When Are You A Non-Radar Arrival?

航空论坛

游客，如果您要查看本帖隐藏内容请回复

航空论坛

When Are You A Non-Radar Arrival?

Even though you might be on radar, there are times you’re expected t
o fly the entire procedure.

By Wally Roberts
IT’S NORMAL TO GET RADAR VEC-tors to the “final approach course.” How-ever, when faced with a non-radar transi-tion from the en route structure to the ap-proach, you’re sometimes faced with com-plex and ambiguous options. Unfortu-nately, the FAA hasn’t provided any good guidance information in this area for a very long time.
You’re responsible for executing an approach in its entirety, with only the fol-lowing three exceptions: a radar vector to either the final approach course, or (in un-usual circumstances) to an earlier segment of the IAP; a visual approach; or, a contact approach.Unless you’re vectored to the fi-nal approach course, you’re a non-radar ar-rival for purposes of the approach proce-dure, even though ATC might see you on radar.
Some ATC radar facilities improvise clearances by short-cutting a required seg-ment of an IAP, without providing radar vectors in accordance with the ATC Hand-book. Since controllers aren’t trained on in-strument approach criteria (TERPs) and re-quirements, if they approve a pilot request for a “short-cut,” that approval is only based on other IFR traffic, and in no way relieves the pilot from the procedural re-quirement (FAR 97) of flying the full ap-proach procedure.
Where you begin

In November 1994, the FAA chief coun-sel issued a legal interpretation that reaf-firmed the implicit intent of TERPs criteria, which requires a non-vectored instrument approach to begin at the appropriate initial approach fix (IAF), and (where appropriate to the route) that any published feeder route be used. In unusual circumstances (where an approach doesn’t have an IAF), the in-termediate segment must be entered di-rectly from the airway that leads to the FAF.
The letter further states that a course re-versal must be executed, unless one of the three requirements of FAR 91.175(j) is sat-isfied, or, unless the IAP doesn’t have a published course reversal. Finally, the let-ter states that a published DME arc can only be started at the published IAF for the arc (this last item has raised a lot of contro-
IFR Refresher

versy, and begs for some long overdue up-the approach segments to accommodate dating of the TERPs criteria). aircraft turning and descent gradient re-
The TERPs criteria serve not only to pro-quirements. At mountainous airports, every vide vertical and lateral protection from ob-aspect of the IAP is critical. But, some of stacles, they provide smooth blending of (continued on next page)

 

When Are You..
(continued from page 5)
the stuff seems a bit arbitrary at flat-land airports, especially where pilots have good local knowledge.
The folks who develop the IAPs must make judgment calls about local traffic flow and chart readability. There is cer-tainly room, however, for improvements in the criteria used to develop feeder routes and initial approach segments, especially with the emergence of IFR GPS proce-dures. Your best policy is to conform with the transition requirements of an IAP 100 percent of the time. This ensures safety throughout the system, and could keep an inspector at bay someday.
Only the pilot can determine
There are two fundamental principles of non-radar terminal operations: the pilot and the controller are cooperative partners for the purpose of ensuring separation be-tween IFR aircraft, but only the pilot can determine the procedural requirements of an IAP Second, when there's the slightest question that a particular method of transi-tion could compromise separation, the pi-lot is duty-bound to apprise the controller of the proposed course of action. The fol-lowing examples demonstrate some of the requirements and complexities of non-ra-dar transitions.

Mandatory course reversal
Refer to the Gunnison, CO ILS Runway 6 and en route chart (page 5). This proce-dure has two IAFs: Meyrs (20 DME west of HBU VOR) and Plato (on the localizer). Plato is also the FAF, which makes it an IAF/FAF dual fix. When a fix is both an IAF and FAF, there is always a published course reversal, and the fix must be treated as an IAF when first overflown, unless you’ve flown to it via a “NoPT’ route. Also, the course reversal is mandatory, un-less you reach the fix via a NoPT segment. Since Meyrs requires DME, the NoPT tran-sition from the west via V-26/244 is only available to DME-equipped aircraft. The only other way to transition to this ap-proach is from the HBU VOR to Plato via a short feeder route (322 degrees, 3.4 miles at 11,000 feet).
An aircraft arriving from any route other

out the 261-radial to Keezr, then make a
right turn for a straight-in. Not only is this
route not a published feeder route, it
doesn’t lead to an appropriate IAF. Further,
ATC would likely get upset, since proceed-
ing out the 261-radial would be operating
westbound on V-26/244 without a route
clearance.

What you’re cleared to do
Here are two more important principles:
An approach clearance only includes feeder routes and initial approach segments appropriate to the previous route clearance. It does not include airways beyond the last
route clearance. A bsent any ATC clearance to the contrary, the approach should begin from the first feeder route or IA F encoun-tered, and for which the aircraft is equipped to use. For example, a pilot arriving from the east could ask to proceed out V-26/244 to Keezr, and ATC might approve the re-quest, based on a lack of other IFR traffic. Although that would satisfy traffic separa-tion requirements, it still wouldn’t be in compliance with the requirements of the
approach procedure.
The HBU-Plato feeder route is tricky, due to its short length (3.4 nm), followed by
(continued on nextpage)

JEPPESEN
FEB 22-91 m

HERMISTON, OREG
‘TRI-CITIES Approach (R) 133. 15

3500’ -8

HERMISTON MUN
*SEATTLE Center 132.6 when App imp.

WALLA WALLA Radio 122.6

0900
-.-J
VOR DME-A HERMSTON
MUN
UNICOM CTAF 122.8
6500’
4400’

VOR
114.7 PDT
f
.--.
-..

Obtain local altimeter setting on CTAF; if

MSA
unavailable, use Pendleton.
-j
c-$
-PDT VOR Apt. E/w
637’
“_.
,
I,

Restricted Area 5704
10
NM West of apt.
Restricted Area 5701

5.5 NM Southwest @f
apt.
45-43

than from the west on V-26/244 must tran-
REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION 0
JEPPESEN SANDERSON, INC., 1995. ALLRIGHTS RESERVED.
sition via the HBU-Plato feeder route.

Any arrival from PDT (except for arrivals from Caban or Piano) isSome pilots arriving over HBU from the required to execute the course reversal, since none of the other air-north, east or south might be tempted to fly ways are NoPT feeder routes.
August 1995 6 IFR Refresher

a large turn to capture the localizer out-bound. Aircraft without DME must be es-pecially vigilant, or you could easily pass through the localizer, and, at 11,000 feet and 322 degrees, you’d be in the rocks in less than 10 miles.
Also, contrary to some opinions, you’re well advised to capture the localizer out-bound, rather than paralleling it outbound on the non-turning side. A pilot arriving from the north must be alert and plan to make the turn on the HBU-Plato feeder route, followed quickly by the turn to inter-cept the localizer outbound. A high-speed airplane should slow to 160-180 knots prior to HBU. Special attention must be paid to the complex MEA structure of airways in mountainous areas, such as Gunnison. If you’re cleared for the approach while still on an airway, ATC has no obligation to pro-vide you with an altitude since you’re on a published route. Carefully select the appli-cable minimum altitude for your position on the airway, with particular caution in se-lecting the correct MEA for your direction of flight. You should be on speed and mini-mum altitude when departing the en route structure on to either a feeder route or an in-itial approach segment, but not at the ex-pense of busting a minimum altitude.
DME required

Refer to the Hermiston, OR VOR/DME-A and en route chart (page 6). Arrivals from the southeast from either Caban or Piano are established on a NoPT initial approach segment, so the course reversal isn’t al-lowed (unless specifically authorized by ATC). An aircraft arriving from the south-west on V-536 is expected to fly the 7-DME arc initial approach segment, since this is a DME-required procedure.
If DME wasn’t required, and you didn’t have DME, it would be wise to advise ATC that you need to start the approach from PDT. This could save a lot of misunder-standing, especially since so many aircraft have DME, and the controller might predi-cate non-radar separation on the expecta-tion that the arc will be flown.
Any arrival from PDT (except for arri-vals from Caban or Piano) is required to execute the course reversal, since none of the other airways are NoPT feeder routes. The maximum course change permitted for a NoPT designation at an IAF like PDT is 90 degrees, but V-536 from the southwest exceeds this limit. The airways from the north on both the 005 and 029-radials meet
IFR Refresher
the criteria for a NoPT designation, but the FAA elected not to designate those routes, probably to reduce chart clutter. This makes the course reversal necessary for ar-rivals along these two routes, and demon-strates lack of uniformity in procedures. At some locations like this, the FAA designs “NoPT arrival sectors,” but Hermiston didn’t get this obviously preferred treat-ment. If nothing else, this serves to demon-strate that not all IAPs are created equal.
An aircraft arriving over PDT cannot proceed southwest on V-536 for the arc in-itial segment unless specifically cleared by ATC. This is because V-536 is an airway, not a feeder route or initial segment for this procedure.
DME not required, but_
Refer to the Ellensburg, WA VOR-A and en route chart (below). While this proce-dure doesn’t require DME, it’s a lot easier with it. The only way to get on the NoPT in-termediate segment is via the l0-DME arc. Otherwise, you must start the approach from the ELN VOR, and execute the proce-dure turn. The ELN VOR is both an initial approach fix for the course reversal, and the final approach fix. Unlike the previous
(continued on page 1.5)

 

 

 

When Are You..
(continued from page 7)
example at Hermiston, there’s no flexibility to establish a NoPT arrival sector at ELN, since this VOR is an IAF/FAF, rather than an IAF/intermediate fix.
According to the FAA chief counsel’s letter mentioned earlier, the DME arc can only be entered from either V-468 from the south, or from V-25 from the north. At this location, all airways that intersect the pub-lished arc meet TERPs criteria for estab-lishing the arc. In many foreign countries, the approving authority publishes all ap-proved methods for joining the arc, similar to the 042-and 055 radials shown on this procedure for arc step-down purposes. The FAA has been urged to update its criteria in this regard, but things move very slowly these days due to budget cuts and early re-tirements of many seasoned technical per-sonnel.

Potential problem
Refer to the Arcata-Eureka, CA ILS Runway 32 and en route chart (on right). This procedure shows how a mistake by the FAA can result in potentially a real problem at a non-radar location. Both charts show Yager Intersection on the localizer. A proper application of both TERPs and charting criteria would require a “NoPT’ route from Yager, since it’s an airway fix that meets NoPT requirements from the southeast.
Also, the approach chart should have a note prohibiting a Yager arrival from the northwest, since a turn from this direction at Yager exceeds the 120-degree turn limit mandated by TERPs (also, a lead radial is required for turns of 91-120 degrees). An arrival over FOT is expected to use the 050-radial feeder route, followed by the proce-dure turn. A DME-equipped aircraft arriv-ing from the southeast on the FOT R-136 would be expected to fly the 20-mile arc.
According to the FAA’s legal interpreta-tion, an aircraft arriving from the southeast at Yager would be required to go to Knees, then execute the procedure turn. Not only does this not make any sense, it might result in a big surprise to ATC, not to mention sur-prising a couple of pilots if a second aircraft were coming inbound from Yager.
The moral of the story about the Yager arrival is to always communicate your in-tentions with ATC if there’s even the ap-pearance of ambiguity. But, keep in mind that any ATC approval of a shortcut only
August 1995

satisfies IFR traffic separation require-ments. ATC cannot waive IAP require-ments-period. In a perfect world, there would be no ambiguities or outright errors, such as the Yager example. If I were a local, regular user of Arcata, I would complain to the FAA about this procedure, and any other apparently deficient procedure.
I recommend that all of you be proactive with the FAA when you spot what appears to be an incorrect or inadequate IAP with respect to any issue, from transition routes and approach segments, to general issues of flyability and safety. Each FAA region has a flight procedures office (FPO), staffed to interface with the aviation community about such matters. These FPOs report to the FAA National Office of Aviation Stand-ards (AVN) in Oklahoma City.
Wally Roberts is a retired airline cap-tain, former chairman of the ALPA TERPS committee, and an active CFII in San Cle-mente, CA. His e-mail address is terps@netcom.com

-ARCATA

ILS Rwy 32
ARCATA Radio (LAA)
CTAF 123.65
LOC
109.5 IACV