When to descend
Dan Luke
maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L approach."
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00917R9L.PDF
When do you descend below 4,000 and to what altitude?
--
Dan
T-182T at BFM
Paul Tomblin
Good question. What does "established" mean on GPS approach? I'm
guessing they said that because they don't want you to descend to the
sector altitude (2700) when you hit 30nm out, so I guess I'd wait until
crossing UDUZI and descend to 2000. In a T182, I'm guessing you'd need to
make at least 1000 fpm to get to 2000 before UGMAH.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
...I've discovered the one thing worse than people who open attachments
from people they don't know. People who delete files when instructed
by people they don't know. -- Michael
Newps
Dan Luke wrote:
> You are coming from northeast of SFB. ATC says "Cleared direct UDUZI,
> maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L approach."
>
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00917R9L.PDF
>
>
> When do you descend below 4,000
Anytime after UDUZI.
and to what altitude?
At or above 2000
Steven P. McNicoll
"Dan Luke" <t1...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote in message
news:13gn6at...@news.supernews.com...
30 miles from UDUZI, 2700 MSL.
Mark Hansen
UDUZI is the IAF, so once you're cleared for the approach, and you reach
the IAF, you fly the altitudes prescribed by the approach. For the leg
from UDUZI to UGMAH, that would be at or above 2000'.
I assume your question is due to the sector altitude of 2500 in the
region from UGMAH NW, between the 140 and 185 from UGMAH? Otherwise,
perhaps you could explain what it is about the plate that leaves you
with a question?
--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA
Bee
wrong
Bee
correct.
Bee
> On 10/09/07 08:09, Dan Luke wrote:
>
>>You are coming from northeast of SFB. ATC says "Cleared direct UDUZI,
>>maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L approach."
>>
>>http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00917R9L.PDF
>>
>>
>>When do you descend below 4,000 and to what altitude?
>>
>
>
> UDUZI is the IAF, so once you're cleared for the approach, and you reach
> the IAF, you fly the altitudes prescribed by the approach. For the leg
> from UDUZI to UGMAH, that would be at or above 2000'.
>
> I assume your question is due to the sector altitude of 2500 in the
> region from UGMAH NW, between the 140 and 185 from UGMAH? Otherwise,
> perhaps you could explain what it is about the plate that leaves you
> with a question?
>
>
Assuming he is arriving between the UDUZI 185 bearing and the UGMAH 095
bearing (the TAA left base sector, AIM 5-4-5-d) he can descend to 2700
crossing 30 ATD from UDUZI. Then, once crossing UDUZI the altitude is
2,000.
Robert M. Gary
> In a previous article, "Dan Luke" <t1...@dingdongsouth.net> said:
>
> >You are coming from northeast of SFB. ATC says "Cleared direct UDUZI,
> >maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L approach."
>
> >http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00917R9L.PDF
>
> >When do you descend below 4,000 and to what altitude?
>
> Good question. What does "established" mean on GPS approach?
As soon as you are on a charted segment of the approach as depicted.
-Robert, CFII
Ron Rosenfeld
wrote:
Coming from the NE, you may descend to 2700' after crossing 30 NM from
UDUZI (in the Left Base Area of the TAA).
Since there seems to be some variation in the responses to your question,
here is the relevant AIM paragraph:
Pilots entering the TAA and cleared by air traffic control, are expected
to proceed directly to the IAF associated with that area of the TAA at the
altitude depicted, unless otherwise cleared by air traffic control. Cleared
direct to an Initial Approach Fix (IAF) without a clearance for the
procedure does not authorize a pilot to descend to a lower TAA altitude.
Perhaps the controller should have said "...maintain 4000 until entering
the TAA". But I think his intent is clear. If he wanted you at 4000 until
crossing UDUZI, he should have either stated that explicitly, or not
cleared you for the approach.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
Steven P. McNicoll
"Ron Rosenfeld" <ronros...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:k2fng39vpa09q4grb...@4ax.com...
>
> Coming from the NE, you may descend to 2700' after crossing 30 NM from
> UDUZI (in the Left Base Area of the TAA).
>
> Since there seems to be some variation in the responses to your question,
> here is the relevant AIM paragraph:
>
> Pilots entering the TAA and cleared by air traffic control, are expected
> to proceed directly to the IAF associated with that area of the TAA at the
> altitude depicted, unless otherwise cleared by air traffic control.
> Cleared
> direct to an Initial Approach Fix (IAF) without a clearance for the
> procedure does not authorize a pilot to descend to a lower TAA altitude.
>
> Perhaps the controller should have said "...maintain 4000 until entering
> the TAA". But I think his intent is clear. If he wanted you at 4000
> until crossing UDUZI, he should have either stated that explicitly, or not
> cleared you for the approach.
>
He doesn't say whether this is an actual clearance received or a
hypothetical scenario. The book phraseology would be, "Cleared to UDUZI,
maintain four thousand until entering the TAA, cleared RNAV runway niner
left approach." If he's already crossed the TAA boundary the clearance
would be just, "Cleared RNAV runway niner left approach."
Mitty
On 10/9/2007 1:20 PM, Steven P. McNicoll wrote the following:
>>
>
> He doesn't say whether this is an actual clearance received or a
> hypothetical scenario. The book phraseology would be, "Cleared to UDUZI,
> maintain four thousand until entering the TAA, cleared RNAV runway niner
> left approach." If he's already crossed the TAA boundary the clearance
> would be just, "Cleared RNAV runway niner left approach."
>
>
"Cleared direct UDUZI, maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L
approach." sounds like a lot of clearances I have received. Possibly not by the
book verbiage, but real world IMHO.
Why would you read anything into it? I'm not being argumentative; I just don't
understand why you would not "maintain 4000' until established" and at that
point begin to descend. Or, if you didn't like the profile, get back to ATC and
"request lower."
It could be that ATC had crossing traffic at 3000' -- no?
Steven P. McNicoll
"Mitty" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:13gnlgl...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Cleared direct UDUZI, maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L
> approach." sounds like a lot of clearances I have received. Possibly not
> by the book verbiage, but real world IMHO.
>
> Why would you read anything into it?
>
I don't.
>
> I'm not being argumentative; I just don't understand why you would not
> "maintain 4000' until established" and at that point begin to descend.
> Or, if you didn't like the profile, get back to ATC and "request lower."
>
I don't have to request lower from ATC, clearance for the approach
authorizes me to descend to 2700 at the TAA boundary.
>
> It could be that ATC had crossing traffic at 3000' -- no?
>
Then he's got a deal.
gman
>don't have to request lower from ATC, clearance for the approach
>authorizes me to descend to 2700 at the TAA boundary.
I'm with Mitty on this one. AIM Section 5-4-5.d.4(b) Says:
"Pilots entering the TAA and cleared by air traffic control, are
expected to proceed directly to the IAF associated with that area of
the TAA at the altitude depicted, unless otherwise cleared by air
traffic control."
If the clearance was indeed "...maintain 4000 until established" that
would fit the "..unless otherwise cleared by air traffic control"
clause.
To put this to a test, ask yourself when would you report established
on the approach if asked by ATC to ".. report established on the
approach"? My answer would be when I'm on one of the depicted
portions of the approach and not the TAA.
I guess one could argue that the TAA is a depicted portion of the
approach but I can't find any official publication pointing to that
fact.
Mitty
On 10/9/2007 2:38 PM, Steven P. McNicoll wrote the following:
>
>> I'm not being argumentative; I just don't understand why you would not
>> "maintain 4000' until established" and at that point begin to descend.
>> Or, if you didn't like the profile, get back to ATC and "request lower."
>>
>
> I don't have to request lower from ATC, clearance for the approach
> authorizes me to descend to 2700 at the TAA boundary.
>
>
So the boundary is equivalent to becoming established? Or the "until
established" bit is bad phraseology or redundant?
>> It could be that ATC had crossing traffic at 3000' -- no?
>>
>
> Then he's got a deal.
>
What if you _were_ the controller and _did_ have the crossing traffic. What
would be the clearance you would give to the guy at 4000' to keep him up there
until the potential deal was over? Simply delay the approach clearance?
Steven P. McNicoll
"gman" <agh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191962517.1...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> I'm with Mitty on this one. AIM Section 5-4-5.d.4(b) Says:
>
> "Pilots entering the TAA and cleared by air traffic control, are
> expected to proceed directly to the IAF associated with that area of
> the TAA at the altitude depicted, unless otherwise cleared by air
> traffic control."
>
> If the clearance was indeed "...maintain 4000 until established" that
> would fit the "..unless otherwise cleared by air traffic control"
> clause.
>
You didn't go far enough:
"Cleared direct to an Initial Approach Fix (IAF) without a clearance for the
procedure does not authorize a pilot to descend to a lower TAA altitude. If
a pilot desires a lower altitude without an approach clearance, request the
lower TAA altitude."
>
> To put this to a test, ask yourself when would you report established
> on the approach if asked by ATC to ".. report established on the
> approach"? My answer would be when I'm on one of the depicted
> portions of the approach and not the TAA.
>
My answer would be when I'm within the TAA, because a TAA is by definition a
published portion of the approach.
TERMINAL ARRIVAL AREA (TAA)? The TAA is controlled airspace established in
conjunction with the Standard or Modified T and I RNAV approach
configurations. In the standard TAA, there are three areas: straight-in,
left base, and right base. The arc boundaries of the three areas of the TAA
are published portions of the approach and allow aircraft to transition from
the en route structure direct to the nearest IAF. TAAs will also eliminate
or reduce feeder routes, departure extensions, and procedure turns or course
reversal.
>
> I guess one could argue that the TAA is a depicted portion of the
> approach but I can't find any official publication pointing to that
> fact.
>
It's in the Pilot/Controller Glossary.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> So the boundary is equivalent to becoming established? Or the "until
> established" bit is bad phraseology or redundant?
>
The TAAs are published portions of the approach, that's right out of the TAA
definition provided in the P/CG:
TERMINAL ARRIVAL AREA (TAA)- The TAA is controlled airspace established in
conjunction with the Standard or Modified T and I RNAV approach
configurations. In the standard TAA, there are three areas: straight-in,
left base, and right base. The arc boundaries of the three areas of the TAA
are published portions of the approach and allow aircraft to transition from
the en route structure direct to the nearest IAF. TAAs will also eliminate
or reduce feeder routes, departure extensions, and procedure turns or course
reversal.
>
> What if you _were_ the controller and _did_ have the crossing traffic.
> What would be the clearance you would give to the guy at 4000' to keep him
> up there until the potential deal was over? Simply delay the approach
> clearance?
>
That'd do it.
Dane Spearing
Hmmmmm....I'm not sure I buy this. The clearance stated "...maintain 4000'
*until established*..." which to me says that I'm to remain at 4000' until
I am on a *charted* section of the approach. Simply being in the TAA
does not mean I'm on a charted section of the approach. For this clearance,
I would say I'm on a charted section of the approach after crossing the IAF
(UDUZI). I would not descend below 4000' until after crossing UDUZI, and
then I would descent to 2000' as depicted. Or am I being too conservative
here?
-- Dane
Steven P. McNicoll
"Dane Spearing" <da...@rescomp.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:feh21s$t1v$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
>
> Hmmmmm....I'm not sure I buy this. The clearance stated "...maintain
> 4000'
> *until established*..." which to me says that I'm to remain at 4000' until
> I am on a *charted* section of the approach. Simply being in the TAA
> does not mean I'm on a charted section of the approach. For this
> clearance,
> I would say I'm on a charted section of the approach after crossing the
> IAF
> (UDUZI). I would not descend below 4000' until after crossing UDUZI, and
> then I would descent to 2000' as depicted. Or am I being too conservative
> here?
>
TAAs are published portions of the approach, when you cross the TAA boundary
you're *established* on the approach.
Ron Rosenfeld
<ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>He doesn't say whether this is an actual clearance received or a
>hypothetical scenario. The book phraseology would be, "Cleared to UDUZI,
>maintain four thousand until entering the TAA, cleared RNAV runway niner
>left approach." If he's already crossed the TAA boundary the clearance
>would be just, "Cleared RNAV runway niner left approach."
Exactly.
Ron Rosenfeld
>Why would you read anything into it? I'm not being argumentative; I just don't
>understand why you would not "maintain 4000' until established" and at that
>point begin to descend. Or, if you didn't like the profile, get back to ATC and
>"request lower."
When you enter the TAA, you ARE established.
Bee
altitudes, otherwise they would not contain an altitude with an underscore.
Bee
I guess the AIM and the IPH need to state "A TAA straight-in, left base,
or right base area is the regulatory equivalent of a published approach
segment." Otherwise, the uncertainty and sharpshooting is endless. ;-)
Bee
You are established when you enter the TAA.
Bee
The TAAs have published altitudes; i.e., with underscores as opposed to
MSA altitudes, which are not operational.
bsalai
I'm the least expert of anyone in this discussion, but doesn't the box
around the 2700 mean that you should maintain 2700, that they expect you
at that altitude once inside the TAA
Brad
Steven P. McNicoll
"bsalai" <bsa...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:470cab01$0$26364$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> I'm the least expert of anyone in this discussion, but doesn't the box
> around the 2700 mean that you should maintain 2700, that they expect you
> at that altitude once inside the TAA
>
I believe you're thinking of a Mandatory Altitude, which is indicated by
both underlining and overlining the altitude figure.
B A R R Y
>
> I'm the least expert of anyone in this discussion, but doesn't the box
> around the 2700 mean that you should maintain 2700, that they expect you
> at that altitude once inside the TAA
Those are MSA's.
Dan Luke
"Bee" wrote:
> I guess the AIM and the IPH need to state "A TAA straight-in, left base, or
> right base area is the regulatory equivalent of a published approach
> segment." Otherwise, the uncertainty and sharpshooting is endless. ;-)
Yep. And given the scanty training that controllers receive (or so I have
been told in these groups) WRT RNAV approaches, pilots had best make sure
that they and ATC have the same thing in mind when flying such a clearance.
--
Dan
T-182T at BFM
Steven P. McNicoll
"Bee" <B...@Bmail.com> wrote in message
news:EHVOi.11699$bM6....@newsfe20.lga...
>
> I guess the AIM and the IPH need to state "A TAA straight-in, left base,
> or right base area is the regulatory equivalent of a published approach
> segment." Otherwise, the uncertainty and sharpshooting is endless. ;-)
>
The AIM already states that, in the Pilot/Controller Glossary:
AREA NAVIGATION (RNAV) APPROACH CONFIGURATION:
a. STANDARD T- An RNAV approach whose design allows direct flight to
any one of three initial approach fixes (IAF) and eliminates the need for
procedure turns. The standard design is to align the procedure on the
extended centerline with the missed approach point (MAP) at the runway
threshold, the final approach fix (FAF), and the initial
approach/intermediate fix (IAF/IF). The other two IAFs will be established
perpendicular to the IF.
b. MODIFIED T- An RNAV approach design for single or multiple runways
where terrain or operational constraints do not allow for the standard T.
The "T" may be modified by increasing or decreasing the angle from the
corner IAF(s) to the IF or by eliminating one or both corner IAFs.
c. STANDARD I- An RNAV approach design for a single runway with both
corner IAFs eliminated. Course reversal or radar vectoring may be required
at busy terminals with multiple runways.
d. TERMINAL ARRIVAL AREA (TAA)- The TAA is controlled airspace
established in conjunction with the Standard or Modified T and I RNAV
approach configurations. In the standard TAA, there are three areas:
straight-in, left base, and right base. The arc boundaries of the three
areas of the TAA are published portions of the approach and allow aircraft
to transition from the en route structure direct to the nearest IAF. TAAs
will also eliminate or reduce feeder routes, departure extensions, and
procedure turns or course reversal.
1. STRAIGHT-IN AREA- A 30NM arc centered on the IF bounded by a
straight line extending through the IF perpendicular to the intermediate
course.
2. LEFT BASE AREA- A 30NM arc centered on the right corner IAF.
The area shares a boundary with the straight-in area except that it extends
out for 30NM from the IAF and is bounded on the other side by a line
extending from the IF through the FAF to the arc.
3. RIGHT BASE AREA- A 30NM arc centered on the left corner IAF.
The area shares a boundary with the straight-in area except that it extends
out for 30NM from the IAF and is bounded on the other side by a line
extending from the IF through the FAF to the arc.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13gpmub...@corp.supernews.com...
The Instrument Flying Handbook, dated 2001, also states, "The arc boundaries
of the three areas of the TAA are published portions of the approach and
allow aircraft to transition from the en route structure direct to the
nearest IAF." Apparently pilots are not making an effort to keep current on
procedures.
Ron Rosenfeld
>I guess the AIM and the IPH need to state "A TAA straight-in, left base,
>or right base area is the regulatory equivalent of a published approach
It's in the PC/G:
TERMINAL ARRIVAL AREA (TAA)- The TAA is controlled airspace established in
conjunction with the Standard or Modified T and I RNAV approach
configurations. In the standard TAA, there are three areas: straight-in,
left base, and right base. The arc boundaries of the three areas of the TAA
**are published portions of the approach** and allow aircraft to transition
from the en route structure direct to the nearest IAF. TAAs will also
eliminate or reduce feeder routes, departure extensions, and procedure
turns or course reversal.
(emphasis mine)
Al G
"Bee" <B...@Bmail.com> wrote in message
> Newps wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dan Luke wrote:
>>
>>> You are coming from northeast of SFB. ATC says "Cleared direct UDUZI,
>>> maintain 4000' until established, cleared RNAV 9L approach."
>>>
>>> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0710/00917R9L.PDF
>>>
>>>
>>> When do you descend below 4,000
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> and to what altitude?
>>
>>
>> At or above 2000
>
> wrong
You want to expand on that a bit, bucko?
Al G
Bee
You descend to 2700 once inside the TAA.
Like Steve said, you guys need to read the AIM and the PC/G. ALo
Bee
Great cite. Too bad most of the folks here cannot figure out how to
find this stuff.
Dave Butler
> Great cite. Too bad most of the folks here cannot figure out how to
> find this stuff.
Great cite of a pretty good site.
True enough, but if everyone just looked everything up and found the
answers and interpreted everything correctly, we wouldn't have much to
talk about here.
Anyway, I certainly wouldn't fault the OP for raising the question here.
It provoked an interesting discussion and I learned from it.
Dave
Bee
The NACO TAA charts are also covered in great detail in the NACO IAP
chart legend, which appears everytime someone downloads NACO approach
charts:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/content/naco/online/pdf_files/7th_IAP_Intro.pdf
Al G
"Dave Butler" <as...@asdf.net> wrote in message
news:11921089...@sj-nntpcache-2.cisco.com...
Me too.
Al G
Ron Rosenfeld
>Great cite. Too bad most of the folks here cannot figure out how to
>find this stuff.
At least the question is asked and, in the various answers, these sorts of
things become known.
Bee
It didn't help that NACO chose to use the MSA box for the TAA area
minimum altitudes rather than the underscore as they have always used
for all other minimum alitudes and as illustrated in the AIM.
They also claim that the TAA area minimum altitudes replace MSAs for
these IAPs. That is incorrect. They make MSAs unnecessay but they do
not replace them. MSAs are not IFR altitudes in this country.
Ron Rosenfeld
>They also claim that the TAA area minimum altitudes replace MSAs for
>these IAPs. That is incorrect. They make MSAs unnecessay but they do
>not replace them. MSAs are not IFR altitudes in this country.
Although the TAA minimum altitude, and MSA have different definitions, I
never had a problem with the concept of them being the same value when
there is a TAA published.
Bee
Well, I don't see how they can be the same value when the MSAs don't
exist. MSAs provide 1,000 feet of obstacle clearance everywhere. TAAs
provide 2,000 feet in DMAs.
But, the greater concern is someone tortures the comparision to conclude
that MSAs, where charted, must now be IFR altitudes.
Ron Rosenfeld
>Well, I don't see how they can be the same value when the MSAs don't
>exist. MSAs provide 1,000 feet of obstacle clearance everywhere. TAAs
>provide 2,000 feet in DMAs.
By definition, MSAs provide **AT LEAST** 1,000 of obstacle clearance. So
2,000' would be included.
>
>But, the greater concern is someone tortures the comparision to conclude
>that MSAs, where charted, must now be IFR altitudes.
That was always a concern in the US, even before the establishment of TAAs.
J. Severyn
"Dave Butler" <as...@asdf.net> wrote in message
news:11921089...@sj-nntpcache-2.cisco.com...
> Bee wrote:
> It provoked an interesting discussion and I learned from it.
>
> Dave
I agree completely. Very good discussion. Thanks for the original question
Dan.
John Severyn
Dan Luke
"J. Severyn" wrote:
>> Bee wrote:
>> Anyway, I certainly wouldn't fault the OP for raising the question here. It
>> provoked an interesting discussion and I learned from it.
>>
>> Dave
>
> I agree completely. Very good discussion. Thanks for the original question
> Dan.
ĄDe nada!
(Full disclosure: I took the question from a thread in the Cessna Pilots Ass'n
forums)
Bee
For those who didn't read the AIM much, no doubt about it.