Is it legal to fly an approach ........

K

k4air

New Member
...... if the Navaid required for the published missed is inop?

I found that question in an interview gauge and could not find an answer in any of the standard books. Does anybody has an idea?

Sure, without the Navaid you can not fly the published missed but ATC could issue you an alternative missed approach instructions before clearing you for the approach...... but is it leagal?
 
My take is if the approach was being authorized by the controlling agency, then yes it would be legal to fly the approach and missed as needed. If the approach had a FDC NOTAM regarding the inop equipment stating that specific approach was unavailable and/or ATC (or even ATIS) said the "X approach to rwy 21 not authorized", then it would be unavailable for use.
 
Yes, if you don't need the navaid for the final portion of the approach, then it is legal as long as you coordinate for alternate missed approach procedures. I'll see if I can find you a reference.
 
I would have to say that if you make prior arrangements with ATC you are fine. That would fall under the following ATC directions thing I believe making it "legal"
 
desertdog71 said:
I would have to say that if you make prior arrangements with ATC you are fine. That would fall under the following ATC directions thing I believe making it "legal"
Click to expand...

If the approach has vital components inop whether its for the transition, approach, or missed - its up to ATC to determine whether it can be completed safely. If the inop components create any sort of hazard or unusual work load the approach would most likely not be authorized.

If you flew such an approach into lets say an uncontrolled field after you were cleared for a different type of approach, it'd then be illegal along with careless and reckless.
 
This is one of those areas that FAA should do a better job on.

ATC can issue you alternative missed approach instructions, but ATC is not in the business of designing SIAPs and I would give a hard look at what they are using for alternative missed approach procedures. If something is known to be OTS, they should have the charting folks at ATC put together an alternative. Often there is one already made, so they can just plug that in, but ATC, in itself, is NOT really capable of determining what constitutes a legal missed approach from a TERPS perspective, aside from RVs.
 
Procedure wise, it is almost a moot point. In many of the more modern airplanes, you use the FMS to fly the missed, and the FMS is using GPS to navigate. So, unless you are doing something out of the ordinary, like going missed from the VOR approach into Aspen, you never tune the missed approach navaid anyway.
 
meritflyer said:
Then I ask you, who is?
Click to expand...
The procedure designers who work with TERPS when designing the approaches.

seagull is right. Ask most controllers about TERPS standards for designing approaches and you'll probably get the same "deer in the headlights" stare you'd get from most pilots.

But I think the practical effect is nil anyway. Controllers are not really capable of determining what a legal approach looks like from a TERPS perspective either, but yet they issue vectors to final and can authorize straight in approaches even when a PT is depicted. Their operational standards for those, which they =do= know, are based on TERPS standards.

Same is true for alternate missed instructions. After all, there are places where you'll almost never fly the published missed.
 
Almost all of the FARs are something along the lines of....."No pilot shall do_________......Unless authorized by ATC," or "Unless Authirized by the administrator"

Does ATC count as the Administrator in this case?
 
flyguy said:
Almost all of the FARs are something along the lines of....."No pilot shall do_________......Unless authorized by ATC," or "Unless Authirized by the administrator"

Does ATC count as the Administrator in this case?
Click to expand...
Good question. AFAIK, it's never been officially specifically stated that way but it's as good as an interpretation as any, although it works just as well to say that limited authority has been given by the Administrator to allow ATC to do some limited variations by issuing SOP for ATC.
 
meritflyer said:
Who the heck is "The Administrator"?

Sound like a movie title.
Click to expand...
Check out FAR part 1 for a definition. The Administrator is basically the FAA, but depending on the circumstance, different people take the role of the administrator. I agree it wold make for a good movie. Maybe an aviation version of "The Godfather".
 
Part 1 doesn't cut it. You go by who the FAA Chief Counsel, AGC-1 thinks the "Administrator" is, because, at all the hearings, ALJ and NTSB will agree with AGC's interp. This issue has, legally, been settled. I can guarantee that the precedent has been set a LONG time ago.
 
I would venture to guess that The Administrator is somebody at the FSDO. (And they probably work in a small room behind a curtain and pull levers and dials to make lots of noise and smoke.)

A few weeks ago my student was flying a practice ILS at KSAC (class D). The weather was sky clear with about 100 miles of visibility. I heard on approach that they had denied an IFR aircraft that approach because the SAC VOR was out of service. (The VOR is only required for the missed approach proceedure.)

They initially denied us the approach also, even though we were a VFR aircraft doing a practice approach. I guess the controller talked to a supervisor or something about it and we eventually got cleared for the approach. I guess I could have just cancelled flight following, had my student fly the approach, then contact the tower before we entered their airspace.
 
But we're talking about an approach that ATC had cleared. And reguardless of whether or not it is technically legal, who is it who is going to enforce it? I mean, its not like ATC is going to clear you for the approach , then after flying the missed approach procedure that they gave you, are going to tell you to call the tower becuase you illegally did exactly what they told you. And furthermore, who would be to blame in that situation? Who would get the violation? The pilot or the controller? I know the FAA loves to point the finger at he pilot, but ATC cleared the approach, and the pilot simply did as ATC instructed.
 
Okay then, if ATC has cleared you for the approach, I would say it is certainly legal to fly it. It's ATC's responsibility to not authorize a prohibited proceedure. Furthermore, as somebody mentioned above, aircraft equipped with some type of RNAV capability would be able to fly the missed even if the navaid is OTS.

That being said, if the approach is being conducted in IMC, and a good chance of going missed exists, as a pilot I would take measures to ensure that I could fly the missed as published.
 
WAFlyBoy said:
Okay then, if ATC has cleared you for the approach, I would say it is certainly legal to fly it. It's ATC's responsibility to not authorize a prohibited proceedure. Furthermore, as somebody mentioned above, aircraft equipped with some type of RNAV capability would be able to fly the missed even if the navaid is OTS.

That being said, if the approach is being conducted in IMC, and a good chance of going missed exists, as a pilot I would take measures to ensure that I could fly the missed as published.
Click to expand...

Wow, you better rethink that, that's the sort of thinking that will get you killed. Read the following line carefully and think about the implications:

ATC's ONLY real responsibility is separating IFR traffic with other IFR and participating VFR traffic!

That's it. It is NOT ATC's responsibility to decide whether or not and approach is legal. Period. Sorry to be harsh, but you have been badly misled if you think otherwise.
 
flyguy said:
But we're talking about an approach that ATC had cleared. And reguardless of whether or not it is technically legal, who is it who is going to enforce it? I mean, its not like ATC is going to clear you for the approach , then after flying the missed approach procedure that they gave you, are going to tell you to call the tower becuase you illegally did exactly what they told you. And furthermore, who would be to blame in that situation? Who would get the violation? The pilot or the controller? I know the FAA loves to point the finger at he pilot, but ATC cleared the approach, and the pilot simply did as ATC instructed.
Click to expand...

Well, that is all fine and good unless you're in the side of a mountain because of it.

The pilot would get the violation, in answer to the other question. FAA has clearly defined who is responsible for complying with the regs, their limits and SIAPs. NTSB has upheld the FAA interp of this. Key work in ATC is "traffic". THAT is their job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top