"Cleared for Straight-In Approach"-- FAA rules only

[galaxy flyer]

Perhaps aterpster

The phrase "cleared straight in" appears in the FAA AIM. I hear pilots say that clearance means the pilot does NOT have fly the course reversal from the IAF, but just intercept the final course outside of the FAF and proceed inbound.

What does "straight in" mean exactly?

Two assumptions: Non-radar handling and "conventional" i.e. radios, not RNAV. Yes, I am aware of FAR 91.175 and NoPT routings and timed approaches over the FAF.

GF

[aerobat77]

What does "straight in" mean exactly?

basicly "position yourself on 10nm final and report established" (since you are already nearly on fu...ing final course and i,am to lazy to vector you for +- 5 deg. or so )

cheers !

[hawk37]

"cleared straight in..." means do not do the procedure turn, although you still may ask to do it if you deem it necessary. When it is busy, atc will normally try to avoid clearing an aircraft for an approach that involves a procedure turn, unless terrain dictates. Follow the controllers instructions, normally a radar vector and instruction to join the localizer. For non radar, the controller will not expect you to do a proc turn if the routing is "no proc turn".

"cleared straight in..." has nothing to do with 10 miles, nor does it affect any requirement to report "established". Nor is it the terminology that dictates whether one does a staight in LANDING or a circling approach.

Hawk

[CaptainProp]

It was always my understanding that to be considered a "straight-in" approach, and for ATC to be able issue this clearance, you needed either radar vectors to put you within +- 30 degrees of the final approach course, or a published procedure, other than a procedure turn, like a "feeder route" or radial from a VOR for example, that brings you in to intercept the final approach course.

[MarkerInbound]

Aerobat,

If he's non-radar there's not going to be any vectoring anyway and we don't report established over here. You're required to report leaving the FAF if you're non-radar, otherwise we look at it as a waste of radio waves. The tower can see if you're lined up if they have radar.

GF,

Why are you trying to make it so complicated? That's exactly what the AIM says, "An instrument approach wherein final approach is begun without first having executed a procedure turn..." It goes on to say it doesn't mean you'll land straight in or use straight in minimuns. I quickly went throught the ATC handbook but really didn't see much more. The only thing I saw was to include "straight in" if the controller didn't want you to execute a PT or hold.

[aerobat77]

lol, ok i understand gents...

well... in real life : position yourself at final at the published altitude and report established, whatever the descend point at whatever distance is, radar coverage or not.

for flightsim : follow the published regulations you can find on the www.

:)

i LOL hard i must say... keep on simming.

cheers

[misd-agin]

aerobat - "report established"?? There's no requirement to 'report established' when cleared for the approach.

[galaxy flyer]

MarkerInbound

OK, an example: if I am 140 degrees from the final approach course, can the controller issue "cleared straight in approach" and ignore the course reversal! Just hang a tight 140 turn? I have been told by some that is the case, that the ATCO can issue such shortcuts.

Aerobat77. Based on your profile, I was fling non-radar approached prior o your conception. Don't make assumptions.

GF

[aerobat77]

aerobat - "report established"?? There's no requirement to 'report established' when cleared for the approach.

in real life of course it is since it is the momet - especially when no rardar coverage-you are moved forward to tower frequency . sure.

Based on your profile, I was fling non-radar approached prior o your conception. Don't make assumptions.

oh yes, very yes sir...LOL.

cleared straight app means nothing others than a self position on final when already on +- final course, since the real APP thoughs as well we do about girls and off time when in vicinity of an airport. the rest is for flightsimming- so keep on going !

best regards

[galaxy flyer]

Aerobat77

Could you cite a paragraph in the US FAA AIM, .65 or the TERPS Manual that specifies "self position"? One, in a non-radar environment, is either on a course or not, as I learned it. One cannot just wing a self-position.

I think Captain Prop is on the right trail, though. My problem is with those newbies who think they can just self position evn if it not a published route.

GF

[aerobat77]

Aerobat77

Could you cite a paragraph in the US FAA AIM, .65 or the TERPS Manual that specifies "self position"? One, in a non-radar environment, is either on a course or not, as I learned it. One cannot just wing a self-position.

GF

no, but uncounted phrases between ATC and an approaching aircraft in real life. both sides except to read below the lines.

straight app : postion yourself being already on interception course . you would know how lazy real atc is when hearing it beyond youtube. keep on simming and posting GF

cheers

[galaxy flyer]

aerobat77

Please try to be helpful and informative, not condescending and obnoxious. This is Tech Log, not Jet Blast. I asked a legitimate question about US FAA procedures, an area you do not seem to have expertise in, and have gotten nothing enlightening from you.

GF

[hawk37]

GF;
I'm sure a 140 deg turn to final is not allowed, I don't know exactly what parameters the approach controller requires before he can clear you for a straight in ils approach. Something like within 40 degrees of the final app course, and at an altitude that allows you to intercept the GS after the localizer, plus maybe a few more requirements.

[MarcK]

Looking at the diagrams for a TAA, it appears that no Procedure Turn is required if the turn to the final course is less than 120 degrees. (see figures 5-4-10 and 5-4-11 in the AIM)

[MarkerInbound]

TERPS sets the guidelines for drawing up a procedure. Captain Prop is right that ATC can not vector you on to final with more than a 30 degree intercept (unless you are in a helicopter) or if the feeder route takes you to the FAF, it must align with the final approach course within 30 degrees no course reversal is required. If the feeder route takes you to the imtermediate fix to start the intermediate segment of the approach, the max intercept is 120 degrees without a course reversal. If the intercept is more than 90 degrees, there has to be a lead in radial giving you 2 miles heads up. This might be where MarcK is getting his numbers.

Those are maximum numbers, there could be something locally that limits the intercept more. But 140 degrees, you're going to have to do a PT/racetrack/teardrop/something on the protected side to get turned around.

[hikoushi]

Having previously flown frequently into a mountainous airport served only by a circling VOR approach (lined up well within 30 degrees of the runway but too steep of a descent to land strait-in maintaining all the stepdown altitudes), ATC occasionally would use "cleared for the strait-in VOR-A approach".

When approaching the airport from the east (opposite side from the final approach course, which came from the west), a clearance direct to the VOR followed by a procedure turn was the norm. On the occasions where you were actually vectored to downwind for a final from that direction (rare and usually a new controller or weather), they would sometimes use the "cleared for strait-in" phraseology. This was explained to be purely a clarification to ensure a pilot did not get to the final approach radial, turn the wrong way out of habit and fly an unexpected procedure turn. Apparently happened a few times.

The "strait-in" approach was (obviously) often followed by a circle-to-land. On a normal, good day, if you picked up the airport early enough to start a normal visual descent you could easily land strait-in, too, which was pretty typical as the approach course was fairly well lined-up with the normally-used runway (as mentioned earlier).

So you could either do a "straight-in" approach to a circle-to-land.
And you could also fly a "circling-only" approach procedure (hence VOR-A) to a straight-in landing. Both legal and safe.

[aerobat77]

Please try to be helpful and informative

the question by itself was really answered in the first respond.

ok, i try to explain a bit more this .first- a straight in is of course an instrument approach.

in general : when cleared for an approach with previous radar vectors you should be on extended centerline or interception course to it and at an altitude where the approach is published or at least on the way to this altitude. the importnat thing is : after being cleared for an approach NO more radar vectoring is given, atc expect that you by yourself intercept finalcourse and follow it. reporting established is always exepted- because thats the moment he can give you a freq change to tower.

a straight in here is when you are already more or less at extended centerline and no vectoring is needed. so like written above : position yourself and report when established. the "report established" is not always called by atc, but of course they expect a call from you like e.g tower expects a call from you when you are ready for departure being on taxi- even when you are not advised "report ready for departure"

whithout radar coverage the normal approach would be to fly the published standard procedure. when cleared for a straight in you are cleared to position yourself by own navigation on final without flying the full published procedure.

that is a straight in approach-not more not less. its everyday business.

hope this helped

cheers

[Zeffy]

Two assumptions: Non-radar handling and "conventional" i.e. radios, not RNAV. Yes, I am aware of FAR 91.175 and NoPT routings and timed approaches over the FAF.

An ATC clearance cannot supersede the requirement to begin an approach at an IAF. ATC does not have the authority to do that.

The only exceptions involve radar and per your assumptions above, it is not available.

[CaptainProp]

From AIM:

....for aircraft operating on unpublished routes or while being radar vectored, ATC will, except when conducting a radar approach, issue an IFR approach clearance only after the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or IAP, or assign an altitude to maintain until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure.

...and...

Except when being radar vectored to the final approach course, when cleared for a specifically prescribed IAP; i.e., “cleared ILS runway one niner approach” or when “cleared approach” i.e., execution of any procedure prescribed for the airport, pilots shall execute the entire procedure commencing at an IAF or an associated feeder route as described on the IAP chart.....

In other words, as far as I understand anyway, you need to be either radar vectored on to the final approach course or follow a published procedure that establishes you on the final approach approach track.

CP

[galaxy flyer]

Quite agree with Captain Prop, it is an either/or proposition, at odds with aerobat77's idea of "self positioning", a concept not found in the US or Canadian AIM or ICAO Doc 8168. Perhaps ze Chermans have an exception.

I do have, in a PM from an expert, that even the FAA cannot agree on a definition on the meaning of cleared straight in.

GF

[9.G]

STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH IFR
An instrument approach wherein final approach is begun without first having executed a procedure turn, not necessarily completed with a straight-in landing or made to straight-in landing minimums. That's AIM.

1.2.3 Types of approach

1.2.3.1 There are two types of approach: straight-in and circling.

1.2.3.2 Straight-in approach

Whenever possible, a straight-in approach will be specified which is aligned with the runway centre line. In the case of non-precision approaches, a straight-in approach is considered acceptable if the angle between the final approach track and the runway centre line is 30˚ or less.

1.2.3.3 Circling approach

A circling approach will be specified in those cases where terrain or other constraints cause the final approach track alignment or descent gradient to fall outside the criteria for a straight-in approach. The final approach track of a circling approach procedure is in most cases aligned to pass over some portion of the usable landing surface of the aerodrome.
That's ICAO. :ok:

[CaptainProp]

Correct, but this is referring to the approach itself i.e. ILS, VOR, ADF etc etc. The initial question was how to get to the IAF.

I have a feeling that often there is a misunderstanding between the actual meaning of the ATC clearance, for example, "...you are cleared straight in ILS approach rwy 36" and the interpretation by us pilots. All it means is that you are cleared to execute a published approach, that is within 30 degrees of the intended landing runway.

[9.G]

Correct, but this is referring to the approach itself i.e. ILS, VOR, ADF etc etc. The initial question was how to get to the IAF. In non radar environment via FPR. :ok:

[aterpster]

The thread is a bit broad. As I understand it the issue about which the OP is concerned is the FAA's use of a sector for some NoPT arrival routes.
First is Jeppesen's portrayal, where they have taken the liberty of adding a graphical sector and wording of their choosing, and second is the FAA chart, which has the exact wording from source.

The FAA that designs charts asserts that the course reversal is required if you are within the sector but not precisely on one of the airways within the sector.

The other FAA that does air traffic sees the sector as one big "no course reversal" arrival sector.

For sake of the discussion the presumption is that ATC is not vectoring the aircraft.

Last year an instrument rating candidate failed an instrument rating flight test because he did the course reversal because he was between airways. A flight standards field inspector sustain the bust even though he works for the department that asserts the policy requires you to be precisely on one of the airways within the arrival sector in order to skip the course reversal.

This is a great example of how the FAA over years of bureaucratic meddling has managed to ratchet up the confusion factor in its system.

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


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