Question about entry into Reversal Procedure

[aterpster]

minimumunstick:

Another question I have never really seen a proper answer to written anywhere:

Let's say you are on a long final for a straight in approach. You have not reached the IAF yet but you are on the inbound course. On the approach plate there is a racetrack procedure depicted (I use racetrack for this example, might as well be any type of procedure turn or baseturn) to get you established on the inbound course.

If ATC clears you for the approach, without having to clarify with ATC, are you cleared to continue straight in from the IAF, assuming you are already established at the correct altitude? Or are you still required to complete a lap in the racetrack, as it is "bolded out" on the chart and thereby a mandatory part of the approach procedure?


I have heard so many different versions on this, but what I hear most often is that you must actually do the racetrack unless specifically allowed by ATC to continue straight in. But to me that seems a bit odd as you are already established and doing a lap in the racetrack would just take up extra time and fuel..

Your present position would presumably be on an unpublished extension of the final approach course. It is difficult to comment without an example IAP. In the U.S. ATC would be required to provide you an altitude to maintain until entering a published segment of the IAP. If this was in fact an extenstion of the final approach course presumably this would be a vector to "the final approach," which would supercede the course reversal, also presuming an altitude compatible with the altitude inbound from the course reversal.

[Sciolistes]

Minimumunstick,

As the following phases constitute an instrument approach (arrival, initial, intermediate, final and missed) you have not started the initial approach until you cross the IAF, so you must continue to the IAF and join the racetrack accordingly unless you can ask for and are given a visual approach or vectors.

[minimumunstick]

Sciolistes, you will cross the IAF, it's just that instead of wasting a lap in the racetrack which is completely unnecessary as you are already established on course and altitude, you continue straight in.

There is absolutely no valid reason to complete a racetrack or course reversal procedure if you are already established on the desired and depicted track and altitude to continue an approach. This is not even a discussion, the question is whether it is legal to do so or not as the racetrack is depicted as part of the approach procedure on the approach plate.


aterpster:

I understand your example, but it does not necessarily have to be vectoring. Just to give you an example let's say you are on an airway somewhere or whatever (doesn't really matter) and ATC says "descend to X feet (altitude for final approach segment) proceed direct to X (name of IAF), cleared X approach" and as a complete coincidence when you turn direct you see you are established on the exact inbound course. You maintain this inbound course as you navigate towards the IAF which also is the start of a course reversal procedure to establish you on the course you are already on.

Assuming these conditions, would you complete a lap in the racetrack or not?

[Sciolistes]

Well no you are not required to do a lap if you can cross the IAF and follow the initial track without manouevering. The reacetrack is a reversal procedure and not required if aleady on track.

Edited to add that I used the term "reversal" too glibly. There are reversal procedures and there are racetracks.

Also this is what ICAO says:

Note.— Racetrack procedures are used where sufficient distance is not available in a straight segment to accommodate the required loss of altitude and when entry into a reversal procedure is not practical. They may also be specified as alternatives to reversal procedures to increase operational lexibility (in this case, they are not necessarily published separately).

So, strictly speaking, your example not their intended use.

Anyway, I thought the answer was obvious, but ICAO does not specify, I presume assuming the above quote. So strictly speaking you should do a lap! But that defies common sense when clearly a 30º cone entry is safe for a reversal procedure, it must be safe for a racetrack too (again, assuming the altitude criteria are met).

[aterpster]

minimumunstick:

I understand your example, but it does not necessarily have to be vectoring. Just to give you an example let's say you are on an airway somewhere or whatever (doesn't really matter) and ATC says "descend to X feet (altitude for final approach segment) proceed direct to X (name of IAF), cleared X approach" and as a complete coincidence when you turn direct you see you are established on the exact inbound course. You maintain this inbound course as you navigate towards the IAF which also is the start of a course reversal procedure to establish you on the course you are already on.
Assuming these conditions, would you complete a lap in the racetrack or not?

Again, I can only speak for FAA-dom. Here is what I believe is an example that is on point. The graphic below shows both the VOR or GPS-A IAP for KEMT (east of LAX), and the associated airway structure, which is in very busy airspace. Often, a peashooter arrives from the east on V-264.

Case A: The aircraft is assigned the MEA (6,000) and simply cleared for the shown IAP. Can the pilot go straight-in or does he have to do the course reversal holding pattern (called HILPT in FAAese)? 6,000 is not compatible with the procedure so the pilot is obligated to do the HILPT. But, he had better well advise approach control of his intentions, otherwise the pilot and the controller won't be on the same page. They should be, but FAA ATC, especially in busy radar terminal airspace, tend to invent their own "rules."

Case B: 15 miles east of POM on V264 ATC clears the pilot to descend to and maintain 4,000. This is "legal" because the minimum vectoring altitude along the airway in this area is 4,000. (Of course, this invokes the fine point: can the pilot fly the airway below its MEA or does he have to be provided a direct-to-POM clearance? Not resolved for many years). In any case, at 4,000 everything is set up for a straight-in approach from POM. But, is it legal since it is not a "vector to final?" No, it isn't. It will be one of these days for ground-based IAPs (it is now for RNAV IAPs) but only if the clearance is to a charted intermediate fix (IF). There isn't any charted IF on this IAP. There should be, it is POM. But, this IAP is so old that that it was last issued before the FAA was charting IFs.

Would I go straight-in in Case B? Yes, it would be "counter-productive" not to, even though technically not "legal." But, what if I were receiving a check ride from a disgruntled FAA inspector? Well, in that case I would query ATC, "Am I cleared for a straight-in IAP from over POM?" If the controller's response was ambiguous I would then advise him that I have to do a circuit in the HILPT. He would probably go a bit nuts at that point. But, he also may then resolve the issue by saying, "maintain present heading for vectors to the final approach course."

I know for a fact these ambiguities go on all the time with this particular IAP. Some controllers (but not all by any means) vector the aircraft slightly south of POM, descend them to 3,000 and then point them at the segment between POM and FLYIN, which is clearly a vector to the final approach course. (although it should be at 3,700, not 3,000, but that is another issue for another day.)

[BOAC]

Begging pardons for thread drift here, but how could I ascertain that MVA is 4000 on V264 from that chart?

What sort of clearance would you get if descended to 4000'? It could not be on the airway. I would shoot for a requirement for a clearance "maintain the 073 radial route POM cleared to POM" (or words to that effect) at 4000ft (with an MEA of 6000) and since POM is an IAF I would have thought you would then be OK for the approach?

[aterpster]

BOAC:

Begging pardons for thread drift here, but how could I ascertain that MVA is 4000 on V264 from that chart?

Unlike most ICAO-compliant member states, the FAA refuses to provide MVA charts to pilots. So, you have to take it on faith that ATC is not giving you a bad altitude.

What sort of clearance would you get if descended to 4000'? It could not be on the airway. I would shoot for a requirement for a clearance "maintain the 073 radial route POM cleared to POM" (or words to that effect) at 4000ft (with an MEA of 6000) and since POM is an IAF I would have thought you would then be OK for the approach?

A clearance at 4,000 via the 073 radial or simply direct would be acceptable. And, once you arrive at POM the IAF is for purposes of the course reversal. Note that PRADO fix and PDZ VOR are also IAFs, but with NoPT annotated on the route between them at POM.

[9.G]

When accepting direct to clearance the obstacle clearance responsibility rests with the PIC, I wouldn't descent below MEA unless radar vectored.

[aterpster]

9.G:

When accepting direct to clearance the obstacle clearance responsibility rests with the PIC, I wouldn't descent below MEA unless radar vectored.

Caveat: I am speaking only of U.S./FAA procedures. When ATC initiates a descent clearance below MEA, that becomes a direct clearance and ATC is clearly responsible for terrain clearance. That does not negate, however a pilot check/verification at an unfamiliar location.

In other jursidictions, especially the mountainous areas of Latin America such operations probably won't occur, but if they do pilots are best left to not accept them.

[Zeffy]

Dude

Dude, Ask ATC if in doubt. If in doubt ask ATC. Better to be embarrassed than dead. Talk to them as you would us. "do you want me to hold at the . . . .`charlie hold`(for example) or continue inbound . ."

Yes, but...

The problem with over-reliance on ATC is that due to any number of factors (training, difficulties with language, cultural issues etc.) ATC may inadvertently approve an illegal or unwise clearance.

"...Can American 965 go direct Rozo and the Rozo One Arrival?..."

An approach procedure may only be "amended" by a properly-issued radar vector or direct-to clearance.

There have been countless examples of illegal direct-to clearances here in the U.S. -- the proliferation of GPS/RNAV seems to be increasing the temptations and opportunities.

[aterpster]

FAA MVAs in vicinity of POM VOR:

[galaxy flyer]

Aterpster

What is curious about the MVA overlay is, why can't a MOCA be established on the inbound radios to POM? Set a waypoint or DME fix and lower the minimum altitude nearing the VOR. I am not sure though about the secondary zone for airway obstacle clearance, might be a problem on the north side of V264

GF

[aterpster]

GF:

What is curious about the MVA overlay is, why can't a MOCA be established on the inbound radios to POM? Set a waypoint or DME fix and lower the minimum altitude nearing the VOR. I am not sure though about the secondary zone for airway obstacle clearance, might be a problem on the north side of V264.

Difficult to say without an obstacle assessment. The primary area of the airway has to have not less than 2,000 feet of ROC because this area is within a Designated Mountainous Area. OTOH, the MVA over flat areas like this needs only 1,000 feet of ROC.

The fact the MCA for V-264 from the west side of POM is 5,600 for V-264 on the east side of POM tells me there is an obstacle issue. Then again, the MCA for V-197 NW of POM is 11,800, which makes no sense at all.

Added: I see now the 11,800 is for minimum turn area. That would be interesting if your clearance was to climb to and maintain 11,000.

[Escape Path]

"...Can American 965 go direct Rozo and the Rozo One Arrival?..."

As long as one respects the altitude for the procedure, how is that unwise or illegal?

In other jursidictions, especially the mountainous areas of Latin America such operations probably won't occur, but if they do pilots are best left to not accept them.

Given that we operate around lots of cumulus-granitus, it's been always promoted by flight schools and enforced by airlines that we should brief MEA's and MSA's when operating into airports in mountainous terrain. We also have in hand MVA charts and since we already briefed the MEA, if we ever get a vector with an altitude below the MEA we confirm the instruction is correct via the MVA.

[BOAC]

That would be interesting if your clearance was to climb to and maintain 11,000.

- not really - happens all the time in some places. Initial clearance climb and maintain xxx which is below MEA/MSA whatever. Quite common around the Alps. If you argue you stay on the ground, so you get airborne and ensure you are cleared higher when necessary. Just airmanship.

[Zeffy]

Quote:
"...Can American 965 go direct Rozo and the Rozo One Arrival?..."

Escape path

As long as one respects the altitude for the procedure, how is that unwise or illegal?

The example was paraphrased, but IIRC, it's pretty close to the CVR transcript.

[edit]:
At 9:37:29 the pilots asked Approach, "Can American Airlines, uh, 965 go direct to Rozo and then do the Rozo arrival, sir?" The controller replied, "Affirmative. Take the Rozo One and Runway One-Niner, the wind is calm." The captain responded, "All right, Rozo, the Rozo One to one-nine, thank you, American 965." The controller: "Report Tulua and twenty-one miles, ah, five thousand feet." The captain responded, "OK, report Tulua twenty-one miles and five thousand feet, American 965."

American Airlines Flight 965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I had assumed that the requested clearance would be recognizable to pilots familiar with the accident.

[aterpster]

BOAC:

- not really - happens all the time in some places. Initial clearance climb and maintain xxx which is below MEA/MSA whatever. Quite common around the Alps. If you argue you stay on the ground, so you get airborne and ensure you are cleared higher when necessary. Just airmanship.

Thanks for the airmanship assistance. But, that isn't the issue here. The MEA is 10,500, the altitude assignment is 11,000, but the MTA is 11,800 if turning from V-264 to the west to V-197 to the NW. Do they have MTAs in the Alps?

[Escape Path]

Zeffy

I had assumed that the requested clearance would be recognizable to pilots familiar with the accident.

I am familiar with the accident indeed, since I am Colombian and obviously I have flown lots of times into Cali. I'm just objecting your example given that it bears no relation with the topic of this thread nor with what you stated in your previous post:

ATC may inadvertently approve an illegal or unwise clearance.

"The investigation examined the performance of the Cali approach controller to determine what role, if any, he may have played in the cause of the accident. The evidence indicates that he provided clearances in accordance with applicable ICAO and Aeronautica Civil rules and requirements, maintained separation of the aircraft he was controlling, and sequenced flights expeditiously and efficiently. His offer to AA965 to land on runway 19 was consistent with standards of safety and airspace management."

"Consequently, Aeronautica Civil concludes that the Cali controller neither caused nor contributed to the cause of this accident."

"Aeronautica Civil determines that the probable causes of this accident were:

1. The flightcrew's failure to adequately plan and execute the approach to runway 19 at SKCL and their inadequate use of automation.
2. Failure of the flightcrew to discontinue the approach into Cali, despite numerous cues alerting them of the inadvisability of continuing the approach.
3. The lack of situational awareness of the flightcrew regarding vertical navigation, proximity to terrain, and the relative location of critical radio aids.
4. Failure of the flightcrew to revert to basic radio navigation at the time when the FMS-assisted navigation became confusing and demanded an excessive workload in a critieal phase of the flight."

From:

Cali Accident Report

Best regards,

Escape Path

[172_driver]

Apart from LAX, SNA, ONT and LGB most traffic in the LA area is general aviation/flight training. To accommodate all that traffic and keep separation from the flows into the major airports it's always radar vectors and rarely any procedural flying. At some point you simply have to rely on ATC's altitude assignments for it to work. It can be very busy at times. Good local knowledge of terrain helps, even though it shouldn't be necessary. The MSA's are usually quite useless since many of them are in the order of 10-11000 ft, esp for bugsmashers. Due to the mountains north of LA. I second that ATC in the area, although good at "pushing tin", has annoying tendency to invent their own procedures. Often leaves pilots in the unknown.

[theficklefinger]

While quick little entries can work under ideal conditions, I could put a guy in a jet at 250kts and 10k, 3 miles N of POM and say 'cleared direct to POM, cleared for the approach'

it happens, and would be fun to see him try to scrub off 6k and 100 kt in a tear drop that over POM at 250kts to stay in protected airspace, he has to start turning right away in bound for the intercept.

Chances are he will be flying down the approach high and fast, and might not make the FAF at gear speed. Throw in a little malfunction, turn up the heat, and he might be wishing he took the circuit to slow down, read a checklist, get set up for the circle to land, get some winds, oops, didn't turn on the runway lights...thats why he couldn't find the runway...

I might add that if ATC has someone on the approach, and you hot dog it, ATC might slow you down having expected the circuit....I might also add that if you are a charter, or corporate, and this is a new approach with mountains all around, maybe single pilot, it wouldn't hurt my feelings to take things slow, and go around once to make sure your set up right, especially if it's down to minimums and the runway is short.

And on that note, I had a client that told me that he didn't want me using speed brakes, scared the kids, so there ya go...dropping in at 5k a minute with the plane chattering isn't in his program.....and you take the circuit if your high.