"Cleared for Straight-In Approach"-- FAA rules only
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH IFR
An instrument approach wherein final approach is begun without first having executed a procedure turn, not necessarily completed with a straight-in landing or made to straight-in landing minimums. That's AIM.
1.2.3 Types of approach
1.2.3.1 There are two types of approach: straight-in and circling.
1.2.3.2 Straight-in approach
Whenever possible, a straight-in approach will be specified which is aligned with the runway centre line. In the case of non-precision approaches, a straight-in approach is considered acceptable if the angle between the final approach track and the runway centre line is 30˚ or less.
1.2.3.3 Circling approach
A circling approach will be specified in those cases where terrain or other constraints cause the final approach track alignment or descent gradient to fall outside the criteria for a straight-in approach. The final approach track of a circling approach procedure is in most cases aligned to pass over some portion of the usable landing surface of the aerodrome.
That's ICAO.
An instrument approach wherein final approach is begun without first having executed a procedure turn, not necessarily completed with a straight-in landing or made to straight-in landing minimums. That's AIM.
1.2.3 Types of approach
1.2.3.1 There are two types of approach: straight-in and circling.
1.2.3.2 Straight-in approach
Whenever possible, a straight-in approach will be specified which is aligned with the runway centre line. In the case of non-precision approaches, a straight-in approach is considered acceptable if the angle between the final approach track and the runway centre line is 30˚ or less.
1.2.3.3 Circling approach
A circling approach will be specified in those cases where terrain or other constraints cause the final approach track alignment or descent gradient to fall outside the criteria for a straight-in approach. The final approach track of a circling approach procedure is in most cases aligned to pass over some portion of the usable landing surface of the aerodrome.
That's ICAO.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct, but this is referring to the approach itself i.e. ILS, VOR, ADF etc etc. The initial question was how to get to the IAF.
I have a feeling that often there is a misunderstanding between the actual meaning of the ATC clearance, for example, "...you are cleared straight in ILS approach rwy 36" and the interpretation by us pilots. All it means is that you are cleared to execute a published approach, that is within 30 degrees of the intended landing runway.
I have a feeling that often there is a misunderstanding between the actual meaning of the ATC clearance, for example, "...you are cleared straight in ILS approach rwy 36" and the interpretation by us pilots. All it means is that you are cleared to execute a published approach, that is within 30 degrees of the intended landing runway.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thread is a bit broad. As I understand it the issue about which the OP is concerned is the FAA's use of a sector for some NoPT arrival routes.
First is Jeppesen's portrayal, where they have taken the liberty of adding a graphical sector and wording of their choosing, and second is the FAA chart, which has the exact wording from source.
The FAA that designs charts asserts that the course reversal is required if you are within the sector but not precisely on one of the airways within the sector.
The other FAA that does air traffic sees the sector as one big "no course reversal" arrival sector.
For sake of the discussion the presumption is that ATC is not vectoring the aircraft.
Last year an instrument rating candidate failed an instrument rating flight test because he did the course reversal because he was between airways. A flight standards field inspector sustain the bust even though he works for the department that asserts the policy requires you to be precisely on one of the airways within the arrival sector in order to skip the course reversal.
This is a great example of how the FAA over years of bureaucratic meddling has managed to ratchet up the confusion factor in its system.
First is Jeppesen's portrayal, where they have taken the liberty of adding a graphical sector and wording of their choosing, and second is the FAA chart, which has the exact wording from source.
The FAA that designs charts asserts that the course reversal is required if you are within the sector but not precisely on one of the airways within the sector.
The other FAA that does air traffic sees the sector as one big "no course reversal" arrival sector.
For sake of the discussion the presumption is that ATC is not vectoring the aircraft.
Last year an instrument rating candidate failed an instrument rating flight test because he did the course reversal because he was between airways. A flight standards field inspector sustain the bust even though he works for the department that asserts the policy requires you to be precisely on one of the airways within the arrival sector in order to skip the course reversal.
This is a great example of how the FAA over years of bureaucratic meddling has managed to ratchet up the confusion factor in its system.
