NoPT Question....

[MikeD]

Its not the whole purpose. Many times in mountainous areas, its because of the descent requirements. For example in my hometown the minimum vectoring altitude is 10,000 feet. You also lose radar coverage below that. So if you tried to do a straight in with a "cleared to (IF) cross at 10,000, cleared approach" , you would be hard pressed to meet the descent requirements unless you did a HILO.

However many times ATC expects you to go straight in. In this case I would inquire (pending on what "established" means).

Agreed, assuming I had the descent covered, I’d head straight in, in that case.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

So if you tried to do a straight in with a "cleared to (IF) cross at 10,000, cleared approach" , you would be hard pressed to meet the descent requirements unless you did a HILO.

However many times ATC expects you to go straight in. In this case I would inquire (pending on what "established" means).

Every time this situation comes up in real life for me, it has been in IMC, and I get an instruction like that half a mile from the fix. My habit is to read back "Cleared straight in RNAV XYZ approach" when it is ambiguous to me, but I'm pretty sure that's what they meant -- not sure that's the right thing to do or if it makes a difference. In a perfect world, I could ask. In the real world, the frequency is busy with them giving clearances for 3 or 4 other, busier, airports. And in the meantime, until I can ask, we have to fly in some direction. And I would rather be on the final course I'm already somewhat established on, instead of a hold I don't have loaded yet and will be making some sort of cowboy entry into.

I think the whole system would make much more sense if HILO course reversals required an explicit clearance in a radar environment.

 

[Shiftace]

Same approach. Different question:

Cleared direct to CHALK for the approach. You are at 3500 feet. Doing the HILPT?? Or going straight in? Plane is in the same location and headed towards CHALK now.