PilotEdge Forums

I appreciate where you're coming from Joe, but I'm with Keith on this one. I don't believe that the intent of the rule is that you would plan an unpublished radial or a dead reckoning leg to get to the airport, and then another one to get to an IAF from there. I think this falls under the "good judgment" qualifier that begins the AIM lost comm section.

Ryan B wrote:So at MZB, if IMC, commence the loc 27

Done.

A lot of text up there! Anyway that's my two cents as a rw controller from what I hope the pilot would do.

Yep, but how, given it's not an IAF? That's the question.

HRutila wrote:I'll do you one better: Pull up the ILS Runway 9. The teardrop entry at SARGS from the missed approach procedure on the LOC 27 is the perfect setup to intercept the localizer for the ILS Runway 9. From there you can circle back to Runway 27 or just make the approach straight-in.

This has probably been brought up before in the other thread, but I don't know where to look.

If you're going to do the ILS 9 there's a feeder from MZB, so no need to involve the LOC 27 missed approach procedure. The circling mins for the ILS 9 are higher than the straight in LOC 27, so that might be a factor.

RyanK wrote:

HRutila wrote:I'll do you one better: Pull up the ILS Runway 9. The teardrop entry at SARGS from the missed approach procedure on the LOC 27 is the perfect setup to intercept the localizer for the ILS Runway 9. From there you can circle back to Runway 27 or just make the approach straight-in.

This has probably been brought up before in the other thread, but I don't know where to look.

If you're going to do the ILS 9 there's a feeder from MZB, so no need to involve the LOC 27 missed approach procedure. The circling mins for the ILS 9 are higher than the straight in LOC 27, so that might be a factor.

The premise of the question I was answering was what you do in a lost comms situation after you go missed on the LOC 27.

We are teaching the regs Joe posted during ground school, but the rule is not really enforced. During a lost comms situation, the expectation that Flight Standards has taught the instruction community (during checkrides, specifically) is to commence an approach as soon as practical upon reaching the destination. The mentality of FAA Flight Standards is that they just want us to use common sense.

Although I wouldn't expect any pilot to look very deep into this, but at the time those regs were published, much of the country was in a non-radar environment. The regulation simply allows ATC to meet non-radar separation requirements. The fact that we have radar nearly everywhere today makes the procedures described in the regulation pretty nonsensical.

Part of the reason this isn't heard about more is because it really isn't a big issue. Many times NORDO pilots will find VFR conditions and stay there, or will arrive at their destinations at the ETA and not have to hold at all. The discussion we're having on holding is really a last-resort situation that I would venture to say happens at most 1 time each year.

MZB is a transition to the LOC 27

It's like where I work - DLH is a transition to the ILS RY 27
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1606/00125IL27.PDF

Doesn't have to say IAF

Ryan B wrote:MZB is a transition to the LOC 27

It's like where I work - DLH is a transition to the ILS RY 27
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1606/00125IL27.PDF

Doesn't have to say IAF

Your DLH is a fly able route. It has altitude guidance for that route.

The MZB in the LOC 27 isn't. It only helps identify DOUGA and SARGS

In and emergency situation, I would fly that route staying at the MSA

Well I think in an emergency the best thing to do is what the controller would think you would do. If you're /A in a busy controlled airspace, flying to the IAF from MZB is what I'd expect a pilot to do.

Maybe the socal guys expect something entirely different.

About the approach plate transitions... you're saying the radial has to show an altitude and distance to be a transition? Where can I find more info on this? I always thought those were transitions. (I'm not an instrument pilot)

Ryan,

This is covered in grim detail in the PilotEdge workshops on instrument approaches. Flyable legs always have distance, course and a minimum altitude. They also use slightly thicker lines on the plate than non-flyable radials.

Fantastic - I admittedly skipped those

Ryan B wrote:Fantastic - I admittedly skipped those

They are GREAT! Wealth of knowledge. Strongly recommended.