 28 IAPs. In the case of 28 you would enter the hold and when turning outbound align on the outbound leg of the teardrop/baseleg course reversal.

[9.G]

Flying to KEMT & arriving from SE the flight plan would be filed with IAF being PDZ thus NO PT is required thereafter, this is also written on the chart NO PT coming from PDZ on R 292 inbound at 4000 ft. Keep it simple folks. :ok:

[aterpster]

9.G


Flying to KEMT & arriving from SE the flight plan would be filed with IAF being PDZ thus NO PT is required thereafter, this is also written on the chart NO PT coming from PDZ on R 292 inbound at 4000 ft. Keep it simple folks.

That is correct but irrelevant to the hypothetical. As I said in the previous post:

Originally, it was about descending SE bound on V-197 to POM, then fly the KEMT VOR-A IAP. The course reversal hold would be required, and it lies beneath the Los Angeles Class B airspace.

Your example is NW bound to POM. My example is SE bound to POM.

[9.G]

aterpster, agreed on that. No doubt course reversal is required if coming from anywhere except the Prado, PDZ or radar vectors. I got caught up on the V-197.:ok:

[galaxy flyer]

Ficklefinger

When, or why, was NORDO procedures brought into this? I don't disagree that one can hold over the VOR or IAF and descend in holding for the approach. In fact, I cited two cases where I recently did just that, VOIP (PANS-OPS) and PTRO (TERPS).

Back to monitoring the thread

GF

[aterpster]

9.G:

And, coming from PDZ or PRADO your are at 4,000, well below the airspace used by a different SoCal sector for LA arrivals from the east. Arriving from the NW over POM, though, the MEA of the airway (prior to HASSA) if continued, would fly directly into the LA arrival sector. The Class B airspace gives a good "hint" about all of that.

Anyone interested can go to skyvector.com, "go" to POM then select the Los Angeles TAC to see the Class B airspace clearly.

[9.G]

ZIGGY 4 ARR for Ontario would probably be the one filed for coming from NW as indicated on the airdrome chart for El Monte. It brings you all the way around to PDZ. Not sure whether this has got anything to do with with the LAX airspace structure. :ok:

[theficklefinger]

9.G = While I usually get he Z4 pretty early, it's always possible to lose radios prior to that clearance, and have to fly last known assigned alt/clearance to IAP.

[aterpster]

9.G:

ZIGGY 4 ARR for Ontario would probably be the one filed for coming from NW as indicated on the airdrome chart for El Monte. It brings you all the way around to PDZ. Not sure whether this has got anything to do with with the LAX airspace structure. :ok:

As a practical matter, coming from any distance you would usually get that or the other STAR. They indeed add flight path miles (at least arriving from the NW to avoid LAX inbounds. But, V197 can avoid LAX inbounds, albeit with more handling by the Ontario area SoCal folks. And, if KONT is busy then V197 conflicts with the Pomona SID. But, KONT is often not busy, especially these days.

But, it is possible to get PMD V197 POM under some traffic conditions.

The circumstances do make a good hypothetical. Before those STARS came into being, coming from the NW, V197 if filed was usually granted with a crossing restriction at POM then a heading for vectors to final west of POM.

[9.G]

While I usually get he Z4 pretty early, it's always possible to lose radios prior to that clearance, and have to fly last known assigned alt/clearance to IAP. Sure, no objections here on my side, theficklefinger.:ok:

As a practical matter, coming from any distance you would usually get that or the other STAR. They indeed add flight path miles (at least arriving from the NW to avoid LAX inbounds. But, V197 can avoid LAX inbounds, albeit with more handling by the Ontario area SoCal folks. And, if KONT is busy then V197 conflicts with the Pomona SID. But, KONT is often not busy, especially these days. If filed and approved by all means I don't see any reason not to fly it as it shortens the mileage quite a bit. In practical terms whatever the dispatcher has filed as ATS flight plan I'll simply follow it, I don't have time and resources to explore all possible filing options during preflight briefing however knowing the local particularities may prompt a request to ATC while airborne to reroute if feasible.:ok:

[aterpster]

9.g:

KEMT is Piper/Cessna type airport. Coming down from the north is ususally over EHF. Being able to go PMD-POM cuts off a lot of miles.

[MarkMcC]

I'm reading this with interest as the same issues came up last week as I was completing my JAA IR in Ireland.

Transiting from Dublin/Weston (EIWT) to Knock (EIKN) I was outside of the entry sector for the base turn for the ILS approach at EIKN. Looking to avoid the hold, I inquired about requesting manoeuvring space to the west of the beacon (within the DOC) to enable alignment with the base turn sector. No one had any problems with that, although I was cautioned that if the airspace was occupied that it would be denied. Fair enough...

In the end the examiner needed to see a hold so I just did the hold for alignment on the test itself:)