When to descend?

[TIS]

Such practical application (needles, bearing pointers, etc.) has no place with a DME ARC, and it still doesn't give us a reference.


.

Okay then, hows about you do a little legwork too! I found this in about three minutes. Here's your course width info for an arc when used as an intermediate approach segment.

From FAA Order 8260.3b, Change 19

243. INTERMEDIATE APPROACH SEGMENT BASED ON AN ARC. Arcs with a radius of less than 7 miles or more than 30 miles from the navigation facility shall NOT be used. DME arc courses shall be predicated on DME collocated with a facility providing omnidirectional course information.

a. Alignment. The same arc shall be used for the intermediate and the final approach segments. No turns shall be required over the FAF.
b. Area. (1) Length. The intermediate segment shall NOT be less than 5 miles nor more than 15 miles in length, measured along the arc. The OPTIMUM length is 10 miles. A distance greater than 10 miles should not be used unless an operational requirement justifies the greater distance. (2) Width. The total width of an arc intermediate segment is 6 miles on each side of the arc. For obstacle clearance purposes, this width is divided into a primary and a secondary area. The primary area extends 4 miles laterally on each side of the arc segment. The secondary areas extend 2 miles laterally on each side of the primary area (see figure 10).

Here’s the link if you want to pour over more of it than this.

http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/directives page.htm


And from the AIM:
The term “established” means, “To be stable or fixed on a route, route segment, altitude, heading, etc.” (AIM – Pilot/Controller Glossary under “E”). Nothing more and nothing less.

TIS

 

[TIS]

And the NoPT just simply says that you will not be making a procedure turn. Which, really doesn't need to be there in the first place right? I mean, looking at the layout it clearly shows that no PT is even needed to get to the LOC.

The NoPT notation does not simply mean that you WON'T be doing the PT. It means that you MAY NOT perform a procedure turn without specific ATC approval to do so.

TIS

 

[stagger]

When not to fly a procedure turn

Without trying to date myself I seem to remember the acronym SNORT from Air Force Pilot Training to help remember when a proc turn is not authorized.


S... straight in approach

NO.. when the plate says NO PROC TURN


R ...Radar vectors


T... Timed aproaches



Anyone else remember this or my mind failing me again from watching too much reality television

 

[nosehair]

however once you are flying the 018 heading, you have to stay on the left side of that barb? Or can you make a right turn if you'd like?

Yes, you can make a right turn if you want. Normaly the 180 turn is done away from the field to help prevent turning inbound to close to get down after becoming...dare I say it,..."established"...but there are times...say, if you get busy and go too far out, you should make the 180 from the barb back towards the field (opposite the normal direction) to help prevent exceeding the ten mile limit.

 

[nosehair]

If you're on a practical test of any kind this is NOT true. the PTS specifies that you must use the appropriate entry from the AIM.

Not any more, TIS. Used to be, but that has been gone for a few years now.

 

[nosehair]

And from the AIM:
The term “established” means, “To be stable or fixed on a route, route segment, altitude, heading, etc.” (AIM – Pilot/Controller Glossary under “E”). Nothing more and nothing less.

There it is, Tony C. That is as good as it gets with the term "established".
Thank God. All this beer hall arguing over "needle off the peg", or "2 dots", or "half-scale needle deflection", or whatever, is for training and testing, not for actual real-life operations. The term as defined in the AIM is sufficient, but it requires you to know the parameters of the route, route segment, etc.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Without trying to date myself I seem to remember the acronym SNORT from Air Force Pilot Training to help remember when a proc turn is not authorized.


S... straight in approach

NO.. when the plate says NO PROC TURN


R ...Radar vectors


T... Timed approaches



Anyone else remember this or my mind failing me again from watching too much reality television

I don't recognize the mnemonic, but the "S" is incorrect. Straight in doesn't give you the ability to forego the PT unless one of those other three conditions is there.

 

[TIS]

Not any more, TIS. Used to be, but that has been gone for a few years now.

Checked it. I stand corrected.

I still think you'll raise an eyebrow since you have to ensure that you will remain within the protected airspace entering the hold. Practically speaking I think an examiner is going to default ot AIM procedures.

 

[nosehair]

Practically speaking I think an examiner is going to default ot AIM procedures.

Yeah, well, I don't know what you mean by "default to..." other than if the applicant doesn't make the recommended AIM entry, and then flies out of the protected airspace, well of course, then the examiner may cite non-standard procedures, as in your stated position that the AIM, practically speaking, is regulatory. As in when your non-AIM-standard procedures cause a problem, then the AIM is looked at as supporting evidence as to the careless and reckless manner of operation, etc., but the simple act of non-standard procedures in and of itself does not constitute a violation or cause to be reprimanded.

My reason for preaching this message is not to relegate the AIM recommended procedures to "nice-to-know-but-who-cares" information. I do teach and follow the AIM as a standard. The problem is that not all possible conditions can be covered with a standard procedure, and I have come across too many pilots in my life who do not or cannot think. They are totally dependent on a standard procedure to follow. If there is not a lined out procedure, the pilot is stumped. And that's not the way it is in this flying life. Pilots make operational decisions all the time based on the situation at hand, which is not always in the exact model upon which the AIM recommended procedure is based.

There is no such thing as "always" or "never", and that is especially true in this business. Sometimes...sometimes, I said, not usually, but sometimes, the standard recommended procedure can be the more dangerous route. It is our job to be constantly situationally aware and making sound judgements based on actual real-time situations that enhance safety rather than adhereing to a proposed written "standard procedure" which doesn't take the unusual situation into account.

As long as you don't create a "situation" with your non-standard procedure, you are ok to do as you wish...within reason, of course. The operative word is...you don't create an unsafe condition by your non-standard actions.

 

[TonyC]

Without trying to date myself I seem to remember the acronym SNORT from Air Force Pilot Training to help remember when a proc turn is not authorized.


S... straight in approach

NO.. when the plate says NO PROC TURN


R ...Radar vectors


T... Timed aproaches



Anyone else remember this or my mind failing me again from watching too much reality television

I remember SHoRTN

S - Straight-in
Ho - Holing-in-lieu-of
R - Radar Vectors to final
T - Timed approach
N - NoPT routing



.

 

[TonyC]

Okay then, hows about you do a little legwork too! I found this in about three minutes.

What a concept. Me do a little legwork. I'm going to overcome the urge to respond to this condescending remark and remain professional. I have spent literally hours searching vast FAA databases and querying dozens of "experts" in pursuit of the answer to this question, thank you very much.

Here's your course width info for an arc when used as an intermediate approach segment.

... (2) Width. The total width of an arc intermediate segment is 6 miles on each side of the arc. For obstacle clearance purposes, this width is divided into a primary and a secondary area. The primary area extends 4 miles laterally on each side of the arc segment. The secondary areas extend 2 miles laterally on each side of the primary area (see figure 10).

That doesn't answer the question. I already covered that I'm not interested in approach construction. I will NOT begin descent when I'm SIX miles outside the arc, that's just plain silly.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Checked it. I stand corrected.

I still think you'll raise an eyebrow since you have to ensure that you will remain within the protected airspace entering the hold. Practically speaking I think an examiner is going to default ot AIM procedures.

Less and less. Designee Update has covered the issue at least twice.

First time they said "Hey! You don't have to follow the AIM hold entries!" Second time they said, "Hey Bozos! Stop failing people for not following the AIM hold entries. We really mean it."

Some DEs are apparently unteachable and don't like to follow the rules.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Great. Sounds like a mnemonic in search of some rules to fit it (you can probably tell how much I love them):

S - Straight-in (wrong unless on a NoPT routing, being radar vectored or using a timed approach.)
Ho - Holing-in-lieu-of (great - you don't have to do a PT when you have do a different type of PT. Very helpful.)
R - Radar Vectors to final
T - Timed approach
N - NoPT routing

 

[TIS]

That doesn't answer the question. I already covered that I'm not interested in approach construction.

Tony, it DOES answer the question, your refusal to see it that way notwithstanding. You seem to want a panacea that doesn't exist. Whether you like it or not, approach construction is the bottom line basis for obstruction clearance and navigation signal integrity.

I'd bet that the only other way, short of the FAA actually coming up with a defintion that fits all occasions for the term "established," would be to find a court case where the ALJ ruled on what the term means. Even then the ruling would apply only in a narrow sense applicable only to that fact pattern.

But wait! The FAA has come up with the definition they want us to use! And guess where they put it - Yup! The AIM.

I will NOT begin descent when I'm SIX miles outside the arc, that's just plain silly.

That region - the four/six mile course width - is where the altitude specified as the MEA on the intermediate segment will assure terrain separation and acceptable navigation coverage. The fact that you (and the rest of us) were taught to fly a DME arc in such a way as to end up RIGHT on it is really the only basis you have for wanting to do it that way.

Now think about that for a minute. You don't question the method you use now and that was taught to you by someone who ALSO didn't know what being established on an arc ACTUALLY meant. I agree that precision is good and I like to fly that way but safety has to be the bottom line and from a safety standpoint it's safe to be off the centerline of a DME arc - apparently by quite a ways.

TIS

 

[TonyC]

Now think about that for a minute. You don't question the method you use now and that was taught to you by someone who ALSO didn't know what being established on an arc ACTUALLY meant.

I perceive that there is a bit too much anger or sarcasm here to reach out in a way that promotes meaningful discussion. I was looking for information, not a fight.

I DO question the "rule" that I have been taught, the "rule" that is taught by my training department. I am not satisfied with any rule that is implemented "just because." I prefer to see the guidance in writing. I only take some comfort in that the "rule" used here is no more permissive than anything I can find in writing elsewhere.


Thanks for lookin'.

- Tony




.

 

[stagger]

Established is ok

Flew a holding pattern in PHL today and as I said... I called established in holding at the fix. The controller said established is one of several terms that are ok to use.Entering holding is only used by former stan-eval guys.....just joking.

stagger

 

[TIS]

I perceive that there is a bit too much anger or sarcasm here to reach out in a way that promotes meaningful discussion. I was looking for information, not a fight.

And you got information - to which you replied by saying something about practical application having no place in a DME arc.

Then I gave you more PUBLISHED information which you responded to by saying that you weren't interested in approach construction, even though approach construction contains the information required to answer your question.

Finally, in a round about sort of way, I queried you as to how you justify the method you use at present and suggested that it isn't some arbitrary thing you pulled out of your hat.

And you say there's too much anger. Can we all just sit in a circle and sing Kum Bay Ya?

Obviously, I am not the one to be telling you anything so I'll stop trying.

TIS

 

[memooch]

Further Guidance

Here's my $0.02 to the DME arc part of this thread:

FAA-H-8261-1, page 5-36, Figure 5-26. Great pictures. Personally, I'd keep it as close to the centerline as possible.

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/instrument_procedures_handbook/media/ch_5.pdf

 

[100LL... Again!]

THe Arc has the same protection as an airway, which is to say, 1000' above any obstacle 4 nm from centerline, and 500' tapering to zero from 4nm to 8nm. If a fed or a check airman was looking over my shoulder, i'd probably wait until I had completed the turn onto the arc, merely because it's a grey area and who knows what opinion (right or wrong) that guy holds. ie: the most conservative approach is the path of least resistance when subject to official oversight. Left to my own devices, I have no qualms about starting a descent as I start my turn onto the arc (about 1.5-1.7 NM before the arc) after all I'm 6.5 miles past anything I could possibly hit at arc altitude (assuming correct altimeter setting) and it's another 9.5 nm until anything else I could hit.

Didn't you mean from 4 to 6nm the protection tapers fromm 500 to zero ft obstacle clearance?

 

[100LL... Again!]

I think that TIS is guilty of deciding that is own interpretation is gospel. I still did not see any real answer to Tony's question.

After many hours studying terps, the AIM, etc, I think it is clear that the definition of "established" for navigational courses is somewhat vague.

Many pilots THINK that they are able to divine the meaning of FARs, etc., but all the clever lawyering in the world won't count for beans if the FAA/ALJ/NTSB full board hearing think differently.

I would love to see one of these guys arguing a certificate action based on his own interpretations. Clever as though they might be.

Fact is, anyone who has been in this game long enough realizes that there are more vague rules than clear ones due to the potential for conflicting fars/op specs/ etc.

We ALL KNOW what established means with regard to SAFE operations. What is unclear is how the FAA would interpret it in an enforcement action.

Sometimes I think the FAA likes it a little muddy.



While we are at it, can anyone show a reference for the phrase "established in the hold"? ATC manual, PHAK, etc?