A technical question about a recent approach clearance

[Piperflyer]

I recently flew a practice approach into Lanai (PHNY) that was issued with a clearance which made me question... I was hoping to get a second opinion. Here is the situation:

The first approach was the ILS RWY 3

http://dtpp.myairplane.com/pdfs/00777I3.PDF

I went missed, and was told to fly the published missed

The second approach was the VOR-A

http://dtpp.myairplane.com/pdfs/00777VTGA.PDF

The controller first asked if I wanted to hold at GRAMY, or continue with my next planned approach. (I had been holding a few minutes earlier at GRAMY so he suspected that I wanted to hold again) I asked for the VOR-A. The controller then said "Proceed to GRAMY, cleared VOR-A Approach.''

I understood that as to proceed to GRAMY and reverse course in the hold over GRAMY, but now I am thinking that the barb type procedure turn is the only possible way to reverse course. ATC never said anything so I am a little confused on this one.
Now I know that in the explanation page of the NOS charts it says that for a procedure turn it basically says that type and degree do not matter.

I appreciate any help.

 

[Itchy]

Cross Grammy inbound, and proceed with the approach. You are within 10 of Boyer. On course inbound. Almost time for the vending machine!

 

[Duck_Twacy]

It sounds like he cleared you intercept the final approach course at GRAMY and then proceed straight in.

The course reversal would be if he cleared you direct BOYYR for the full approach.

 

[Mike H]

I understood that as to proceed to GRAMY and reverse course in the hold over GRAMY, but now I am thinking that the barb type procedure turn is the only possible way to reverse course. ATC never said anything so I am a little confused on this one.
Now I know that in the explanation page of the NOS charts it says that for a procedure turn it basically says that type and degree do not matter.

I appreciate any help.

So... what did you end up doing?

 

[Piperflyer]

Thanks for the replies. This is what I did. I flew outbound on the LNY 278 Radial from the published missed off of the ILS Rwy 3, reversed course over GRAMY (teardrop) and flew inbound on the VOR-A.

To me this seems proper.

 

[matt152]

The controller then said "Proceed to GRAMY, cleared VOR-A Approach.''

I understood that as to proceed to GRAMY and reverse course in the hold over GRAMY, but now I am thinking that the barb type procedure turn is the only possible way to reverse course.

In this case the procedure turn is based off of BOYYR. Not GRAMY. GRAMY is not an IAF, so I am not sure why he cleared you for the approach with direct GRAMY as the last instruction. I guess you could go direct GRAMY, but you would still have to complete the PT within 10nm of BOYYR. The type of PT is up to you.

Were you VFR?

 

[matt152]

BTW, the hold is for the missed. Not to start the approach.

 

[tgrayson]

I understood that as to proceed to GRAMY and reverse course in the hold over GRAMY, but now I am thinking that the barb type procedure turn is the only possible way to reverse course. ATC never said anything so I am a little confused on this one.

GRAMY is not an IAF for the approach and the course reversal is not predicated on GRAMY, but on BOYYR. If you were /A, a better clearance would be have been direct LNY, because there is a feeder route to BOYYR. If you were RNAV, then direct to LNY would be even better. IMO, the clearance to GRAMY should have been rejected.

 

[Matt13C]

GRAMY is not an IAF for the approach and the course reversal is not predicated on GRAMY, but on BOYYR. If you were /A, a better clearance would be have been direct LNY, because there is a feeder route to BOYYR. If you were RNAV, then direct to LNY would be even better. IMO, the clearance to GRAMY should have been rejected.

Why is that? If he is already outbound on the 278 from LNY isn't he on the feeder route? Proceeding direct GRAMY would be no different than doing so when on the missed for the VOR-A, correct? Proceed outbound, enter the hold at GRAMY, but since he is cleared for the approach, he can procedure turn at GRAMY and go directly into the VOR-A approach.

I am not doubting you, just wondering, since I am still learning the art of the approach.

 

[matt152]

Proceed outbound, enter the hold at GRAMY, but since he is cleared for the approach, he can procedure turn at GRAMY and go directly into the VOR-A approach.

The hold is for the missed, not the approach. Hence the dashed line instead of the bold line for the holding pattern.

 

[MikeD]

Why is that? If he is already outbound on the 278 from LNY isn't he on the feeder route? Proceeding direct GRAMY would be no different than doing so when on the missed for the VOR-A, correct? Proceed outbound, enter the hold at GRAMY, but since he is cleared for the approach, he can procedure turn at GRAMY and go directly into the VOR-A approach.

I am not doubting you, just wondering, since I am still learning the art of the approach.

I'm curious when the clearance to GRAMY occurred. Was he outbound past BOYYR already? If thats the case, then he's essentially following the published missed for the VOR-A already, as you state. In that case, I would PT at GRAMY, as if I were on the missed, and proceed inbound....as I'm already cleared for the approach. There are better ways the clearance could've been given, based on his particular situation and in order for him to not have to fly all the way to GRAMY unnecessarily, but again that depends on where his geographic position was.

 

[Matt13C]

The hold is for the missed, not the approach. Hence the dashed line instead of the bold line for the holding pattern.

Its also the holding point for the missed on ILS RWY 3. If the controller was anticipating him flying the published missed for the ILS, then a clearance to GRAMY makes sense to me.

 

[tgrayson]

If he is already outbound on the 278 from LNY isn't he on the feeder route?

He didn't say where he was when he received the clearance, he just said what he did. Regardless, executing at PT at GRAMY is wrong; it worked out in this case only because there was a hold there, but that didn't have to be the case.

The main point is that the controller sounds like he was confused; he just cleared the aircraft to a random fix on the approach, no matter how inappropriate the fix was. I've had this happen to me many times. I've learned to tell the controller what I want to do, rather than requesting a change when he clears me for something else. Controllers really have limited knowledge about how to fly instrument approaches and a pilot needs to know his business.

 

[matt152]

The main point is that the controller sounds like he was confused; he just cleared the aircraft to a random fix on the approach, no matter how inappropriate the fix was.

Tgrayson: Succinct and correct as always.

I guess the whole thing hinges on whether the guy was VFR or not. If he was IFR, the pilot should not have been issued a direct GRAMY clearance and cleared for the apporoach.

VFR I suppose the controller can do whatever he wants.

 

[dasleben]

You guys would have rejected the approach from GRAMY?

Jeez, you're all wound a little tight!

 

[tgrayson]

You guys would have rejected the approach from GRAMY? Jeez, you're all wound a little tight!

If you consider flying the approach the way the designers intended, and remaining legal, to be "wound tight", then yes.

I don't feel that the cockpit is the right time or place to be conducting a TERPS review of an instrument approach to determine if a non-standard way of executing it is safe.

 

[MikeD]

You guys would have rejected the approach from GRAMY?

Jeez, you're all wound a little tight!

Never said I'd have rejected it, going from GRAMY would've been fine with me if I'm already past BOYYR when I received the clearance, and in light of the controller thinking I wanted to hold at GRAMY. If at all possible, and if ATC had known (sounds like a minor miscommunication between the pilot and ATC) I'd have preferred getting the approach clearance prior to BOYYR and executing the PT from there, just for the sake of ease and time.

 

[dasleben]

If you consider flying the approach the way the designers intended, and remaining legal, to be "wound tight", then yes.

I don't feel that the cockpit is the right time or place to be conducting a TERPS review of an instrument approach to determine if a non-standard way of executing it is safe.

Nothing wrong with doing it the long way like you say, but I don't see any difference between this example and vectors to the final approach course. If he's under radar control, have at it. Nothing different than what thousands of pilots do every day. You're at 3000', on the final approach course, 10 miles from the field at a known fix.

You'll be fine.

Never said I'd have rejected it, going from GRAMY would've been fine with me if I'm already past BOYYR when I received the clearance, and in light of the controller thinking I wanted to hold at GRAMY. If at all possible, and if ATC had known (sounds like a minor miscommunication between the pilot and ATC) I'd have preferred getting the approach clearance prior to BOYYR and executing the PT from there, just for the sake of ease and time.

Sorry Mike, didn't mean to lump you into that group. I don't disagree with your assessment at all.

 

[tgrayson]

Nothing wrong with doing it the long way like you say, but I don't see any difference between this example and vectors to the final approach course. If he's under radar control, have at it..

Eh, there's a vast difference between shooting an approach under "own nav" versus being vectored to final. When being vectored to final, ATC rules will ensure that the aircraft will remain within the protected area of the instrument approach until the aircraft is established on final. When shooting a full approach, ATC provides no such protection.

The fact that this particular approach was safe the way it was flown is irrelevant; what is dangerous was the decision-making involved. In another environment, the same mental processes could easily have caused the aircraft to depart from the protected area. The fact that it didn't in this case was more a matter of luck than plan.

 

[matt152]

Nothing wrong with doing it the long way like you say, but I don't see any difference between this example and vectors to the final approach course.

The difference is that he is not getting vectors. He's been instructed to go direct GRAMY. Own navigation.