GPS straight-in

E38 is a non-radar environment, and I do not believe there will ever be a clearance to fly an approach other than the full procedure.

I’ve got to look into this in more detail to be sure, but I’m pretty sure Radar monitoring would only be required to the IF. If so they can give you the ‘straight in’ clearance. Radar monitering would not be required after the IF
 
Ask the controller for VTF if you want them, but in a non radar environment you won't get them because they can't see you. But I always ask now either for the full approach or for VTF. And I always load to an IAF, you can activate VTF at any time, but have to reload to get from VTF to the full approach. You can also ask for a straight in approach, most of the time the controller couldn't care less, unless there is a traffic situation.

To delete the hold, scroll down to it and press clear, then ok. To hold at the HILPT press the susp button after cross the hold entry. I did learn something in that IFR training.
 
Nice noticing. 3500 feet in 6 miles at 90 knots GS is a 1375 foot per minute vertical speed. Probably some silly TERPS thing. The hold is to get you down to 8000.

Yes, it's required but, if you really wanted to dive down there, since TIFME is an IF, you could ask to be cleared straight in.

Indeed it is a "silly TERPs thing," also known as lazy design. TERPs maps attached. Note the feeder from from FST on both 19 and 23. FST could have been made an IAF with a step-down fix to accommodate NoPT. The highest terrain is less than 5,500 feet. But, they didn't, and ATC cannot waive straight-in, nor can the pilot. The only options would be VTF or direct-to-the-IF in accordance with the AIM directives. Neither is likely to happen at this location.

E38_19.jpg E38_23.jpg
 
I hope you realize "silly" was being tongue-in-cheek. Goes well with "lazy design." :D
 
I’ve got to look into this in more detail to be sure, but I’m pretty sure Radar monitoring would only be required to the IF. If so they can give you the ‘straight in’ clearance. Radar monitoring would not be required after the IF
Let us know if you find something. I think "Proceed direct Fort Stockton, cleared straight in GPS Runway 19 approach" would be a valid clearance. Paragraph 4-8-1 of the ATC handbook gives an example. From anywhere else north of E38, it would require radar.
 
I finally figured out what VTF is. I guess saying "Vectors" is sooooo last Century?
 
48 posts in and VTF is explained. We all good with HILPT?
 

Is there a sticky for the abbreviations?

YMMV - Your mileage may vary
VTF - Vector to Final
HILPT - Hold in Lieu of Procedure Turn
ATITAPA - don't worry about it, shouldn't be said
RTOT - Read the other thread
AOA - How to tick people off
..
..
..
IBTL - The most important thing to know on PoA
 
I likes them HILPTs. Theys take up less space on my PAPER charts. Wuts this here magenta line thingy?
 
Let us know if you find something. I think "Proceed direct Fort Stockton, cleared straight in GPS Runway 19 approach" would be a valid clearance. Paragraph 4-8-1 of the ATC handbook gives an example. From anywhere else north of E38, it would require radar.
That means I have to maintain 10,000 until the IF then descend at 500 feet per mile. I don't think so.
 
That means I have to maintain 10,000 until the IF then descend at 500 feet per mile. I don't think so.
I wouldn’t accept it in a jet, but it’s less than 1000 fpm in a 170 at cruise speed...closer to 800-850 at approach speeds.
 
Let us know if you find something. I think "Proceed direct Fort Stockton, cleared straight in GPS Runway 19 approach" would be a valid clearance. Paragraph 4-8-1 of the ATC handbook gives an example. From anywhere else north of E38, it would require radar.

Here’s what I found. I ran it by another controller. I haven’t worked in about 16 years and she last worked Approach about 7 years ago. It sure looks like Radar is needed for RNAV-epuipped aircraft on unpublished routes, even if doing conventional Approaches. 7110.65 4-8-1 h. is where RNAV Application starts for Approach Clearance Procedures. 4-8-1 h. 1. says you need Radar monitoring out to IAF for an (RNP) if no HILPT will be used. 4-8-2 h. 2. (b) say Radar monitoring is needed to the IF for any RNAV Approach. How do you read it?
 
Indeed it is a "silly TERPs thing," also known as lazy design. TERPs maps attached. Note the feeder from from FST on both 19 and 23. FST could have been made an IAF with a step-down fix to accommodate NoPT. The highest terrain is less than 5,500 feet. But, they didn't, and ATC cannot waive straight-in, nor can the pilot. The only options would be VTF or direct-to-the-IF in accordance with the AIM directives. Neither is likely to happen at this location.

There is always the possibility of non-TERPS factors, such as ATC requested altitudes for radio and radar coverage. Not saying the design couldn't be better, of course.
 
Here’s what I found. I ran it by another controller. I haven’t worked in about 16 years and she last worked Approach about 7 years ago. It sure looks like Radar is needed for RNAV-epuipped aircraft on unpublished routes, even if doing conventional Approaches. 7110.65 4-8-1 h. is where RNAV Application starts for Approach Clearance Procedures. 4-8-1 h. 1. says you need Radar monitoring out to IAF for an (RNP) if no HILPT will be used. 4-8-2 h. 2. (b) say Radar monitoring is needed to the IF for any RNAV Approach. How do you read it?
The difference is that from Ft Stockton it is all on published routes.
 
Yes. That was about unpublished routes.
Enlighten me, please. Where do controllers get authority to approve straight-ins in non radar environments where the pilot is navigating on a published route, i.e., bold course to procedural track?
 
Enlighten me, please. Where do controllers get authority to approve straight-ins in non radar environments where the pilot is navigating on a published route, i.e., bold course to procedural track?

Watching with interest.

And, forget authority - when will a controller clear a pilot, in a non-radar environment, for an approach with published segments bypassed (the HILPT, in this instance)?
 
Enlighten me, please. Where do controllers get authority to approve straight-ins in non radar environments where the pilot is navigating on a published route, i.e., bold course to procedural track?

7110.65 4-8-1 e.
 
There is always the possibility of non-TERPS factors, such as ATC requested altitudes for radio and radar coverage. Not saying the design couldn't be better, of course.
The fact the feeder for the NDB IAP is 7,500 seems to indicate that radio or radar coverage aren't factors.
 
Enlighten me, please. Where do controllers get authority to approve straight-ins in non radar environments where the pilot is navigating on a published route, i.e., bold course to procedural track?
I'm looking at the examples given in 4-8-1 of the ATC handbook (7110.65X) in terms of course and intercept (less than 90 degrees).

I'm also making a decidedly non-regulatory assessment there is no difference from a minimum instrument altitude/obstruction (or any other standpoint I can think of, discounting the descent rate requirements) between:
  1. "Proceed direct direct Stockton, cleared straight in GPS runway 19 approach" in a non-radar environment (left picture); and
  2. "Proceed direct TIFME. Maintain 10,000 until established. Cleared straight in GPS runway 19 approach" in a radar environment (right picture, with the airplane at the green dot)
In both, the airplane is following the same altitudes, courses, etc.

But, of course, there could certainly be something I missed saying the ability to clear straight in via an IF is exclusive to a radar environment.Do you have it or are we merely exchanging personal opinions?

upload_2019-3-28_10-11-34.png upload_2019-3-28_10-11-50.png
 
Watching with interest.

And, forget authority - when will a controller clear a pilot, in a non-radar environment, for an approach with published segments bypassed (the HILPT, in this instance)?

Probably very rarely. In non-radar everyone is going to be on published routes. If those routes meet the requirements to go straight in, then they are usually going to have NO PT, so therefore the PT or HILPT is not being bypassed. This Approach is just weird. We're all still scratching our heads trying to figure out why the FST TIFME altitude is so high. But the angle meets the straight in criteria.
 
Last edited:
The control is responsible (in theory, anyway) to be trained on all IAPs within his sector. The FAA charts are supposed to be at his/her position. Training is supposed to be sufficient to understand the difference between a feeder route without NoPT and an initial approach segment with NoPT. The 7110.65 doesn't get into this kind of detail. It is supposed to be part of an ATC facilities training.

Controllers cannot legally countermand Part 97. They can provide VTF in accordance with Chapter 5 of the 7110.65 or, in the case of RNAV, direct to the IF at not more than a 90 degree angle and within altitude limits set forth in Chapter 4. Finally, a controller can vector to intercept an initial segment or feeder route, but only consistent with the IAP's requirements. There is no "magic wand" to waive the requirement for a course reversal other than VTF and compliant direct-to the IF. Not saying that it isn't done a lot.

As an aside, at E38, the nearest center radar is 91 miles to the north. It is 40 miles north of FST.
 
Probably very rarely. In non-radar everyone is going to be on published routes. If those routes meet the requirements to go straight in, then they are usually going to have NO PT, so therefore the PT or HILPT is not being bypassed. This Approach is just weird. We're all still scratching our heads trying to figure out why the FST TIFME altitude is so high. But the angle meets the straight in criteria.
The descent gradient is excessive for NoPT. They could have placed a waypoint between FST and the IA/IAF, designated it as IAF, and made the transition form FST NoPT. And, the altitude at FST should be compatible with the airway MEAs, to the extent possible. In that case FST could be the IAF.
 
Probably very rarely. In non-radar everyone is going to be on published routes. If those routes meet the requirements to go straight in, then they are usually going to have NO PT, so therefore the PT or HILPT is not being bypassed. This Approach is just weird. We're all still scratching our heads trying to figure out why the FST TIFME altitude is so high. But the angle meets the straight in criteria.
Angle yes, altitude no. Remember that we are dealing with 3 dimensions and straight in vs PT is not only about direction.
 
The descent gradient is excessive for NoPT. They could have placed a waypoint between FST and the IA/IAF, designated it as IAF, and made the transition form FST NoPT. And, the altitude at FST should be compatible with the airway MEAs, to the extent possible. In that case FST could be the IAF.

Yeah, got that. I understand that that's the reason. Still trying to figure out why the FST TIFME transition is so high, thereby forcing the HILPT
 
Yeah, got that. I understand that that's the reason. Still trying to figure out why the FST TIFME transition is so high, thereby forcing the HILPT
They didn't use the first team for this airport.

BTW, is there a way to send a member a private message on this board?
 
They didn't use the first team for this airport.

BTW, is there a way to send a member a private message on this board?

Yep.

Click on the Member's username (under their avatar, to the left), and when you get the profile in view, click "Start a Conversation."

PS: Thanks very much for all your unusually-valuable input. Always informative!ATerpster Profile Sample.png
 
7110.65 4-8-1 e.

...there could certainly be something I missed saying the ability to clear straight in via an IF is exclusive to a radar environment.Do you have it or are we merely exchanging personal opinions?
That paragraph and the associated figure talk about "intercepts". Isn't that radar vectoring lingo?

4-8-1.
a. ...
3. Standard instrument approach procedures (SIAP) must
begin at an initial approach fix (IAF) or an intermediate fix (IF) if there is not an IAF.​

Doesn't that indicate the HILPT (initial approach segment) is a default requirement?

4-8-1.
a. ...
4. Where adequate radar coverage exists, radar facilities may vector aircraft to the final approach course in accordance with Paragraph 5-9-1, Vectors to Final Approach Course, and Paragraph 5-9-2, Final Approach Course Interception.
Isn't that an exception to the above default requirement?

4-8-1.
e. If a procedure turn, hold-in-lieu of procedure turn, or arrival holding pattern is depicted and the angle of intercept is 90 degrees or less, the aircraft must be instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn or hold-in-lieu of procedure turn. (See FIG 4−8−3)
Isn't that what a radar controller must do when exercising the exception to the default requirement?
 
Last edited:
That paragraph and the associated figure talk about "intercepts". Isn't that radar vectoring lingo?

4-8-1.
a. ...
3. Standard instrument approach procedures (SIAP) must
begin at an initial approach fix (IAF) or an intermediate fix (IF) if there is not an IAF.​

Doesn't that indicate the HILPT (initial approach segment) is a default requirement?

4-8-1.
a. ...
4. Where adequate radar coverage exists, radar facilities may vector aircraft to the final approach course in accordance with Paragraph 5-9-1, Vectors to Final Approach Course, and Paragraph 5-9-2, Final Approach Course Interception.
Isn't that an exception to the above default requirement?

4-8-1.
e. If a procedure turn, hold-in-lieu of procedure turn, or arrival holding pattern is depicted and the angle of intercept is 90 degrees or less, the aircraft must be instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn or hold-in-lieu of procedure turn. (See FIG 4−8−3)
Isn't that what a radar controller must do when exercising the exception to the default requirement?
"May" do something doesn't exclude other things. 4-8-1.a. Says what to do when Radar coverage exists. Now, if it started with "Only when adequate..." I'd agree with you.

4-8-1.e. Doesn't say anything about radar or no. Doesn't the published route from FST comply with that paragraph? If ATC wants hum to go straight in, has to say so. Are you saying all straight ins from and IF must be initiated by ATC - pilots can't as for them?

Well just have to agree to disagree on this. You may even be right.
 
"May" do something doesn't exclude other things.
It says "Must" not "May". "...must begin at an initial approach fix (IAF) or an intermediate fix (IF) if there is not an IAF." This isn't a case where there is no IAF (that happens where the enroute structure delivers right to an IF).

4-8-1.a. Says what to do when Radar coverage exists. Now, if it started with "Only when adequate..." I'd agree with you.
If you're referring to para:

"4-8-1.a.4. Where adequate radar coverage exists, radar facilities may vector aircraft to the final approach course in accordance with Paragraph 5-9-1, Vectors to Final Approach Course, and Paragraph 5-9-2, Final Approach Course Interception."
Then adequate radar coverage is a prerequisite for vectoring aircraft and any such vectoring elected (facilities "may" vector) must be done i/a/w Paragraphs 5-9-1 and 5-9-2. is the way I read this.

4-8-1.e. Doesn't say anything about radar or no.
Why would it? I just showed that the only way a controller can "want" the pilot not to do a HILPT is when being vectored, otherwise the pilot MUST begin the approach at an IAF if one exists, which it does in this case.

Doesn't the published route from FST comply with that paragraph? If ATC wants hum to go straight in, has to say so.
Answered.
Are you saying all straight ins from and IF must be initiated by ATC - pilots can't as for them?
If the IF exists where no IAF exists there shouldn't be a HILPT, since it's an initial segment maneuver. At other places with an IAF and HILPT, if there's no radar, my reading of the rules is pilots must follow the procedural track. With radar, ATC can, within the specified vectoring limits, bypass a procedure turn or HILPT. Can a pilot ask for a waiver? Sure, but it's asking to break the rules (91.175(a)). Can ATC waive that rule? Yes, under 91.175(i) or(j), i.e., via radar vectors. Without radar would a benevolent individual controller grant a straight-in request? Probably, but it doesn't make it right in my view.

Well just have to agree to disagree on this. You may even be right.
From a practical, reasoning point of view it might seem to be no different if following a vector or navigating the same track with onboard navigation. To me, it's only the monitoring aspect that allows vectored aircraft to bypass the HILPT. When the pilot is doing the navigation, the approved SIAP needs to be followed. Where I confess to a lack of clarity is how WAAS might change the rules as I see them, if at all.
 
Last edited:
To me, it's only the monitoring aspect that allows vectored aircraft to bypass the HILPT.
That may be our difference in a nutshell. For me, monitoring is about being off airway* with your only real protection being the MVA, not something applicable to published routes. So I simply don't see the connection you do to to the "is a PT required?" question.

[* as you mention, even that may be changing]
 
Depiction is a straight line with a hold at the IF/IAF.

Ie it’s not a “T”

Does not say NoPT anywhere on IAP.

Must one always do a course reversal?

(The 530 insists.)
I always thought and was taught that if it’s bold you got to fly it. Unless directed by ATC. If there is a question I will ask ATC if they expect me to fly the procedure turn. They will usually come back with and up to me (at their direction) but if I didn’t ask I would be expected to fly it.
It’t not just there to turn you around. It’s a tool to drop altitude and get configured as well.
 
Back
Top