CBR 17 Night Vis approaches
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: CRM re-hab
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CBR 17 Night Vis approaches
Gday all,
Just curious to anyone else's experiences regarding ATC clearing jet a/c's (737s) for visual approaches on this runway...
I've been cleared several times now for this from the north and west, previously cleared to a point CB350/15 (or 12nm) for the CB (same radial as the VOR Rwy 17 (dme req'd - lovely new misleading format!) then given a radar decent to 4300' and subsequently cleared for a visual approach - having not declared 'visual'... These occasions have resulted in some quick number crunching and then a rejection of the clearance (to a seemingly strained response from ATC - after the proceeding A/C (enemy a/c
) accepted the Vis App clearance )... then cleared for 'the approach of your choice'
Now from where I sit, we can't leave 4,300' until within 5nm on VASI, or the circling area - the 5nm comes first obviously - which correspondes to 4.4DME - leaving the a/c about 900' high on profile...
Am i missing something here? or is it too much to expect different handling on a pontentially hazardous app (ref the great view from my seat (RHS) at about 2.5nm final)?
Any ATCOs care to comment? Thanks, CC.
Just curious to anyone else's experiences regarding ATC clearing jet a/c's (737s) for visual approaches on this runway...
I've been cleared several times now for this from the north and west, previously cleared to a point CB350/15 (or 12nm) for the CB (same radial as the VOR Rwy 17 (dme req'd - lovely new misleading format!) then given a radar decent to 4300' and subsequently cleared for a visual approach - having not declared 'visual'... These occasions have resulted in some quick number crunching and then a rejection of the clearance (to a seemingly strained response from ATC - after the proceeding A/C (enemy a/c
) accepted the Vis App clearance )... then cleared for 'the approach of your choice' Now from where I sit, we can't leave 4,300' until within 5nm on VASI, or the circling area - the 5nm comes first obviously - which correspondes to 4.4DME - leaving the a/c about 900' high on profile...
Am i missing something here? or is it too much to expect different handling on a pontentially hazardous app (ref the great view from my seat (RHS) at about 2.5nm final)?
Any ATCOs care to comment? Thanks, CC.
Interesting.
Since runway 35 is "equipped with an ILS" which means the edge lighting is at CAT 1 standard then surely you could descend once within 7nm IAW ENR 1.1 - 23 para 11.5.5? I could be wrong but the lighting standard applies even though you are landing from the "wrong end".
we can't leave 4,300' until within 5nm on VASI, or the circling area - the 5nm comes first obviously - which correspondes to 4.4DME - leaving the a/c about 900' high on profile...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: CRM re-hab
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, as you said Icarus, Interesting...
I've always thought that the requirements were for the particular rwy direction - for cases such as this where the terrain plays a part... Can anyone clarify??
I also was of the impression that it wasn't just the lighting, but a rwy with an ILS is surveyed and determined to have a certain terrain clearance on the approach area?? I hate my knit-picking!
I've always thought that the requirements were for the particular rwy direction - for cases such as this where the terrain plays a part... Can anyone clarify??
I also was of the impression that it wasn't just the lighting, but a rwy with an ILS is surveyed and determined to have a certain terrain clearance on the approach area?? I hate my knit-picking!
Nunc est bibendum
What are the DME steps like? If you're cleared for a visual approach, isn't one of the requirements not below the DME steps? Do they help you down from 4300 to a more 'on slope' approach?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: CRM re-hab
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DME steps
From my quick check (sketchy memory at best) I don't think there is a northern 'sector' DME arrival, all I could find was a Cowra dct CB arrival... but thanks for the suggestion keg...
Icarus, I hope you're not a checkie! 17 does not have an ILS so you can't use the 7nm rule. I've seen bush lawyers in action but that's taking it too far!
There are ILSs that aren't Cat 1: does that mean the rule doesn't apply to them?!
There are ILSs that aren't Cat 1: does that mean the rule doesn't apply to them?!
Unless you have 'established and can continue flight to the aerodrome with continuous visual reference to the ground or water' then ATC cant authorize a visual approach (ATC AU-706).
You said you were 'cleared for the approach of your choice'. What is stopping you from applying 'at an altitude not below the LSALT/MSA for the route segment, the appropriate step of the DME or GPS Arrival procedure, or the MDA for the procedure being flown'.
In this case why not descend below the 4300 using the VOR Rwy 17 approach this will get you down to 3250 within 5 NM of the aerodrome aligned with the runway centreline and established not below "on slope" on the T-VASIS or PAPI.
Going from your information sounds like they were doing you a favour positioning you on the radial set up nicely to apply a 'bread and butter' IFR procedure
.
Icarus2001 an interesting approach(pardon the pun ) how many runways does this airport have 2 or 4?
Safe flying
You said you were 'cleared for the approach of your choice'. What is stopping you from applying 'at an altitude not below the LSALT/MSA for the route segment, the appropriate step of the DME or GPS Arrival procedure, or the MDA for the procedure being flown'.
In this case why not descend below the 4300 using the VOR Rwy 17 approach this will get you down to 3250 within 5 NM of the aerodrome aligned with the runway centreline and established not below "on slope" on the T-VASIS or PAPI.
Going from your information sounds like they were doing you a favour positioning you on the radial set up nicely to apply a 'bread and butter' IFR procedure
.Icarus2001 an interesting approach(pardon the pun
) how many runways does this airport have 2 or 4?Safe flying
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this approach or centre? i.e. are you being provided with a Radar Approach service?
Why not ring them up and ask them what they were expecting / what they were thinking?
Why not ring them up and ask them what they were expecting / what they were thinking?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: CRM re-hab
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
U/S - radar vectored to the CB350/15 by centre, cleared for app by CBR Approach.
hoss,
We had not reported visual. I interpret reporting 'visual' as 'i meet the criteria and i'm requesting a visual approach' We didn't report, nor did we want a visual approach - being vectored to that point we expected to be led into the VOR app... FWIW, we did call them up, but were able to speak only to the duty officer, who was not familiar with that area and couldn't really help - except file a report.
We were 'cleared for an approach of our choice' after the vis app was rejected. We then flew the VOR, no particular dramas there, I just want to know why it seems routine for clearences to be given that can't be flown (with stable app req's), to the best of my knowledge hoss, you can't;
As, according to the AIP, or as you stated; at an altitude not below the LSALT/MSA for the route segment, the appropriate step of the DME or GPS Arrival procedure, or the MDA for the procedure being flown... does this mean that when cleared for a visual approach, you can just fly the VOR to get within 5nms? I am of the impression that only GPS/DME steps/lsalt/msa etc could be used?
I know I'm taking this way too far, I just find this little bit confusing.
Cheers, CC.
hoss,
Unless you have 'established and can continue flight to the aerodrome with continuous visual reference to the ground or water' then ATC cant authorize a visual approach (ATC AU-706)
You said you were 'cleared for the approach of your choice'. What is stopping you from applying 'at an altitude not below the LSALT/MSA for the route segment, the appropriate step of the DME or GPS Arrival procedure, or the MDA for the procedure being flown'.
why not descend below the 4300 using the VOR Rwy 17 approach this will get you down to 3250 within 5 NM of the aerodrome aligned with the runway centreline and established not below "on slope" on the T-VASIS or PAP
I know I'm taking this way too far, I just find this little bit confusing.
Cheers, CC.
Captain Can't,
I think you are making an easy job difficult. Hoss had the best suggestion with -
Next time and every other time, why not request to be vectored to a 10 mile final for the Rwy 17 VOR/DME approach? The rest is easy.
I think you are making an easy job difficult. Hoss had the best suggestion with -
In this case why not descend below the 4300 using the VOR Rwy 17 approach this will get you down to 3250 within 5 NM of the aerodrome aligned with the runway centreline and established not below "on slope" on the T-VASIS or PAPI.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cap'n C, just out of interest, what else was happening at the time?
Specifically, what was the traffic like?
Perhaps the ATCO in question had an aircraft he wanted to get away, or had another arriving aircraft ahead of or behind you.
As you would know, a clearance for an instrument approach ties up a lot more airspace than a visual approach.
Maybe he/she was prompting you into a situation that might have expedited another aircraft's arrival or departure.
Having said that, good on you for not accepting a procedure that you didn't think was appropriate in the circumstances.
Thats why they pay us the big bucks!
Specifically, what was the traffic like?
Perhaps the ATCO in question had an aircraft he wanted to get away, or had another arriving aircraft ahead of or behind you.
As you would know, a clearance for an instrument approach ties up a lot more airspace than a visual approach.
Maybe he/she was prompting you into a situation that might have expedited another aircraft's arrival or departure.
Having said that, good on you for not accepting a procedure that you didn't think was appropriate in the circumstances.
Thats why they pay us the big bucks!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it really the best idea to follow an instrument when conducting a visual approach? Too many people have stuffed it up and been the victims of CFIT. Keep it simple. If doing a visual approach follow the requirements for a visual approach, if unsure do the instrument approach.
Technically you couldn't use the height on the VOR/DME approach. AIP states that you must remain at the last assigned altitude, if being radar vectored until established on the VASIS etc etc. Additionally you are not permitted to descend below the MSA unless less you have passed through an IAF of an IAP etc etc.
I have landed at CB many times on 17 at night. ATC offered us the visual approach, but our company policy was to refuse immediately and request the VOR/DME. ATC got the hint after a few months and stopped offering the visual approach.
I have also been IMC at MDA on this approach at night, despite the ATIS saying conditions were SCT 040 (I was unable to see the cloud prior to entering it) How would you get out of that one if you were doing a visual approach but following the IAP?
Technically you couldn't use the height on the VOR/DME approach. AIP states that you must remain at the last assigned altitude, if being radar vectored until established on the VASIS etc etc. Additionally you are not permitted to descend below the MSA unless less you have passed through an IAF of an IAP etc etc.
I have landed at CB many times on 17 at night. ATC offered us the visual approach, but our company policy was to refuse immediately and request the VOR/DME. ATC got the hint after a few months and stopped offering the visual approach.
I have also been IMC at MDA on this approach at night, despite the ATIS saying conditions were SCT 040 (I was unable to see the cloud prior to entering it) How would you get out of that one if you were doing a visual approach but following the IAP?
amos2,
There is nothing crazy or lazy about it. This is common practice at both radar & procedural environments. Once you are within 10 miles of the airport and advise ATC you can accept a visual approach they will give it to you. It is then up to you to maintain your own separation with surrounding terrain by complying with the AIP rules.
The problem also arises is that ATC may hold you above their radar lower safe alt until rather late, which can result in a higher than normal approach along with its associated problems. This is maybe what Captain Can't is experiencing.
As I previously mentioned, at CB request radar vectors to a 10 mile final for the Rwy 17 VOR/DME approach. When near the end of the vector ATC will clear you for finals of the approach and the rest is easy.
Personally though, I would not accept a visual approach at night unless (at a controlled airport) I am vectored to at least a 5 mile final that places me directly onto the PAPI or VASIS (not high but on correct glide path as in the case of Rwy 30 at CB, which jets never get, anyway). Otherwise it is the final leg of an instrument approach.
On another issue, but one that I feel is relevant whilst we are on the subject - At a non controlled airport, the approaches I fly at night are a DME/GPS arrival that allows me a straight in approach, GPSNPA approach or final leg of a Rwy VOR/DME -GPS or NDB/DME-GPS approach. In other words, the less night circling approaches the better.
The advantage I find with these approaches that enable straight ins at night are less of the 'black hole' effect where PAPI or VASIS are not available plus the major advantage of not colliding with any terrain.
There is nothing crazy or lazy about it. This is common practice at both radar & procedural environments. Once you are within 10 miles of the airport and advise ATC you can accept a visual approach they will give it to you. It is then up to you to maintain your own separation with surrounding terrain by complying with the AIP rules.
The problem also arises is that ATC may hold you above their radar lower safe alt until rather late, which can result in a higher than normal approach along with its associated problems. This is maybe what Captain Can't is experiencing.
As I previously mentioned, at CB request radar vectors to a 10 mile final for the Rwy 17 VOR/DME approach. When near the end of the vector ATC will clear you for finals of the approach and the rest is easy.
Personally though, I would not accept a visual approach at night unless (at a controlled airport) I am vectored to at least a 5 mile final that places me directly onto the PAPI or VASIS (not high but on correct glide path as in the case of Rwy 30 at CB, which jets never get, anyway). Otherwise it is the final leg of an instrument approach.
On another issue, but one that I feel is relevant whilst we are on the subject - At a non controlled airport, the approaches I fly at night are a DME/GPS arrival that allows me a straight in approach, GPSNPA approach or final leg of a Rwy VOR/DME -GPS or NDB/DME-GPS approach. In other words, the less night circling approaches the better.
The advantage I find with these approaches that enable straight ins at night are less of the 'black hole' effect where PAPI or VASIS are not available plus the major advantage of not colliding with any terrain.
This is off the subject of visual approaches to this runway however:
Check out the VOR Rwy 17 staight-in-landing (visibility) minima and compare this to the distance the missed approach point is short of the runway. Somehow I don't think so!
The minima is only 5000m however 8km visibility is required as an absolute minimum just to see the threshold, never mind the VASIS.
5000m visibility would be fine if you were descending only to the Circling Minima and maintained that utill you could comply with circling approach requirements.
Also the Alternate Minima is only 7 km!
I always thought this runway could do with those Runway End Identification lights REIL (two strobe lights either side of the threshold) if not lead-in strobe lights.
Can't wait for the inevitable decommisioning of the T-VASIS in preference for what must be world's best practice. The near useless PAPI.
Check out the VOR Rwy 17 staight-in-landing (visibility) minima and compare this to the distance the missed approach point is short of the runway. Somehow I don't think so!
The minima is only 5000m however 8km visibility is required as an absolute minimum just to see the threshold, never mind the VASIS.
5000m visibility would be fine if you were descending only to the Circling Minima and maintained that utill you could comply with circling approach requirements.
Also the Alternate Minima is only 7 km!
I always thought this runway could do with those Runway End Identification lights REIL (two strobe lights either side of the threshold) if not lead-in strobe lights.
Can't wait for the inevitable decommisioning of the T-VASIS in preference for what must be world's best practice. The near useless PAPI.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couple of comments:
(I know nothing of CB or their ATC procedures BTW)
Capt Can't
(Insist on speaking to one of the approach controllers rated on the sector - many of the 'supervisors' have never worked the airspace, ratings or procedures of the particular sectors they are supervising - the super centres are just too large for that to be possible.)
1. I don't agree with the statement made that calling VISUAL is a 'request' for a Visual Approach. If you were being processed by an IAL by DAY I would probably 'offer' it however - but only where permitted (i.e. International Heavy aircraft that are NOT VH- or ZK- registered can not be offered - they must ask). By night in a radar approach environment I would imagine that descent on RLSALT to final on VASI's or to circling area would be the normal processing of VSA, or processed by the IAL. Issuing of VSA to IFR ACFT by NI in a Radar APP environment has not been the norm from what I have seen - usually because it is not the best or most efficient use of the radar from both an efficiency perspective and the getting down the quickest perspective.
2. I don't know the RTCC for CB. I will assume that 4300 as mentioned in the earlier post is the best that can be assigned. In that case the IAL would appear the most efficient descent profile for RWY 17 straight in. So for all intents and purposes the VSA and IAL become practically the same approach except for having a higher minima do they not?
i.e. Maint 4300 until the IAF, desc to 4100 at 10 DME, then to the MDA at 7DME and then VSA on the VASI at 5NM from the THRH? Would that not meet the requirements of the VSA criteria?
3. The controller can (and does) forget when you call Visual - believe me. Sometimes when there is a lot going on and there are maybe up to 8-9 inbound it is possible to forget who called visual. Point being - if you are cleared VSA and you are NOT visual, say so.
Some pertinent reference links:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...CBVO01-101.PDF (CB RWY 17 VOR APCH)
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/.../enr/15739.pdf (AIP Visual Approach from IAL)
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...enr/111110.pdf (AIP Visual Approach - ATC Authorisation)
Following are the DME/GPS ARRIVAL plates for CB:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...CBDG03-101.PDF
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...CBDG02-101.PDF
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...CBDG01-101.PDF
(I know nothing of CB or their ATC procedures BTW)
Capt Can't
(Insist on speaking to one of the approach controllers rated on the sector - many of the 'supervisors' have never worked the airspace, ratings or procedures of the particular sectors they are supervising - the super centres are just too large for that to be possible.)
1. I don't agree with the statement made that calling VISUAL is a 'request' for a Visual Approach. If you were being processed by an IAL by DAY I would probably 'offer' it however - but only where permitted (i.e. International Heavy aircraft that are NOT VH- or ZK- registered can not be offered - they must ask). By night in a radar approach environment I would imagine that descent on RLSALT to final on VASI's or to circling area would be the normal processing of VSA, or processed by the IAL. Issuing of VSA to IFR ACFT by NI in a Radar APP environment has not been the norm from what I have seen - usually because it is not the best or most efficient use of the radar from both an efficiency perspective and the getting down the quickest perspective.
2. I don't know the RTCC for CB. I will assume that 4300 as mentioned in the earlier post is the best that can be assigned. In that case the IAL would appear the most efficient descent profile for RWY 17 straight in. So for all intents and purposes the VSA and IAL become practically the same approach except for having a higher minima do they not?
i.e. Maint 4300 until the IAF, desc to 4100 at 10 DME, then to the MDA at 7DME and then VSA on the VASI at 5NM from the THRH? Would that not meet the requirements of the VSA criteria?
3. The controller can (and does) forget when you call Visual - believe me. Sometimes when there is a lot going on and there are maybe up to 8-9 inbound it is possible to forget who called visual. Point being - if you are cleared VSA and you are NOT visual, say so.
Some pertinent reference links:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...CBVO01-101.PDF (CB RWY 17 VOR APCH)
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/.../enr/15739.pdf (AIP Visual Approach from IAL)
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...enr/111110.pdf (AIP Visual Approach - ATC Authorisation)
Following are the DME/GPS ARRIVAL plates for CB:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...CBDG03-101.PDF
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...CBDG02-101.PDF
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...CBDG01-101.PDF
Last edited by Uncommon Sense; 29th Dec 2004 at 05:57.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Country NSW Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YSCB R17 Night Approaches
Hmmm, this has all got a litle bit confusing guys, the rules about night instrument approaches going over to visual approaches are not a noose about our neck but the parachute harness.
Pardon me Hoss and Capt Cant - and others, Let's go back to the basic rules here and then to CC's quandry with CB ATC:
AIP/JEPP provided that are to be No visual approaches (at night) until within the circling area for your category of aircraft, unless your on the ILS or another type of instrument approach, and then no descent below the steps (lsalts) or MDA until you get to the circling area, either way you stay on the instrument approach and not below any safe altitude until you get within the circling area, simple. The issue of clear of cloud and in sight of ground or water is actually a trap qualification on the 'out' being discussed as they cannot be achieved at night.
Why? Well gents how do you propose to remain in "sight" of the ground at night? Answer - you cannot. If you could we would not need all those expensive runway and approach lights and GPWS systems would we?
Fly it any other way you risk getting dirt through the front window.
Now back to CB ATC and the visual onto R!7. No matter what ATC might like to offer, your flying the aircraft so you take the rap, that is what the CAR's say about command responsbiility. So if you don't know where the ground is in relation to your present position not below LSALT till you do. At night you only can have safely achieved that when your in the circling area at a circuit or downwind approach height having successfully passed all the up and down bits on the way down via an approach procedure. Figure out your own descent profile in advance and then manage it. The rest is something to sort out between your Chief Checkie or Pilot and ATC in CB so yo don't get offered short cuts you can't accept.
Other than that it is a case of how to finesse the whole process, seems there is some pretty smart advice already preceding mine.
Cheers and Safe Flying
Pardon me Hoss and Capt Cant - and others, Let's go back to the basic rules here and then to CC's quandry with CB ATC:
AIP/JEPP provided that are to be No visual approaches (at night) until within the circling area for your category of aircraft, unless your on the ILS or another type of instrument approach, and then no descent below the steps (lsalts) or MDA until you get to the circling area, either way you stay on the instrument approach and not below any safe altitude until you get within the circling area, simple. The issue of clear of cloud and in sight of ground or water is actually a trap qualification on the 'out' being discussed as they cannot be achieved at night.
Why? Well gents how do you propose to remain in "sight" of the ground at night? Answer - you cannot. If you could we would not need all those expensive runway and approach lights and GPWS systems would we?
Fly it any other way you risk getting dirt through the front window.
Now back to CB ATC and the visual onto R!7. No matter what ATC might like to offer, your flying the aircraft so you take the rap, that is what the CAR's say about command responsbiility. So if you don't know where the ground is in relation to your present position not below LSALT till you do. At night you only can have safely achieved that when your in the circling area at a circuit or downwind approach height having successfully passed all the up and down bits on the way down via an approach procedure. Figure out your own descent profile in advance and then manage it. The rest is something to sort out between your Chief Checkie or Pilot and ATC in CB so yo don't get offered short cuts you can't accept.
Other than that it is a case of how to finesse the whole process, seems there is some pretty smart advice already preceding mine.
Cheers and Safe Flying
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: CRM re-hab
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grip-Pipe;
At no stage have I accepted nor said I have accepted a clearance I wasn't happy with. Read closer, clearance rejected. Thank you, I'm aware of my responsibities.
I'm also aware of when I can leave RLSALT, which is within the circling area or in this case, within 5nm, aligned with the runway centreline and not below 'onslope' etc etc. My proplem is why this approach has been offered (anecdotal evidence says it's not infrequent) when it clearly is not acceptable. This has led me to wonder if I was missing something, it seems now that I haven't been missing anything, as to other a/c accepting it and flying it? I'm not too sure how it's been done. Perhaps through error in the suggested method by Hoss. I don't think Vis Apps on this runway at night are particularly prudent, as Amos2 so succinctly put it.
U/C, thanks for your once-again well informed reply, upon contacting the ATC centre in MEL, we were informed we couldn't speak to our actual controller, as he was obviously at his station - doing his job i guess! - we dropped the issue, scratched our heads to see if it could be done and resolved to just plainly request the VOR next time.
Clear as mud. Cheers.
U/C
Are you saying that cleared for VSA then, for the min alt requirements for the crew, the IAL (VOR 17) can then be applied? Jepps (sorry don\'t have AIP handy) ATC Departure, App and ldg procedures 1.9.5.5 Minimum Altitude Requirments section b part 1 (IFR by night) makes no mention of this being available?? It includes decent to Lsalt/MSA, DME/GPS arrival or RLSALT only.
Or is what you have mentioned what ATC expect to be flown?
Thanks once again. Captn Caaaan\'t
At no stage have I accepted nor said I have accepted a clearance I wasn't happy with. Read closer, clearance rejected. Thank you, I'm aware of my responsibities.
I'm also aware of when I can leave RLSALT, which is within the circling area or in this case, within 5nm, aligned with the runway centreline and not below 'onslope' etc etc. My proplem is why this approach has been offered (anecdotal evidence says it's not infrequent) when it clearly is not acceptable. This has led me to wonder if I was missing something, it seems now that I haven't been missing anything, as to other a/c accepting it and flying it? I'm not too sure how it's been done. Perhaps through error in the suggested method by Hoss. I don't think Vis Apps on this runway at night are particularly prudent, as Amos2 so succinctly put it.
U/C, thanks for your once-again well informed reply, upon contacting the ATC centre in MEL, we were informed we couldn't speak to our actual controller, as he was obviously at his station - doing his job i guess! - we dropped the issue, scratched our heads to see if it could be done and resolved to just plainly request the VOR next time.
Clear as mud. Cheers.
U/C
2. I don\'t know the RTCC for CB. I will assume that 4300 as mentioned in the earlier post is the best that can be assigned. In that case the IAL would appear the most efficient descent profile for RWY 17 straight in. So for all intents and purposes the VSA and IAL become practically the same approach except for having a higher minima do they not?
Or is what you have mentioned what ATC expect to be flown?
Thanks once again. Captn Caaaan\'t