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

[meritflyer]

Well.. sort of. ATC has several responsibilities that are clearly outlined in Section 5 of the AIM which include a little more than IFR/VFR/IFR seperation.

 

[seagull]

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.)

.

Uh, no. The Administrator is, essentially, AFS-1, as supported by AGC-1.

 

[seagull]

Well.. sort of. ATC has several responsibilities that are clearly outlined in Section 5 of the AIM which include a little more than IFR/VFR/IFR seperation.

Extremely subordinate, and they do NOT include deciding if a particular procedure is legal for a certain operator or not.

 

[ananoman]

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.

There are a lot of instrument approaches that require special authorizations. If you ask ATC to shoot the approach, they will clear you for it, even if you don't meet the requirements. It is not their job to keep track of this stuff, and they don't care. So don't think just because ATC authorizes you to do something it is legal, you may be in for a rude awakening.

 

[WAFlyBoy]

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.

Nice. Thanks for giving it to me straight up. Answer me this:

If I have been cleared for an approach and I am equipped and capable of flying the procedure as published (laterally and vertically), including the missed procedure - how is that going to make me a smoking hole? The airspace is mine (separation from participating aircraft) and the procedure, if current and valid, separates me from terrain - whether the missed navaid is working or not.

Let's get back to the core issue of this thread: where does it say that flying an approach with an INOP missed navaid is against "the law?"

 

[WAFlyBoy]

There are a lot of instrument approaches that require special authorizations. If you ask ATC to shoot the approach, they will clear you for it, even if you don't meet the requirements. It is not their job to keep track of this stuff, and they don't care. So don't think just because ATC authorizes you to do something it is legal, you may be in for a rude awakening.

I appreciate your input. Unfortunately, like Seagul, you've taken my comment out of the context of this thread. I did not mean to suggest that a proceedure is globally safe and legal just because ATC authorizes it. I simply meant that in the scenario discussed throughout this thread, I do not see why it wouldn't be. I haven't read anything authoritative that would suggest otherwise.

Naturally, before each flight I would suggest that anybody check applicable NOTAMS and ask for clarification when the safety and/or legality of a clearance is in question.

 

[meritflyer]

Extremely subordinate, and they do NOT include deciding if a particular procedure is legal for a certain operator or not.

Never said they did. I did say, they have more responsibility that just traffic seperation.

 

[seagull]

An inop navaid does not necessarily make it impossible to fly the approach. It depends on FAA requirements, if you can establish the position using GPS or some other means, you are legal, for example. Just as you can subsitute various things for inop components in an approach prior to RNAV. It is not up to ATC to know what your legal limitation are, or what is in your ops specs.

If ATC has provided alternative missed approach instructions, they have probably (hopefully) been given to them by the procedure designers for the region. The actual missed approach design could better be found out by calling the FAA region for the area, rather than ATC. That said, if ATC is issuing them, I would personally assume that it has gone through the proper process (a fairly big assumption), BUT, I would also look it over with a mind towards what the terrain is in the area. IF that is not a factor, I would not worry about it, as the only other issue is traffic, and that, of course, IS the job of ATC.

 

[flyguy]

An inop navaid does not necessarily make it impossible to fly the approach. It depends on FAA requirements, if you can establish the position using GPS or some other means, you are legal, for example. Just as you can subsitute various things for inop components in an approach prior to RNAV. It is not up to ATC to know what your legal limitation are, or what is in your ops specs.

Isn't that why we file with an equipment suffix?

If ATC has provided alternative missed approach instructions, they have probably (hopefully) been given to them by the procedure designers for the region. The actual missed approach design could better be found out by calling the FAA region for the area, rather than ATC. That said, if ATC is issuing them, I would personally assume that it has gone through the proper process (a fairly big assumption), BUT, I would also look it over with a mind towards what the terrain is in the area. IF that is not a factor, I would not worry about it, as the only other issue is traffic, and that, of course, IS the job of ATC.

That all makes sense. I'll buy that.

 

[seagull]

Isn't that why we file with an equipment suffix?

No, it's not. It is to tell ATC what you can do for THEIR purposes. not what you are legal to do in terms of approaches. Heck, you can have full CAT 3B equipment and not be LEGAL to fly a CAT 3 or even a CAT 2. In fact, you might be restricted to adding 100' and 1/2 mile to the mins (hi min capt). ATC has no way of knowing any of that!

ATC doesn't know if you're legal for overwater operations, they don't know if you are LEGAL to fly enroute direct to a navaid outside the published range of the navaid, etc. etc.

 

[k4air]

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.

Guys, I very much appreciate your input. Seems like it is a tough one to figure out - it would be great to find a quote somewhere in the books, though. I guess for my part I will go with ANANOMAN. It sounds reasonable that you can fly the approach (including the published missed) if you have a reliable way to navigate according to the procedure. To back that up, I know that the PHK VOR in FL is OTS for quite a while and nevertheless it is being used for IFR clearances/routing all the time. Also, during my entire time as an instructor I never got the published missed on a practice approach anyway. So even without FMS I would think that the approach would be legal, as long as there is an approved way to fly a missed in accordance with the required obstacle clearance requirements.

 

[seagull]

Guys, I very much appreciate your input. Seems like it is a tough one to figure out - it would be great to find a quote somewhere in the books, though. I guess for my part I will go with ANANOMAN. It sounds reasonable that you can fly the approach (including the published missed) if you have a reliable way to navigate according to the procedure. To back that up, I know that the PHK VOR in FL is OTS for quite a while and nevertheless it is being used for IFR clearances/routing all the time. Also, during my entire time as an instructor I never got the published missed on a practice approach anyway. So even without FMS I would think that the approach would be legal, as long as there is an approved way to fly a missed in accordance with the required obstacle clearance requirements.

Just remember that to be legal, the approach must be able to be flown after radio failure. Being issued an alternative missed approach is all fine, as it is usually RV, but how would you do that NORDO?