Procedural approach?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Nottingham, UK
Age: 77
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Procedural approach?
Could an ATC expert please direct me to the legislation regarding the legality of accepting self-manoeuvring to a procedural approach in a non-radar environment; particularly where a hold is included in the procedure?
Do we have to join the procedure from the hold? Can we go direct outbound? Can we self position (using our FMC Nav Display backed up by raw data)? Are the rules different in different countries? Thanks
Do we have to join the procedure from the hold? Can we go direct outbound? Can we self position (using our FMC Nav Display backed up by raw data)? Are the rules different in different countries? Thanks
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless there have been changes in the rules, you can commence the procedure without entering the hold. Therefore you can position yourself directly on to the outbound leg. The holding pattern is there for what it says on the tin and only becomes part of the procedure for aircraft which have been holding.
(Someone will now say I'm talking out of my hat!).
(Someone will now say I'm talking out of my hat!).
Está servira para distraerle.
Someone will say the same about the following comment. But you asked about other countries? Not an ATC and certainly not an expert just a humble pilot down in South Africa and what Heathrow Director says is what I would do and just did.
The possible easiest useful source would be the ATC pages of a Jeppesen?
The possible easiest useful source would be the ATC pages of a Jeppesen?
Last edited by cavortingcheetah; 21st Mar 2013 at 18:31.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know where he is coming from.
Some pilots if they are coming from a direct direction will self position above MSA onto the final approach track then once inside the protected area of the procedure will drop the aircraft down onto procedural levels.
Others say that the procedure starts at an IAF so you must go to that first then carry out the procedure.
There is also cases of people taking directs towards say a 12mile final and then when they are within the limits of a direct approach DME arc decending down to the plate minimums.
If some one has a reference which is either yes or no I would be interested in it as well so I can stick it in our ops manuals to solve some discussions which have been going on between two highly strung Captains.
Personally I can't see a problem as long as you only decend into the procedure inside its safety area and you know where you are with the given the approach aids. Which is what most of the old timers say is correct. The youngsters though say its illegal to do this and get quite upset when they hear of others doing it.
Some pilots if they are coming from a direct direction will self position above MSA onto the final approach track then once inside the protected area of the procedure will drop the aircraft down onto procedural levels.
Others say that the procedure starts at an IAF so you must go to that first then carry out the procedure.
There is also cases of people taking directs towards say a 12mile final and then when they are within the limits of a direct approach DME arc decending down to the plate minimums.
If some one has a reference which is either yes or no I would be interested in it as well so I can stick it in our ops manuals to solve some discussions which have been going on between two highly strung Captains.
Personally I can't see a problem as long as you only decend into the procedure inside its safety area and you know where you are with the given the approach aids. Which is what most of the old timers say is correct. The youngsters though say its illegal to do this and get quite upset when they hear of others doing it.
In New Zealand, there is a section in the AIP that applies to this situation:
Reference: AIPNZ ENR 1.5 - 22.
DME arcs have their own requirements, this applies to aircraft commencing overhead the navaid.
4.5 Joining a Navigation Aid for a Base Turn Instrument Approach
4.5.1 Aircraft arriving overhead the navigation aid within ±30° of the base
turn outbound course, can join the procedure directly, i.e. when overhead,
turn to intercept the outbound leg of the base turn.
4.5.2 If arriving from any other direction, a course reversal has to be
performed before joining the base turn outbound leg. This is done utilising
the published holding pattern overhead the navigation aid and the standard
holding entry procedures.
4.5.3 In the case of a holding pattern positioned on the same side of the
navigation aid as the base turn procedure, the published procedure turn
has to be utilised for course reversal following the holding pattern entry.
4.5.1 Aircraft arriving overhead the navigation aid within ±30° of the base
turn outbound course, can join the procedure directly, i.e. when overhead,
turn to intercept the outbound leg of the base turn.
4.5.2 If arriving from any other direction, a course reversal has to be
performed before joining the base turn outbound leg. This is done utilising
the published holding pattern overhead the navigation aid and the standard
holding entry procedures.
4.5.3 In the case of a holding pattern positioned on the same side of the
navigation aid as the base turn procedure, the published procedure turn
has to be utilised for course reversal following the holding pattern entry.
DME arcs have their own requirements, this applies to aircraft commencing overhead the navaid.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But they are not joining the aid they are going straight in to a final approach fix inside the base turn. Then decending down from MSA to the platform level.
You might ask why they are doing it.
It saves heaps of fuel and time if you don't go all the way to the beacon, course reversal, out bound, base turn onto approach. With an out to 10 miles procedure you can save over ten mins by dropping it in direct onto finals.
You might ask why they are doing it.
It saves heaps of fuel and time if you don't go all the way to the beacon, course reversal, out bound, base turn onto approach. With an out to 10 miles procedure you can save over ten mins by dropping it in direct onto finals.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In the rabbit hole
Age: 51
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been working on procedural approach for the last twelve years and can only say that there's nowhere in the books stated that one can or cannot self manouver.
BUT...bear in mind that not much has changed regarding procedural control in the last...decades. So procedures in a non radar environment have been designed to be carried out as published, as neither the controllers nor the planes had anything more sophisticated to offer. Keep in mind that the only instance where a pilot is allowed to override contoller instructions is on a TCAS resolution. Meaning the controller MUST be able to obtain the exact position of an airplane on a published path at any time, unless on a visual approach where the pilot has assumed responsibility.
Now the question was whether it is illegal to accept self positioning, meaning controller initiated. This is not uncommon as controllers know that airplanes nowadays are much more sophisticated than a non radar control environment, but I am more inclined on the illegality of it.
BUT...bear in mind that not much has changed regarding procedural control in the last...decades. So procedures in a non radar environment have been designed to be carried out as published, as neither the controllers nor the planes had anything more sophisticated to offer. Keep in mind that the only instance where a pilot is allowed to override contoller instructions is on a TCAS resolution. Meaning the controller MUST be able to obtain the exact position of an airplane on a published path at any time, unless on a visual approach where the pilot has assumed responsibility.
Now the question was whether it is illegal to accept self positioning, meaning controller initiated. This is not uncommon as controllers know that airplanes nowadays are much more sophisticated than a non radar control environment, but I am more inclined on the illegality of it.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUT...bear in mind that not much has changed regarding procedural control in the last...decades.
The GPS approach plates I have seen seem to take the form of a crucafix allowing you to pretty much attack the approach from any direction above MSA then feed into finals.
Alot of these approaches arn't run by controllers but FISO's in class G. The UK is a different ball game because in the UK system the pilot has a choice of service and can opt out of being controlled and just take information.
To be honest I just wish it would be stated yes or no you can't.
Commercially the company will want you to save the 10mins.
And while there is room for interpretation there will always be differences in opinion.
I can't see any major safety issues unless the procedure creates the situation of an unstable approach having to dive down from MSA.
Keep in mind that the only instance where a pilot is allowed to override contoller instructions is on a TCAS resolution
I have had to do it a couple of times in a procedural enviroment when the controller has screwed up there T level and decended us on a FL with an aircraft below on QNH and given us a 100ft seperation if I had complided with thier instruction.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Instrument Approach Procedures are designed to meet numerous requirements which are intended, amongst other things, to ensure that aircraft fly at levels that are terrain-safe, that the aircraft is following the correct path (rather than a false glidepath, for example) and are flyable (as opposed to beyond an aircraft's performance capabilities).
The ATC procedures are designed so that other aircraft can be cleared to fly certain routes based on the (roughly) known position of other aircraft following an IAP.
In a purely procedural environment, the pilot is responsible for terrain clearance and for navigation. If a pilot chooses to fly 'direct to' or whatever, it makes little difference to ATC unless there are other aircraft in the system. An aircraft doing a 'direct to' usually takes away many of the options for separation of other aircraft and for this reason a controller may refuse a request to fly off the nominal routes and procedures.
I am with kpnagidi, I can't think of anything that says a pilot cannot self position.
The ATC procedures are designed so that other aircraft can be cleared to fly certain routes based on the (roughly) known position of other aircraft following an IAP.
In a purely procedural environment, the pilot is responsible for terrain clearance and for navigation. If a pilot chooses to fly 'direct to' or whatever, it makes little difference to ATC unless there are other aircraft in the system. An aircraft doing a 'direct to' usually takes away many of the options for separation of other aircraft and for this reason a controller may refuse a request to fly off the nominal routes and procedures.
I am with kpnagidi, I can't think of anything that says a pilot cannot self position.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my experence this would be only even considered if the aircraft for all intents and purposes is the only bit of traffic for sometimes hours. And the next bit of traffic is the same aircraft.
As with everything Procedural the main point is to talk and agree a plan with the ATS then stick to it.
In the UK in my experence there is nearly always a direct arrival for a procedural only airport so there isn't really any cause to not do the published procedure. In some countrys DME arcs are a very rare beast mainly due to the lack of locators on the airfield.
As with everything Procedural the main point is to talk and agree a plan with the ATS then stick to it.
In the UK in my experence there is nearly always a direct arrival for a procedural only airport so there isn't really any cause to not do the published procedure. In some countrys DME arcs are a very rare beast mainly due to the lack of locators on the airfield.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In the rabbit hole
Age: 51
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see I haven't put my case as I should. What I meant was that in a procedural environment the controller is at ALL times responsible ( and accountable) for the instructions given and followed, except when on visual approach. Sure if they issue wrong instructions the pilot will step in. MSA is to aid in abnormal situations.I don't think anyone would care to descend to MSA e.g. 11000ft for an airport of 500ft elevation and descent to land on final (example is valid...) If by any chance one ends up in court ( which one has) what's the use of getting justified after years (if you do) having lost everything in your life? I have seen this happen...
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We use MSA for a bit more than abnormal situations. Once you are below it you either need to be controlled or be on a procedure or visual with the ground. Above it you have the freedoom to position as you wish.
The valid example you have given personally I wouldn't even consider a self position but I am sure some would. The example you state I could see with say an island with a volcano in the middle of it and airport down near the shore. To me that has Teneriffe case study screaming out.
The only time you would really consider it would be if the MSA is either the platform altitude or up to 2000ft above the platform alt depending on the performance of your aircraft and the size of the procedure. Anything that requires more than 1000ft VS within 4 miles isn't acceptable. Most of the time if the outbound takes you out to 10 miles with no terrain issues you can do a constant desent approach only passing MSA as you pass 10 miles inbound on final approach track. More enlightened countrys would have inserted a IAF at 12 miles or at some point further out for direct arrivals or have an arc to pick up.
The valid example you have given personally I wouldn't even consider a self position but I am sure some would. The example you state I could see with say an island with a volcano in the middle of it and airport down near the shore. To me that has Teneriffe case study screaming out.
The only time you would really consider it would be if the MSA is either the platform altitude or up to 2000ft above the platform alt depending on the performance of your aircraft and the size of the procedure. Anything that requires more than 1000ft VS within 4 miles isn't acceptable. Most of the time if the outbound takes you out to 10 miles with no terrain issues you can do a constant desent approach only passing MSA as you pass 10 miles inbound on final approach track. More enlightened countrys would have inserted a IAF at 12 miles or at some point further out for direct arrivals or have an arc to pick up.
Provided terrain clearance is assured and you have a clearance you can go direct anywhere. In NZ often there is a 25NM Terminal Arrival Altitude diagram based on the initial fix at 10NM final. So the clearance would be track direct XXXX descend to A030 via the TAA steps cleared RNAV approach runway XX
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats the way that EU is going in the next two years with the locators being removed. And GPS approaches being rolled out.
The GPS approches generally have a direct arrival plan with the crucifix points leading into the final approach.
Its only the old style locator on the field and then an out bound inbound procedure that this sort of thing comes up for discussion. Usually its only at fields that have relatively little IFR traffic in the past. If there was more traffic the direct arrival would have been sorted years ago.
The GPS approches generally have a direct arrival plan with the crucifix points leading into the final approach.
Its only the old style locator on the field and then an out bound inbound procedure that this sort of thing comes up for discussion. Usually its only at fields that have relatively little IFR traffic in the past. If there was more traffic the direct arrival would have been sorted years ago.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: EPKT
Age: 44
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meaning the controller MUST be able to obtain the exact position of an airplane on a published path at any time, unless on a visual approach where the pilot has assumed responsibility.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly in the UK, Rule 36 1 (c) of the Rules of the Air is also relavant:
Compliance with air traffic control clearance and notified procedures
36 (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the commander of the aircraft shall fly in conformity with:
(a) the air traffic control clearance issued for the flight, as amended by any further instructions given by an air traffic control unit; and, unless he is otherwise authorised by the appropriate air traffic control unit;
(b) the instrument departure procedures notified in relation to the aerodrome of departure; and
(c) the holding and instrument approach procedures notified in relation to the
aerodrome of destination.
This means, as I understand it, that the published IAP is mandatory and procedurally you must fly the full published procedure. Usually all IAPs start from some sort of nav facility so that is where you should start the procedure from. Obviously, in a radar environment, you can be vectored on to the final approach track.
If you choose not to you are in effect just doing the unofficial 'centre fix' type approach and become responsible for your own terrain clearance.
Compliance with air traffic control clearance and notified procedures
36 (1) Subject to paragraph (2), the commander of the aircraft shall fly in conformity with:
(a) the air traffic control clearance issued for the flight, as amended by any further instructions given by an air traffic control unit; and, unless he is otherwise authorised by the appropriate air traffic control unit;
(b) the instrument departure procedures notified in relation to the aerodrome of departure; and
(c) the holding and instrument approach procedures notified in relation to the
aerodrome of destination.
This means, as I understand it, that the published IAP is mandatory and procedurally you must fly the full published procedure. Usually all IAPs start from some sort of nav facility so that is where you should start the procedure from. Obviously, in a radar environment, you can be vectored on to the final approach track.
If you choose not to you are in effect just doing the unofficial 'centre fix' type approach and become responsible for your own terrain clearance.
for "This is a crisis"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by This is a crisis
This means, as I understand it, that the published IAP is mandatory and procedurally you must fly the full published procedure.
Sub-para (a) of the bit of legislation that you quote says ' the air traffic control clearance issued for the flight, as amended by any further instructions given by an air traffic control unit; and, unless he is otherwise authorised by the appropriate air traffic control unit'. So if the appropriate air traffic control unit clears the aircraft to do some other form of approach, then it is all perfectly legal.
The issue of terrain clearance, whether on an unofficial 'centre fix' type approach or anything else is rather different. In simple terms, if the pilot doing his own navigating (you know what I mean....I know he or she is always doing their own navigating), either under procedural control or because of a clearance to self-position, he or she is also responsible for flying at a terrain-safe level.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Nottingham, UK
Age: 77
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks everyone for all the replies.
There does seem to be some debate on this issue - is it possible that ATC rules have not kept up with modern a/c capability?
The reply from "This is a crisis" is presumably from a Controller, but is it reasonable to presume that (a) (see below) could be interpreted to mean that if the Controller believes that the a/c is capable of safely and efficiently proceeding to a point on the published approach that does not require flying the full procedure, then they can permit this 'short cut'?
(a) the air traffic control clearance issued for the flight, as amended by any further instructions given by an air traffic control unit; and, unless he is otherwise authorised by the appropriate air traffic control unit;
There does seem to be some debate on this issue - is it possible that ATC rules have not kept up with modern a/c capability?
The reply from "This is a crisis" is presumably from a Controller, but is it reasonable to presume that (a) (see below) could be interpreted to mean that if the Controller believes that the a/c is capable of safely and efficiently proceeding to a point on the published approach that does not require flying the full procedure, then they can permit this 'short cut'?
(a) the air traffic control clearance issued for the flight, as amended by any further instructions given by an air traffic control unit; and, unless he is otherwise authorised by the appropriate air traffic control unit;
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HILETI
is it possible that ATC rules have not kept up with modern a/c capability?
) . The problem we have to face, however, is terrain clearance, since there appears to be a growing number of new pilots who have not a clue where they or the cumulo-granitus is, but can follow the 'magenta line' in fine style. At least the 'full procedural' copes with them. This is something that needs addressing, and I do not think the solution will come from the airline trainers/beancounters, unfortunately.Where this leaves the poor controller who has said 'OK' (see the Alaska Beech crash thread) as their protege impacts terrain I hate to think.