And I would also like to challenge the statement that MSA is solely for emergency use. We routinely do use the MSAs during descent (until established on a so called "black line" part of the approach, or until the IAF), and we routinely use grid-MORA before that.

Where is it specified we can't do that? I would most definately like to know!

We also routinely use MSAs. In fact with our line of work we don't have any black lines to follow, we have to make our own lines until we get to an IAF or a position to make a visual approach. We use MSA and grid LSALT on a daily basis to ensure terrain clearance.

bfisk and AeroCatS2A

Sorry, I am referring to US TERPS, other countries do use the MSA for normal operations. US TERPS Manual is quite explicit that MSA is for "emergency use only" and does not guarantee navigation signal coverage. PANS-OPS, as practiced elsewhere maybe different. Still approaches begin at an IAF, which is regulatory, not optional.

GF

Flyboyfloyd

Have a look at jaipur ILS 27, theres a box that says that ATC may allow a aircraft to join the arc from any radial which basically means if you arrive from a short cut and not on the airway radial you could join the arc procedure, in that case you would not be flying over a IAF. I think thats what your check pilot meant. The same is mentioned in VABP/VILK too. In case of an emergency fly the IAF/IF/FAF sequence when things go wrong SA goes out of teh Captains window first.

:ok:

galaxy flyer, understood. :ok:

Such approaches lack initial approach segments, but they are required to have an intermediate segment. The CAT III IAP referred to above has its intermediate segment from GALOP to POLKE.

Radar vectors substitute for the initial approach segment.

Not permitted by the FAA under US TERPs. We finally do have, though, a few US ARC initial segments with multiple IAFs. (HQM and HLN come to mind).

aterpster

Great name, welcome to madhouse that is Pprune. We don't have a procedures expert here. TERPS and PANS-OPS have some notable differences that sometimes confuse the conversation.

My comment on 'radar required" approaches is certainly dated, I was referring to comments published by Wally Roberts and the Jeppesen series of the late '90s. And I agree that approach at KDFW does have an intermediate segment, as drawn. Was that part of Chg 18? I know there were approaches at major hubs that were drawn with only a FAF marked "RADAR REQUIRED".

GF

There were indeed a number of IAPs developed and published where radar was required and only the final approach segment was shown. LGA LOC 31 comes to mind. ALPA made a very strong case that vectoring to an unpublished segment of the final approach course not only violated the unpublished segment safeguards built into Part 91 (as a result of the TWA 514 1974 crash) it, in fact, turned them into psuedo radar approaches.

The design department of the FAA was overruled by higher authority and all of those IAPs soon were amended to include intermediate segments.

GF
I beg to differ on this point. You wouldn't believe just how many of us look into topics such as this and end up shaking our heads and moving to the next topic. I can't speak for TERPs procedures but, with PANS Ops, what do you think is the REAL significance of an IAF?

Here's a clue... IAS!

You have to start slowing down to the maximum speed for your category of aircraft. I agree that it isn't especially critical when you're under radar vectors but, from the point at which you join an initial approach segment - i.e. anywhere between the IAF and IF, you need to start slowing down a bit.

If you don't do that, you'll find yourself much too fast when starting the Final Approach segment. This is really important because WE go to great pains to ensure a reasonable ROD on final so that you can level off without busting a MDA, or without going thru a DA more than is provided for in the procedure.

That sort of thing can definitely ruin your day.

My apologies, OzExPat, I did not know did have a procedures design expert hereabouts. Quite right about speed control, esp. in non-radar airspace.

GF

Doc 8168
 

According to Doc 8168 a published procedure needs either an IAF og IF however if no such available you need a reversal-, racetrack- or holding procedure.
At least that is how I read the Doc

Regards

Absolutely agree, however on page 1 there is an opinion to the contrary, wrongly.

GF

GF

Some, like me, as a (former) airline pilot have been looking into TERPs since just after the ark sailed. :)

PANS-OPS is a much tougher nut to crack because ICAO tries to make the criteria and flight procedures sound so neat and uniform. Yet, each state is free to do its own "spin" on the PANS-OPS criteria.

Remember Dubrovnik?

aterpster

All too well. I was at an AF Standards Agency conference where we were briefed by none other than Jepp's VP who has a last name remarkably like your handle here. Long briefing on that accident and related discussion, lots of good information that changed AF policy. Much to my relief.

OzExPat

I believe it was a TWA/United mid-air over NYC that brought about three changes:

DME required in the PCA (Class A airspace, now)
Report all navigation malfunctions to ATC
Slow to holding airspeed 3 minutes prior to the fix.

IIRC UAL overran the hold due to DME failed and was cross-tuning, let the speed get away and sped past the fix. EMPIRE, I think.

So, yes, slowing is very desirable and required, as is using the entire procedure to be configured prior to the FAF.

GF

PS Did the ark sail in 1967? Ha Ha

Galaxy Flyer:


Jim Terpstra

That was December, 1960; a United DC-8 arriving IDL (JFK) and a TWA Connie that had (I believe) departed LGA. United had an inoperative VOR, so he was cross tuning to determine his clearance limit fix of EMPIRE will doing barber pole at 5 or 6,000. He blew through the fix. That resulted in 250 knots below 10,000 within 30 miles of destination airport and the requirement to report an inoperative piece of nav equipment.

Then, in April, 1967, a TWA DC-9-10 rear-ended a Beech Baron at 8,000 going barber pole from PIT to CMH. That resulted in 250 knots below 10,000 without the 30 mile provisio.

The December, 1974 TWA 514 crash near IAD probably caused more changes to ATC procedures and regulations than any other single accident.

Could be. TERPs came into effect in November, 1967. That immediately elminated the requirement for reported ceiling to begin an approach, but it took 10 years to convert all the IAPs from the 1956 superceded criteria to TERPs.

aterpster

It was, indeed, Jim--a wonderful gentleman with an absolutely encyclopedic knowledge of the subject.

And thanks for the details on the accidents. I was a new instrument student when it happened and learned a lot from some TWA guys at the time.

GF