tgrayson
New Member
Because it doesn't exist.
But he left out "timed approaches from a holding pattern", so maybe that's what he meant.
Would you PT here? Should you PT here?
- Thread starter mdolezal
- Start date
Because it doesn't exist.
But he left out "timed approaches from a holding pattern", so maybe that's what he meant.
nosehair
Well-Known Member
Gumps
New Member
This is a great thread! I'm a green instrument pilot turned even greener CFII and like the original poster cannot take a persons word at face value based on their status alone. I've got all of the common text and refference books but would like to find something else to take me to a higher level of understanding instrument procedures. Recomendations (other than the TERPS manual)?
tgrayson
New Member
Whew, I've read a number of posts on JC, but the info I've received from this is awesome. tgrayson, obviously you've done a TON of homework on this. Is that primarily because of your issue with the approach into OLV, or did you find the issue so gray in the FAR/AIM that you just decided to take a look into this? Or are you workin' for the man? Just curious, but thanks again for the helpful links and info!
tgrayson
New Member
Nah, I had to start work before that. As an engineer, I know that if I don't fully understand how all the parts interconnect, whatever I'm building will not work. You cannot trick nature into accepting that you know what you are doing, when you truly don't.
As an instrument student, no one could explain to me how all the parts of the system interconnected, which led me to believe that my instructors really didn't know either.
That changed when I discovered the articles that I referred to you. They turned my whole instrument world upside down.
The author of the articles was in another online forum that I belonged to and, over the years, I learned a lot from him. I also learned of primary sources, such as the TERPS Manual and talking with the Flight Procedures Offices directly, which is what I took advantage of when the OLV issue came up.All-in-all, it's an interesting subject.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Let me give you an example of how our assumptions can be dangerous. I've posted the attached approach before, but it was a year or so ago and you might not have seen it. This approach was at my home airport, and the final approach course crossed underneath the approach to 27 at Memphis. The clearance we'd get when shooting the approach was typically:Turn left heading 210, maintain 2,500 until established on the localizer, cleared localizer 18 Olive Branch.The question is, when can I descend down to 2,000 feet? Here's the approach:
After passing mandd I would say, because you're not even really on the approach until then. But correct me if I'm wrong.
tgrayson
New Member
You're right, but most people miss that. Part of the problem is that ATC tends to use "until established on the localizer", which *seems* to contain implicit permission to step down once the needle centers. However, ATC is not supposed to use that language when the vector will not, in fact, establish the aircraft on a published segment. They should have been saying something like "cross MANDD at or above 2,500, cleared localizer 18". I rarely got that, however.
I went all through my instrument training without seeing the significance of it, until I saw a discussion by Wally Roberts, chairman of the ALPA TERPS committee, saying they had convinced the FAA to get rid of this type of approach.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Good to know, a similar scenario comes up when you're flying a DME arc to an approach. For example:
AceAir 22, you're cleared to kuskm via the 12DME arc, descend and maintain 7000.
here's the plate http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0810/05001ID18.PDF
Anyway, people would come bombing out of the flight levels, hit the 12DME arc and start around for Kuskm and begin a descent to 1800, you had to watch out for that.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Technically dead reckoning is legit for IFR, I don't see any reason why you couldn't use the law of sines off VORs if you could actually get a good fix, remember, VORs aren't really that accurate.
tgrayson
New Member
You mean prior to reaching *published* DME arc?
tgrayson
New Member
Often debated, but there's no evidence this is true. I suspect you could get dinged by 91.13, if nothing else. It also defies logic when a plain ole GPS isn't good enough for sole means of navigation.
TERPS keeps dead reckoning segments very short, under very specific circumstances.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
No, they wouldn't be cleared for the approach, but they'd start down anyway, well, yes, they'd do that too, but only in some strange circumstances where we were approaching from the south.
tgrayson
New Member
Oh, gotcha. People hear what they expect to hear. I'm not sure what I would have thought had I heard something like that unprepared.
ozziecat35
4 out of 5 great lakes prefer Michigan.
The details are fuzzy for me as this was over a year ago, but when I did my Instrument long cross country, my cfii and I were doing the VOR to PSP. ATC told me to report crossing the TRM VOR, and when I did, perhaps my phraseology was wrong, but I said something to the affect of "Cessna 320ME, 4,000 at TRM, entering the hold." Since noPT is on the chart, and I think I was coming from the East spot on. ATC never cleared me for the approach, just told me to expect it, so we entered the hold. Approach then went into a rant about other airplanes in the airspace and not clearing us to enter the hold...
I've just learned to take an extra transmission and verify everyone's intentions / expectations.
tgrayson
New Member
This the VOR-B? I don't see a NoPT route here, so I'm not sure what you mean. But as described, not being cleared for the approach was the sin, not doing the Hold-in-Lieu. Still, coming in from the East, ATC probably wouldn't have expected you to do the HIL, even if they had cleared you for the approach. However, it's legally required, and if your performing it had caused them a separation problem, it would have been the controller's fault. But I agree that it's desirable to avoid situations where people are looking for someone to blame.
CoffeeIcePapers
Well-Hung Member
I had something like this before on an ILS in the G1000. When you activate Vectors to Final, it throws out the IAF and just shows your distance from the FAF. We got a clearance exactly like what you described, with "until established" but were outside of a fix like MANDD. We got yelled at and when I questioned the clearance, he just got snuffy with me.
tgrayson
New Member
tgrayson, does FAA have electronic copy of TERP?
Oh, yes. Google on 'FAA 8260.3B'. Warning, though: it's not something you can just sit down and read.
