phraseology for DME Arcs
Karl Haglund
I was wondering what the proper phraseology (and procedure) is for
setting up and clearing an aircraft for a DME arc approach?
For example, the VOR/DME runway 22R approach into Champaign-Willard uses
a 12 DME arc around CMI (Champaign) VOR (let's pretend the procedure
turn part isn't there to make it a pure DME arc)....
http://edj.net/cgi-bin/echoplate.pl?EastCentral/CMI_vd_gr22R.GIF
I seem to be completely unable to find this info in the faah7110.65, so
please permit me to make a complete mess of it : )
Say an aircraft is inbound 22R Champaign from the northwest on heading
120... is the proper phraseology something like...
"N2345, descend & maintain 2500. Intercept the 12 DME arc CMI VOR,
cleared VOR/DME runway 22R approach Champaign"
Does that sound ridiculous? What's the right way? Any help *much*
appreciated!
Regards,
Karl
---------------
Karl E. Haglund, Ph.D.
Department of Experimental Pathology
Yale University School of Medicine
P.O. Box 208023
New Haven, CT
06520
Chris Smith
if the pilot had the chart in the first place then you could just simply
clear them direct to either of the ARC IAF's and then clear them for the
"full approach". To add phraseology detailing information available on the
chart seems redundant.
So your clearance for this should read something like "N100PS, d/m 2500,
proceed direct KINCI (or KIMXI), cleared for the full procedure VOR rwy 22R,
report 5 mile final".
I like to add the "report 5 mile final" to my VOR and visual approach
clearances as a reminder to myself to h/o to TWR or clear the aircraft to
land when they call in. :) Hope this helps you out, and by all means if
I'm wrong here someone please correct me so I can get it right too! LOL
Chris Smith
ZJX Chief
"Karl Haglund" <khag...@biomed.med.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:3DE870D0...@biomed.med.yale.edu...
Bill Irvine
sounds good to me
here's the plate:
http://edj.net/cgi-bin/echoplate.pl?EastCentral/CMI_vd_gr22R.GIF
using the IAF puts one in a technically correct position
the pilot can always request an entry point other than IAF
it probably depends on the skill and experience of the one drivin' but i
submit the phaseology is correct in view of what the plate shows
also note, RBS & DNV are the IAFs for the straight-in intercept, precluding
the necessity to fly the arc
bill
i often get the feeling ATC is amazed when we captains can actually fly
these things ;-)
p.s. i'm no longer an active certified controller
--
Bill Irvine
Senior Command Captain
WestWind Virtual Airline
Vice-president Flyin Operations
http://members.shaw.ca/wji/
"Chris Smith" <chri...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3de8...@news.simflight.com...
Ian Elchitz
"6 miles from KINCI, cross KINCI at or above 2700 Cleared VOR DME Runway 22R
approach".
Ian Elchitz CYWG
Oakland ARTCC
"Bill Irvine" <w...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
Pete Adcock
Chris' notion is correct- don't get involved in the details of the procedure.
KINCI is an IAF and so are Roberts, Danville, and KIMXI. The controller need
not worry about the rest. That's the pilot's job.
Ian's example is also correct, however, there could be more variation than
the altitude restriction given by his phraseology, as Air Traffic Controllers
do not normally get in the habit of assigning uneven altitudes to pilots
on IFR Flightplans.
The pilot would most likely have been assigned 3000 at this point and told
to maintain 3000 until KINCI.
But let's say for example that the MVA in this area is 1800.
The air traffic controller could very well have assigned the inbound aircraft
2000 for traffic; in which case, the approach clearance would come down as
follows:
"One Three Miles Northwest of Campaign Airport, Maintain Two Thousand Until
KINCI, Cleared VOR DME Runway 22 Right Approach"
Just some extra thoughts, but Chris and Ian are also technically correct.
Pete
Michael Finch
There are a few things to notice here.
Your descent to 2500 is incorrect. The altitude for the arc is 2700
according to the chart, so don't descend below that.
You SHOULD, however, assign an altitude just as you are to (in the US)
for an ILS approach. There is no redundancy unless you've already assigned
the correct altitude. Even if redundant, the 7110.65 specifies that an
altitude is to be assigned until established on a published segment of the
approach procedure.
There is no Procedure Turn for the arc as it shows on the chart....NoPT
means No Procedure Turn.
Use of "Full approach" terminology is typically used when the pilot is
expected to make a Procedure turn. In this example, this would happen if
the pilot is approaching from the Southwest, South, or Southeast, in which
you could clear them direct to STADI for the Full Approach (including a
Procedure Turn.)
Approaching from RBS or DNV VORs also specify NoPT.
The use of these is not typical in a RADAR environment. These are all
non-RADAR procedures. Other times they may be used for Controller or Pilot
practice.
Your phraseology (except for the altitute given) is perfect!!!
By the way....DON'T add for a/c to report 5 mile final if RADAR is
used....use the RADAR.
Other procedures are needed for non-RADAR for establishing a/c positions.
"Chris Smith" <chri...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3de8...@news.simflight.com...
Pete Adcock
Yes, the 2500 is incorrect. That's a VFR altitude.
However, if the MVA is lower than 2000, the controller could assign the aircraft
2000 prior to approach clearance.
An IFR altitude assignment of 2000 from ATC would override the 2700 figure
on the IAP.
Pete
Michael Finch
altitude is not pertinent.
I mentioned that this is either a non-RADAR or practice approach (simulating
non-RADAR) procedure. If RADAR is used, you would use vectoring. Since
non-RADAR, Minimum Vectoring Atltitudes (MVAs) obviously don't apply.
"Pete Adcock" <petey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3de9...@news.simflight.com...
Andy Williams
> expected to make a Procedure turn. In this example, this would happen if
> the pilot is approaching from the Southwest, South, or Southeast, in which
> you could clear them direct to STADI for the Full Approach (including a
> Procedure Turn.)
I don't believe there is any correlation between "full procedure" and a
procedure turn. You are correct a full procedure is normally for use in a
non-radar environment (or practice at pilot's request). It means the
procedure is to be flown in full as charted, starting at an IAF or feeder
route. Once cleared and established on a published segment (including feeder
routes), it's up to the pilot to navigate both laterally and vertically.
Whether a procedure turn applies or not depends on the IAF to be used and is
indicated on the chart.
Andy
"Michael Finch" <MLF_SUP Addr> wrote in message
news:3de92f2e$1...@news.simflight.com...
Pete Adcock
My apologies. I was under the impression that the gentleman was looking for
correct approach controller phraseology for the approach.
In which case, the accepted choice for an IFR aircraft is 2000 or 3000, 4000
etc. The MVA is a major factor in approach control procedure and also with
regard to the answer to the original question.
My point was that, if 2000 is above the MVA, the approach controller has
every right to assign that altitude regardless of the FLIP or PUB procedure.
Subsequently, PTAC, the undisputed Word of God in approach control would
be used just as it would with any other approach.
Again, my apologies, as I was not aware that this was a non-radar question.
Steven L. Cochran
So if the MVA is 2000 and the Approach Plate says that
the ARC is to be flown at 2700. Does that mean the pilot is
to climb from 2000 to 2700 when they intercept the ARC?
Steve
"Pete Adcock" <petey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3de9...@news.simflight.com...
|
Nate Johns
xxx until established on the final approach course" or a particular
intersection or DME fix on the approach. I wonder how often though MVAs are
actually lower than published arc altitudes on approaches.
I know some approaches make notes about "unless otherwise assigned by ATC"
or the like. Does ATC assigned altitude preempt an altitude published on a
plate?
~Nate
"Steven L. Cochran" <sl...@uplolgon.com.net> wrote in message
news:3de9...@news.simflight.com...
Maury Krupp
>I suppose that the controller could say something to the effect of
"maintain
>xxx until established on the final approach course" or a particular
>intersection or DME fix on the approach. I wonder how often though MVAs are
>actually lower than published arc altitudes on approaches.
As you can't vector to join an intermediate segment that isn't also part of
the FAC it's all moot.
MVAs are often lower than the altitudes published on an approach but,
because different criteria are used to determine each type of altitudes,
there's no accurate way correlate a relationship between the two. One
altitude is apples; the other is oranges.
>I know some approaches make notes about "unless otherwise assigned by ATC"
>or the like. Does ATC assigned altitude preempt an altitude published on a
>plate?
Yes, it does.
Usually the "otherwise assigned " altitudes are there for procedural reasons
(sector boundaries, conflicts between approaches, etc) not obstruction
clearance. So if ATC doesn't need the published altitude for traffic
management, they don't have to use it and may then assign an altitude based
on the facility's MVA/MIA.
Maury
Maury Krupp
>Hello, all,
>
>I was wondering what the proper phraseology (and procedure) is for
>setting up and clearing an aircraft for a DME arc approach?
The type of course guidance has no bearing on approach clearance
phraseology. Use one of the standard phraseology options found in FAAH
7110.65 4-8-1a.
>For example, the VOR/DME runway 22R approach into Champaign-Willard uses
>a 12 DME arc around CMI (Champaign) VOR (let's pretend the procedure
>turn part isn't there to make it a pure DME arc)....
>
>http://edj.net/cgi-bin/echoplate.pl?EastCentral/CMI_vd_gr22R.GIF
Unless radar is used to position the aircraft on the final approach course,
all approaches must begin at an IAF or intermediate approach fix if there is
no IAF (FAAH 7110.65 4-8-1a).
This limits you to sending the aircraft to KINCI, ROBERTS, or DANVILLE.
You may not vector the aircraft to join the arc because it is an
*intermediate* segment of the approach not a published *route* nor is it the
final approach course (the CMI R-027). An example of a published route
would be a route with an altitude that leads from a feeder fix to an IAF.
These are depicted with a skinny line vs the bold line of the approach
procedure.
If you are sending the aircraft to any of these IAFs via a non-published
route you must assign an appropriate IFR altitude (FAAH 7110.65 4-8-1b(2).
This may be either the ATC facility's Minimum Instrument Altitude
(non-radar) or MVA (radar) but has nothing to do with the altitudes shown on
the plate. These altitudes are only good within narrow parameters while
actually established on the specific route. For example there may be a
2500ft obstacle just outside the protected airspace for the DME arc that for
some obscure TERPS reason, isn't depicted on the plate.
>I seem to be completely unable to find this info in the faah7110.65, so
>please permit me to make a complete mess of it : )
>
>Say an aircraft is inbound 22R Champaign from the northwest on heading
>120... is the proper phraseology something like...
>
>"N2345, descend & maintain 2500. Intercept the 12 DME arc CMI VOR,
>cleared VOR/DME runway 22R approach Champaign"
>
>Does that sound ridiculous? What's the right way? Any help *much*
>appreciated!
For plain old IFR routing phraseology when using DME arcs as part of an IFR
clearance, see FAAH 7110.65 2-5-2b.
Maury
Pete Adcock
Nope.
The ATC IFR altitude assignment of 2000 would be an authoritative replacement
of the 2700.
The DME ARC would be flown at 2000.
Remember, this is all based on having an Facility MVA Chart in your hands
that would allow you to assign that altitude.
Pete
Pete Adcock
In almost every facility I have ever been rated in, the MVA's are normally
the lowest altitudes you can find. They are the "lowest legally vectorable"
altitude an approach controller can use. Radar must be in service to use
them and that's why pilots don't have them.
These altitudes are the basis for safe operations at low level. They are
based on altitudes at least 1000 feet above the highest obstruction within
a 3 mile radius of the obstruction (used to be a TERPS guy too)....they also
provide a basis for such phraseology as "Low Altitude Alert, Check Altitude
Immediately, The MVA in your area is One Thousand Eight Hundred". They have
alot of uses for an ATC'er.
The phraseology for the DME ARC is irrelavent to this conversation really,
since the IAF comes before it.
Intercept at the IAF is the right way-
"Maintain Two Thousand Until TRIXIE". Or whatever altitude you need for traffic.
As we would say in the RAPCON, "Eagle One Five, Maintain One Seven Thousand
Until Jones, Cleared High TACAN Runway Two Two Right Approach"
The phraseology is no different for a straight in approach than this DME
ARC approach. All we are doing here is providing an altitude to maintain
until the IAF.
Pete
Pete Adcock
A fresh face! Maury sounds like he knows what he is talking about...
Thanks Dude!
Pete
Maury Krupp
>
>"If you are sending the aircraft to any of these IAFs via a non-published
>route you must assign an appropriate IFR altitude (FAAH 7110.65 4-8-1b(2).
>This may be either the ATC facility's Minimum Instrument Altitude
>(non-radar) or MVA (radar) but has nothing to do with the altitudes shown
>on
>the plate."
>
>
>Exactly what I was trying to say with the 2000, 3000, 4000, etc.
>
>These are all IFR altitudes assigned by ATC (not 2700)...
>
Umm, actually the term "IFR altitude" means a 14 CFR Section 91.177 altitude
which provides the required obstacle clearance along the aircraft's route.
It may be an even thousands altitude (2000, 3000, etc) to make separation
(and phraseology) simpler for the controller or an odd-ball altitude (1800,
2700, etc) based on the height of the controlling obstacle in the
appropriate MVA/MIA sector.
Maury
Pete Adcock
"If you are sending the aircraft to any of these IAFs via a non-published
route you must assign an appropriate IFR altitude (FAAH 7110.65 4-8-1b(2).
This may be either the ATC facility's Minimum Instrument Altitude
(non-radar) or MVA (radar) but has nothing to do with the altitudes shown
on
the plate."
Very nice peice of explaination there.
Exactly what I was trying to say with the 2000, 3000, 4000, etc.
These are all IFR altitudes assigned by ATC (not 2700)...
Pete
Mike Evans
because this is our SOP'd altitude for the North Localizer.. and it's an IFR
altitude because I assigned it =)
It's also inside class Bravo airspace, so there is no chance of confliction
with VFR traffic, as there can't be any without my knowledge (in theory).
But we aren't restricted to assigning only even thousands to IFR aircraft..
Socal routinely gives LGB approaches 1600 till BECCA (the marker).
Mike
"Pete Adcock" <petey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3de998ce$1...@news.simflight.com...
Ian Elchitz
I don't see anything wrong with issuing 2700 as part of PTAC. AFAIK, ATC can
assign ANY altitude they want to an IFR aircraft in their sky - what makes
it an IFR altitude is the fact that the aircraft is IFR and the controller
ASSIGNED it (I think).
Anyhow - I have heard the following a few hundres times on the radios:
"6 miles from Canarsie cross Canarsie at 1500 cleared VOR 13L approach"
"9 miles from BRIJJ turn left heading 310 maintain 1800 until established
cleared ILS 28R approach"
"4 miles from DARTS cross DARTS at 4300 cleared VOR Alpha Approach"
So - not sure what the problem is, but of course I'm just a virtual
controller <G>.
Ian Elchitz CYWG
Oakland ARTCC
"Pete Adcock" <petey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3de998ce$1...@news.simflight.com...
>
Pete Adcock
Can't argue with that.
Pete
Pete Adcock
You know, you really have gone beyond laymens terms here....
You really are on the next level with this conversation. Hats off to you
and whatever facility you work in. You appear to be extremely knowledgeable.
Pete
Pete Adcock
Yes, it's always nice to get some brain busting action going on....
Maury brought me back to reality when he said that an IFR altitude really
is anything above the MVA and assigned by ATC.
It's my own personal preference not to assign numbers that aren't rounded
off, this way if the radar breaks, i have a better chance of ifr separation
between the aircraft I control. Just a matter of preference.
Especially when I am turning aircraft on the base leg pointing at each other...Better
to have someone at 2000 and the other at 3000 than one at 2000 and the other
at 2700....
Pete
Nigel Spink
wouldn't it depend on the Minimum Safety Altitude or your equivalent?
My closest airfield, Plymouth (EGHD) in England has a direct arrival and an
arc system for runway 31 as it is a non radar airport.
IFR aircraft are cleared to 2700ft (the MSA for arrivals from the east) and
once they have reported passing IAF at 13dme they are cleared to the ILS
intercept height of 2300ft, then told to report established on the ILS.
Just my experience.
Nigel
"Ian Elchitz" <ielchitz@_NOSPAM_eleventhstreet.com> wrote in message
news:3de9...@news.simflight.com...
Mike Evans
LAX has a unique situtation, in that we have 4 capture boxes for our simuls.
it looks something like this (pardon my ascii art ability)
2500 4000
3500 5000
Keeps everything separated quite nicely =)
Mike
"Pete Adcock" <petey...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3dea2dff$1...@news.simflight.com...
Nate Johns
We've got Trips and Duals bars at DEN :) Used when we're runnin Triple or
Dual Simo ILS approaches. Bar... just sounds less dainty than "capture
boxes" <g>
Runnin' trips is a kick... 35L (the middle of the 3) captures at 11k more
than 20 miles out, 34R captures at 10 a little more than 22 miles out, and
35R at 9k around 20 miles out as well. BOOBU, CRUUP and DORRY make a nice
little "bar" on the scope that connects the 3 fixes.
Nothin like having way too many planes lined up on final. 3 strings on the
scope that are 7 or 8 deep is somethin to see :) Dual streams, eh, whatever,
old hat :) Mwahahaha.
Generally speaking though, yah... I'd say having 2 airplanes headed directly
at each other at the same altitude is generally a bad thing ;)
~Nate
PS - For anyone interested, 34L/16R at DEN is done with concrete pouring.
Itt'l take 3 months to cure fully, then, when they get around to certifying
it and its approaches, voila, itt'l be the longest commercially used runway
in the US (world?) at 16,000 feet, and no expected displaced thresholds :)
"Mike Evans" <mike....@vatsim.net> wrote in message
news:3dea569c$1...@news.simflight.com...
Karl Haglund
The knowledge in this group never ceases to amaze me!
Regards,
Karl