When to descend?

[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?