Arrival altitude question

Indiana_Pilot

Indiana_Pilot

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Nov 2, 2013
Messages
802
Location
Connersville, IN
Display Name
Flying "B"
Home Airfield
KCEV
Looking at the WIPOR 3 arrival for KSFZ.. if I am arriving from the Hancock transition area and flying at 7000’ Would they just have me hold 7k until WIPOR? Or is it likely they won’t give me the arrival at all since I’m a low and slow Piper :) perhaps give me direct WIPOR and bypass the other legs?


3a315f0b02b542d0b2a9ca3cc628236b.png



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I’m 99.9% sure you won’t get the arrival. From my experience flying in the northeast even flying SEL into JFK, LGA, BOS, etc you won’t get a STAR. This STAR is more for turboprops and jets
 
That is what I was curious about.. I have received STARS at the oddest times. I was given one flying from Fort Wayne to Lunken.. took we WAY out of the way.. They weren't even all that busy that day.. half way through they just gave me direct.. I guess they could amend the altitude for the entire arrival but like you said they probably won't even give it to me..
 
Indiana_Pilot said:
That is what I was curious about.. I have received STARS at the oddest times. I was given one flying from Fort Wayne to Lunken.. took we WAY out of the way.. They weren't even all that busy that day.. half way through they just gave me direct.. I guess they could amend the altitude for the entire arrival but like you said they probably won't even give it to me..
Click to expand...
You have to look st each STAR. If you see crossing restrictions in the flight levels with 300 knots, common sense says says you won’t be doing it in your Piper. Some STARs will even say something like “only applicable to turboprop and turbojet aircraft.” I’ve flown into almost every Class B airport in the NE and mid Atlantic in a SEL and I’ve not once gotten a STAR. I’ve also gotten a STAR flying into my Home airport (Class D) coming from the north. Again, just look at the STAR and use common sense.
 
jordane93 said:
You have to look st each STAR. If you see crossing restrictions in the flight levels with 300 knots, common sense says says you won’t be doing it in your Piper. Some STARs will even say something like “only applicable to turboprop and turbojet aircraft.”
Click to expand...

Good point.. I guess the better way to have stated my question would have been.. How likely are they to amend the altitude and actually give me this STAR.. I am sure it varies by area.. seems like they love them around here..
 
Indiana_Pilot said:
Good point.. I guess the better way to have stated my question would have been.. How likely are they to amend the altitude and actually give me this STAR.. I am sure it varies by area.. seems like they love them around here..
Click to expand...
Probably not likely at at all. Once you get a little closer they’ll ask you what approach you want and give you vectors.
 
Kritchlow said:
I agree with Jordan.
Click to expand...

I agree with Kritchlow, who agrees with Jordan, who agrees with...wait.

note: if ya don't wanna mess with them, just note it in the remarks on your flight plan, negative STAR/SID
 
Indiana_Pilot said:
Good point.. I guess the better way to have stated my question would have been.. How likely are they to amend the altitude and actually give me this STAR.. I am sure it varies by area.. seems like they love them around here..
Click to expand...
It really depends. I've gotten STARs when I didn't expect them and didn't when I did expect them. I just review the reasonable ones as part of my planning just in case.

I'm not sure what you mean by amended altitudes. All of the altitude restrictions on the WIPOR arrival are "Expect" altitudes. Some charts specifically say this, but they are essentially heads-ups for jets so they can do some descent planning. They may or may not actually be assigned.

If you are talking about the incoming "MEAs," it really depends on the area. As an example, the DRONE arrival into the Norfolk VA area has pretty high "MEAs" but is regularly given to light aircraft with substantially lower assigned altitudes. ("MEA" is in quotes because I've discovered they are not MEAs in the enroute chart sense.)

Yet another variation I've encountered is the giving of a clearance identical to a STAR, but without assigning the STAR. I've gotten that a number of times with the GOOFY arrival into the Orlando, FL area.
 
I mean amended as I have had controllers give me lower altitudes than what is depicted before.. not very often though.
 
jordane93 said:
Probably not likely at at all. Once you get a little closer they’ll ask you what approach you want and give you vectors.
Click to expand...
Yup.... freqently happens to me when returning to KDTO from the OKC area... Center will instruct me in the same breath "cleared for the GREGS8 arrival, direct GREGS, maintain X thousand. Change to Regional Approach on 118.1" and as soon as I check on with Approach, I'm back to direct KDTO like I was 40 seconds ago.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Yup.... freqently happens to me when returning to KDTO from the OKC area... Center will instruct me in the same breath "cleared for the GREGS8 arrival, direct GREGS, maintain X thousand. Change to Regional Approach on 118.1" and as soon as I check on with Approach, I'm back to direct KDTO like I was 40 seconds ago.
Click to expand...
I think that stuff is spec’d in agreements between center and approach. Denver does the same type thing but approach leaves you on the arrival until it’s awkward: “Oh, yer not an aluminum tube going to DEN, turn left now because you are going on a 20 mile detour and I’m ignoring the fact that you asked me earlier when it would have knocked 10 miles off the long way” Going to FTG from the west when IFR can suck.
 
This STAR does not have a turbojet or turboprop limitation, so piston aircraft are authorized to fly the procedure. If you file using an FAA/Domestic flightplan form, you will not get this STAR as it is an RNAV and requires you filing an ICAO flightplan and to be RNAV 1 equipped with either GPS sensor or a DME-DME/IRU sensor. Having the latter sensor is highly improbable in a piston aircraft. So if you happened to have a WAAS GPS or a legacy GNS/G1000 system, your aircraft could be coded as follows to be able to file this procedure using an ICAO flightplan:

ICAO Equipment: G, R, S
ICAO PBN: D2

Otherwise, your flightplan would be rejected.

If you have the equipment and file appropriately, you would probably join at WIPOR at your 7000 foot altitude or with a crossing restriction of 6000 at WIPOR.
 
Indiana_Pilot said:
That is what I was curious about.. I have received STARS at the oddest times. I was given one flying from Fort Wayne to Lunken.. took we WAY out of the way.. They weren't even all that busy that day.. half way through they just gave me direct..
Click to expand...

I’ve been to Lunken twice, and was given a STAR both times. They must like ‘em.
 
midlifeflyer said:
It really depends. I've gotten STARs when I didn't expect them and didn't when I did expect them. I just review the reasonable ones as part of my planning just in case.

I'm not sure what you mean by amended altitudes. All of the altitude restrictions on the WIPOR arrival are "Expect" altitudes. Some charts specifically say this, but they are essentially heads-ups for jets so they can do some descent planning. They may or may not actually be assigned.

If you are talking about the incoming "MEAs," it really depends on the area. As an example, the DRONE arrival into the Norfolk VA area has pretty high "MEAs" but is regularly given to light aircraft with substantially lower assigned altitudes. ("MEA" is in quotes because I've discovered they are not MEAs in the enroute chart sense.)

Yet another variation I've encountered is the giving of a clearance identical to a STAR, but without assigning the STAR. I've gotten that a number of times with the GOOFY arrival into the Orlando, FL area.
Click to expand...
Yeah. There are crossing altitudes at fixes that are 'expect.' Ain't nothing wrong with ATC giving you 7000. Once you get about about halfway from HNK to PONEE there is unlikely to be an MVA/MIA in that neighborhood above about 4000. There are 'segement' altitudes though, starting with FL180 from HNK to HIGZ right on down to 9000 from NELIE to WIPOR. The STAR legend tells us these are MEA's, which is a bold faced Lie given the definition of MEA. These things are 'Procedure Altitudes' to accomodate a reduction in verbiage and workload for ATC while separating airplanes. Lets have some fun. You are between HINGZ and PONEE, last clearance recieved is WIPOR THREE ARRIVAL, Maintain 7000. All the usual try another radio, mic, cell phone and anything else anyone can come up with has been done. You are NORDO! and you are in the goo. Whatcha gonna do?
 
mscard88 said:
I agree with Kritchlow, who agrees with Jordan, who agrees with...wait.

note: if ya don't wanna mess with them, just note it in the remarks on your flight plan, negative STAR/SID
Click to expand...

Wouldnt they just give you the textual over the freq, or just vector you; if they really need you to be on one?
 
frank.durham said:
Wouldnt they just give you the textual over the freq, or just vector you; if they really need you to be on one?
Click to expand...
I never quite understood the "no SIDs or STARs" mentality. I think at one time they were in a separate book so it made sense, but, aside from that, why would I prefer a series of waypoints to a procedure which has been nicely charted for me? It always seemed to me to be akin to:

"No thank you, I'd prefer you give me all the waypoints between Richmond and JFK so I can write them down individually and check with you for proper spelling instead of just writing V16."
 
Has anyone tried filing no SID/STAR recently? I'm guessing that would cause as much ATC consternation as a request to cancel IFR and get a special VFR out of the airspace. ;)
 
midlifeflyer said:
I never quite understood the "no SIDs or STARs" mentality. I think at one time they were in a separate book so it made sense, but, aside from that, why would I prefer a series of waypoints to a procedure which has been nicely charted for me? It always seemed to me to be akin to:

"No thank you, I'd prefer you give me all the waypoints between Richmond and JFK so I can write them down individually and check with you for proper spelling instead of just writing V16."
Click to expand...
Because most people think if they put no SID/STAR in the remarks of the flight plan they won’t get it which is completely wrong.
 
So just an update they didn’t give it to me but they amended my route twice when I was over CT and it ended with an approach to 100’ above minimums.. good times!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MauleSkinner said:
Has anyone tried filing no SID/STAR recently? I'm guessing that would cause as much ATC consternation as a request to cancel IFR and get a special VFR out of the airspace. ;)
Click to expand...
Eons ago when SIDs and STARs were first proposed, AOPA was adamant about light airplane pilots having the option to refuse SIDs or STARs. They were also adamant in that era that ATC would be able to read an IAP chart to a light airplane pilot if he/she didn't have the chart onboard.:crazy:
 
This chart does not comply with current standards. The altitudes are either expect altitudes or charted as MEA and not crossing restrictions, but they are not really MEA.

Here is what the current guidance is for charting these procedures from FAA Order 8260.19H, section 4-5 STAR, 4-5-1 General:

(5) NAVAID, fix, and WP crossing altitudes must be defined as “at,” “at or above,” or “at or below,” or as a block altitude. Whenever an “at or below” altitude is specified for ATC purposes, also include a minimum altitude to ensure obstacle clearance. When an altitude range at a waypoint is needed, use a block altitude (i.e., “At or Above 12000 and At or Below 16000” or “Between 12000 and 16000”).

Note: Do not define an altitude as one that could be expected to be assigned by ATC. Past use of this concept has shown that “expect” altitudes have caused confusion and misinterpretation that could lead to unintended consequences.​
 
MauleSkinner said:
Has anyone tried filing no SID/STAR recently? I'm guessing that would cause as much ATC consternation as a request to cancel IFR and get a special VFR out of the airspace. ;)
Click to expand...
The most recent one I know of was about 10-12 years ago. A friend of mine was heading back to Missouri from Denver and complained he was given the commonly-assigned and extremely easy PLAINS departure out of KAPA even though he filed "No SIDS, no STARS." He figured they'd just let it go, but CD read it to him verbatim. He was very upset about it. I laughed.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The most recent one I know of was about 10-12 years ago. A friend of mine was heading back to Missouri from Denver and complained he was given the commonly-assigned and extremely easy PLAINS departure out of KAPA even though he filed "No SIDS, no STARS." He figured they'd just let it go, but CD read it to him verbatim. He was very upset about it. I laughed.
Click to expand...

Exactly... so why continue to even put "no sids/stars" in the remarks. I figure the only way you are not getting is if the SID/STAR is they on,y have rnav only and you are flying as /A. Or perhaps if its for turbos and jets only?
 
Last edited:
My comment may have been dated as back in the 70s I believe it was done if one didn't have the necessary charts onboard, or if one didn't want to mess with them. I never did it personally.
 
John Collins said:
This chart does not comply with current standards. The altitudes are either expect altitudes or charted as MEA and not crossing restrictions, but they are not really MEA.

Here is what the current guidance is for charting these procedures from FAA Order 8260.19H, section 4-5 STAR, 4-5-1 General:

(5) NAVAID, fix, and WP crossing altitudes must be defined as “at,” “at or above,” or “at or below,” or as a block altitude. Whenever an “at or below” altitude is specified for ATC purposes, also include a minimum altitude to ensure obstacle clearance. When an altitude range at a waypoint is needed, use a block altitude (i.e., “At or Above 12000 and At or Below 16000” or “Between 12000 and 16000”).

Note: Do not define an altitude as one that could be expected to be assigned by ATC. Past use of this concept has shown that “expect” altitudes have caused confusion and misinterpretation that could lead to unintended consequences.​
Click to expand...
This one, WIPOR THREE would have been on the 'plan' as of 13NOV14. There are so many versions of 'think' on STARS, SIDS and IAPS out there. A new and improved idea on how to chart them comes up and is implemented. But the actual charting change doesn't happen for years on some of them. There are charts out there that are still on Plan A when we're up to Plan D now. Yeah, it's time consuming and expensive to change charts and there a lot of them. My hats off to folk who are studying for Instrument Training today. You learn the 'rules' then see a chart that don't seem to make sense. So much time is spent trying to 'interpret' what is meant when it's just "that's the way they used to do it." Anyway, the numbers are almost always accurate and ya just gotta do what the chart says. At times though, conflictions with the latest ATC Phraseology du jour make it difficult at times.
 
luvflyin said:
This one, WIPOR THREE would have been on the 'plan' as of 13NOV14. There are so many versions of 'think' on STARS, SIDS and IAPS out there. A new and improved idea on how to chart them comes up and is implemented. But the actual charting change doesn't happen for years on some of them. There are charts out there that are still on Plan A when we're up to Plan D now. Yeah, it's time consuming and expensive to change charts and there a lot of them. My hats off to folk who are studying for Instrument Training today. You learn the 'rules' then see a chart that don't seem to make sense. So much time is spent trying to 'interpret' what is meant when it's just "that's the way they used to do it." Anyway, the numbers are almost always accurate and ya just gotta do what the chart says. At times though, conflictions with the latest ATC Phraseology du jour make it difficult at times.
Click to expand...
The government plates suck at depicting SIDs and STARs. Jepp recently revamped their SID/STAR format and it’s a lot better.
 
jordane93 said:
The government plates suck at depicting SIDs and STARs. Jepp recently revamped their SID/STAR format and it’s a lot better.
Click to expand...
Indeed the new Jeppesen format is great. But, they are changing over on an evolutionary basis.
 
aterpster said:
Indeed the new Jeppesen format is great. But, they are changing over on an evolutionary basis.
Click to expand...
Luckily, the GA planes I fly have them on the MFD and at work they’re on my iPad. I don’t have to pay for either!
 
mscard88 said:
My comment may have been dated as back in the 70s I believe it was done if one didn't have the necessary charts onboard, or if one didn't want to mess with them. I never did it personally.
Click to expand...
My question was kind of related to that. its still a note in the AIM, but I've never heard of ATC accepting that a pilot doesn't want a SID/STAR...I've never heard of anybody actually not getting the SID/STAR because they've filed NO SID/STAR.
 
I don’t mind a SID/STAR.. it makes easier flying for me so I know what to expect.. my question was really about would they give me lower altitudes in general than what bus depicted on the arrival. That question was answered above.. thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Indiana_Pilot said:
I don’t mind a SID/STAR.. it makes easier flying for me so I know what to expect.. my question was really about would they give me lower altitudes in general than what bus depicted on the arrival. That question was answered above.. thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I hope you weren’t expecting the discussion to end when your question was answered! :D
 
John Collins said:
This STAR does not have a turbojet or turboprop limitation, so piston aircraft are authorized to fly the procedure. If you file using an FAA/Domestic flightplan form, you will not get this STAR as it is an RNAV and requires you filing an ICAO flightplan and to be RNAV 1 equipped with either GPS sensor or a DME-DME/IRU sensor. Having the latter sensor is highly improbable in a piston aircraft. So if you happened to have a WAAS GPS or a legacy GNS/G1000 system, your aircraft could be coded as follows to be able to file this procedure using an ICAO flightplan:

ICAO Equipment: G, R, S
ICAO PBN: D2

Otherwise, your flightplan would be rejected.

If you have the equipment and file appropriately, you would probably join at WIPOR at your 7000 foot altitude or with a crossing restriction of 6000 at WIPOR.
Click to expand...
Thanks to this post, I spent a couple hours this weekend updating my aircraft information in Foreflight to list all of the PBN information that Garmin says I can with my GNS 430W and GTX 335. That gave me a surprisingly long list of codes.
 
The question has been answered, great.
So let me provide an answer too. :)
Get ready to copy it and plug it into your FMS/GPS/iPad but don't expect to fly it unless you go 7600. As a slow single piston, you are likely to get direct and bypass most of the STAR anyway. ;)
 
One reason not to accept a SID would be if you can't make the climb gradient required by the procedure. Other than that, I can't think of reason why you'd reject a SID or STAR given that it's pretty much impossible NOT to have the charts on board at this point. Gone are the days of there being separate books for the SIDs and IAPs....or books at all for the most part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top