GPS Approach Peculiarities

[Talan2000]

Steve

I'll have to disagree with your assessment of this flight for real world. Every bit of it was legal and flown that way and would have been approved that way real world. The gps 8 approach is perfectly legit approach even if landing to the west. Circling isn't ad hoc its part of the approach.

Keith. Thanks for the definition HILPT is a new acronym for me. Maybe someday the FAA will write No HILPT on this approach someday instead of No PT.

Todd

[Keith Smith]

I suspect that the ability to shoot an opposite direction approach (given the winds) is going to be based on the volume of departing IFR traffic from OXR and CMA.

You can absolutely request the RNAV RWY 8, however, you may not be able to get it depending on the volume of traffic. I hear people getting denied certain approaches on a regular basis here in the NE sometimes, but other times I hear them being approved. It's all about the traffic.

[Ryan B]

As to Ken and Mr Burns V27 questions - Peter pretty much handled that. As for my understanding, as soon as I am cleared DIRECT, I am NOT on an airway even if my track exactly overlays that airway. For example, in the past, I've considered asking for DIRECT APLES on an I-rating test when heading to VCV and its arcing approach for this reason -- the airway MEA is WAY high once you are north of the mountains and the controller can't get you lower because of it. But I believe if one got a Direct clearance to APLES he could give you lower...

From my viewpoint the only reason they wrote procedure NA from V27 eastbound is because of what I discussed with Peter above... your current track cannot exceed a 90 degree angle to the IAF's if you are cleared for the approach from the outer T fixes. Technically if you weren't on V27 eastbound but your track was the same as being on the airway you still couldn't start the approach from DEANO.

Now I can't remember the math but you'd have to be about 6 degrees north of V27 in order to start that approach at DEANO. If your track from PPOS to the turn at DEANO was more than 90 degrees you'd have to either ask for HATLY or ATC would vector you first to the north to ensure a less than 90 degree turn.

[Talan2000]

Ok Guys,


I've being enjoying a spirited argument with my retired ATP DAL Captain dad about this approach -- NOT about the DEANO IAF but about the HATLI IAF.

So let's ask the experts one more time -- WHAT IF we had been cleared for the approach - DIRECT HATLI from KWANG.

Would the HILPT be required to be flown? I say YES per the FAA, even it is unnecessary to align with the FAC. He says No way.

Would it make any difference what the intercept crs was to HATLI -- say we were out west not necessarily at KWANG but west of HATLI and had a 10 degree offset to 073? 20 Degree Offset to 073 ? In other words, if you have a very shallow/essentially straight in approach to HATLI can you SKIP the HILPT? And if so WHAT are the legal boundaries of that "discretion" to skip the HILPT? ??

Not such a simple approach after all., eh?

Todd

[Keith Smith]

The conditions under which you don't fly a published HILPT or procedure turn are set in stone:
1) if you're on a segment marked NoPT
2) if you're receiving vectors to the final approach course
3) if timed approaches are in use
4) if you're cleared for a straight-in approach by ATC.

So, yes, it's still a very simple approach. If you were cleared direct HATLI, and cleared for the approach, then you'd fly the PT. Why? Because none of the 4 conditions above have been met.

ATC could clear you for the straight-in, assuming the angles and descent gradients work out, in which case you would not fly the HILPT.

If ATC plans to send you to the IF, they're supposed to give you some notice, in the form of "expect direct HATLI."

You're trying to make it vague and subjective and looking for pilot discretion....there is no need. The rules are clear.

From a pilot perspective, the rules are very clear about when to fly the hold and when to fly straight-in. However, in PRACTICE, there are times where it's fairly obvious that ATC doesn't expect you to fly the hold, yet they fail to clear you for the straight-in. The 7110.65 stresses the importance of this in a recent set of updates. If you suspect that they mean for you to fly a straight-in, but the regs say you should hold, then tell ATC, "request straight-in approach."

This is debated on a weekly basis on most IFR forums and has been for years. In fact, the rules on the pilot side are actually very simple.

[Talan2000]

Keith, Thanks again for the clarification, that's a useful checklist to work with.

I guess, optimally somewhere out west near KWANG I would broadcast, "Request GPS Rwy 8 approach, straight in, circle to land 26" to ensure my desires are understood when asked what approach I wanted.

Also, glad that my instinct to not employ discretion, and fly the HILPT UNLESS explicitly told not to (via the 4 set in stone items you list) is in accordance with the FAA desires.

in PRACTICE, there are times where it's fairly obvious that ATC doesn't expect you to fly the hold, yet they fail to clear you for the straight-in. The 7110.65 stresses the importance of this in a recent set of updates. If you suspect that they mean for you to fly a straight-in, but the regs say you should hold, then tell ATC, "request straight-in approach."

This is debated on a weekly basis on most IFR forums and has been for years. In fact, the rules on the pilot side are actually very simple.

I dunno, but it does seem a bit confusing to me, especially if you have to guess at what is "fairly obvious" when they clear you for the approach. Never Heard of "7110.65" before but my google fu reveals it's a controller reg. Glad the recent updates have clarified this for atc working with pilots.

[Keith Smith]

'fairly obvious' would mean if all the requirements have been met to shoot it as a straight-in approach. That would mean:
1) less than 90 deg intercept at the IF
2) normal descent gradient from present altitude to the published altitude at the FAF

In other words, if you could comfortably fly it as a straight-in, yet the rules call for you to fly a hold, I would ask the controller because there is usually nothing to be gained from ATC's perspective by having you fly the hold.

This comes up as an issue in the Real World IFR program on the flight from JFK to CDW for the RNAV (GPS) RWY 22 where I get sent direct to the IF but ATC hadn't cleared me for the straight-in. Based on the numbered points above, I suspected he wanted me to fly the straight-in. He was talking absolutely non-stop for 10+ minutes, though, so I made a judgement call and flew straight-in without confirming with him. I wouldn't generally recommend doing it that way, though, I was also using local experience with the knowledge that in the 4 times I've asked on past flights if they mean for me to fly straight-in, they've said they did want a straight-in.

[Talan2000]

Very interesting. And that jibes with my dads adamant position that his 10000+ flight hrs experience told him he would fly from the west to hatli without even considering the hold (assuming as you note that you near altitude and close on heading ) with or without a "straight in clearance". Of course he's passed his check ride and I have not....

[Ryan B]

What Keith explains is accurate but in real world i see a lot of pilots omitting the HILPT even if they weren't cleared for the straight in approach. I will say, for once, the FAA cleared this up pretty well putting the onus on the controllers to clear pikots straight in so there's no ambiguity about what to do.

I cannot for the life of me figure out why pilots would have to fly the hold anyway (there are obvious factors like terrain).

[Keith Smith]

This isn't well-taught by CFIIs, I encounter many IFR pilots who think it's a judgement call, or they've been scolded in the past for flying the hold (ATC expected a straight-in despite not clearing people for the straight-in), so there's a lot of misinformation out there.