Procedural Approach
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
From: UK
Casper, I agree. We should all be flying iaw the AIP and if the charts are wrong then they should be changed but it looks like the only error in our charts is that it doesn't say "or as directed by ATC" and this doesn't appear to be causing any problems. The track violations are probably pilot error. It may be that a specific fleet or airline has a convention whereby they incorrectly delete TONIC or STELA but I've never seen it, and if I checked an approach entered that didn't have it in then I'd ask the other pilot to change it.
As to treating the heights at TD and LIMES differently, for 07 I want to be slightly above 4500' at LIMES and if I leave it in the FMC then I can be. It also has the added benefit that if I'm cleared high speed below 10000' and it's busy, the associated speed restriction gives me a safety net on 250kts below MSA in the unlikely event that I've deleted the 240/1000' restriction, am in VNAV and have forgotten to slow down. I'll quite often delete it as I get a bit closer, but I don't feel compelled to do so simply because I've been cleared to a lower altitude from way out. For 25, I want to be slightly below 8000' at TD so I have to delete the restriction in the FMC otherwise it'll capture 8000' and I'll be slightly higher than I want to be.
I don't know if we have the possibility to take Air Traffic Controllers on a jumpseat but if not then it must be possible to take you in a flight sim to demonstrate - anyone know if we can do this?
As to treating the heights at TD and LIMES differently, for 07 I want to be slightly above 4500' at LIMES and if I leave it in the FMC then I can be. It also has the added benefit that if I'm cleared high speed below 10000' and it's busy, the associated speed restriction gives me a safety net on 250kts below MSA in the unlikely event that I've deleted the 240/1000' restriction, am in VNAV and have forgotten to slow down. I'll quite often delete it as I get a bit closer, but I don't feel compelled to do so simply because I've been cleared to a lower altitude from way out. For 25, I want to be slightly below 8000' at TD so I have to delete the restriction in the FMC otherwise it'll capture 8000' and I'll be slightly higher than I want to be.
I don't know if we have the possibility to take Air Traffic Controllers on a jumpseat but if not then it must be possible to take you in a flight sim to demonstrate - anyone know if we can do this?
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
From: UK
I think the "or as directed by ATC" is included because of the potential to use Limes as a holding location. In reality it is stating the obvious .... any position that is used as a hold cannot be arrived at procedurally to hold at a fixed altitude. ATC would struggle to get many aircraft in the hold if that was the case!!
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: Earth
CFG,
Procedural Approach in the context under discussion is a misnomer. HK ATC is a Surveillance environment and doesn't use Procedural control. (Which leads me to ask why its called Approach and not Arrivals). Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP) is the correct term and Procedural Approach is comparable to saying, Procedural STAR or Procedural SID.
The original 07 STAR limit was GUAVA. This caused a discontinuity, and some operators (rightly) demanded a clearance to proceed beyond the STAR - either in the form of vectors or an IAP clearance. Subsequently the 07 IAF has been moved to LIMES (also to accommodate the CANTO/SIERA STARs). The problem still remains and my guess is that the STAR termination points will eventually be moved to new common IAF's near RIVER & LOTUS for RWY25 and STELA/TONIC for RWY07.
On topic, I agree with 744drv's reply - and I find it rather chilling that there are crew out there that cannot fly an IAP.
The chart's, "or as directed by ATC" is a nuisance term because it creates ambiguity. In BB's example; once ATC clears to a lower altitude, the "or as directed by ATC" implies that the lower altitude shall be reached by the IAF. To further confuse us, the charts show that the LIMES 4500 IAF altitude can be cancelled by ATC but the TD 8000 IAF level cannot. The charts are distinctly different, which implies the author must have good reason.
I see the incoming RNAV charts RWY07 are better written and do not include "or as directed by ATC" which implies that the original inclusion might have been an unintended cock-up and has thus been dropped.
Sighs and returns to Star Trek the Original Series.
Procedural Approach in the context under discussion is a misnomer. HK ATC is a Surveillance environment and doesn't use Procedural control. (Which leads me to ask why its called Approach and not Arrivals). Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP) is the correct term and Procedural Approach is comparable to saying, Procedural STAR or Procedural SID.
The original 07 STAR limit was GUAVA. This caused a discontinuity, and some operators (rightly) demanded a clearance to proceed beyond the STAR - either in the form of vectors or an IAP clearance. Subsequently the 07 IAF has been moved to LIMES (also to accommodate the CANTO/SIERA STARs). The problem still remains and my guess is that the STAR termination points will eventually be moved to new common IAF's near RIVER & LOTUS for RWY25 and STELA/TONIC for RWY07.
On topic, I agree with 744drv's reply - and I find it rather chilling that there are crew out there that cannot fly an IAP.
The chart's, "or as directed by ATC" is a nuisance term because it creates ambiguity. In BB's example; once ATC clears to a lower altitude, the "or as directed by ATC" implies that the lower altitude shall be reached by the IAF. To further confuse us, the charts show that the LIMES 4500 IAF altitude can be cancelled by ATC but the TD 8000 IAF level cannot. The charts are distinctly different, which implies the author must have good reason.
I see the incoming RNAV charts RWY07 are better written and do not include "or as directed by ATC" which implies that the original inclusion might have been an unintended cock-up and has thus been dropped.
Sighs and returns to Star Trek the Original Series.
Last edited by Unionist2010; 24th September 2013 at 23:31.
