I don't flip thru charts, paper is so 20th Century, when I enter the new destination into the FMS, the new charts are available on a large screen. Which, if geo-referenced, show exactly where the plane is.

The question wasn't whether one could spiral down, it was could KZLA could clear one for an approach to KPOC.

Enuf!

GF

Can center clear an airplane for an instrument approach?

Seriously? You've never flown into an airport at night where the tower and approach were shut down for the evening?

What would happen if approach control went down? Who do you think would handle the IFR traffic?

No way you fly a Galaxy. C'mon, now, that's not really necessary or pertinent to the discussion. - JT

Of course, center can you clear one for an approach, as an OAC can, IF it has control of the airspace. The airspace at KPOC is controlled, normally, by SoCal, so KZLA cannot issue an approach clearance to an aircraft in its airspace that would then exit it's airspace I to SoCal airspace, except with coordination with SoCal or a hand-off to SoCal with a frequency change.

My background is posted, I don't fly the Jet Commander Mode 10. The Galaxy is a Lockheed Georgia product.

GF

Are you SSG V10?

Can I ask that theficklefinger - and any others who might have a tendency to needless agitation and arm waving - has a Bex and a lie down/nice cup of tea (pick one) and takes ten deep breaths prior to continuing ?

FYI,

galaxy flyer (whom I know) was a military flyer and has extensive experience (including check and training, if I recall correctly) on Lockheed's product. His present mounts are matters for my envy. He has more than enough runs on the board to speak with authority on flight standards issues.

aterpster (whom I don't know personally but correspond with occasionally), likewise, is a very experienced pilot and an expert on procedural design matters.

I, for one, would hesitate to jump into criticising either unless I knew that I was on VERY solid ground ....

Hat, coat, door, by your leave now.

GF

That is what I am interested in too. We often debate this one! As far as I am concerened, if entering a procedure, not under radar control, in uncontrolled airspace and above MSA, you can manouvre as you see fit to get into the 30 deg cone. As long as you have tower clearance you can proceed past the IAP, if not then you have to hold anyway, but the tower clearance has nothing to do with how you choose to get to the IAP. I guess they may assume a direct routing, but even a slight offset of a mile or two won't change the ETA.

Sciolistes:

What individual states may or may not tolerate is impossible to determine. I do know the ICAO OCP, the panel that writes, and modifies PANS-OPS, did not envision such an operation. MSA direct to the course reversal (within 30 degrees) or direct to the alignment holding pattern if not within 30 degrees is what the OCP envisioned in criteria.

Having said that, practices in some states may have very well resulted in interpretations that it is permissible to do exactly what you are asking. In the U.S. similar ad hoc procedures have evolved that are the result of pilot or controller "inventiveness." This was not the case until RNAV became common.

If it were me I would want an authoritative answer from the aviation authority of the state in which I intended to use such a procedure.

JT - Come on. I could come in here and say I was a Shuttle Commander, it doesn't change the fact that you can hit POM at 35,000 Ft, and circle down on the hold until intercepting the final approach.

And what would a pilot do with a radio communications failure while he was at FL450 in his Galaxy? Well, technically, he could stay at FL450 and hit POM and circle all the way down, which is probably the safest route, vs coming down and hoping he didn't bump into any planes as he descended early for the IAP.

Unless there is an alien force field over LA that I don't know about, center clears people direct all the time for approaches, at gawd awful altitudes, from way the heck out.

I've been cleared for approaches by center in Canada 200 NMs out, when I was at 18000 feet. It was up to me to figure out how to get down.

Guys, this is instrument rating 101 stuff. F.F. out.

you can hit POM at 35,000 Ft, and circle down on the hold until intercepting the final approach.

I must be getting slower as I get older. Surely we all understand that your comment is OK ? I can recall occasional letdowns where we ran over the facility (for this reason or that, including finger trouble) at levels up to 10-15,000 ft .. and the odd circuit joined downwind at FL300 or so .. just for fun. Have I missed the point somewhere ?

And what would a pilot do with a radio communications failure while he was at FL450 in his Galaxy?

Galaxy or whatever, the relevant AIP will prescribe the requirement, will it not ?

Maybe it's a language barrier....if your 200 miles out of POM at FL450, radio failure...what are you going to do? No tower, no approach, no center...I guess all the relevant airspace arguments, transitions, clearances just went out the door didn't they?

I personally don't think it's that hard to consider that flying to the IAP, to descend in the procedure (HP) for the approach IS how one would do it.

Of course others would probably descend down to 6k for the IAP, flying through all sorts of traffic, with tower, approach and center, moving all sorts of traffic out of your way. Expect a nice phone call on the ground wondering why you took it upon yourself to descend from your last known assigned altitude...

Anyway...take a look at no radio procedures, last assigned altitudes, clearances and all that, you'll find I am right, that you can and will descend over POM in the hold, as gawd knows what altitude you were last assigned to.

Sciolistes, I avoid the discussions by ordering full compliance with the published procedure. It's the same grey area as DIR TO descending below MEA unless I have RVC I don't accept this, over. :ok:

Much as I'm enjoying this thread, somewhere along the way I've lost track of what the protagonists actually disagree about. Could someone fill me in please?

photofly:

The PANS-OPS graphic in Post #2.

I got that - I was wondering about the argument over descents over POM. That makes no sense to me, and I was wondering if I was missing something that might be helpful.

aterpster: question about your posting with the Bardufoss plate. How *do* the designers expect you to use BDF hold to align for the RWY 28 teardrop, since it's the wrong way?

photofly:

Originally, it was about descending SE bound on V-197 to POM, then fly the KEMT VOR-A IAP. The course reversal hold would be required, and it lies beneath the Los Angeles Class B airspace. You would have to be below the airspace the the Los Angeles sector of SoCal owns, which is above So Cal's Ontario sector. There was apparently a lot of disagreement about that. Then, the focus on that aspect was lost.

The holding pattern provides a lot of airspace to enter either the Runway 10 or 28 IAPs. In the case of 28 you would enter the hold and when turning outbound align on the outbound leg of the teardrop/baseleg course reversal.

Flying to KEMT & arriving from SE the flight plan would be filed with IAF being PDZ thus NO PT is required thereafter, this is also written on the chart NO PT coming from PDZ on R 292 inbound at 4000 ft. Keep it simple folks. :ok:

9.G


That is correct but irrelevant to the hypothetical. As I said in the previous post:

Originally, it was about descending SE bound on V-197 to POM, then fly the KEMT VOR-A IAP. The course reversal hold would be required, and it lies beneath the Los Angeles Class B airspace.

Your example is NW bound to POM. My example is SE bound to POM.

aterpster, agreed on that. No doubt course reversal is required if coming from anywhere except the Prado, PDZ or radar vectors. I got caught up on the V-197.:ok:

Ficklefinger

When, or why, was NORDO procedures brought into this? I don't disagree that one can hold over the VOR or IAF and descend in holding for the approach. In fact, I cited two cases where I recently did just that, VOIP (PANS-OPS) and PTRO (TERPS).

Back to monitoring the thread

GF

9.G:

And, coming from PDZ or PRADO your are at 4,000, well below the airspace used by a different SoCal sector for LA arrivals from the east. Arriving from the NW over POM, though, the MEA of the airway (prior to HASSA) if continued, would fly directly into the LA arrival sector. The Class B airspace gives a good "hint" about all of that.

Anyone interested can go to skyvector.com, "go" to POM then select the Los Angeles TAC to see the Class B airspace clearly.

ZIGGY 4 ARR for Ontario would probably be the one filed for coming from NW as indicated on the airdrome chart for El Monte. It brings you all the way around to PDZ. Not sure whether this has got anything to do with with the LAX airspace structure. :ok:

9.G = While I usually get he Z4 pretty early, it's always possible to lose radios prior to that clearance, and have to fly last known assigned alt/clearance to IAP.

9.G:

As a practical matter, coming from any distance you would usually get that or the other STAR. They indeed add flight path miles (at least arriving from the NW to avoid LAX inbounds. But, V197 can avoid LAX inbounds, albeit with more handling by the Ontario area SoCal folks. And, if KONT is busy then V197 conflicts with the Pomona SID. But, KONT is often not busy, especially these days.

But, it is possible to get PMD V197 POM under some traffic conditions.

The circumstances do make a good hypothetical. Before those STARS came into being, coming from the NW, V197 if filed was usually granted with a crossing restriction at POM then a heading for vectors to final west of POM.

Sure, no objections here on my side, theficklefinger.:ok:

If filed and approved by all means I don't see any reason not to fly it as it shortens the mileage quite a bit. In practical terms whatever the dispatcher has filed as ATS flight plan I'll simply follow it, I don't have time and resources to explore all possible filing options during preflight briefing however knowing the local particularities may prompt a request to ATC while airborne to reroute if feasible.:ok:

9.g:

KEMT is Piper/Cessna type airport. Coming down from the north is ususally over EHF. Being able to go PMD-POM cuts off a lot of miles.

I'm reading this with interest as the same issues came up last week as I was completing my JAA IR in Ireland.

Transiting from Dublin/Weston (EIWT) to Knock (EIKN) I was outside of the entry sector for the base turn for the ILS approach at EIKN. Looking to avoid the hold, I inquired about requesting manoeuvring space to the west of the beacon (within the DOC) to enable alignment with the base turn sector. No one had any problems with that, although I was cautioned that if the airspace was occupied that it would be denied. Fair enough...

In the end the examiner needed to see a hold so I just did the hold for alignment on the test itself:)