fickle - if your 'guy' has so little situation awareness as that then he deserves what he gets.

aterp - yet another TLA? Since neither I nor Google know what an 'MTA' is apart from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority I cannot answer. If you explain I will try to answer. I thought mention of 'airmanship' might be appropriate - I once was f/O to a captain who insisted I refused a clearance out of VCE to LGW to FL80 as it was 'below en-route MSA'. Caused some consternation in ATC and eventually I persuaded him that I would do my utmost (it was CAVOK and you could see the Alps) to stop us flying into the rocks. We got airborne.

Escape Path
 

My apologies for the misunderstanding.

We are in full agreement that the ATC on duty at the Cali accident did indeed issue appropriate clearances.

The example was offered to illustrate that sole reliance on ATC to confirm or approve a request for what may be an illegal shortcut or omission of a procedure segment is not an entirely reliable method.

The pilot has the primary responsibility to make proper and legal requests to ATC.

At the time of the Captain's inappropriate request for "Direct to Rozo", the flight was already in dire jeopardy and operating well outside of the published procedure track. The "Affirmative" portion of the ATC response may have been misinterpreted by the crew.

(I too, have operated to/from Cali -- but it was well prior to 1995.) :)

Best regards,
Z

fickle:

You would then need to be decertified as a controller for the Ontario area (Empire sector of SoCal TRACON), because the Los Angeles sector owns that airspace above 7,000 where the holding pattern is located. :=

BOAC:

MTA, never heard of them until yesterday. An FAA friend who works with this stuff tells me they have been around since 1970. But, I guess they haven't been charted until recently.

Expansion of RNAV Off

I don't think we have them, even where rock is above 10, but I stand to be corrected.

I agree with both of those statements.

Check your PM's

Aterpster - People end up on the IAP high and fast all the time. It's not a perfect world out there, ATC got busy, Center got busy, the pilot didn't descend fast enough, etc. How about the pilot never intended to land at El Monte, but had engine problems, or a passenger is having a heart attack.....so he's right over POM at 15k and wants down, they give him the clearance....Now he's scrubbing off 6k fpm and 300kts to 10k then 250kts and 6fpm to 4k for the inbound course. I could sit here and come with probably another 30 scenarios where I would be over an airport, I am high, fast, and I want down.

Your assumption that you wouldn't end up over POM at 10k and 250 is naive and inexperienced.

Ficklefinger

One thing aterpster isn't is inexperienced! Especially in matters of TERPS and Instrument Procedures. Double especially in SoCal Airspace.

GF

Your assumption that you wouldn't end up over POM at 10k and 250 is naive and inexperienced.

(a) Procedures are based on presumptions - doesn't matter whether we are talking about letdowns or how to operate a rowing boat. If the reality matches the presumption then everything runs a lot smoother ...

(b) Clearly, we don't always match the procedural presumptions for any of a host of reasons. There would be few pilots who haven't been caught out hot and high somewhere on a letdown on the odd occasion.

(i) if the pilot then perseveres in blind faith with the hope that things will work out OK - he/she ought to be in another line of business

(ii) the competent pilot simply does what he/she does routinely - recognises that the reality doesn't match the plan, figures a way to fix the problem, and then fixes it. In the case of a letdown, that might involve ATC, comms with other aircraft OCTA, whatever

... and, aterpster does have a passing knowledge of this stuff .. somewhat beyond that possessed by most of the rest of us.

theficklefinger:

Could be. But, I think you are clueless about that airspace.

I learned how to fly at KEMT, went on to teach IFR flying there, went on to use the airport as my light aircraft home base well after I went with TWA.

But, hey, help me out with my naivete and inexperience.

My credentials are posted in my profile. Where are yours?

Are you perhaps a troll? I hope not.

Aterpster - What's your contention? That a plane can't be over POM VOR at 10,000 feet and request the VOR approach? The Bracket SID to POM then LHS had me flying to 14k almost every time...inside of 2 miles, doing 3000 FPM I was blowing through 10k easy...what if I lost an engine there? Your saying I couldn't get the approach back to Bracket or El Monte? Seriously.....who's the troll.

theficklefinger:
I made my "contention" clear in my previous response to you. The HILPT for the El Monte IAP would be in Los Angeles's airspace at 10,000 feet.

As to SIDS over POM, Brackett (KPOC) doesn't have any, but Ontario (KONT) does. Once approaching POM northwest bound, the airspace belongs to the Ontario (Empire) division of SoCal for a climb to 14,000, or higher.

The entry into the EMT IAP is to the southeast. There is a big difference between a NW and SW bound aircraft over POM at 10,000.

In any case, no one with an enginge failure on a SID out of KONT would go into El Monte, except perhaps in a MSFS session.:*

POM 7 SID out of KONT showing 7,000' crossing restriction at POM northwest bound:

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/a...r/POMSEVEN.jpg

I think you're flogging a dead horse here and needlessly getting toward the boundary fence of reasonable criticism. We all can, and probably have, started letdowns well above minimum heights (providing there be no contrary limitation) without any problems. I can recall several locations where that was pretty standard procedure in high wind conditions for pax comfort considering turbulence, for instance ..

aterpster is speaking to the chart rather than out of left field exception problems ..

regards, J_T

Aterpster: going back to your discussion of the EMT plate:
In 1996 Wally Roberts wrote that the controller wouldn't be authorised to clear you for a straight in from POM, and if he or she did you should refuse the clearance. http://www.terps.com/ifrr/nov96.pdf - is particularly interesting. It's a bit old now, but do you know if that's still the official position?

I have to say the situation is entirely different in Canada, where you can (with the cooperation of ATC) fly direct to any fix on the plate using the MSA and commence the approach from there.

photofly:

What's changed since I wrote that article is some 15 years of ever increasing use of GPS RNAV. Further, the provision for controllers to clear RNAV aircraft direct to the published intermediate fix of an RNAV IAP came into effect a few years ago although controllers tend to use this provision on all types of IAPs, and even where the IF isn't charted, such as the KEMT VOR or GPS-A IAP. POM is the IF and should have long since been charted. And, since it is an overlay IAP, it is arguably an RNAV IAP. So, although the article is still valid except as to the recent RNAV direct-to-the-IF provision, I would simply accept the clearance today unless I were receiving a check ride. Why tick off the controllers and end up being "punished" in ways they are so capable of doing.

MSAs are operational altitudes in Canada, unlike the U.S. But, going to just any fix places the burden on you to assure containment in perhaps a very narrow TERPs segment if you descend out of the MSA while still in the course change maneuver.

I had no idea that was you ... I feel foolish for quoting you to yourself.

Yes: noting that you may not leave the MSA until established on a charted portion with a lower altitude, if you so erred your terrain clearance could be compromised more severely than a similar error while flying a charted course reversal.

Are course reversals in the form of 'racetrack', 'modified racetrack' and 's-turn' approved for use in a) the US and b) Europe?

JT - Play by the rules and don't post for me. Your a Mod, act like one.

Aterpster - Look up the departure procedure for POC. I guess you can't read, or you never flew IFR out of there to know this.

I used to teach jets out of Chino. Seriously dude, I flew over POM so many times, I can't count the amount of SIDS, STARs and approaches that I did in that area.

fickle

Just to interject,

You wrote:

Well, there isn't a SID from Brackett (KPOC), I just looked in the Jepps. There is, however, a DP, so I really do believe we, including aterpster can read, but only if what is written is accurate.

Next, the DP from KPOC does not go over POM, in any case, so what is the point?

Lastly, you could not get a clearance from over POM at 10,000 because the KZLA controller cannot give a clearance for an approach that is not in his airspace. If the LA controller owns 7,000 and above, he does not have the authority to clear you into KEMT for an approach, only a SoCal controller can give that clearance. Or get a "point out" from SoCal, but I don't think "point outs" are used for approach clearances.

What jets did you fly out of KPOC, the approaches are all Cat A and Cat B ONLY? A Citation, perhaps? And, if you are doing 6000 fpm down to 4,000 MSL, the Standards Captain might want to have a conversation. Mine would, I know.

GF

Sorry for the interruption.

After the DP to Prado, it's direct POM to 7k, when you hit that, you usually get 10k, crossing POM you get 14k.

Don't believe me, call POC tower. Tag your it.

In the real world when you bang into that next sectors airspace...oh my god, they have you change frequencies, to the that next sector and you get a higher alt.

Surprised?

ficklefinger

Still, the DP is not a SID and routing after PRADO is not specified.

In 11,000 hours around the world, I understand frequency changes. I also understand that controllers can only clear you for routes and approaches in THEIR airspace. KZLA cannot overrule a SoCal Approach controller and issue an approach clearance. You seem to not understand that procedure.

GF

Look I will check out...it's obviously too difficult for people on this forum to understand that a pilot, in a real plane, can actually be above a VOR at 10,000ft and need to scrub off some altitude while descending in a holding pattern.

lol.....

Ficklefinger

No problem understanding that, did it twice in the last year. Tirupati, India, holding overhead at FL310 due to an unNOTAM'd airport closure, procedural control, eventually cleared to descend from FL 310. Once, in contact with the tower, Chennai sent over to the tower for the approach clearance. See the airspace division?

Second time, entered holding at PTRO at FL 240 overhead the field, "leg length and direction at pilot's discretion". Two airliners shuttled down in the hold, below us, until each was given a cruise clearance into uncontrolled airspace. Once down to FL 160, Oakland OAC issued our cruise clearance. Took about 40 minutes with all the SELCALs and HF clearances.

So, yes, I and rest of us fully understand flying airplanes. A wee dram of patience and less condescension would allow us all to learn something here at TechLog, the web's best source of practical knowledge.

GF

g.f.

Call POC tower and they will likely respond, "Say what?" They are a VFR tower.

The SIDs over POM VOR are for KONT. SoCal TRACON controls the airspace over POM for terminal area IFR traffic. POC is a small general aviation airport that happens to have the POM VOR on a hill very close to the airport.

This all reeks of past arguments with a nerd in France who had zero flying time, but lots of pizza eating and MSFS, coupled with extensive reading of aviation directives. He was the ultimate authority over all real pilots on the now defunct IFR Usenet group.

theficklefinger:

Why are you consistently so abrasive?

The only departure procedure POC has is an Obstacle DP that goes to PRADO intersection.

But, I do learn stuff here that I never knew before, such as POC Tower controls IFR operations for KONT SIDs. Next time I drive up that way (60 miles for me) I'll visit the POC Tower so I can see all their radar arrays.

Back to reversal procedures;

Cleared for the approach, if I am approaching the procedure outside of the 30 degrees, but above the MSA, can I self position directly onto the outbound radial and then descend according to procedure altitudes?

Regards

Assuming the original topic--PANS-OPS procedures--ATC could authorize just that and many procedures seem to anticipate pilots doing so because there is no other obvious way to get into the 30 degree "cone" for the outbound leg.

GF

Galaxy...ATC wouldn't authorize diddly.

'Cleared direct to xyz (IAP)...cleared for the approach'

It's up to the pilot to stay inside of the protected airspace...unless ATC sees the pilot flying outside of it, I rather doubt they will be placing bets on whether the pilot does a tear drop, parallel, or direct entry.

that is not correct ficklefinger. What galaxy says is correct, at least in Europe. As far as I understand perhaps not in the US..

As long as you are above MSA and it is fine with ATC you can basically do whatever you want.

fickleboy:

How does ATC "see" the pilot flying "outside of it?"

Following is the only ODP that I can find for KPOC. I can't find any DP, because those haven't existed in the U.S. for several years now. There are ODPs, and there are SIDs. I can't find any SIDs for KPOC either. Perhaps you make a positive contribution to this thread (and forum) by pointing out the KPOC SID or SIDs for those of us who are less able.

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/a...r/KPOC11-1.jpg

Glacticosh


I reread your question and to be more precise, you would have to receive clearance for maneuvering airspace above the MSA and be on established on the outbound course before the IAF was passes. How far before? Just enough to be wings level at an appropriate speed for the plane--minimum holding airspace with an additive for 30 degrees of bank should be right.
Ficklefinger

I was answering the original post on PANS-OPS drawn procedures, not TERPS drawn procedures. I'm not running a international procedures class here, but a PANS-OPS course reversal must be entered from within 30 degrees either side of the outbound course and flown as depicted; the US FAA "stay within the airspace, but any holding entry is OK" technique will NOT work. But, as Aterpster has pointed out, there are good reasons to fly the outbound course in TERPS procedures.

At neither of those locations I posted (VOTP and PTRO), there wasn't radar for ATC to see excursions, avoiding mountains was entirely up to the pilots to fly the "black lines".

GF

PS. just to point out, I have been thru the USAF Instrument school and FAA TERPS, it's been awhile, so I could be mistaken in some areas.

gf:

I can appreciate that local practices can vary significantly from country to country. The ICAO Obstacle Clearance Panel (OCP) has labored for many years that PANS-OPS will be implemented and used operationally the same in all PANS-OPS countries. That is still an elusive goal. Nonetheless, the design criteria, as it comes from ICAO, is that a course reversal will be preceded by an alignment holding pattern except where the course reversal can be entered with a maximum of a 30 degree course change.


My comments pertained to the conventional procedure turn (PT), of which there are less and less in the U.S. and the few other places that use FAA TERPs. The entry zone on a TERPs conventional procedure turn permits omni-directional entries (you may call the TERPs criteria for conventional PTs is divided into an entry zone and a maneuvering zone.) In the unusual case where altitude must be restricted until the aircraft passes from the entry into the maneuvering zone, and altitude restriction will be charted over the PT fix, example KJAC ILS 19: http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1104/00504ILZ19.PDF link valid for 40, or so days).

But, more and more common in U.S. TERPs is the holding pattern in lieu of PT (HILPT). With the HILPT all of the U.S. holding pattern rules must be observed, including speed and outbound time or distance limits (all RNAV IAPs have distance limits that increase with altitude). And, although the FAA asserts that their three methods of holding pattern entry (depending upon angle of entry) are optional, in fact they really are not, at least for jet airplanes flying right at the maximum authorized speed.

gf:

Worth noting that PTRO uses TERPs.

Indeed it does use TERPS, pretty much an FAA field by appearances.

GF

Aterpster - Your certainly welcome to rant and rave insensibly, on and on..

Or you can actually read the DP you so nicely outlined, then imagine that you were in a real plane departing 26 on the DP, for a Northbound flight plan...and when you made the turns, and got direct to POM, which is typical for an IFR depature, then you would quickly find yourself at 10k right over POM talking to center....

And like I said, in how many posts now? There you are, over POM at 10k needing to get down quick, because the engine died, because the passenger is having a heart attack..

You request an immediate approach, get a heading and alt and start down...and now one will really care how you do the procedure turn, as long as your in the protected airspace of the hold, which by the way is in a radar environment, which is how they will know if you are in the protected airspace or flying off to China when you botch the entry...

Now what you need to do, is go call POC tower and ask them if they are a 'VFR tower' or IFR tower....

When the laughing stops, you ask them what the typical clearance is for a Northbound departure is...when you see the 'direct POM' is on the clearance...then you can ask them what would happen if you needed to get back down over POM at 10k...and when they stop laughing at the idea of them caring how you do the procedure turn, you could then ask them if there is a big alien forcefield over Los Angeles that precludes flying over POM VOR at 10,000 feet. This should give the guys at POC tower a nice break from the monotony of watching planes go up and down all day. :)

ficklefinger

Well, you, sort of, admit that KPOC does not have a SID. You had stated that KPOC had a SID, so this is progress.

So, we are over POM at 10,000 feet with an emergency. An emergency is, by FAA definition, a non-normal situation. I, in the back of your plane have a heart attack. It is going to a lot worse when you tell me you are going to get back into KPOC. This will require a 3000 fpm descent and lots of clever orientation to land, IFR, at KPOC. You will be going 250 knots and accelerating, so you want to slow down, go down and do a fancy, off the cuff procedure turn.

Why not load the ILS into KONT, where you are perfectly positioned, over POM, to enter final for 8 or downwind for 26 and land at an airport with on-field CFR coverage in the FMS?

Your statements indicate that you have some deep knowledge of TERPS templates allowing you to always stay within the protected airspace. My GLEX does not have overlays of the protected airspace, does you plane? Do you know TERPS standards in a way that allows you to stay within protected airspace?

You are quite correct, ATC does not care, in the least, how a pilot goes about the course reversal. They don't die in the crash, so why should they? Professional pilots do NOT take a blase attitude toward procedural requirements.

A "VFR Tower" is, by the way, a term meaning one not qualified to provide IFR separation for their airspace, either radar or non-radar. Should you inquire on their status, I suspect they would start laughing, then crying. A VFR airport is not paid like an IFR airport, I was responsible for one once. The controllers and the Chief tried everything to get radar qualified in an effort to increase their pay. Still haven't succeeded, yet.

GF

And what are you saying? That a plane can't fly over a VOR at 10k, isn't that the original assertion? That a plane can't try to take the approach from high and circle down on a hold and shoot an approach?

As far a shooting an emergency approach into ONT or somewhere else in the area, sure why not, but I posit that after I departed IFR out of POC, and now find myself right over POM VOR wanting a quick fast IFR approach, I personally would consider flipping over the airport diagram for the ILSPOC instead of trying to dig through my charts, get ONT weather, find out what is available, start changing frequencies, and getting set up on a new airport, all the while as you just lost an engine and the boss is dying in the back.

Might just be easier to zip back to POC, when I know what's going on, the one I departed from.

Well your certainly free to take your boss in the back where you choose, and feel free as your dumping 6k a minute into a new airport full of unknowns, to be flipping through charts and get set up for a new airport.

Me, I think I am going for the easiest, safest choice, with the least workload.

Hey if your the captain, it's your choice. Me, I am the captain and it's mine.

And you know, it's like this, everyone has an opinion, but what actually works is what counts.

Aterpster, just for clarity: in regular holds one adjusts the outbound time to make the inbound leg one minute (or 1.5 minutes) - is it a deliberate difference to make the outbound leg 1 minute for a HILPT?

photofly:

No, the rules are the same. I didn't say fly outbound for one minute (at least I don't think I did:)) but there is an outbound limit that must be observed in order to fly inbound for one minute. Where distance limits are shown, they are an outbound limit. Unfortunately, the ARINC/FMS (and RTCA?) folks screwed that one up by making the distance limit an inbound limit. When the wind is very strong that can screw things up, but that is a subject for a different thread.