Here's another - feeder route altitudes?

[RJFlyer]

swerpipe and midlifeflyer - thanks, that's what I suspected, but wasn't certain about.

DAS - if BPT RONs happen, I'll look you up.

mmmdonut - you're an idiot.

How many times in that CRJ of yours have you been cleared to fly an approach like you described?

Never, but it could happen and I didn't know the answer, so I asked. You are a waste of oxygen. I'm finished with you.

*adds mmmdonut to "Ignore" list*

 

[Uncle Sparky]

RJFLYER,

It is amazing that people instead of giving an answer engage in personal attacks..

I'm guessing that since that came right after my response, that you are considering me to by one of these "people". If that's the case, mine wasn't a "personal attack", it was an attempt to tactfully shut that Doofus up and maybe even get him to think(remote possibility that it may be!)about actually trying to learn something new. I'm sorry my answer wasn't up to your standards or within your acceptable guidelines!

 

[Swerpipe]

Not directed to you

I'm guessing that since that came right after my response, that you are considering me to by one of these "people". If that's the case, mine wasn't a "personal attack", it was an attempt to tactfully shut that Doofus up and maybe even get him to think(remote possibility that it may be!)about actually trying to learn something new. I'm sorry my answer wasn't up to your standards or within your acceptable guidelines!

Actually Uncle Sparky,

Quite the contrary, I liked your post. As pilots we will never come even close to knowing "enough". Discussions like this one should be encouraged not ridiculed. I think that if a pilot has a question, his peers could offer knowledge or assitance without the "you fly an RJ and you don't know that?" BS. My comments weren't directed at anyone in particular. Let's provide help or assitance or let someone else do it.

 

[mmmdonut]

mmmdonut - you're an idiot. Never, but it could happen and I didn't know the answer, so I asked. You are a waste of oxygen. I'm finished with you.

*adds mmmdonut to "Ignore" list*

WAAAAAAAAAA!!!! What a crybaby... go back to flight sim ya wannabe.

 

[DAS at 10/250]

As pilots we will never come even close to knowing "enough".

Oh yeah! I'm a Navajo pilot and I know everything! Everything between this row and that row. Between the Chickletts and the Gum. Everything between the Chickletts, the gum, and the watch , and the bear.

Sorry, that was a tragic attempt at the Steve Martin line from THE JERK.

But I do agree that this should be a forum for learning and professional development and not a pissing contest. Oh yeah, and we should also burn PFTer's at the stake!

 

[Swerpipe]

Segmented E Circle

If that does happen, remember that BPT Class D is Class E after hours, so don't cancel airborne without VFR on the field.

Personally know a pilot violated for "overlooking the segmented E line on the chart" and cancelling IFR to "help" center with 2 mile vis on the ground. Great point. BTW love your AVTAR, I think I met her in College.

 

[philo beddoe]

Midlifer-

I agree with your reference from the AIM, but I have two 'second thoughts' about it though.

1. The AIM indicates that it is part of the approach clearance, but does that by extension automatically mean that it part of the approach, as in "maintain 3000 until established on the approach".

2. I could see this being one of those deals where you could ask ten different controllers or feds and get ten different answers.


That being said, I think the following logic applies.

If you flying feeder route you are very likely non-radar.
It follows that it is very unlikely that there is going to be another aircraft anywhere near you. If you are all alone in the area, it makes no difference if you descend to the feeder altitude or not, since you know you have obstacle protection,, and the only other reason to wait would be traffic separation.
(With this one caution: if ATC left you hanging a few thousand feet higher as you hit the feeder route, it might be wise to find out why.)

 

[Uncle Sparky]

Oh yeah! I'm a Navajo pilot and I know everything! Everything between this row and that row. Between the Chickletts and the Gum. Everything between the Chickletts, the gum, and the watch , and the bear.

Sorry, that was a tragic attempt at the Steve Martin line from THE JERK.

!

I remember when I found my "special purpouse".

Actually Uncle Sparky,

Quite the contrary, I liked your post. As pilots we will never come even close to knowing "enough". Discussions like this one should be encouraged not ridiculed. I think that if a pilot has a question, his peers could offer knowledge or assitance without the "you fly an RJ and you don't know that?" BS. My comments weren't directed at anyone in particular. Let's provide help or assitance or let someone else do it.Yesterday 18:27

I sort of assumed that might be the case. Pride and misinterpretation of intent in translation through the typed word got the best of me?! Sorry.........

WAAAAAAAAAA!!!! What a crybaby... go back to flight sim ya wannabe.

I'm embarassed that I defended your right to speak freely in a past thread! I'm would venture to guess that even your own homosexual community collectively cringes at the thought of the existence of guys like you.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Phil,

I'm curious. Do you have the same second thoughts about descending to the depicted altitude on any other approach segment from procedure turn outbound to the MDA or DA?

If not, can you show me the rule or AIM paragraph that says it's okay?

I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but this is one of those situations in which you'll get 10 different answers from those who don't know the answer and only one from those who do.

 

[philo beddoe]

Ahhh grasshopper, but those occur after the IAF, hence I am absolutely confident that they are part of the approach, therefore I am established for certain.

A feeder route? I know that I am safe. but am I guaranteed that I am legal?
Probably, but I am not 100% convinced from the AIM reference you cite.
It is conceivable that the AIM reference was only intended to cover lateral navigation, not vertical.

Would I go ahead and go down to the feeder altitude with 'only' an approach clearance with an altitude to maintain until established? Sure, who is gonna ctch me non-radar. Muhahaha! Either way, this one is mostly academic for the reason I stated in my previous post.

 

[philo beddoe]

I'll look it up but isn't in 91.175?

Or close to that?

 

[prpjt]

This looks like the reference you are looking for.

AIM 5-5-4

Pilot-

3. Upon reciept of an approach clearance while on an unpublished route or being radar vectored:

b) Maintains the last assigned altitude until established on a segment of a published route or IAP, at which time published altitudes apply.


"The question becomes, is the feeder considered a "published segment" of the approach?"

It is a published route. And after reciept of an approach clearance, when established on that route, published altitudes apply.

 

[philo beddoe]

Great job finding that.
I shall now commence willy nilly descents to all published altitudes.
"The devil made me do it."

 

[prpjt]

Great job finding that.
I shall now commence willy nilly descents to all published altitudes.
"The devil made me do it."

Only do it after you've recieved your willy nilly approach clearance, and are established on your willy nilly published route.

 

[TonyC]

That being said, I think the following logic applies.

If you flying feeder route you are very likely non-radar.
It follows that it is very unlikely that there is going to be another aircraft anywhere near you. If you are all alone in the area, it makes no difference if you descend to the feeder altitude or not, since you know you have obstacle protection,, and the only other reason to wait would be traffic separation.
(With this one caution: if ATC left you hanging a few thousand feet higher as you hit the feeder route, it might be wise to find out why.)

I don't follow the logic, nor do I think it matters. I don't see any suggestion in the directives that would have me treat the altitudes any differently based upon radar coverage.

This approach, NDB RWY 09 Memphis Intl (MEM) shows two feeder facilities, GQE (Gilmore) and HLI (Holly Springs). Let's say I'm approaching HLI from the southeast (I just enjoyed a nice layover in Atlanta ) and I'm cleared direct to HLI. I'm at 3,000', my last assigned altitude.

Two possible clearances:

1) "FedEx 357, Cleared the NDB RWY 09 Approach"

- - I continue to HLI at 3,000 feet, at which point I am legal to descend to the MEA of 2,100'. Upon reaching the LOM, ELVIS, I commence the procedure turn and begin a descent to 1,900'.


2) "FedEx 357, Cleared the NDB RWY 09 Approach, maintain 3,000' until established."

- - I continue to HLI at 3,000 feet, and then proceed along the HLI 299 radial outbound at 3,000'. I maintain 3,000' until I reach ELVIS because that's where the approach begins, and I'm not "established" until I get there. Being on the feeder route does not constitute being established on a segment of the published approach.


I could have received either clearance with radar coverage or without radar coverage. In either case I would transit quite near to Memphis International Airport, and would likely fly near other airplanes. I really don't see where you're getting the "non-radar" twist to the question.

The distinction that I think needs to be made is in regards to the clearance received.


Back to the post that began this thread:

As an example, I am looking at BPT (Beaumont, TX) ILS 12. There is a feeder frrom the BPT VOR (which is not an IAF) to the LOM, which is the IAF. The altitude listed on the feeder is 1700'. The profile view shows a descent outbound from the IAF on the procedure turn to 1700' (implying you should be above 1700' when you cross the LOM/IAF).

The question is, if ATC clears you to the LOM via the feeder, cleared for the approach, when can you descend to 1700'? When established on the feeder, or after passing the LOM/IAF outbound?

ILS RWY 02 BEAUMONT-PORT ARTHUR / SOUTHEAST TEXAS REGIONAL (BPT)

Absent any other altitude constraints, you may descend to 1,700' once established on the feeder routing from BPT to BP (KAZOO - the LOM/IAF).

 

[philo beddoe]

I was implying that even if you broke the rules, you would not likely hit anyone, not implying that the rules changed due to the presence or lack of radar servies.

 

[philo beddoe]

I think that you might want to check with an ATC'er before you assume that those two clearances are fundamentally different.

 

[prpjt]

"- - I continue to HLI at 3,000 feet, at which point I am legal to descend to the MEA of 2,100'. Upon reaching the LOM, ELVIS, I commence the procedure turn and begin a descent to 1,900'.

- - I continue to HLI at 3,000 feet, and then proceed along the HLI 299 radial outbound at 3,000'. I maintain 3,000' until I reach ELVIS because that's where the approach begins, and I'm not "established" until I get there. Being on the feeder route does not constitute being established on a segment of the published approach. " QUOTE"



Both scenarios are legal, as you say. But, for the sake of conversation, let's clarify the statement of not being "established". Once on the feeder you are established on a published route involved with the approach. Yeah, it's not actually part of the approach, however it is part of your approach clearance. The folks that publish the AIM thought the distinction was important enough to use all caps:

Approach Clearance

a. ..................WHEN CLEARED FOR THE APPROACH,THE PUBLISHED OFF AIRWAY (FEEDER) ROUTES THAT LEAD FROM THE ENROUTE STRUCTURE TO THE IAF ARE PART OF THE APPROACH CLEARANCE.


The two clearances Tony gave are essentialy the same thing. The controller wants you to stay at your last assigned altitude until HLI, then do what's on the plate. Only difference is that in 1 clearance he reminded you to stay at 3000 'til the VOR. Makes no difference if it's radar or not, it is what it is.

 

[Swerpipe]

Agree with Tony C's interpretation

The two clearances Tony gave are essentially the same thing. The controller wants you to stay at your last assigned altitude until HLI, then do what's on the plate. Only difference is that in 1 clearance he reminded you to stay at 3000 'til the VOR. Makes no difference if it's radar or not, it is what it is.

Hi PRPJT,

I think Tony brought up a great example. I do not agree with your interpretation of that clearance. I agree with Tony's interpretation however. The "Until Established" refers to established on the course prior to the FAF or final approach phase as supposed to established on the published route. Anytime that I have received a clearance that says a "maintain XXX cleared for the XXX approach" I have not received the "until established" part... but I would interpret it the way Tony did(Mostly in Mexico or South America). Still I agree, probably not "violation" material and not necessarily wrong...

 

[midlifeflyer]

Ahhh grasshopper, but those occur after the IAF, hence I am absolutely confident that they are part of the approach, therefore I am established for certain.

Ahh but Master, you did not supply a reference. So is the test "I personally believe it's true, so it's okay, but I don't personally believe this other rule, so it may not be."?

Again, not being a wise guy. Just reiterating the point about differing opinions on 1+1=? Simple, basic, unless it conflicts with one's belief system. Then, all of a sudden it becomes a matter of opinion.