Practice IFR approach?

[helistar]

to make it easy here's the entire 4-8-7

 

4-8-7. SIDE-STEP MANEUVER TERMINAL

Side-step Maneuver. When authorized by an instrument

approach procedure, you may clear an aircraft

for an approach to one runway and inform the aircraft

that landing will be made on a parallel runway.

 

EXAMPLE-

“Cleared I-L-S Runway seven left approach. Side‐step to

runway seven right.”

 

NOTE

Side-step maneuvers require higher weather minima/

MDA. These higher minima/MDA are published on the

instrument approach charts.

 

REFERENCE

FAAOJO 7110.65, Para 3-3-2, Closed/Unsafe Runway Information.

P/CG Term- Side-step Maneuver.

[iChris]

Straight out of the 7110.65... so now you can start debating the definition of "should"...

 

No need to debate that, already given in chapter 1, section 2 of 7110.65 (Terms of Reference)

 

1−2−1. WORD MEANINGS

 

As used in this order:

 

a.“Shall” or “must” means a procedure is mandatory.

 

b.“Shall not” or “must not” means a procedure is prohibited.

 

c.“Should” means a procedure is recommended.

 

d.“May” or “need not” means a procedure is optional.

Edited December 3, 2011 by iChris

[helistar]

with that said and the controller is being advised "closed runway Should Not be used for approaches"

[avbug]

Now I have to ask where is your "Note:" stated in the 7110.65

"Note that the inability to issue a landing clearance on a closed runway does not preclude the issuance of an approach clearance to that runway."

 

If it Exist... Please show or tell me where...

 

 

That was my comment, hence it wasn't in quotations. I noted that the inability to issue a landing clearance on a closed runway does not preclude the issuance of an approach clearance to that runway. I added this note because it's true; nothing precludes issuing an approach clearance to a closed runway, and in fact, it happens every day. I've flown them many, many times.

 

You haven't, apparently. Don't perceive your lack of experience as statements of fact regarding real-world operation.

 

Instrument approaches to runways that can't be used are conducted regularly, whether it's to runways that don't exist, runways that are closed, approaches that aren't to runways, approaches to water, or circling approaches.

 

with that said and the controller is being advised "closed runway Should Not be used for approaches"

 

That is NOT the case. You have a comprehension problem regarding the material you quote. You need to strive to understand it before you attempt to prove a wrong point.

 

The controller is not being advised that a closed runway should not be used for approaches. Where two viable parallel runways are in use, both with viable ILS approaches, where one of those runways is closed, the closed runway shouldn't be used for an approach.

 

This is NOT the same as flying an approach to the closed runway in a set of parallel runways, when only one of the two has the approach procedure.

 

Newark is an excellent example. Runway 4L has been closed for work for a time, and approaches have been conducted to 4R instead. Alternately, when 4L was operational (and is again), the ILS wasn't used because the runway was being used for takeoffs, while 4R remained in use. The same existed for opposite-direction traffic when runways 22 L/R were in use.

 

You're attempting to take a paragraph you don't understand, which is limited to parallel approaches to runways that are both served by operational ILS procedures, and apply that blanket statement to other situations, which was never the intent,and which is not the case. You previously asked for, and I cited (with illustration) an example of an approach procedure being flown to a closed runway. I correctly gave you what you asked. You're a student. You're not expected to be well-versed, yet. You need to learn a little more about your material, and certainly the material you're quoting, before you build a case about that which is not. Take some time to think about it, before you reply.

Edited December 4, 2011 by avbug

[helistar]

You previously asked for, and I cited (with illustration) an example of an approach procedure being flown to a closed runway. I correctly gave you what you asked.

 

I hate the be the bearer of bad news... You haven't provided anything that is an approach clearance to a closed runway... What you provided is an example of a approach clearance to a parallel using a side-step procedure, in which the controller is Required to name the parallel runway in the approach... Just in case you missed it, one main issue with your argument, it also has greatly increased minimums solely because the approach is in fact to a named parallel runway... The side-step approach is no different then any other approach that required the FAA to utilize the FAA flight inspection aircraft to certify the procedure prior to being published using a single navaid that in fact serves two runways...

 

The simple fact remains, your not being cleared to a closed runway as you claim, because your clearance includes the number of the open parallel runway in the approach clearance, not the number of the closed runway... Including the parallel runway number in your clearance means you've been cleared to a open parallel runway...

[jimbo2181]

Dude you just don't get it. The approach clearance and landing clearance are separate. You will be cleared for the approach well before you are cleared to land. Approach clearances and landing clearances are completely separate. If you don't understand or know that simple fact you really should probably stop talking and confusing people who don't know but are trying to learn.

[JDHelicopterPilot]

I think Helistar has been talking about Approach Clearances all this time. Not Landing Clearances. None the less, some good information on this thread when you sort through all the other stuff.

[helistar]

Avbug presented an example of an approach using what is called a side-step procedure and is claiming when it's used it is a clearance to a closed runway... I've disputed that information several times during this thread...

 

Jimbo... I'm well versed in the approach and local controller interaction requirements during instrument approaches...

 

FYI: I don't mind these debates since they provide valuable information for my thesis on human factors in aviation.

[avbug]

The simple fact remains, your not being cleared to a closed runway as you claim, because your clearance includes the number of the open parallel runway in the approach clearance, not the number of the closed runway... Including the parallel runway number in your clearance means you've been cleared to a open parallel runway...

 

As a student pilot, one can imagine that you don't have much real-world experience (beyond reading a book and perhaps a daddy who was a controller, was it?), but as one who flew the approach in question, let me assure you that the procedure was issued as a clearance to a closed runway. Furthermore, the procedure remains exactly as it's named, whether the runway is closed, whether a component is inoperative, and whether or not the runway is usable.

 

A clearance to a runway that is below minimums, for example, does not change because the runway is below minimums, except in certain cases in which the controller may add "at your own risk." A clearance to an ILS that has an inoperative glidesope does not become a localizer approach simply because the glideslope is out; it's still called and cleared as an ILS. Likewise, an approach to Runway 23L is still an ILS to runway 23L, whether or not one plans on landing on a parallel runway.

 

When I fly the VOR to runway 22L at KJFK, I don't do it as a VOR approach, despite the clearance. I'm entitled and legally allowed (and expected, per my own operation) to fly it as an RNAV with VNAV, and frankly, I back it up with an ILS and transition to that as I get closer to avoid the offset. It's entirely possible, however, to be cleared for either the RNAV or the VOR, when the runway is closed and to fly to the parallel, or another runway at the field, NOT using a sidestep maneuver, but a circling maneuver. It's also very possible, and very common, to be issued an approach clearance without being issued a landing clearance.

 

Try the ILS into KLAX 24R some time, especially coming from the east. One may be vectored to join the approach long before it can be flown, and one will be on the approach for some time before being cleared for the approach, and then one will be cleared on the approach long before being cleared to land. One does not necessarily join an approach procedure with a landing clearance, and one should not expect a landing clearance associated with an approach clearance. Accordingly, one cannot expect to have landing instructions issued at the time one is issued an approach to a closed runway.

 

I know an individual who landed at a field during a medical organ transfer operation, when the field was closed. It was NOTAM'd closed, and men and equipment were on the runway. Several changes occurred and it was a quickly set up operation with very little time involved. He was cleared for the approach, which he flew quite nicely, only to break out and find men and equipment quickly moving out of the way. He actually landed on the closed runway (as I've done). Before you suggest this was a special case allowed because of an emergency operation, it was not; the controller didn't know that he had the emergency cargo on board, and in any case, it wouldn't have waived the controllers actions. Further, while the approach clearance was issued to a closed runway, the tower was closed in what's now Class E airspace, meaning no tower requirement existed for a landing clearance. Only the approach.

 

Again, you seem to be amazed at the concept of flying an approach from which one cannot land straight-in, such as a procedure based on a runway which is closed. You should not be. It's done often, throughout the United States, and in fact, throughout the world. I previously mentioned examples of international operations, but some quickly stated that this can only apply to operations within the United States, as though aviation isn't thriving abroad. I'm writing this from outside the United States, incidentally, and can tell you that while your scope of understanding is very limited and small, there's a much, much bigger picture, and this happens abroad as well as in the US, legally, commonly, and in an acceptable fashion, in full ICAO compliance. Go figure.

 

There's no convincing you, nor is there any obligation to do so. I do this for a living, and I do it every day. You do not. Perhaps one day, if you're required to do it for a living, you'll take the time to learn your material a little more fully, and you'll have a chance to see it in practice. Perhaps not; you may do entirely VFR utility operations and never see it at all. Many spend a very happy, full career doing just that, and there's nothing at all wrong with that. For those that also make full use of the national airspace system, and who fly instruments domestically and abroad, approaches to unusable runways are a fact of life, as are approaches that are not aligned with runways. More and more we see approaches not based on groundbased navaids at all, enabling all kinds of approaches and operations that were previously matters of science fiction in terms of navigation.

 

Several years ago I routinely flew a PAR approach that took me over a hazard location. A small village lay on the final approach to the runway, directly beneath the PAR and ILS courses. That villiage was the source of frequent small arms and surface to air fire. The solution was to fly offset, but that was usually done by other means, and during the course of the approach (usually in low visibility due to sand storms) we would be advised that we were off-course because we were not flying the published course. Nor were we flying to the location specified by the procedure. None the less, we flew it safely, and accurately, and didn't get shot in the process.

 

Such things may be hard for you to grasp. For me, it was a successful procedure, because any day one doesn't get shot while landing is, let's face it, a really good one. I've done procedures which involved high dives to the runway from the opposite direction of landing, with and without clearances. Given our capabilities in navigation today, and given aircraft capabilities and an ever-expanding improvement on services available, its reasonable to expect that far, far greater latitude in what can be done in the future will soon be reality. For now, we continue to fly standard ground-based approaches and sat based approaches, and not all of them are to runways, and certainly not all of them are to active or open runways. Perhaps one day when you're no longer a student, or confined strictly to student operations (aren't we all students, after all?), you'll learn this.

 

Perhaps one day you'll be cleared via a VOR approach to a closed runway, and will circle to a viable runway, and you'll better understand the concept. For now, you can operate securely and safely by flying only approaches to open runways; you won't get hurt that way, and it's not going to hamper your daily operations as a student. You'll be a little limited in your understanding (as you are now), but nothing more is expected, as you're a student. When you do have the opportunity to get out in the world and fly a little, you may one day learn that the narrow understand that you now hold will limit your operations substantially, and that such a view doesn't reflect operations in the working world any more than your limited understanding of the controller handbook does right now.

[helistar]

All approach clearances are to assigned runways, which is an FAA ATC requirement and as such your not cleared to a closed runway, unless as I originally stated you've accepted full responsibility that in doing so "it's at your own risk"...

 

Even a circle approach is to an assigned runway...

 

As I stated previously an approach clearance for a side-step maneuver to a parallel runway number is not an approach clearance to a closed runway number and that is why you have greatly increased weather minimums, which provide you with ample time to side-step to the open parallel runway...

[d10]

You've implied a few times now that a pilot accepting an operation at his own risk is something out of the ordinary that the FAA frowns on, or something a pilot does independently of an ATC clearance. It's not either. It's common for ATC to issue clearances with the caveat that the operation will be at the pilot's own risk. That just means they can't ensure your separation from other traffic or obstacles for whatever reason, but you do have clearance to proceed. Helicopter pilots hear this all the time. It's still illegal to do anything in controlled airspace without the proper clearance or authorization from ATC.

 

This shouldn't have any affect on your ability to get a clearance to a closed runway. Since you don't want to accept side stepping or circling approaches as examples, here's another one: In late 2009, RWY 20/02 at KSIK was closed for repaving. It's the only runway at the airfield. I flew there IFR and had no problem receiving an approach clearance for VOR RWY 20. The controller did advise me that the runway was closed, I said I was aware and wanted the approach anyway. I executed the approach and upon breaking out flew directly to parking without using the runway.

 

[avbug]

Even a circle approach is to an assigned runway...

 

Often it is not. Often one is cleared an approach, and may circle and land on any runway.

 

Likewise, one is often issued, during training in particular, a clearance without landing on a specific runway, in an option clearance: cleared for the option. This is the option to land, go missed, and in some cases circle to a non-specific runway, but you knew that, didn't you?

 

A circle to land implies any procedure not aligned within 30 degrees of the final approach course. A circle to land clearance doesn't preclude landing on the runway for which the procedure is designated.

 

The VOR 13 procedure at KFJK serves two runways; 13L and 13R, and in theory could result in circling to 13 L and 13R, 22L or 22R, or 4L or 4R, although in reality, only 13L or 13R will be used. The approach involves crossing the VOR and descending to MDA, then following a series of flashing lights in a ninety degree right turn to the runway. It's easy to mistake the lights or miss one set, and end up at the wrong runway, if one isn't careful. One may very well be cleared the VOR 13 at KJFK, with either 13L or 13R closed. One is therefore, issued an approach clearance for a closed runway. Again, an approach clearance may be issued to a closed runway; a landing clearance isn't issued to that runway, except in exceptional cases, in which case the aircraft will be advised one is landing at one's own risk.

 

I flew such a landing about six years ago, during an inflight emergency. The runway I needed due to prevailing winds was closed, with men and equipment on the runway, and much of the runway ground up or being surfaced. I made a determination that I needed that runway anyway, advised ATC, and was cleared to land on the closed runway at my own risk. Surprise, surprise.

 

As I stated previously an approach clearance for a side-step maneuver to a parallel runway number is not an approach clearance to a closed runway number and that is why you have greatly increased weather minimums, which provide you with ample time to side-step to the open parallel runway...

 

Yes, you did state that previously, but you were wrong then, as you are now. You cited the wrong material, and didn't understand what you cited. An approach clearance to a closed runway remains the clearance to the closed runway, regardless of the the runway of intended landing. If one intends to land on 22R but is flying the ILS 22L, and 22L is closed, the procedure name doesn't change. One is still issued the ILS 22L. The procedure name won't change if a component is missing or inoperative, such as a marker or glideslope. It's still the ILS 22L if the glideslope is inoperative. It's still the ILS 22L if the runway is closed. It's still the ILS 22L because it doesn't magically become an approach to a different runway.

 

One can fly an approach to a runway but land on a different runway. This is a daily, common occurrence, all over the world. In helicopter operations, the runway condition isn't the critical issue; one can fly an approach, break out at minimums, and proceed to a ramp area without needing to land on the runway like a fixed wing aircraft might. The runway may be closed entirely, and with adequate guidance to get to the runway environment and to the airport, one may break off the approach and land on a ramp or apron, with no need of using the runway. Indeed, one can, and may be cleared for the approach if the runway is not available.

 

Your failure to grasp this doesn't change the fact.

[Gomer Pylot]

There are many approaches to small airports that are not to any runway. They are named as A, B, X, etc, instead of a runway name. There are also many helicopter approaches to a point in space, with no runway or even airport being involved. Saying that all approaches are tied to a runway is just ignorance, and you've been showing your ignorance throughout the thread.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Gomer Pylot

[tracon]

I've joined this forum in an effort to help clear up a couple statements contained within this thread since I have 17 years tracon facility experience. Before I go into clearing up a couple statements I would like to ask a couple questions.

 

These questions are intended to be answered by the four gentlemen who have a combined experience of 90 years. Jimbo, Gomer, Avbug & d10

1. True or false. Clearances authorizing instrument approaches are issued on the basis that, if visual contact with the ground is made before the approach is completed, the entire approach procedure will be followed unless the pilot receives approval for a contact approach, is cleared for a visual approach, or cancels their IFR flight plan.
   
2. True or false. The helipad is considered a runway by ATC
   
3. True or false. ATC can issue a Approach clearance without naming the runway
   
4. Explain what is required of the pilot when an approach clearance is issued without the runway being named in the clearance.
   
5. Explain what is required of the pilot when an approach clearance is issued naming the runway.
   
6. True or false. The receipt of an approach clearance does not relieve the pilot of his responsibility to comply with applicable Parts of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations and the notations on instrument approach charts which levy on the pilot the responsibility to comply with or act on an instruction contained on the approach chart.
   

These are very basic questions and don't require long drawn out answers. Once you've answered these questions I will address this thread.

[helistar]

I'm surprised you old guys are unable to at least quote an FAA Reg to strengthen your claims given the fact you have so many years of combined experience... So humor me and answer the following...

 

True or false

 

The receipt of an approach clearance does not relieve the pilot of his responsibility to comply with applicable Parts of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations and the notations on instrument approach charts which levy on the pilot the responsibility to comply with or act on an instruction contained on the approach chart, or issued by ATC...

[avbug]

That depends.

 

A pilot does not need to comply with published minimum altitudes when vectored, for example; a procedure may show initial altitudes but may be vectored onto the procedure below those altitudes; it's for that reason that the FAF on a glideslope occurs at the GSIA during the procedure, or at whatever point on the glidesope the aircraft intercepts when being vectored lower. Minimum vectoring altitudes are not published.

 

Generally speaking, a pilot is responsible for knowing and being in compliance with all notations on a procedural chart, as well as changes thereto which are not listed, but are found in NOTAMS and elsewhere. Additionally, certain operators have different limitations or requirements than that found on the chart, and these limitations apply to those operators. These may include different takeoff or landing minimums, or limitations on flying the procedure, circling, etc.

 

Have you found procedures which stipulate that the procedure may not be flown when the runway is not available?

Edited December 7, 2011 by avbug

[helistar]

That depends.

 

Interesting answer...

 

True or False...

Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.

[apiaguy]

this thread has gone trash... as if you didn't know that already...

it was very interesting in detailing some instrument procedures and options...

Tracon... please just get to it with your knowledge... just adds more frustration to as a bunch more questions.

[tracon]

Tracon... please just get to it with your knowledge... just adds more frustration to as a bunch more questions.

 

My post are being delayed because I don't have enough post yet for my messages to be posted without the admins review. So I sent a couple questions to helistar asking her to post them.

[jimbo2181]

^Tracon,

^{If you want to ask more questions you should start a new topic. The original purpose of this topic was about an approach being denied because of ceiling and visibility. That arguement has strayed off into so many different topics its hard to follow.}

 

^{Anyone joining and just wanting the answer to that question here it is. APPROACH WILL NOT DENY YOU AN APPROACH BECAUSE REPORTED WEATHER AT THE FIELD IS BELOW MINIMUMS.}

 

^{Done. Start a new topic and I would be happy to answer your questions there.}

[avbug]

APPROACH WILL NOT DENY YOU AN APPROACH BECAUSE REPORTED WEATHER AT THE FIELD IS BELOW MINIMUMS.

 

ATC can and does do that very thing, as previously discussed.

 

Approach clearances and procedures can be denied for a variety of reasons; weather is among them.

 

True or False...

Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.

 

Again, that depends. The world isn't as black and white as you may think.

 

Some years ago I was operating a fixed wing air ambulance flight across Nevada, headed for Texas. I was north of an area sometimes referred to as "Area 51;" an area not normally authorized for civil flights. Weather began encroaching on the corridor that goes through to Cedar City. I requested several miles to the right, as I was headed eastbound and the weather was from the north, and ATC denied the request. I then advised ATC that I was deviating right, and ATC returned stating that it was forbidden. I advised that I was deviating anyway, and then ATC relented and gave me a strict limit on how far I could deviate. Soon the weather began to build even more, and move farther into my flight path. I advised another deviation, and then another. Contrary to ATC prohibition, I made the deviation, and no longer requested permission. I simply advised of my intentions, and did it.

 

It was not an emergency. I didn't "declare" an emergency, nor did I request priority. I simply stated my intentions based on my decision to act in the safe interest of the flight.

 

A response to a TCAS resolution advisory is not an emergency, but one is expected to immediately deviate as necessary to respond to the RA, and then notify ATC as soon as possible thereafter.

 

There are many circumstances in which one may act contrary to an ATC clearance or authorization, and the AIM considers the fact that neither the FAA nor the regulation can possibly address all situations.

 

One may be issued a land-and-hold-short clearance (LAHSO), yet go through the intersection while going around, going missed, or when unable to hold short. It happens. Advising ATC of the deviation as soon as possible is in order, but one does what one must.

 

You find this interesting. It is. Aviation is like that. There is more to the business of flying than what you find in the cut-and-dried pages of your textbooks.

[jimbo2181]

ATC can and does do that very thing, as previously discussed.

 

Approach clearances and procedures can be denied for a variety of reasons; weather is among them.

 

 

I didn't say weather. I said ceilings and visibility. And no they will not unless it provides seperation issues.

[RagMan]

How many times will the ring around the posey ring around?

[jimbo2181]

Til they all fall down?

[Gomer Pylot]

True or false. Clearances authorizing instrument approaches are issued on the basis that, if visual contact with the ground is made before the approach is completed, the entire approach procedure will be followed unless the pilot receives approval for a contact approach, is cleared for a visual approach, or cancels their IFR flight plan.

 

True, except that the approach procedure ends when the aircraft is in a position to make a normal landing. And the pilot can always fly a missed approach, following either the published missed approach procedure or an amended missed approach procedure issued by ATC. I'm not sure what this has to do with the original post.

 

True or false. The helipad is considered a runway by ATC

 

Maybe, but for a point-in-space approach there is no helipad, runway, or anything else. The helicopter proceeds to a landing location of the pilot's choice. There are many of those, especially along the Gulf coast.

 

True or false. ATC can issue a Approach clearance without naming the runway

 

Of course this is true. How about an NDB C approach to an uncontrolled airfield?

 

Follow the published approach procedure, or the amended clearance received. In this case, fly to the MAP, and if in VMC, land to the active runway, whichever it is, or to the runway that seems the safest at the time. Or if it's a helicopter point-in-space approach, fly the published approach, and if in VMC at the MAP, comply with whatever the approach plate says for landing at the intended location.

 

Explain what is required of the pilot when an approach clearance is issued naming the runway.

Fly the published approach for the runway, but the aircraft may be cleared to land on another runway, either in the approach clearance or anytime later in the approach. The approach is tied to the runway only for the purposes of flying a published approach, not for landing. The approach clearance seldom includes a landing clearance. Many pilots fly approaches without ever intending to land, and ATC usually knows this, having asked "How will this approach terminate?".

 

True or false. The receipt of an approach clearance does not relieve the pilot of his responsibility to comply with applicable Parts of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations and the notations on instrument approach charts which levy on the pilot the responsibility to comply with or act on an instruction contained on the approach chart.

 

Well duh. I still don't know what any of this has to do with whether ATC can or should deny an approach clearance solely because of reported visibility or ceiling. That's what started the thread, although many tangents were followed along the way.

Edited December 8, 2011 by Gomer Pylot