When to descend II

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

>
> I've not flown in that area, but ATC may be wanting you to fly to Royce
> before turning inbound because of traffic on approach to Rwy 12L. There are
> some issues with intersecting flight paths that need to be avoided when
> dealing with parallel runway operations.

If it is a "maybe" in your mind, then it's best to comply.
>
> Having said that, I would have assumed ATC wanted me to fly to ROYCE before
> turning inbound, at or above two thousand; but I would request
> clarification from the tower as to whether I could go straight in from my
> present position, if that seemed a viable alternative.

No turn inbound required. He is presumably already on the localizer or
he couldn't identify ROYCE.
>
> Of course, if in VMC, you could cancel your IFR flight plan, mooting the
> previous ATC clearance.
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Might not be the best airspace to be doing that without making sure you
won't be descending onto some other aircraft like Newps says.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:47:51 -0700, Bee <Bee@bee.com> wrote:
>
>
>>No turn inbound required. He is presumably already on the localizer or
>>he couldn't identify ROYCE.
>
>
> Bee,
>
> I don't believe he can be 4 mi SW of ROYCE and also on the localizer for
> Rwy 12. Or am I missing something?
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

He probably meant NW. You can't identify ROYCE unless you are on the
localizer.

>
> He probably meant NW. You can't identify ROYCE unless you are on the
> localizer.

Non GPS airplane?

Newps wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> He probably meant NW. You can't identify ROYCE unless you are on the
>> localizer.
>
>
> Non GPS airplane?

GPS isn't the issue. In fact there is also an RNAV (GPS) IAP to 12R
with the same FAF.

But, ATC couldn't issue the crossing restiction at ROYCE unless the
aircraft were on the approach at that time. A direct-to-the-FAF is not
allowed.

"Bee" wrote:

>>
>> I don't believe he can be 4 mi SW of ROYCE and also on the localizer for
>> Rwy 12. Or am I missing something?

>
> He probably meant NW. You can't identify ROYCE unless you are on the
> localizer.

No, I meant SW. I was on a vector to join, and then called the field in
sight.

I'm doing this from memory of 6 mos. ago. I might be missing a detail, but
the approach and tower clearances are essentially correct.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Bee wrote:


>
>
> GPS isn't the issue. In fact there is also an RNAV (GPS) IAP to 12R
> with the same FAF.
>
> But, ATC couldn't issue the crossing restiction at ROYCE unless the
> aircraft were on the approach at that time. A direct-to-the-FAF is not
> allowed.

I most certainly can issue that restriction without the aircraft being
on the approach. It's merely a fix, if I want an aircrasft to cross
over a fix at or above a certain altitude I'll do it.

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Bee" wrote:
>
>
>>>I don't believe he can be 4 mi SW of ROYCE and also on the localizer for
>>>Rwy 12. Or am I missing something?
>
>
>>He probably meant NW. You can't identify ROYCE unless you are on the
>>localizer.
>
>
> No, I meant SW. I was on a vector to join, and then called the field in
> sight.
>
> I'm doing this from memory of 6 mos. ago. I might be missing a detail, but
> the approach and tower clearances are essentially correct.
>

Yes, memory is a fleeting thing. ;-)

If you were on vectors to the ILS, the final heading for intercept
couldn't be greater than 330 coming from that direction.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:27:37 -0700, Bee <Bee@bee.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If you were on vectors to the ILS,
>
>
> But he wrote that he had been cleared for the visual.
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

It was cross ROYCE at or above 2,000, *then* cleared for the visual.

Newps wrote:

>

>
> You're doing to the visual approach, it's irrelevant what fix I send you
> too. It could be a charted one or one I simply made up out of thin air.

Okay, I get it. The IAP is not even in the plan. IFR to a fix, then
visual or, if unable, a new plan. Maybe, the at or above 2,000 at ROYCE
was to keep the pilot at MVA instead of for traffic? You think maybe so?

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:29:07 -0700, Bee <Bee@bee.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It was cross ROYCE at or above 2,000, *then* cleared for the visual.
>
>
> I don't understand your point.

Because you said:

"But he wrote that he had been cleared for the visual."
>
> The approach clearance is frequently/usually/always given after a
> fix/crossing restriction.
>
> He was NOT on vectors for an ILS approach.
>
> I do not believe that to proceed direct ROYCE, from 4 miles SW of ROYCE,
> for an ILS approach would even meet the requirements for proper ATC
> handling.
>
> So he was cleared via ROYCE as part of setting him up for a Visual
> Approach.

Apparently so. Nonetheless, the visual approach was not authorized
until *after* crossing ROYCE at or above 2,000.
>
> My guess is that the altitude restriction and course specification was
> traffic related. Perhaps there was conflicting traffic for the parallel
> runway.

Or, it could have been to assure MVA until ROYCE.