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.