Flying at MOCA to airport without IAP

Ron Levy said:
I would ask in return what your basis is for saying it is official distance information. It's just not stated officially as a reliable navigational method the way, for example, route segment distances are depicted on instrument charts.
Click to expand...

They're official government publications.
 
Ron Levy said:
Sure you can fly a visual approach on a cruise clearance -- but that's a published procedure once you have the airport in sight. Until then, you have to stick to approved instrument procedures.
Click to expand...

Bearing in mind that we're discussing the phases of flight prior to the issuance of an approach clearance, where is it published that following a VOR radial within its service volume is not approved?
 
Last edited:
B350ATP said:
...Thank you for the admonishment (why do you feel empowered to issue it, I don't know, but...) to "not try to fudge this" on the IFR practical test nobody is taking nor asking about.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that Ron has sent a very large number of students to take IFR practical tests, so while no one is infallible, I for one accept that what is accepted on such tests is at least within his area of expertise.

The only part I question about that part of his argument is whether that is definitive as to what is legal and what isn't.
 
As a practical matter, assuming my aircraft was /U, I would file a route that included ESC V271 MBL. I would file my destination as 2P2. I would choose an alternate suitable for my equipment.

Along the airway, I would request the MOCA and fly it until either seeing 2P2 or needing to climb higher to the MEA. On spotting 2P2, I would report it in sight and request the visual if it was doable. If I did not spot the airport prior to needing to climb, I would continue on to my clearance limit and request an appropriate route to my alternate.
 
John Collins said:
As a practical matter, assuming my aircraft was /U, I would file a route that included ESC V271 MBL. ... If I did not spot the airport prior to needing to climb, I would continue on to my clearance limit and request an appropriate route to my alternate.
Click to expand...

In a single?

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
Pardon me for interjecting my 2 cents, but this is why cruise clearances exist. They even allow the pilot to leave controlled airspace.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

Personally, I always appreciate your two cents (and the two cents of everyone else who is participating in this thread). And that's true whether I happen to agree with you/them or not.

It's all food for thought, IMO.
 
John Collins said:
As a practical matter, assuming my aircraft was /U, I would file a route that included ESC V271 MBL. I would file my destination as 2P2. I would choose an alternate suitable for my equipment.

Along the airway, I would request the MOCA and fly it until either seeing 2P2 or needing to climb higher to the MEA. On spotting 2P2, I would report it in sight and request the visual if it was doable. If I did not spot the airport prior to needing to climb, I would continue on to my clearance limit and request an appropriate route to my alternate.
Click to expand...

As has been noted, some of us are not comfortable flying that far out over the water in a single. Cap'n Ron and I appear to agree that filing a VOR radial and DME distance, or a pair of cross radials, as the final fix before the airport, would be acceptable. Do you see anything wrong with doing it that way?

My only concerns with that are

1. What we file and what ATC clears us for are often different, and

2. I'm not convinced that it's necessary.
 
Palmpilot said:
Personally, I always appreciate your two cents (and the two cents of everyone else who is participating in this thread).
Click to expand...

I've always enjoyed your incredibly logical thought processes too, Richard, even when I think mine trumps it. :cheers:

dtuuri
 
Palmpilot said:
As has been noted, some of us are not comfortable flying that far out over the water in a single. Cap'n Ron and I appear to agree that filing a VOR radial and DME distance, or a pair of cross radials, as the final fix before the airport, would be acceptable. Do you see anything wrong with doing it that way?

My only concerns with that are

1. What we file and what ATC clears us for are often different, and

2. I'm not convinced that it's necessary.
Click to expand...

I would expect one could file to a latitude and longitude based on a radial from one VOR and determined in advance to be at the intersection of two radials forming an intersection over an airport. If one could file a route based on the intersection of two radials, this would be a simple matter, it is the filing system that doesn't support this. However, I have been given routes based solely on following a radial outbound from a VOR to intersect an airway which IMHO is the same thing. There is no way to file it using the precise route, but it is easy to fly. This came up as the preferred route specified in the NOTAM over (I have a Bonanza) lake Michigan on the way to Oshkosh several years ago. The route was PMM PMM 333 radial to intercept V510, V510 to FAH.

So if you must, file -> ESC -> 4523N/8655W. This location can be determined solely by the intersection of VOR ESC radial 162 and VOR MNM radial 066. The distance from MNM is 33 NM and at an altitude 1000 feet above MNM of 650 feet (above 1650) you are in its 40 NM service volume. The route is along radial 162 of ESC and within the service volume of ESC at or above 1594 MSL which is 21 NM away. There are no NOTAMs published limiting the VOR's.

OTOH, -> ESC -> 2P2 will work. Filing along V121 would permit using the 2100 MOCA and the airway center line is only 1.6 NM to the east of the airport. To get a visual approach, the weather has to be at least 3 miles visibility with a ceiling of at least 1000 feet and the pilot must be able to remain clear of clouds and have the airport in sight.
 
Refreshing we are talking about solutions to OP problem and not Chief Counsel opinions and NOTAMS on radials

That only took 6 pages
 
peerlesscowboy said:
Ron, why don't you try actually reading the posts you reply to for a refreshing change? I said plainly that the route clearance doesn't have a vertical component.
Click to expand...
I cannot ever remember getting an IFR route clearance from ATC that did not have a "maintain [altitude]" in it. Not sure where you're going with this or what you're trying to say.
 
B350ATP said:
you answered....



No, it would not be an RNAV route. You are providing incorrect information to the guy. An RNAV route is published as such (since everyone loves "official" "published" data on this board).

RNAV Routes required compliance with various equipment and performance requirements, outlined in AC 90-100A

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-100A.pdf

ESC direct 2P2 is called "ESC direct 2P2"
Click to expand...
It may not be an "RNAV route" like the T-routes and Q-routes, but it's still an RNAV routing that requires a "suitable RNAV system". Went through this with AFS-800 and AFS-400 some time back. If you disagree, tell them, not me.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm having trouble convincing myself that a clearance from a VOR to a location that is within its service volume is an RNAV clearance.
Click to expand...
It is if you cannot locate the point to which you are cleared with a VOR, and you cannot determine that you are on track from ESC to 2P2 or determine when you reach 2P2 just with a VOR. You can certainly get a clearance out a radial to a DME fix if you have DME, or to a crossing radial if you only have VOR, but that is not the same as "direct 2P2".
As for contacting AFS-400, unpublished communications with individual pilots is an ineffective way to promulgate official interpretations. At least the Chief Counsel puts his interpretations on the Web.
Click to expand...
Can't help you there.

Furthermore, it would be unethical to enforce this interpretation without first taking the necessary steps to stop ATC from issuing the allegedly illegal clearances. Otherwise, it would be the moral equivalent of entrapment.
Click to expand...
ATC is not responsible for ensuring you have the proper equipment to accept a clearance -- that's purely PIC responsibility. Plenty of case law on point, starting with Administrator v. Fausak.
 
Ron Levy said:
It may not be an "RNAV route" like the T-routes and Q-routes, but it's still an RNAV routing that requires a "suitable RNAV system". Went through this with AFS-800 and AFS-400 some time back. If you disagree, tell them, not me.
Click to expand...

It is not an RNAV route and I could care less about AFS-800 or AFS-400 or AFS-1234 nor am I calling the Centers for Disease Control for "guidance" on whether I should wash my hands before I eat.
 
B350ATP said:
It is not an RNAV route and I could care less about AFS-800 or AFS-400 or AFS-1234 nor am I calling the Centers for Disease Control for "guidance" on whether I should wash my hands before I eat.
Click to expand...
If you don't care what the FAA says, then please don't argue with me when I tell you what the FAA has said.
 
Ron Levy said:
If you don't care what the FAA says, then please don't argue with me when I tell you what the FAA has said.
Click to expand...

OK so now everybody is arguing with Ron now ? Ron is always right and everyone else is wrong ? The problem I have is you have put out some bad info on this thread and have your own assumptions about stuff as it exists in Ron's World. You also tend to admonish and talk down to folks, which is akin to arrogance and higher-than-thou-ness. Nobody cares about your purported conversations with Chief Counsel or the FAA. We care about the truth and facts, not someone's "version" of the regs or SOP's / professional conduct in aviation.

I expect (yet another) "reply" to my post by you, challenging my position and trying to ram-rod your purported correct position (yet again) down everyones throats. Good luck and I wish you well. My positions regarding OP question have been posted.
 
Ron Levy said:
It is if you cannot locate the point to which you are cleared with a VOR, and you cannot determine that you are on track from ESC to 2P2 or determine when you reach 2P2 just with a VOR. You can certainly get a clearance out a radial to a DME fix if you have DME, or to a crossing radial if you only have VOR, but that is not the same as "direct 2P2".
Click to expand...
Well, from what John Saubak and others on this thread have said, you CAN get such a clearance even if you're just /A, but it sounds like from a regulatory standpoint, this is similar to direct random route clearances that controllers regularly offer aircraft, seemingly without regard to equipment suffix. I.e., the burden is on the pilot to reject the clearance if not equipped to legally navigate the route.
 
azure said:
Well, from what John Saubak and others on this thread have said, you CAN get such a clearance even if you're just /A, but it sounds like from a regulatory standpoint, this is similar to direct random route clearances that controllers regularly offer aircraft, seemingly without regard to equipment suffix. I.e., the burden is on the pilot to reject the clearance if not equipped to legally navigate the route.
Click to expand...
Exactly. See Administrator v. Fausak, where the pilot of a VOR-only airplane got ATC to clear him for a VOR/DME approach and then screwed it all up, spoiling the controller's day. The pilot was the one they burned, to the tune of six months on the ground.

Let's be clear -- I'm not saying that ATC won't issue you that "direct 2P2" clearance even if you're a /U suffix. Heck, I've had them tell me to expect the RNAV(GPS) approach when flying such a plane. Further, if you accept it despite lacking the legally required equipment but manage to navigate your way there without causing any problems for ATC, ATC won't care, and if they don't care, they won't write you up (assuming they even noticed your inappropriate equipment suffix). The only way it will come up is if you screw it up as badly as Fausak did, but if that does happen, and ATC files a Pilot Deviation report on you, you will have no defense to a 91.205(d)(2) violation charge.
 
Ron Levy said:
............. Not sure where you're going with this or what you're trying to say.
Click to expand...
What I'm trying to say is that in terms of your route clearance 2P2, ESCr161/21.3 and/or the intersection of ESCr161 & MNMr068 are all the same place. Yes you can be cleared "ESC --D-> 2P2" and either of these options is a legal way to identify the location. I've gotten the impression that you don't seem to think you're at 2P2 unless you're on the ground, and in terms of clearance limit/route clearance that's wrong. As I said before.....there is no vertical component to your route clearance.
 
Ron Levy said:
Exactly. See Administrator v. Fausak, where the pilot of a VOR-only airplane got ATC to clear him for a VOR/DME approach and then screwed it all up, spoiling the controller's day. The pilot was the one they burned, to the tune of six months on the ground.
Click to expand...
So the pilot accepted a clearance he wasn't equipped to fly, interesting but has NOTHING to do with the question we're discussing.
 
Ron Levy said:
The only way it will come up is if you screw it up as badly as Fausak did, but if that does happen, and ATC files a Pilot Deviation report on you, you will have no defense to a 91.205(d)(2) violation charge.
Click to expand...

If you screw up you might not have any defense, but a VOR and a stop watch is all you should need under 91.205(d)(2). Since the FAA provided no course guidance to the airport, the PIC has no choice but to create one. FAA might well have used a timing table, so why can't a PIC who's been forced to improvise in its absence?

dtuuri
 
peerlesscowboy said:
What I'm trying to say is that in terms of your route clearance 2P2, ESCr161/21.3 and/or the intersection of ESCr161 & MNMr068 are all the same place.
Click to expand...
Not for the purposes of IFR navigation unless the FAA has surveyed the locations and made that determination, and published that accordingly in IFR flight publications -- which they have not.

Yes you can be cleared "ESC --D-> 2P2" and either of these options is a legal way to identify the location. I've gotten the impression that you don't seem to think you're at 2P2 unless you're on the ground, and in terms of clearance limit/route clearance that's wrong. As I said before.....there is no vertical component to your route clearance.
Click to expand...
OK, now I understand what you mean -- not that the clearance you get from ATC has no vertical component (and it most certainly does), but rather that a fix location has no altitude component (i.e., it is essentially a vertical line, not a point in space), and I agree. However...

While I agree that there is no vertical component to a fix location, those three fixes (radial/DME, radial/radial, and airport) simply are not coincident for IFR navigation purposes even if they appear to be very close together on an L-chart. If you want to be cleared to any particular type of fix (radial/DME, radial/radial, or airport), you need navigation equipment suitable for navigating to and identifying that fix as defined. Without a GPS or other RNAV system into which the airport reference point is loaded, you cannot legally accept a clearance direct to an airport. Without RNAV or DME, you cannot legally accept a clearance along a VOR radial to a radial/DME fix even if you have measured on your L-chart and determined that some other VOR radial crosses your course at that DME fix.

As I said earlier, it's largely a matter of semantics, and if you get close, ATC probably won't care. But as a matter of procedure, this is the way it is written in the regulations and the FAA guidance on point.
 
Last edited:
peerlesscowboy said:
So the pilot accepted a clearance he wasn't equipped to fly, interesting but has NOTHING to do with the question we're discussing.
Click to expand...
Since you don't accept that a clearance direct to an airport requires a suitable RNAV system or visual contact with the airport, I see why you say that has nothing to do with the issue under discussion. But it's your entering argument (that you can build your own radial/radial or radial/DME fix to define an airport location) which isn't valid.
 
dtuuri said:
If you screw up you might not have any defense, but a VOR and a stop watch is all you should need under 91.205(d)(2).
Click to expand...
That may be your opinion, but the FAA says otherwise.
Since the FAA provided no course guidance to the airport, the PIC has no choice but to create one. FAA might well have used a timing table, so why can't a PIC who's been forced to improvise in its absence?
Click to expand...
Because the PIC is only "forced to improvise" due to the PIC's decision to accept a clearance in violation of 91.205(d)(2) because the aircraft lacks "navigation equipment suitable to the route to be flown". By your thinking, a pilot would be permitted to improvise his/her own instrument approach to airports without them, and I think we agree that's not allowed.
 
Ron Levy said:
By your thinking, a pilot would be permitted to improvise his/her own instrument approach to airports without them, and I think we agree that's not allowed.
Click to expand...

I don't think that, so we do agree.

This is a route segment flown at least 1000' above the highest obstacle within 4 nm, so comparing it to an IAP is not the same. I see no reason it isn't legal if the destination were outside (laterally) of controlled airspace and I see no difference if it isn't. The initial clearance will be ESC -> destination. Lost comms, you'd fly it out. With comms, you'll get a cruise clearance and do the same thing.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
This is a route segment flown at least 1000' above the highest obstacle within 4 nm, so comparing it to an IAP is not the same. I see no reason it isn't legal if the destination were outside (laterally) of controlled airspace and I see no difference if it isn't.
Click to expand...
So what approved method of determining fix passage (i.e., arrival at 2P2) would you use? Remember that your nav system must be able to determine both lateral deviation from the course and arrival at the fix, and DR (i.e., timing) is permitted under IFR only when specifically approved as part of a published procedure, and there's no published procedure for getting from ESC direct to 2P2.
 
Ron Levy said:
Since you don't accept that a clearance direct to an airport requires a suitable RNAV system or visual contact with the airport, I see why you say that has nothing to do with the issue under discussion. But it's your entering argument (that you can build your own radial/radial or radial/DME fix to define an airport location) which isn't valid.
Click to expand...
Well, it's become obvious that you're too heavily invested in your own misconceptions to listen so ........... good evening :)
 
Ron Levy said:
So what approved method of determining fix passage (i.e., arrival at 2P2) would you use? Remember that your nav system must be able to determine both lateral deviation from the course and arrival at the fix, and DR (i.e., timing) is permitted under IFR only when specifically approved as part of a published procedure, and there's no published procedure for getting from ESC direct to 2P2.
Click to expand...

All I need is a VOR, groundspeed and a clock. What are you citing for
"DR (i.e., timing) is permitted under IFR only when specifically approved as part of a published procedure"?​

EDIT: BTW, "DR" and "timing" aren't the same thing.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
If I were an administrative law judge who was called on to decide a case like this, I would decide it based on the following:

91.205(d)(2) requires the aircraft to have equipment installed that is suitable for the route to be flown. That requires determining the answers to the following two questions:

1. What route does the pilot intend to fly?

In the scenario we're discussing, the pilot's intention is to fly a VOR radial until he either sees the airport, or gets within three nautical miles of the airport without seeing it. If he sees it far enough out, he flies a visual approach. If he doesn't, he requests diversion to an alternate airport.

2. Does the pilot have the equipment required to fly that route?

Since the aircraft has the equipment required to fly a VOR radial, and the airport is within the service volume of a nearby VOR, the answer is yes.

The pilot is not using the selected radial as a sole navigation means all the way to the runway, but only to get within three miles of the runway, so a high degree of precision is not needed.

Based on the above, I would have no trouble finding that the equipment used is suitable for the route, and that the pilot therefore is not in violation of 91.205(d)(2).
 
azure said:
Yes, that's consistent with what I remember about them. But I still don't see where it allows a pilot to identify that clearance limit using radials and DME distances measured with a plotter.
Click to expand...

You are asking the wrong question, the question is "Where does it exclude them?" Legal language is inclusive in America, if not specifically excluded, it is included. The FAA will give you all the rope you want to hang yourself with. If you want to 'Roll Your Own' approach onto your ranch in Class G, the system is set up to allow you to proceed 'at pilot's discretion', "Just don't bust the applicable conditions." If you die, it's your own fault, as it should be.
 
Henning said:
You are asking the wrong question, the question is "Where does it exclude them?" Legal language is inclusive in America, if not specifically excluded, it is included. The FAA will give you all the rope you want to hang yourself with. If you want to 'Roll Your Own' approach onto your ranch in Class G, the system is set up to allow you to proceed 'at pilot's discretion', "Just don't bust the applicable conditions." If you die, it's your own fault, as it should be.
Click to expand...

91.175 prohibits a RYO approach. It states:

Sec. 91.175

Takeoff and landing under IFR.

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United States military aircraft.
Click to expand...

A civil airport is any airport that is not a military airport. There is no mention of any class of airspace being excluded from this rule, so this applies to G airspace as well.
 
John Collins said:
91.175 prohibits a RYO approach. It states:



A civil airport is any airport that is not a military airport. There is no mention of any class of airspace being excluded from this rule, so this applies to G airspace as well.
Click to expand...

I didn't say an instrument approach, the rule specifically states can't violate the IFR rules. However in Class G what are the IFR rules? Normally one makes it into VFR per Class G rules before having to get particularly low, often the MOCA or MEA is plenty, but 1 mile clear of clouds can be scuzzy enough you want to have a procedure for finding your way.
 
You said:

If you want to 'Roll Your Own' approach onto your ranch in Class G, the system is set up to allow you to proceed 'at pilot's discretion', "Just don't bust the applicable conditions."
Click to expand...
 
IMHO, if I can define a route and can navigate it based on the equipment I have on board, then I am not in violation of 91.205. Sectional and Low IFR charts are Geo-referenced and official FAA sources of data. I can determine both distances and radials of waypoints from these sources and use this data for determining and filing a route.

With only VOR's available, I can define my route as a radial to or from a VOR within its service limits on any radial that is not NOTAM'd as unusable. If I choose to use charted waypoints when they are available, so be it. Am I restricted to only using charted waypoints, even when on an airway in defining my requested clearance limited, I say no. There is nothing written in regulation or practice that in any way states that I can't.

When it comes to filing a route, not all routes may be filed the way I have to navigate them, for example, there is no direct way to file an intersection as a radial-radial. Does that mean I can't fly the route or be assigned one by ATC when it is convenient for them, no. When I need to file such a route, I need to use one of the methods given to me by the filing system, which means I have to use one of these methods: radial/distance, latitude-longitude, location of an airport or other waypoint in the FAA database. This merely defines the route. I might add a remark such as 4523Nd8655W is ESC 160R MNM 067R.

So I would be happy filing the route as one of these:
ESC 2P2
ESC 4523Nd8655W
ESC ESC160021

They all define the intended route. Of these, I would file the first.
 
Henning said:
It is an approach, it is not an IAP, you have to stay visual to rules, the rules visual allowance is for **** though, so you best have a way to back up your navigation. Law is all about semantics.
Click to expand...

Conditions have to be VFR at the MIA or further descent is not authorized. If out west in one of the high class G areas the MIA is likely to be at least 2000 AGL or higher which adds the 500/1000/2000 cloud clearance to VFR requirements in addition to the 1 Mile visibility (1200 AGL). If they are less than that, then an instrument approach would be necessary, even if the visibility is 1 mile and you are clear of clouds.

If the class G airport without an approach underlies class E at 1200 AGL, the visibility requirements go up to 3 miles in class E for VFR flight. Anything less than this at the MIA makes either an instrument approach or IFR visual approach necessary.
 
Ron Levy said:
It is if you cannot locate the point to which you are cleared with a VOR, and you cannot determine that you are on track from ESC to 2P2 or determine when you reach 2P2 just with a VOR. You can certainly get a clearance out a radial to a DME fix if you have DME, or to a crossing radial if you only have VOR, but that is not the same as "direct 2P2".
Click to expand...

Well, I can locate the point to which I'm cleared with a VOR. I think the vast majority of pilots can. It's done regularly on VOR approaches. The FAA makes it very clear in FAR 91.177 that the reasonable estimate by the pilot operating the aircraft is sufficient to determine that an aircraft is within 22 miles of a VOR. You insist the rules do not permit flight from a VOR to an airport with only a VOR receiver. When asked for the rule your response is 91.205(d)(2), but there is no language there that supports your position. You insist the FAA believes as you do but you do not present any evidence that that is the case. Administrator v. Fausak doesn't do it, Fausak was flying a VOR/DME approach without a DME or GPS receiver. If the FAA's position was the same as yours they'd have to change the language in FAR 91.177 and pull all those VOR approaches.
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
Well, I can locate the point to which I'm cleared with a VOR. I think the vast majority of pilots can. It's done regularly on VOR approaches. The FAA makes it very clear in FAR 91.177 that the reasonable estimate by the pilot operating the aircraft is sufficient to determine that an aircraft is within 22 miles of a VOR. You insist the rules do not permit flight from a VOR to an airport with only a VOR receiver. When asked for the rule your response is 91.205(d)(2), but there is no language there that supports your position. You insist the FAA believes as you do but you do not present any evidence that hat is the case. Administrator v. Fausak doesn't do it, Fausak was flying a VOR/DME approach without a DME or GPS receiver. If the FAAs position was the same as yours they'd have to change the language in FAR 91.177 and pull all those VOR approaches.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top