Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Cleared for the Approach' started by N1120A, Sep 8, 2019.
But he asked about in the US. Alaska is outside the US. ;-)
We're pulling ours next month during the ADS-B install, along with the Northstar M3 GPS.
Also, I think that flying NDB approaches in a crosswind helps prevent Alzheimer's.
Hmm. I suppose an argument could be made for that. It’s not explicit in those FAR’s though. Does Mark have anything like an AC, Chief Counsel decision or some other document that specifies that
He mentioned AIM 5-4-5a3(b) and an IFR Magazine article. Those sources talk about the intended uses of alternate missed approaches, which don't include pilots asking for them for their own reasons, but if there was an explicit prohibition of the practice, I missed it. However, @midlifeflyer is both an attorney and a CFI, and a sensible one in my experience, so I would be reluctant to disregard his opinion.
You don’t have to train for or demonstrate an approach type requiring equipment that is not in the plane you will use for the checkride.
I took my IR checkride in my plane with just VORs, ADF, and the DME. No GPS approaches required.
If it did, no old pilots would have Alzheimer’s.
When it comes to exercising mental faculties, recency of experience counts!
I didn't read the article. If the issue is: can you plan to use the alternate instead of the primary missed approach where the IAP has both? The answer is no, and that is part of the reason the alternate missed approach is not charted. The alternate missed approach typically exists to protect for a nav aid required for the primary missed approach becoming inop. But, ATC can use the alternate missed approach for separation purposes. In either event the controller has to read the alternate missed approach to you, because all that is charted is the alternate missed approach holding pattern.
Interesting Approach, the LOC RWY 22 at KCDW. The note about ADF being required is neither in the Notes box nor the Equipment Required Box. AIM 5-4-5 a. 3. (b) says "...
When radar or other equipment is required on portions of the procedure outside the final approach segment, including the missed approach, a note will be charted in the notes box of the pilot briefing portion of the approach chart..." It's only noted with the Missed Approach Procedure.
Read my post above. Can you recall anything in TERPS about this? Not putting the ADF required in the Notes or Equipment Required box but isolating it in the Missed Approach Procedure box.
It's not TERPs per se. It's implementation policy. It would be inappropriate to associate "ADF Required" as a general note because it doesn't apply to any aspect of the IAP if the alternate missed approach is assigned.
Here is a link to the source document, which does include both missed approach procedures:
Yeah. On the discussion of is it proper to 'plan' your flight based on ADF required for the missed when it's not in the Notes box or the Equipment Required box it brings up a point. Preview the entire Approach, not just the Notes and Equipment Required boxes when planning.
Especially when two missed approach holding patterns are charted.
Mark said that charting of equipment-required notes is being changed over to a new standard that gives a more explicit description of what it is required for. The CDW LOC 22 chart says it was revised in June of this year, which suggests that it is an example of the new standard. It sounds like the AIM hasn't caught up, even though it was revised last month.
Yeah. It’s in the new format with the Equipment Required box just above the Notes box. They don’t put ADF Required in either of those. That implies they take into account the availability of the Alternate Missed in deciding what is required or not for the Approach. But yeah, that should be taken into account when ‘planning’ a flight. If you have no alternative, like another Approach at that airport you are equipped for, or you can’t get the Alternate Missed from ATC, which should only happen if Nordo, then yeah, you shouldn’t ‘plan’ for that Airport.
You usually don't know in advance whether you're going to have comm failure. Let's suppose that you have the equipment to locate the alternate missed approach fix but not to fly the primary missed approach procedure, there's no other approach you're equipped to fly at that airport, and the weather guessers forecast that a visual approach will not be possible. Obviously you can 'plan' anything you like, but in the above scenario, would performing such a flight and asking for the alternate missed approach instructions violate 91.205(d)(2), which requires "Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown"?
A related question is this: If you don't have comm failure, can a pilot count on the controller issuing the alternate-missed-approach instructions when requested?
The alternate missed approach belongs to ATC, not the pilot. How could you request it when you don't know what it is?
You don't have to know what the alternate missed approach procedure is in order to request it. You only have to know that it exists, which is revealed by the fact that an alternate missed approach holding fix is published on the approach plate.
Whether that's permissible or not is another question. I'm not advocating for either position; I'm just trying to clearly state the issue.
Of course you can’t just ask for it, have them say ok and then just do it. They have to ‘read’ it to you. I think that’s what he meant. There is nothing wrong with you asking for it and there is nothing wrong with them giving it to you based on your request. There is no ATC rule that says Alternate Missed Approach procedures can only be issued if it was the Controllers idea first
True enough. But, unless it suits their requirements you won't get it.
Thanks for the clarification.
Yeah. Some of them go off in different directions full of traffic sometimes. I doubt it would be a big deal with this Approach though. It goes out in the same direction and practically overflies the primary Missed Approach Fix