Procedural Instrument Approach
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Procedural Instrument Approach
Imagine a scenario where the inbound course to the initial approach fix is substantially different from the beacon outbound course. The one I am looking at specifically is Teeside ILS/DME Rwy 05, arriving from the south.
In the case of that particularly approach would you personally:
i) Approaching the beacon for the first time on a northerly heading, do the 120deg turn to the left to pick up the beacon outbound course?
ii) Fly over the beacon for a minute, turn right back to the beacon, as though to join the hold, but when next passing over the beacon just pick up the beacon outbound course?
iii) Fly over the beacon for a minute, turn right back to the beacon, thus joining the hold, fly over the beacon, round the hold then pick up the beacon outbound course next time over the beacon?
If (i) or (ii) what would you tell ATC? On a recent trip to France ATC were expecting us to do (ii) but the IR pilot did (iii) and confusion ensued.
In the case of that particularly approach would you personally:
i) Approaching the beacon for the first time on a northerly heading, do the 120deg turn to the left to pick up the beacon outbound course?
ii) Fly over the beacon for a minute, turn right back to the beacon, as though to join the hold, but when next passing over the beacon just pick up the beacon outbound course?
iii) Fly over the beacon for a minute, turn right back to the beacon, thus joining the hold, fly over the beacon, round the hold then pick up the beacon outbound course next time over the beacon?
If (i) or (ii) what would you tell ATC? On a recent trip to France ATC were expecting us to do (ii) but the IR pilot did (iii) and confusion ensued.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an ATCO I would expect (ii), as a pilot I would do (ii).
Reason? Why would you want to go round the hold again? If cleared for the approach then you do just that - carry out the approach, using the correct entry to get yourself inbound to the beacon.
Confusion is caused by (iii) because if you're not the only one in the hold / procedure those behind will have been issued 'EATs'. If you go around the hold again then anyone else with an EAT needs 4 minutes added to them thanks to the 'fannying around' in the hold that's been done.
If you want to do a hold when cleared for the approach then ask.
I wouldn't do (i) because, with the large turn angle required, it takes forever to get repositioned and established on the outbound leg, probably leaving insufficient time to lose the height required for the turn and be in the right position for the base turn.
As for what to say. You can call "Overhead" the beacon on joining. That tells the ATCO that he can expect your beacon outbound call in 3 minutes - a prompt that he may have to update EATs. Next call, would be "Beacon outbound".
Reason? Why would you want to go round the hold again? If cleared for the approach then you do just that - carry out the approach, using the correct entry to get yourself inbound to the beacon.
Confusion is caused by (iii) because if you're not the only one in the hold / procedure those behind will have been issued 'EATs'. If you go around the hold again then anyone else with an EAT needs 4 minutes added to them thanks to the 'fannying around' in the hold that's been done.
If you want to do a hold when cleared for the approach then ask.
I wouldn't do (i) because, with the large turn angle required, it takes forever to get repositioned and established on the outbound leg, probably leaving insufficient time to lose the height required for the turn and be in the right position for the base turn.
As for what to say. You can call "Overhead" the beacon on joining. That tells the ATCO that he can expect your beacon outbound call in 3 minutes - a prompt that he may have to update EATs. Next call, would be "Beacon outbound".
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks CM.
I (as an FAA IR holder) would do (ii) too, but my CAA IR pilot friend was insistent that one should do (iii). His position was bolstered by a subsequent conversation with the guy in the tower in France who agreed with him, though pointed out in practice that nobody does it that way. However, the controller was French and the conversation was full of confusion due to language difficulties.
I (as an FAA IR holder) would do (ii) too, but my CAA IR pilot friend was insistent that one should do (iii). His position was bolstered by a subsequent conversation with the guy in the tower in France who agreed with him, though pointed out in practice that nobody does it that way. However, the controller was French and the conversation was full of confusion due to language difficulties.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but my CAA IR pilot friend was insistent that one should do (iii).
His position was bolstered by a subsequent conversation with the guy in the tower in France who agreed with him,
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From memory I think it was the ILS in to Calais, approaching it from Dover(ish).
I don't think it was that the guy just wanted to get rid of us. He'd been very friendly in other respects, including a "guided tour" of the tower. It was a really dreadful weather day and he had only one other movement in the last couple of hours.
I don't think it was that the guy just wanted to get rid of us. He'd been very friendly in other respects, including a "guided tour" of the tower. It was a really dreadful weather day and he had only one other movement in the last couple of hours.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, sorry Drauk, but if it was Calais then your mate was totally correct. (And it bears no relation to Teesside - the Cranfield alternate procedure would have been a nearer approximation).
From the north - overhead the beacon, then outbound 063 with a left turn back to the beacon for a parallel entry
then
Right turn outbound, maintaining 2000ft (this is what you seem to think was the hold, but is in fact part of the procedure), for the time stipulated on the plate according to speed. Right turn inbound and established on the localiser. When established (and between 9.5 and 6.1 DME) descend to 1310ft and maintain that until intercepting the glideslope at the NDB.
You can follow it through at Calais IAP's
From the north - overhead the beacon, then outbound 063 with a left turn back to the beacon for a parallel entry
then
Right turn outbound, maintaining 2000ft (this is what you seem to think was the hold, but is in fact part of the procedure), for the time stipulated on the plate according to speed. Right turn inbound and established on the localiser. When established (and between 9.5 and 6.1 DME) descend to 1310ft and maintain that until intercepting the glideslope at the NDB.
You can follow it through at Calais IAP's
That's a slightly different game because it's a racetrack.
But I disagree with Chilli.
From the north - overhead the beacon at 2000, then outbound 063 for time T, with a left turn back to intercept the 243 track inbound to the beacon, descending not below 1310. And then you carry on inbound with the ILS.
The manoeuvre is not an easy one, as you should not descend below the turn platform altitude of 2000 until established on the inbound track or localiser. There is likely to be only just enough time to do this before the glideslope comes alive. Thus I'm not sure I would blame anyone for wanting to join the hold first.
http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=11183
may be of interest.
But I disagree with Chilli.
From the north - overhead the beacon at 2000, then outbound 063 for time T, with a left turn back to intercept the 243 track inbound to the beacon, descending not below 1310. And then you carry on inbound with the ILS.
The manoeuvre is not an easy one, as you should not descend below the turn platform altitude of 2000 until established on the inbound track or localiser. There is likely to be only just enough time to do this before the glideslope comes alive. Thus I'm not sure I would blame anyone for wanting to join the hold first.
http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=11183
may be of interest.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, that makes sense. So the difference is that at Calais it isn't a hold, it's part of the procedure.
But what about the Teeside plate? The alternate procedure is clear enough (which basically amounts to (ii) in my original example). But the main procedure? Is that racetrack a hold or part of the procedure? It is a bold line.
The guy in France did say that it was uncommon enough to do so (no further qualification of how often that is) that he didn't automatically assume people would always actually do the "once round the race track".
By the way CM, don't apologize: I'm glad he was correct! I'd convinced myself he was at the time, because of the need to lose additional altitude. But looking at the Teeside plate brought it back to mind.
Edited to add having read bookworm's post:
I see. Hence the French controller's comment that that is what some people do. Thus enough confusion seems to exist that the controller wouldn't know what you were going to do, so what would you say on the RT? Clearly it isn't hard to come up with something suitable "we'll be going around the racetrack" or "we won't be" but what with the language difficulties and all...
But what about the Teeside plate? The alternate procedure is clear enough (which basically amounts to (ii) in my original example). But the main procedure? Is that racetrack a hold or part of the procedure? It is a bold line.
The guy in France did say that it was uncommon enough to do so (no further qualification of how often that is) that he didn't automatically assume people would always actually do the "once round the race track".
By the way CM, don't apologize: I'm glad he was correct! I'd convinced myself he was at the time, because of the need to lose additional altitude. But looking at the Teeside plate brought it back to mind.
Edited to add having read bookworm's post:
I see. Hence the French controller's comment that that is what some people do. Thus enough confusion seems to exist that the controller wouldn't know what you were going to do, so what would you say on the RT? Clearly it isn't hard to come up with something suitable "we'll be going around the racetrack" or "we won't be" but what with the language difficulties and all...
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no 'alternate procedure' for Rwy 05 at Teesside, just the normal and a couple of variations for direct arrivals.
Are you sure you don't mean Rwy 23?
Also - losing height (which you mentioned in the last posting). Yes - nothing wrong with shuttling down in the hold to lose altitude before getting to a reasonable level to commence the procedure. ATC will not issue a level to another aircraft until they know it's been vacated. If you join high it is accepted that you may have to go round the hold in order to get down.
Bookworm
I think both our answers are correct. As you say, there's possibly nothing to stop you descending down to 1310 once you turn back towards the NDB. I was just taught that you don't descend until established on a defined part of the procedure, which the localiser gives you in terms of positional reference. Rushing the procedure and descending inbound to the NDB, not established, doesn't give guaranteed obstacle clearance, though it may be safe.
Also, following the racetrack outbound and then turning onto the localiser as I suggested means you get the chance for a stabilised approach earlier (700ft rapid descent before glideslope intercept will give you guaranteed level flight before intercept plus intercept from below).
Are you sure you don't mean Rwy 23?
Also - losing height (which you mentioned in the last posting). Yes - nothing wrong with shuttling down in the hold to lose altitude before getting to a reasonable level to commence the procedure. ATC will not issue a level to another aircraft until they know it's been vacated. If you join high it is accepted that you may have to go round the hold in order to get down.
Bookworm
I think both our answers are correct. As you say, there's possibly nothing to stop you descending down to 1310 once you turn back towards the NDB. I was just taught that you don't descend until established on a defined part of the procedure, which the localiser gives you in terms of positional reference. Rushing the procedure and descending inbound to the NDB, not established, doesn't give guaranteed obstacle clearance, though it may be safe.
Also, following the racetrack outbound and then turning onto the localiser as I suggested means you get the chance for a stabilised approach earlier (700ft rapid descent before glideslope intercept will give you guaranteed level flight before intercept plus intercept from below).
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From PANS-OPS Doc 8168
"........ Normally, a racetrack procedure is used when aircraft arrive overhead the fix from various directions. In these cases, aircraft are expected to enter the procedure in a manner comparable to that prescribed for holding procedure entry with the following considerations:
a) Offset entry from sector 2 shall limit the time on the 30 deg offset track to 1 min 30 secs after which the pilot is expected to turn to a heading parallel to the outbound track for the remainder of the outbound time. If the outbound time is only 1 min, the time on the 30 deg offset shall be 1 min also.
b) Parallel entry shall not return directly to the facility without first intercepting the inbound track when proceeding to the final segment of the approach procedure.
c) All manoeuvring shall be done in so far as possible on the manoeuvring side of the inbound track......."
Thus, for the Calais approach, if your heading to the MK was between 179 deg and 237 deg, the join for the racetrack would be a Sector 3 (Direct) join. If the heading was between 069 deg and 167 deg, the join would be Sector 1 (Parallel). A heading on or between 168 deg and 178 deg means you can choose between either a Sector 1 or 3 join.
The vertical profile I would adopt is that suggested by Chilli Monster. Bookworm's interpretation seems to cover entry to the racetrack but not the rest of it. If you assume that the descent to Alt 1310' cannot take place until you are within a half-scale deflection of the localiser, this would mean that you would have to be on the 242 QDM which would probably place you very close to the MK and certainly within 6.1 DME thus placing you above the glideslope. Following Chilli Monster's suggestion means that your right turn from the outbound track (063) to the inbound track (243) takes place further from the beacon enabling you to start the descent earlier. That said, I would start the descent at 6.1 DME and not before (assuming my DME was serviceable).
I could be wrong, of course.
"........ Normally, a racetrack procedure is used when aircraft arrive overhead the fix from various directions. In these cases, aircraft are expected to enter the procedure in a manner comparable to that prescribed for holding procedure entry with the following considerations:
a) Offset entry from sector 2 shall limit the time on the 30 deg offset track to 1 min 30 secs after which the pilot is expected to turn to a heading parallel to the outbound track for the remainder of the outbound time. If the outbound time is only 1 min, the time on the 30 deg offset shall be 1 min also.
b) Parallel entry shall not return directly to the facility without first intercepting the inbound track when proceeding to the final segment of the approach procedure.
c) All manoeuvring shall be done in so far as possible on the manoeuvring side of the inbound track......."
Thus, for the Calais approach, if your heading to the MK was between 179 deg and 237 deg, the join for the racetrack would be a Sector 3 (Direct) join. If the heading was between 069 deg and 167 deg, the join would be Sector 1 (Parallel). A heading on or between 168 deg and 178 deg means you can choose between either a Sector 1 or 3 join.
The vertical profile I would adopt is that suggested by Chilli Monster. Bookworm's interpretation seems to cover entry to the racetrack but not the rest of it. If you assume that the descent to Alt 1310' cannot take place until you are within a half-scale deflection of the localiser, this would mean that you would have to be on the 242 QDM which would probably place you very close to the MK and certainly within 6.1 DME thus placing you above the glideslope. Following Chilli Monster's suggestion means that your right turn from the outbound track (063) to the inbound track (243) takes place further from the beacon enabling you to start the descent earlier. That said, I would start the descent at 6.1 DME and not before (assuming my DME was serviceable).
I could be wrong, of course.
I think both our answers are correct.
See also:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=162269
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Heart
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once within 25nm you could descend to 3,400' and position yourself by intercepting the localizer before 10 DME, then at 10 DME descending to 1620' by the 4.5 DME. Save yourself 5 minutes.
As long as you get a clearance for it or advise ATC and remain above the MSA, you can do whatever you like.
ii. Is the correct answer otherwise.
As long as you get a clearance for it or advise ATC and remain above the MSA, you can do whatever you like.
ii. Is the correct answer otherwise.
