Re: VOR DME 7 ORL (Orlando Executive)

Download ForPilots Logbook today! Forpilots Logbook is the award-winning computerized logbook solution. The software features a simple, easy to use user interface that looks just like a paper logbook, but adds advanced statistics and reporting capabilities. Download ForPilots logbook for free!

On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:08:21 -0500, William LeFebvre <wnl@groupsys.com>
wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 08:14:14 -0500, William LeFebvre <wnl@groupsys.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>> >> For the NDB 7 approach-- No, I would not agree. I would be guided by the
>> >> AIM 5-4-7b. (which I did not quote fully before) but which goes on to say
>> >> that for the purpose of maintaining the last assigned altitude until
>> >> established on a segment of a Published Route or IAP, that the "Procedure
>> >> Turn of a published IAP shall not be considered a segment of that IAP until
>> >> the aircraft reaches the initial fix or navigation facility upon which the
>> >> procedure turn is predicated".
>> >
>> >Vectors to final does not involve a procedure turn. So how does the quote
>> >above apply?
>>
>> The quote was referencing the situation where a pilot might think it OK to
>> descend once he was in the area of the Procedure Turn without having first
>> reached the navigation aid upon which the PT was predicated.
>
>Vectors to final specifically disallows the use of a procedure turn without
>explicit clearance from ATC to perform one (AIM 5-4-8b1). So I don't see
>how the section of 5-4-7b that you are quoting can possibly apply. That
>sentence starts "For this purpose, the procedure turn of...". It is most
>clearly talking about procedure turns, a maneuver that you will very likely
>NOT be doing when ATC is giving you vectors to the final approach course.
>
>> You seemed in your prior post to believe that it was OK to descend in that
>> area, whereas AIM 5-4-7b. indicates it is not.
>
>No that is not what I said and that is not what I believe. I believe that
>it is okay to descend once established on a published segment of an IAP (as
>per the first half of 5-4-7b) and that being ON the final approach course
>AND within the distance prescribed by the procedure counts as a published
>segment. In the case of ORL NDB 7 that's a 070 bearing to the NDB and
>within 10 nm. I said nothing about any "area". The determination of the
>070 bearing is made by me and my trusty NDB. The distance is given to me by
>ATC: "I show you 7 miles from HERNY".

OK, I think I understand our disagreement now.

You are claiming you can be on a published portion of an IAP by being on
the extended final approach course and within the distance prescribed for
the PT. But the part of the final approach course that extends past the
fix is part of the procedure only insofar as it is part of the procedure
turn. The final approach segment does not extend past the fix.

So the latter part AIM 5-4-7b precludes using this area to descend by
stating "For this purpose (in other words, for the purpose of considering
yourself established on a segment of an IAP), the PT of a published IAP
shall not be considered a segment of that IAP until the a/c reaches the
initial fix or navigation facility upon which the PT is predicated."

I do not believe the fact that you are approaching the fix along the
extended final approach course, as opposed to approaching it from a 90°
angle, let us say, changes the characterization of that portion of the IAP.

>
>Here is an extreme counter-example. Consider a VOR or NDB approach that
>uses only an on-field navaid. Following your interpretation it would be
>impossible for ATC to ever give a pilot vectors to the final approach course
>of such a procedure. Following your interpretation, a pilot would always be
>compelled to overfly the (on-field) navaid and execute the full approach.
>Yet ATC routinely gives pilots vectors to final on such approaches.

Not the same thing. Do you have any examples, where the approach does NOT
have a charted final approach fix?

One of the requirements for ATC to give us "vectors to final" is that the
approach gate be depicted on their radar screen. The approach gate is
defined in terms of a final approach fix (being one mile outside the FAF
for a non-precision approach). So ATC should be giving you an altitude to
maintain until crossing the FAF, after which point you are on the charted
IAP and can descend in accordance with it.

Actually, in the cases we've been discussing, with regard to CHRCH and
HERNY, a proper ATC clearance should have included an altitude to maintain
until crossing the fix.

Best,

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)