Procedural question
Thread Starter
Procedural question
Just had this scenario in the sim.
In the Dayne hold at minimum holding altitude.Manchester arrival radar has failed and the clearance is for a procedural VOR approach on 23R via the MCT. My question is whether you can route Dayne- MCT and go straight outbound or does it require a course reversal in the MCT hold as the arrival route track is not within 30 degrees of the outbound track of the procedure?
In the Dayne hold at minimum holding altitude.Manchester arrival radar has failed and the clearance is for a procedural VOR approach on 23R via the MCT. My question is whether you can route Dayne- MCT and go straight outbound or does it require a course reversal in the MCT hold as the arrival route track is not within 30 degrees of the outbound track of the procedure?
)
Thread Starter
The instrument approaches at MAN from the MCT do not join up with the arrivals so I was interested to get a controllers perspective on what he would expect an aircraft to do. I went straight outbound without any problems as we are allowed to use Nav outbound in the procedure and it turned exactly onto the radial.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never seen this done in reality as EGCC have 3 radars they can use, the airfield-sited 'Watchman', and the St. Annes and Clee Hill long-range radars. The chances of Manch going 'procedural' are fairly slim. Even if Approach lost everything, Scottish would probably provide a limited radar service to the airport.
I would expect DAYNE-MCT with a right-turn to enter the procedure.
I would expect DAYNE-MCT with a right-turn to enter the procedure.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC,
My thinking goes way, way, back to the days before the MCT. The southern hold at Manch was the Congleton NDB. There were 2 NDBs, the 'MCR', (in Knutsford 25nm range), and the 'ME', (in Edgeley, 15nm range).
The non-radar procedures at that time were CON-MCR-ME, (due to the ME's limited range). Although holds were published at all the beacons, no reversal procedure was ever mentioned in training. This was all in the days of 'clockwork instruments' of course.
A cunundrum indeed.
Can you remember the Kestral RNAV trial with BUSBY, TRAFA, MELLA and ETLEY? A precoursor of 'Point-Merge'?
My thinking goes way, way, back to the days before the MCT. The southern hold at Manch was the Congleton NDB. There were 2 NDBs, the 'MCR', (in Knutsford 25nm range), and the 'ME', (in Edgeley, 15nm range).
The non-radar procedures at that time were CON-MCR-ME, (due to the ME's limited range). Although holds were published at all the beacons, no reversal procedure was ever mentioned in training. This was all in the days of 'clockwork instruments' of course.
A cunundrum indeed.
Can you remember the Kestral RNAV trial with BUSBY, TRAFA, MELLA and ETLEY? A precoursor of 'Point-Merge'?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tubbs - that's fine with me and immensely practical and safe, but my query is a 'regulatory' one regarding how do 'procedural' v RNAV mesh now-a-days.
An ATC answer would be useful!
An ATC answer would be useful!
