Accepting an RNAV arrival that is for turboprops only (and you're a piston)

narchee

narchee

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Sep 8, 2014
Messages
722
Display Name
Display name:
Long Blinker
This has happened twice to me in the last month. I filed for a different STAR but got an RNAV STAR that is marked for turboprops only. It has hard crossing restrictions with speeds. The first time, I accepted it then started reading it and saw the notes. So I spoke up and told the controller "I'm not a turboprop and there is no way in hell I could do the speeds". He said, "no problem, just do the altitudes".

The second time I flew that route the same thing happened. Because of my previous experience, I accepted it and assumed I'd do the same again. This time the controller (different controller) some time later asked me if I'm going to be able to do the speeds... I said of course not. She got a little testy and said, then I'm going to have to give you a different arrival which she did a short time later.

So I'm guessing I should NOT have accepted it in either case because it is clearly marked for turboprops only.

Opinions?
 
Right, you will have to give each new controller the 'no way in hell' speech because they won't know other wise that you can't comply.
PA-46?
 
narchee said:
This has happened twice to me in the last month. I filed for a different STAR but got an RNAV STAR that is marked for turboprops only. It has hard crossing restrictions with speeds. The first time, I accepted it then started reading it and saw the notes. So I spoke up and told the controller "I'm not a turboprop and there is no way in hell I could do the speeds". He said, "no problem, just do the altitudes".

The second time I flew that route the same thing happened. Because of my previous experience, I accepted it and assumed I'd do the same again. This time the controller (different controller) some time later asked me if I'm going to be able to do the speeds... I said of course not. She got a little testy and said, then I'm going to have to give you a different arrival which she did a short time later.

So I'm guessing I should NOT have accepted it in either case because it is clearly marked for turboprops only.

Opinions?
Click to expand...


Yup.....:yes::redface:
 
Are you sure you are filing the right aircraft code? Just thinking there must be a reason they try to give you the approach.
 
narchee said:
So I'm guessing I should NOT have accepted it in either case because it is clearly marked for turboprops only.

Opinions?
Click to expand...

Unlike an IAP or an OPD, a STAR or SID is not regulatory as such until assigned by ATC. So, if the controller wants you to fly a STAR that is marked "turboprop only" and he/she accommodates your speed limitation, then have at it.
 
There is no need to not accept a SID or STAR just because your not a turbo prop or a jet or any speed issue. If a SID or STAR is assigned to you your obligation ends when you inform ATC you're not whatever the note says. As long as you can legally navigate it your fine. If you can't because you don't have GPS or the database is corrupt or something only then would you have to say unable.

Btw, I hope you didn't really say "no way in hell" on the radio as your quotes suggest...
 
Call the facility and ask to talk to the duty supervisor. Ask him/her your question. Let us know what you learn.
 
Call the facility and ask to talk to the duty supervisor. Ask him/her your question. Let us know what you learn.
 
aterpster said:
Unlike an IAP or an OPD, a STAR or SID is not regulatory as such until assigned by ATC. So, if the controller wants you to fly a STAR that is marked "turboprop only" and he/she accommodates your speed limitation, then have at it.
Click to expand...
That makes so much sense when we recall what a SID And a STAR are. They are simply graphical and text shorthand for a longer, more complex set of instructions. So no real problem if it's assigned for the purpose or routing and nothing else. Even the MEAs on those charts are not really MEAs.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That makes so much sense when we recall what a SID And a STAR are. They are simply graphical and text shorthand for a longer, more complex set of instructions. So no real problem if it's assigned for the purpose or routing and nothing else. Even the MEAs on those charts are not really MEAs.
Click to expand...

Mark, how do you conclude that MEA's on these charts are not real?
 
Just remember if routed via a star you are required to comply with the lateral navigation AND speeds until assigned to descend VIA the star. If they tell you that you do not need to descend with it you must still always comply with the speeds. This is a commonly forgotten thing. So even if they assign it to you and never tell you to descend via you must absolutely tell them you can't do the speeds as you are expected to always comply with the speeds unless instructed otherwise
 
Last edited:
JustinD said:
Just remember if routes via a star you are required to comply with the lateral navigation AND speeds until assigned to descend VIA the star. If they do not tell you that you do not descend with it HOWEVER you must always comply with the speeds. This is a commonly forgotten thing. So even if they assign it to you and never tell you to descend via you must absolutely tell them you can't do the speeds as you are expected to always comply with the speeds unless instructed otherwise
Click to expand...
ATC will sometimes delete the speed restrictions even if you are in an airplane which can comply with the speeds. In these cases we will go faster than the published speeds, but there's nothing which says you can't go slower.
 
Everskyward said:
ATC will sometimes delete the speed restrictions even if you are in an airplane which can comply with the speeds. In these cases we will go faster than the published speeds, but there's nothing which says you can't go slower.
Click to expand...


That's why I said unless you are instructed otherwise, I.e. Delete the speed restriction etc. if they never do that you're still required to maintain the speed
 
I don't think you need to go so far as calling the duty supervisor. If the controller wants you to fly it...fine. I would just do what you did the first time flying it and let every controller you talk to know you are "unable the speed restrictions". If you get a testy controller just say, "well the last guy assigned it and he had no problem with me being a piston" flying it probably just helped keep you in line with everyone else.
 
JustinD said:
Just remember if routed via a star you are required to comply with the lateral navigation AND speeds until assigned to descend VIA the star. If they tell you that you do not need to descend with it you must still always comply with the speeds. This is a commonly forgotten thing. So even if they assign it to you and never tell you to descend via you must absolutely tell them you can't do the speeds as you are expected to always comply with the speeds unless instructed otherwise
Click to expand...

If they don't say "descend via," are you supposed to continue maintaining the last assigned altitude while navigating the lateral course depicted?
 
John Collins said:
Mark, how do you conclude that MEA's on these charts are not real?
Click to expand...

I agree they are not really MEA's. Yeah, I know on the Chart Legend they call them MEA's. But they do not fit the definition of MEA. They are almost always an ATC imposed minimum altitude to accomodate traffic separation with a minimum of verbal altitude assignments from controllers. My opinion is they should be on DP and STAR charts just like on Approach Charts, as an underlined, overlined or mandatory altitude. Probably no big deal though. They do give the MOCA, at least on some of them to cover this discrepency so when the S*** hits the fan you won't freak out thinking you're going to hit a rock because you're "going below the MEA"
 
narchee said:
This has happened twice to me in the last month. I filed for a different STAR but got an RNAV STAR that is marked for turboprops only. It has hard crossing restrictions with speeds. The first time, I accepted it then started reading it and saw the notes. So I spoke up and told the controller "I'm not a turboprop and there is no way in hell I could do the speeds". He said, "no problem, just do the altitudes".

The second time I flew that route the same thing happened. Because of my previous experience, I accepted it and assumed I'd do the same again. This time the controller (different controller) some time later asked me if I'm going to be able to do the speeds... I said of course not. She got a little testy and said, then I'm going to have to give you a different arrival which she did a short time later.

So I'm guessing I should NOT have accepted it in either case because it is clearly marked for turboprops only.

Opinions?
Click to expand...

I don't think ya did anything all that bad the first time. Good job reviewing the chart and speaking up. As for case two I would recommend getting a pen and a piece of paper and writing 50 times "thou shalt not assume a controller is going to do something just because some other controller did it once."
 
Gucci Pilot said:
I don't think you need to go so far as calling the duty supervisor. ...
Click to expand...
Iwasn't suggesting that the OP call to complain, just to get his questions answered. I probably call one facility or another with a question at least twice a year. It is always a pleasant and informative experience.Many questions I see posted on POA could be better handled this way.
 
luvflyin said:
I agree they are not really MEA's. Yeah, I know on the Chart Legend they call them MEA's. But they do not fit the definition of MEA. They are almost always an ATC imposed minimum altitude to accomodate traffic separation with a minimum of verbal altitude assignments from controllers. My opinion is they should be on DP and STAR charts just like on Approach Charts, as an underlined, overlined or mandatory altitude. Probably no big deal though. They do give the MOCA, at least on some of them to cover this discrepency so when the S*** hits the fan you won't freak out thinking you're going to hit a rock because you're "going below the MEA"
Click to expand...

In the fairly early days of the STAR program they began placing real MEAs on them after the airline pilots complained enough. That didn't last, but so long as the altitudes that are shown are higher than want the MEA would be, that satisfies the concern.
 
There are updates to the STAR and DP orders to not use MEA on them soley for ATC purposes. They gotta mean what they say?
 
aterpster said:
In the fairly early days of the STAR program they began placing real MEAs on them after the airline pilots complained enough. That didn't last, but so long as the altitudes that are shown are higher than want the MEA would be, that satisfies the concern.
Click to expand...

......what the MEA would be...... That's kinda the problem. They aren't really MEA's. But they label them "MEA." Hell, I'm not even sure if the airway MEA's on the Enroute Charts are really the MEA any more. The people constructing and publishing all this stuff seem to just come up some quick fix term everytime they run into a problem whether or not it passes the logic check. No wonder things are "a mess."
 
Palmpilot said:
If they don't say "descend via," are you supposed to continue maintaining the last assigned altitude while navigating the lateral course depicted?
Click to expand...
Correct. If they don't say "descend via", stay at your altitude regardless of star notations. Canada is slightly different, but that's a different conversation.
 
Palmpilot said:
If they don't say "descend via," are you supposed to continue maintaining the last assigned altitude while navigating the lateral course depicted?
Click to expand...

But notated speeds are always mandatory unless relief is granted.
 
What kritcow just said is exactly accurate. Unless it's an "EXPECT to cross adena at 250kts" then you need not follow it until told to do it since it's just expect but if you have a fix like "babze at 210kts" then it's a mandatory speed since it does not say expect it is mandatory. But with altitudes you stay at your last assigned altitude until told to descend via
 
If you're given it again just reply, "You understand I can't make the speed right?" Then the ball is back in their court. They'll either have you continue or reassign.
 
frfly172 said:
Are you sure you are filing the right aircraft code? Just thinking there must be a reason they try to give you the approach.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've been using fltplan to file my flight plans for years. I'm not sure why they assigned this particular STAR to me. The funny thing is the other arrival I was given had almost the same waypoints. Just a different name minus the restrictions and a couple of other differences.

The first time I was given it I did the right thing and alerted ATC to the fact I was not capable of doing that arrival. The second time I incorrectly accepted it because I assumed I'd be given the same treatment as the first time. Bad assumption.
 
Henning said:
If you're given it again just reply, "You understand I can't make the speed right?" Then the ball is back in their court. They'll either have you continue or reassign.
Click to expand...

Or just "Bugsmasher 123 is unable to fly the specified speeds on that arrival."
 
Kritchlow said:
Correct. If they don't say "descend via", stay at your altitude regardless of star notations. Canada is slightly different, but that's a different conversation.
Click to expand...

In Canada any decent issued must comply with the STAR profile as if it were decend via :D
 
The real *****-show is listening to the old mainliners get a "climb via" at places like DEN.
 
taters said:
In Canada any decent issued must comply with the STAR profile as if it were decend via :D
Click to expand...

Just to muddle it further, a Canadian controller will be expecting you to do so even if you're in US airspace flying to a US airport. I've been burned by this while going into Bellingham, WA. It's been awhile since I've been in there though - perhaps things got straightened out.

I also couldn't get the Canadian controller to clear me for a visual because the ATIS was still reporting IFR conditions (the marine layer had long since moved off the airport). I had to do the whole friggin' ILS and there wasn't a cloud anywhere around.

Damned Canadians! Heh! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top