IAP Procedural Question

O

OTLK VFR

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jul 22, 2011
Messages
14
Location
Maryland Eastern Shore
Display Name
Display name:
UIFlyGuy
This question refers specifically to the ILS 32R at KCMI and came up on a recent oral exam...

The situation is that you have been cleared to hold at the OCTOE intersection and are subsequently cleared to execute the approach (i.e. "Cessna 123 cleared ILS 32R approach") while holding. Your aircraft is /U (no DME), has no ADF receiver, no GPS unit, and a single VOR receiver and to top it off, CMI does not currently have radar service (no vectors available) and you are in the soup with 700' ceilings.

How do we execute this approach? At the time, all I could reasonably come up with was to fly the feeder route from OCTOE to VEALS, proceed outbound for the PT, and then straight in. After he fact, I checked up on the recommended procedures and found that my answer seems to be correct referencing AIM 5-4-6 (a) At the time this answer was not satisfactory for my examiner who noted that when you intercept the localizer outbound, you have no reliable way to determine your distance from the OM unless you happen to overfly it. I said that you could periodically reference your position relative to the DNV 224 radial used to identify JAVOM to get a decent idea, but that didn't fly either.

I'm just wondering what I'm missing here?
 
How were you identifying OCTOE ? I havent looked at the enroutes...

One way would be to overfly CMI vor (130r) to Veals LOM/IAF, hear the marker, track the loc outbound for 2 minutes do the procedure turn and intercept.
ILS32R
 
Last edited:
OTLK VFR said:
This question refers specifically to the ILS 32R at KCMI and came up on a recent oral exam...

The situation is that you have been cleared to hold at the OCTOE intersection and are subsequently cleared to execute the approach (i.e. "Cessna 123 cleared ILS 32R approach") while holding. Your aircraft is /U (no DME), has no ADF receiver, no GPS unit, and a single VOR receiver and to top it off, CMI does not currently have radar service (no vectors available) and you are in the soup with 700' ceilings.

How do we execute this approach? At the time, all I could reasonably come up with was to fly the feeder route from OCTOE to VEALS, proceed outbound for the PT, and then straight in. After he fact, I checked up on the recommended procedures and found that my answer seems to be correct referencing AIM 5-4-6 (a) At the time this answer was not satisfactory for my examiner who noted that when you intercept the localizer outbound, you have no reliable way to determine your distance from the OM unless you happen to overfly it. I said that you could periodically reference your position relative to the DNV 224 radial used to identify JAVOM to get a decent idea, but that didn't fly either.

I'm just wondering what I'm missing here?
Click to expand...

Course guidance from OCTOE to VEALS is provided by the NDB, but you have no ADF or GPS receiver so that feeder route is not available to you. Once cleared past OCTOE you should continue on V251 to CMI VOR and fly R-130 to VEALS.
 
Last edited:
I only see two IAFs on this approach, so you either do as Steven suggested, or fly to NEWMY off the CMI VOR and you get to skip the PT. I would probably do the former.
 
EdFred said:
I only see two IAFs on this approach, so you either do as Steven suggested, or fly to NEWMY off the CMI VOR and you get to skip the PT. I would probably do the former.
Click to expand...

That would require a different clearance. In the scenario provided the controller would likely expect him to use the OCTOE feeder route, not realizing that he's not equipped to fly it. The only reason to hold at OCTOE is to use that feeder, if he's gotta go over CMI anyway that's the more logical place to hold.
 
I think in either scenario you aren't going to be doing what the controller expects - which is heading to CMI. Which is the more logical place to hold? Over the VOR?
 
"Cessna 123 requests vectors to the ILS 32R"
 
Sac Arrow said:
"Cessna 123 requests vectors to the ILS 32R"
Click to expand...

You sure about that?

OTLK VFR said:
This question refers specifically to the ILS 32R at KCMI and came up on a recent oral exam...

The situation is that you have been cleared to hold at the OCTOE intersection and are subsequently cleared to execute the approach (i.e. "Cessna 123 cleared ILS 32R approach") while holding. Your aircraft is /U (no DME), has no ADF receiver, no GPS unit, and a single VOR receiver and to top it off, CMI does not currently have radar service (no vectors available) and you are in the soup with 700' ceilings.

How do we execute this approach? At the time, all I could reasonably come up with was to fly the feeder route from OCTOE to VEALS, proceed outbound for the PT, and then straight in. After he fact, I checked up on the recommended procedures and found that my answer seems to be correct referencing AIM 5-4-6 (a) At the time this answer was not satisfactory for my examiner who noted that when you intercept the localizer outbound, you have no reliable way to determine your distance from the OM unless you happen to overfly it. I said that you could periodically reference your position relative to the DNV 224 radial used to identify JAVOM to get a decent idea, but that didn't fly either.

I'm just wondering what I'm missing here?
Click to expand...
 
Ah, that dislexia set in again. I really should get me some reading glasses.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Ah, that dislexia set in again. I really should get me some reading glasses.
Click to expand...

'sokay, I originally thought the same thing till I read the post again.

Then again with no RADAR services, the entire area should be cleared for you. I'd just fly the approximate heading needed to get to the LOM/LOC, teardrop it and fly the ILS.
 
OTLK VFR said:
The situation is that you have been cleared to hold at the OCTOE intersection

... Your aircraft is /U (no DME), has no ADF receiver, no GPS unit, and a single VOR receiver and to top it off, CMI does not currently have radar service (no vectors available) and you are in the soup with 700' ceilings.
Click to expand...
Why in FSM's name would you accept a hold at a two VOR radial intersection with only one VOR in your plane?

If ATC issued me that hold I would have responded with 'unable' and if a hold was still required have me hold over a VOR like CMI itself.
 
Why in FSM's name would you accept a hold at a two VOR radial intersection with only one VOR in your plane?
Click to expand...

This is not a particularly difficult thing to do and I would expect any instrument rated pilot to have this capability. While I agree that in practice I would surely take the alternative (over the VOR), that doesn't usually cut it on an oral.

Course guidance from OCTOE to VEALS is provided by the NDB, but you have no ADF or GPS receiver so that feeder route is not available to you. Once cleared past OCTOE you should continue on V251 to CMI VOR and fly R-130 to VEALS.
Click to expand...

This is the answer that the examiner was looking for, however looking at the aforementioned AIM section, it clearly states that the feeder route becomes part of the approach clearance if holding at the fix the feeder route is based from, meaning that ATC expects you to fly this route. I'm not sure I agree that the route is "unavailable" without an ADF, but rather unreliable in the sense that you can't be exactly sure of your position relative to the marker if you sent up on the southeast side. If I am going to fly direct to the VOR first, I'm going to ask ATC for that clearance rather than just proceed there since it is not an IAF, but again, the scenario was based on the fact that your only ATC instruction was "cleared for the approach".
 
I think this is the type of thing that makes single pilot IFR challenging - lack of equipment. But I wouldn't know yet.
 
OTLK VFR said:
This is not a particularly difficult thing to do and I would expect any instrument rated pilot to have this capability. .
Click to expand...
Sure it is possible. I do not deny that. I am speaking in practical terms. From the sounds of your aircraft in the scenario it is not very well equipped for instrument flight. Doing an intersection hold with one VOR when you are tuning and turning, plus flying the airplane, is a scenario where you are creating a situation of task overload and possibly risking your own safety, let alone anyone riding with you. The best advice when flying IFR is to keep your task loads to a minimum. Accepting that sort of hold, with the equipment identified, is not a wise decision. A much safer course of action would have been to not take that hold and ask for one that would be simpler to fly with the equipment at hand.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
I think in either scenario you aren't going to be doing what the controller expects - which is heading to CMI. Which is the more logical place to hold? Over the VOR?
Click to expand...

I think if the controller expected him to head for CMI he wouldn't have been held at OCTOE.
 
roncachamp said:
I think if the controller expected him to head for CMI he wouldn't have been held at OCTOE.
Click to expand...

I worded that poorly. The controller is not expecting them to head to CMI - which is what they would probably end up doing. I meant that heading to CMI is the action, not the expectation.
 
roncachamp said:
That would require a different clearance. In the scenario provided the controller would likely expect him to use the OCTOE feeder route, not realizing that he's not equipped to fly it. The only reason to hold at OCTOE is to use that feeder, if he's gotta go over CMI anyway that's the more logical place to hold.
Click to expand...

If someone put "No ADF" in remarks of the flight plan, would that be alerted to the controllers that handle the plane?
 
ScottM said:
Why in FSM's name would you accept a hold at a two VOR radial intersection with only one VOR in your plane?

If ATC issued me that hold I would have responded with 'unable' and if a hold was still required have me hold over a VOR like CMI itself.
Click to expand...


I did it on my checkride. It takes a little dialing with a Kx 170B, but it's doable.
 
roncachamp said:
I think if the controller expected him to head for CMI he wouldn't have been held at OCTOE.
Click to expand...

I dont think he could have held at Octoe anyway...so its a poor example from the DPE
 
OTLK VFR said:
This is the answer that the examiner was looking for, however looking at the aforementioned AIM section, it clearly states that the feeder route becomes part of the approach clearance if holding at the fix the feeder route is based from, meaning that ATC expects you to fly this route.
Click to expand...

With that in mind you should tell the controller you have no ADF when the holding instructions at OCTOE are issued. IFR aircraft operating in the US NAS are assumed to have VOR and ADF capability, there is no equipment suffix for them.

I'm not sure I agree that the route is "unavailable" without an ADF, but rather unreliable in the sense that you can't be exactly sure of your position relative to the marker if you sent up on the southeast side.
Click to expand...

Okay. Let's say you dead reckon a course from OCTOE to the localizer. At what point on the localizer are you going to plan to intercept? How will you differentiate possible false localizer courses from the actual localizer course?
 
roncachamp said:
Okay. Let's say you dead reckon a course from OCTOE to the localizer. At what point on the localizer are you going to plan to intercept? How will you differentiate possible false localizer courses from the actual localizer course?
Click to expand...

Same way you'd do it if coming in from NEWMY?
 
EdFred said:
Why not? It's an enroute intersection.
Click to expand...

If its defined by 2 VORs ...sure he could go nuts switching VOR freqs (poor way to fly)but if the NDB defines the int then its out of the question.
 
taters said:
If its defined by 2 VORs ...sure he could go nuts switching VOR freqs (poor way to fly)but if the NDB defines the int then its out of the question.
Click to expand...

OCTOE is on the L-charts and defined by 2 VORs. I did the single VOR intersection hold in IR training. It's busy, but not horribly bad.
 
Henning said:
If someone put "No ADF" in remarks of the flight plan, would that be alerted to the controllers that handle the plane?
Click to expand...

Depends on the controller. It will alert those that recognize that ADF is needed for the OCTOE feeder route, that's probably less than half. But without that remark it should be assumed the aircraft is capable of the feeder.
 
taters said:
If its defined by 2 VORs ...sure he could go nuts switching VOR freqs (poor way to fly)but if the NDB defines the int then its out of the question.
Click to expand...

The intersection is defined by two VORs, the NDB defines the feeder route.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I think this is the type of thing that makes single pilot IFR challenging - lack of equipment. But I wouldn't know yet.
Click to expand...

I would put workload at the top of the list.

If you are flying a poorly equipped plane, that can definitely affect the workload, but you have the option of selecting a plane with better equipment.
 
taters said:
One way would be to overfly CMI vor (130r) to Veals LOM/IAF, hear the marker, track the loc outbound for 2 minutes do the procedure turn and intercept.
ILS32R
Click to expand...
You'd need a revised clearance for that. Clearance for the approach from OCTOE necessitates flying the published segment, which is direct to VEALS. Deviating to CMI VOR requires the controller's approval.

In any event, without a means to navigate from OCTOE to VEALS, you cannot accept this clearance with the equipment specified. The pilot could request direct CMI and to fly the approach from there. Pretty much anything else isn't practical without radar vectoring.
 
EdFred said:
'sokay, I originally thought the same thing till I read the post again.

Then again with no RADAR services, the entire area should be cleared for you. I'd just fly the approximate heading needed to get to the LOM/LOC, teardrop it and fly the ILS.
Click to expand...
I suppose you could do that, but it wouldn't be acceptable to the FAA. You need positive course guidance unless you're getting radar vectors or are on a depicted DR segment (has "hdg" in the description).
 
roncachamp said:
I think if the controller expected him to head for CMI he wouldn't have been held at OCTOE.
Click to expand...
...or the controller would have cleared him from OCTOE direct to CMI, and cleared him for the approach from there. As cleared, going to CMI from OCTOE isn't a legal option.

BTW, on my initial IR ride in 1971, the examiner had me doing a partial-panel, single-VOR hold at an intersection about 20 minutes after takeoff, which isn't that hard if you learn the proper pacing. And the rest of the ride was easy.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
If someone put "No ADF" in remarks of the flight plan, would that be alerted to the controllers that handle the plane?
Click to expand...
Nope. Controllers only get the information required to work up a clearance.

Remarks, color, fuel on board, etc, are only for the record in the event of search and rescue.

He should notify the controller, upon getting a clearance he can't comply with, that he has no ADF and request another clearance.
 
nosehair said:
Nope. Controllers only get the information required to work up a clearance.

Remarks, color, fuel on board, etc, are only for the record in the event of search and rescue.

He should notify the controller, upon getting a clearance he can't comply with, that he has no ADF and request another clearance.
Click to expand...

Controllers have the remarks.
 
Controllers get remarks for sure...on training flights to multiple airports I list the approach sequence..they certainly seem to appreciate it. Moreover, how do you think all the controllers know everyones call sign?.. ie...(USC=Starcheck) is listed in the remarks section of the flight plan.
 
gprellwitz said:
Is that the same for both Approach and Center? Is there a note on the data block that there are remarks available?
Click to expand...

Approach and Center receive the remarks. The space available for them on the approach strip is less than on Center strips, but if the remarks exceed the space available a truncation symbol is displayed and the full remarks can be viewed with another entry.
 
Controllers definitely get and read the remarks. A while back, I was flying under IFR with a trainee who'd filed via DUATS under his account. One controller handed us off, and added, "Have a good day, RB." I wondered how he knew my initials, then remembered the "PIC RB LEVY" in the Retmarks block, entered per FAA recommendations for that situation because my trainee was not instrument rated and DUATS won't allow a change of the PIC's name. More recently, a controller asked about the dogs I was hauling for Pilots'n'Paws -- because the remarks said "2 dogs" (also a recommendation of the FAA when you're carrying animals).
 
For Centers with URET, the remarks show up on the URET display just to the left of the route (shows an asterisk, clicking on the asterisk displays the remarks).

uret_h6.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top