A technical question about a recent approach clearance

Why not just ask the controller to clarify. "Did you mean direct BOYER" or whatever its called would have probably solved this whole discussion.
 
If he flies to GRAMY off the ILS, he's simply flying the published missed off of the ILS, making a procedure turn in lieu of a hold and proceeding inbound on the published VOR approach. The only issue i see is the missed off the ILS is flown at 3000' and the VOR approach from GRAMY would begin at 2000'.

Couldn't you simply enter the hold at GRAMY, decend to 2000' then proceed inbound as published?

I'm still new to the IFR world so if i'm completely wrong here please let me know.
 
What I see here is that GRAMY is not an IAF, so technically, the approach can't even begin from there. If he was told on the missed to instead fly direct BOYYR for the VOR-A then I guess going to GRAMY would be fine, but why, you could do the procedure turn right there at BOYYR?

I think the controller was confused, nothing really wrong with driving in from GRAMY in a safety since, considering that he's out over open water and only has to lose an extra 1000' feet to hit BOYYR at 2000', but yeah, I think technically the controller goofed.
 
ppragman said:
What I see here is that GRAMY is not an IAF, so technically, the approach can't even begin from there. If he was told on the missed to instead fly direct BOYYR for the VOR-A then I guess going to GRAMY would be fine, but why, you could do the procedure turn right there at BOYYR?

.
Click to expand...

If he was coming off the published missed, proceeding to the hold at GRAMY for, say, two turns in the missed approach holding followed by shooting the approach again, then he could get the clearance to BOYYR along with the approach clearance and proceed inbound all the way.

Maybe ATC was initially thinking something akin to this? Agree there appears to have been a minor miscommunication overall.
 
MikeD said:
If he was coming off the published missed, proceeding to the hold at GRAMY for, say, two turns in the missed approach holding followed by shooting the approach again, then he could get the clearance to BOYYR along with the approach clearance and proceed inbound all the way.

Maybe ATC was initially thinking something akin to this? Agree there appears to have been a minor miscommunication overall.
Click to expand...

I dunno, but I think you're on the right track. The funniest part about this whole thing is he probably passed through BOYYR on the way out if he intercepted soon enough.

What sucks though is that if he held at GRAMY and then got the clearance to BOYYR he'd be technically required to fly a procedure turn again because there's no "NoPT" at BOYYR and because he wasn't getting Vectors, so Dammed if you do dammed if you don't.

What I think happened (and I could be totally wrong here) is that the controller assumed that since GRAMY is an IAF for the ILS, its also an initial for the VOR-A, or maybe he just didn't know or was too lazy to look it up, or whatever. Regardless, in this case no harm no foul.

As for TGrayson's "in the cockpit is not the time for a TERPS review," (which I just noticed down there) I strongly disagree. It goes both ways you know, there is a special RNAV DP down here with a floating waypoint that anchors at 500' AGL before turning you on course. If you've got some wicked climb performance at slow speed (ie caravan/cherokee/other light singles) that waypoint turns you into terrain. The cockpit is the most important time to be evaluating the validity of TERPS and approach procedures. That doesn't mean you should throw procedure out the window, but in the words of an old bushrat with much more time than I (about 9 times as much time as I've got), "YOU HAVE TO THINK FOR YOUR F-ING SELF!!!" Don't mindlessly follow IAPs into terrain just as you shouldn't mindlessly follow clearances or authorizations you don't think will be safe.
 
ppragman said:
What sucks though is that if he held at GRAMY and then got the clearance to BOYYR he'd be technically required to fly a procedure turn again because there's no "NoPT" at BOYYR and because he wasn't getting Vectors, so Dammed if you do dammed if you don't.
Click to expand...

Which would be completely retarded to have to do, since the IAFs at ROCHE and SERAH bring you to GRAMY on NoPT routings in order to proceed straight in. I'd request to press from GRAMY to BOYYR and inbound, and if ATC was closed, would just do that anyway. This is another one of those areas akin to some HILOs where the procedure is entirely unnecessary, IMHO.

What I think happened (and I could be totally wrong here) is that the controller assumed that since GRAMY is an IAF for the ILS, its also an initial for the VOR-A, or maybe he just didn't know or was too lazy to look it up, or whatever. Regardless, in this case no harm no foul.
Click to expand...

Very possible. Just as any other possibility would be.

As for TGrayson's "in the cockpit is not the time for a TERPS review," (which I just noticed down there) I strongly disagree. It goes both ways you know, there is a special RNAV DP down here with a floating waypoint that anchors at 500' AGL before turning you on course. If you've got some wicked climb performance at slow speed (ie caravan/cherokee/other light singles) that waypoint turns you into terrain. The cockpit is the most important time to be evaluating the validity of TERPS and approach procedures. That doesn't mean you should throw procedure out the window, but in the words of an old bushrat with much more time than I (about 9 times as much time as I've got), "YOU HAVE TO THINK FOR YOUR F-ING SELF!!!" Don't mindlessly follow IAPs into terrain just as you shouldn't mindlessly follow clearances or authorizations you don't think will be safe.
Click to expand...

I think what Tgray was saying is not to self-make approaches as a general rule across the board or throw them out the window. Looking at this particular procedure, the reason I said I wouldn't worry about being sent to GRAMY, reversing course in the hold and descending, and commencing from there......versus getting a new clearance or causing further confusion on the air (assuming no traffic conflicts that I have SA on); is because its out over the water, and unless I somehow fly 12 or so miles to the east and impact the mountain peak on the island, for this approach its apparent to me that going to GRAMY wouldn't be unsafe.
 
MikeD said:
Which would be completely retarded to have to do, since the IAFs at ROCHE and SERAH bring you to GRAMY on NoPT routings in order to proceed straight in. I'd request to press from GRAMY to BOYYR and inbound, and if ATC was closed, would just do that anyway. This is another one of those areas akin to some HILOs where the procedure is entirely unnecessary, IMHO.



Very possible. Just as any other possibility would be.



I think what Tgray was saying is not to self-make approaches as a general rule across the board or throw them out the window. Looking at this particular procedure, the reason I said I wouldn't worry about being sent to GRAMY, reversing course in the hold and descending, and commencing from there......versus getting a new clearance or causing further confusion on the air (assuming no traffic conflicts that I have SA on); is because its out over the water, and unless I somehow fly 12 or so miles to the east and impact the mountain peak on the island, for this approach its apparent to me that going to GRAMY wouldn't be unsafe.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with everything here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top