What would be the point? There is already an Initial Approach Segment there. Feeders connect you from Airways to the Approach Fixes.
Questioned, yes. But it's not a Chart Error. The official response is below and they basically say it needs to be two steps. First you'd get a Clearance to the published Hold, then once established there, ATC would give you another Clearance for the Approach. And the NoPT Note is valid. If you come from within that range, you just turn inbound and continue on with the Approach. Reality from the South I'm sure would be Radar Vectors to a Straight In, but it was a great theoretical question posed.
I.e., they wanted you to fly the hold from the very beginning so turning left isn't the "correct" answer after all. Some here must be feeling a little egg on the face now.
Sigh...sounds like you fell off the wagon somewhere. No, the clarified note proves they want you to obtain a holding clearance if you want to enter the hold. The approach clearance in the original scenario does not include a holding clearance, thus, you may not enter the hold. Turning left is the correct answer.I.e., they wanted you to fly the hold from the very beginning so turning left isn't the "correct" answer after all. Some here must be feeling a little egg on the face now.
We'll have to agree to disagree. The FAA has admitted they threw in a substitute note because they had no criteria to write what they really mean — so they used the closest verbiage they had at the time. We agree a clearance for the approach should be settled in view of the ambiguous language, but what if you're lost comms? Since ATC wants you to do the hold they won't (hopefully) give you a clearance like stated in the OP, they'll include the hold. But you don't know that, so safety first.
None of the above applies to the hypothetical dilemma facing a pilot in the hypothetical scenario posed by the OP, a scenario which would not occur in the real world for reasons previously stated. Those who suggested a left turn were responding to the hypothetical dilemma with a hypothetical solution based on the hypothetical scenario.I.e., they wanted you to fly the hold from the very beginning so turning left isn't the "correct" answer after all. Some here must be feeling a little egg on the face now.
Bluefield is some 27 NM beyond the outer limit of the MSA but happily the published 7000 ft limit appears to work there too just the same because all the MEAs south of Bluefield are above 6000 feet.
Coming from the south shouldn't mean you're in a radar environment, AFAIK, as long as you're in service volume limits from Bluefield.
And where does the idea you need approved RNAV come from?
Good thread, though.
ATC clearances that allow you to skip part of the procedure are more common than not.
Examples ??
Every other time you don't fly a procedure turn? Or are vectored inside the IAF.
A lot. Mostly during my IR training, flight reviews and IPC’s. Wasn’t keeping count but it’s easily more than 50. And I’ve issued a lot. That would be well into the hundreds, maybe thousands.
So, outside of training, "almost none".
Isn’t a feeder route by definition between the enroute structure and an IAF?
I can only remember once. He was gonna vector me but I asked for the PT.
I wouldn’t go that far. I see real world applications. Radar vectors to the final approach course are indeed common, but it's a mistake to think they are universal. I can see reasons why they might not be used for this approach.
I think you've spent too much time at the top of the food chain.
I can easily imagine "real-world", say, coming up from Charlotte direct to BLF on an off-airway routing, getting the clearance, descending and reviewing the chart. When I see the ambiguity, I try to call and get no answer because in the mountains down low, it happens sometimes. It's dark, it's raining, it's windy over the hills and I'm concerned. But I don't know what I don't know, so I'm playing it safe. I can't imagine what this "hypothetical-world" thing is of which you speak.Radar Vectors to Final the vast majority of the time.
Oh, if only that were true! Prior to my 121 career, I spent several thousand hours flying single-pilot IFR, a significant portion of which included operations in non-radar environments. And some of those non-radar environments were in the mountainous regions of the western states.I think you've spent too much time at the top of the food chain.
As you undoubtedly know, in the real world you would have obtained the latest wx at JZF, figured out what approach you want to fly, and coordinated your intentions with ATC 15-30 minutes before arrival. If not, ATC would query you. If you requested vectors to intercept the localizer, you would have asked to intercept at NAVIC, bypassing BLU altogether. The controller would then provide you a nice 30 degree intercept (or less). In no case would a competent controller have vectored you to BLU with an intercept angle greater than 90 degrees, as stipulated by the OP, and if such a clearance were issued to you, you would have keyed the mic and negotiated a better deal.
Sorry, but if you think that, I think your "real world" is limited. I agree with the early part of your answer.
But beyond that, I think there is a real answer and that it's a real-world scenario.
I many have misstated something. But I don't understand what you didn't understand.
No one responded to this, but I agree with you. That's the question @Roger Wilco's real world pilot isn't asking himself.
Well, you certainly have me there. I do not know whether radar services are available and shouldn’t have made the assumption. If radar vectors are not available, ATC would so advise and issue an appropriate clearance to join the requested approach. Should any ambiguity arise, resolve the issue with ATC prior to accepting the clearance (per my reply in #25, and replies by others).
I asked Gemini! Here's what he/she says:
That's the part I agree with. You are going to resolve this well before you are cleared for the approach. It should not - and most likely will not - be a surprise.
Who/what is Gemini ?
It was responded to. We’re trying to figure out what their Radar coverage is there. After that we’ll need to know if they have the required Video Map
I do too. Flat lands maybe, areas with terrain is usually a certain no. ATC’s job is separation, not holding your hand into an approach. If you do much international flying, you will be shocked to learn there is no radar. I don’t believe most of the Caymans has radar service today. I know CYB still isn’t served by radar.
Google that question and see if it answers you in person. I just ask a plain language question in the Google search engine and more often than not their version of AI offers up an answer. From there you can ask subsequent questions and get into along conversation. But don't take everything as the Gospel. It makes many mistakes. Even still, you can point them out and eventually wind up with something pretty useful.
If we're looking for that kind of stuff, might also look for their MIA.
Here's the MIAs. I circled the sector Gemini claims (footnote [1] in the dialog I had with AI and posted above) applies to Tazewell County Airport. Gemini said it indicates 6000 ft.
So much for the real world, then. Back to the OP…
Unless things have changed very recently, 120 degrees is correct. For RNAV it’s 90. It used to be 120 also. When it change to 90 I don’t remember. I’ll take a guess about 15 years ago.
Reference, please?
Very well-stated, and I completely agree. In this example the aircraft would have some additional relief due to the holding pattern, but such an obtuse intercept angle would be, shall we say, less than optimal, regardless.
Nope... It was a "Checkride" scenario. So if the DPE had really posed that scenario, the answer would... er... should have been that you can't fly that clearance.
Where was this scenario that the OP said was making its way around social media? What exactly is the “…that clearance…” that would have been issued?
