Jump to content

Practice IFR approach?


crashed_05

Recommended Posts

Actual ATC conversations that I've added Avbugs name to since his attitude towards the facts are about the same.

 

Avbug:- "Request Runway 27 Right."

Approach:- "Unable."

Avbug:- "Approach, do you know the wind at six thousand is 270 at fifty?"

Approach:- "Yeah, I do, and if we could jack the airport up to fifty-five hundred you could have that runway. Expect 14 Right."

 

This is what we've come to expect of you in this thread; inventing the truth and inaccuracies and lies. Moreover, you've inserted quotes a number of times that never took place and made up statements to suit your fancy. Your credibility was shot pages ago, when you were first identified as having done so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have many times been cleared by Center for an approach, my choice of any at the airfield, and of course no clearance to land is included. So, if I wanted to execute an approach to a closed runway, and circle to an open one, they would be none the wiser. They are just looking for cancellation in the air,, or on the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again your words being used to correct a flight student. These are from your post and not a misquote as you like to claim, since anyone is able to go back and read your original post.

 

The VOR 13 procedure at KJFK 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.

 

I've been nice so far but your so full of BS it's scary. Lets take a look at another approach plate used by you during your explanation of an approach clearance to a closed runway and have you explain a couple things. Also someone at JFK would really like to hear this one and says your really not much of a pilot since this isn't a complicated approach.

  • How is it possible for you to miss the lights and end up on the wrong runway?
  • How is this approach procedure considered a circle to 13L or 13R?
  • How could you be cleared to a closed runway if one is closed and the initial approach is designed and used for two separate runways with Radar or DME being required?
  • Why is the 295 radial referenced during this approach?

If you didn't deviate from the approach clearance as issued by ATC, you were not issued an approach clearance to a closed runway, because your runway number was included at time of initial approach clearance.

 

Here's a link to the approach plate.

http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/JFK/IAP/VOR+OR+GPS+RWY+13L_R/pdf

 

Once again your words being used to correct a flight student only this time using the JFK VOR 13L - 13R approach example provided by you and just as before, once again wrong.

 

My offer for a wager still stands, with the funds going towards a flight scholarship. In fact thinking about it, the loser should donate the cash to helistars flight training since she's the one you were belittling.

 

Everyone sit back and grab some popcorn, because this should be interesting :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been nice so far but your so full of BS it's scary. Lets take a look at another approach plate used by you during your explanation of an approach clearance to a closed runway and have you explain a couple things. Also someone at JFK would really like to hear this one and says your really not much of a pilot since this isn't a complicated approach.

  • How is it possible for you to miss the lights and end up on the wrong runway?
  • How is this approach procedure considered a circle to 13L or 13R?
  • How could you be cleared to a closed runway if one is closed and the initial approach is designed and used for two separate runways with Radar or DME being required?
  • Why is the 295 radial referenced during this approach?

 

Well brightspark, your link to the approach chart doesn't appear to work, but it's evident you've never flown the approach. I fly it in the simulator every few months, and fly the actual approach on a regular basis.

 

The VOR or GPS RWY 13L/13R procedure begins at ASALT intersection at 3000', descending to cross Canarsie VOR at 1,500, then a descent to minimums at DMYHL, which is the Missed Approach Point. Upon arrival at the MAP, one is supposed to view a series of lights which either turn to the right to 13R,or continue ahead and then arc to the right for 13L. It's possible in low visibility conditions to miss one set of lights, and it's also possible to mistake a road in the same location for the lights. You wouldn't know that, however, would you?

 

VORRWY13JFK.gif

The JFK 295 degree R, as you are well aware, marks the MAP where it intersects with the Canarsie 041R, although it's unnecessary as this is a DME or GPS procedure, and DMYHL is easily identified as the CRI 2.6D fix.

 

How is the procedure considered a circling procedure? Do you see any part of that procedure between the IAF and the MAP which is aligned within 30 degrees of the runway? You don't? Are you familiar with the criteria for a circling vs. a staight-in procedure? This procedure, in fact, requires a 90 degree turn AFTER the missed approach point to gain runway alignment.

 

Straight-in minimums, incidentally, are published when the final approach course alignment is within 30 degrees of runway alignment. You don't know this?

 

Your point, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another lesser known cause of an otherwise straight in landing being categorized as a circling, even if final approach course is within 30degrees of the runway, is excessive glideslope from missed approach point to runway thresh hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive me if this has already been posted but paragraph 3-3-2c of JO 7110.65T says:

 

c. Except as permitted by para 4-8-7, Side‐step

Maneuver, where parallel runways are served by

separate ILS/MLS systems and one of the runways is

closed, the ILS/MLS associated with the closed

runway should not be used for approaches unless not

using the ILS/MLS would have an adverse impact on

the operational efficiency of the airport.

 

That says to me that you CAN be cleared for an approach to a closed runway, yes?

 

FYI since it was referenced, paragraph 4-8-7 states:

 

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.

 

http://www.faa.gov/d...10.65TBasic.pdf

 

So what are we arguing about now? The definition of circle to a circling approach?

 

Edit: Looks like Tarantula beat me to it.

Edited by SBuzzkill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another lesser known cause of an otherwise straight in landing being categorized as a circling, even if final approach course is within 30degrees of the runway, is excessive glideslope from missed approach point to runway thresh hold.

 

Correct. Any reason that the procedure can't be completed straight in, including excessive descent rates, excessive change in course, etc, mean that circling minimums will be published. In this particular case, the approach course vs. runway alignment differs far in excess of the 30 degrees needed to qualify for straight-in minima. The procedure is further complicated by an unusual action after reaching the MAP: one sets up a constant descent to the runway while executing a 90 degree turn and following a series of lights from the MAP to one of two runways. These lights are located in part in urban areas, amid buildings, street lamps, etc.

 

Tracon failed to make his point, and has tried inventing quotes, falsifying his facts, misquoting and using parts of references rather than the whole reference (which when revealed, proved him wrong), and most recently finally resorted to dragging material out of context from other threads because he simply has no case to make here.

 

Tracon has attempted to point to the use of parallel runways to convince us that an approach designated for a closed runway, but landing on the parallel, isn't an approach to the closed runway at all, even though the name of the approach, and the name as used in the approach clearance, specifically and directly calls out the closed runway by name. Tracon attempts to convince us that an ILS 23L, when runway 23L is closed, is really an approach to runway 23R, if one is to sidestep to 23R, despite the fact that the name of the procedure hasn't changed: it's still called, identified and cleared as the ILS 23L.

 

Tracon doesn't seem to believe that if cleared for an approach to a given runway, one may never intend to land on that runway. He doesn't appear to understand that one may very well be cleared an approach designated for a closed runway, but may circle to land on an open runway. Tracon has apparently never seen, and apparently has never cleared anyone on an instrument approach to a runway for which a landing isn't possible due to winds, closure, or other considerations, when the aircraft must circle to land on a different runway or the same pavement from the opposite direction. Many of us have flown such approaches, however, and many of us have done it many times.

 

Tracon has attempted to make his point by stating that once an approach is initiated, the full approach must be flown without deviation, his insinuation being that one is thus obligated to land on the named runway. This is of course poppycock, as one can be (and frequently is) cleared for an approach with the intention of landing on a different runway. Where circling is available, this is a common, appropriate use of the procedure, and flying an approach to runway 7 does not at all obligate one to land on runway 7; one may land on any number of other runways by using the appropriate minimums. This doesn't obviate the ability to be cleared for an approach, the designated runway of which is not available or closed. We can be cleared for just such an approach, and we sometimes are.

 

Tracon is frustrated by his or her inability to make the case, to the point of inventing dialogue, quotes, and references, and outright lying. We've seen it here and documented through the thread several times. Tracon can't explain how approaches can be conducted to points in space, rooftops, waterways, or how an aircraft like a helicopter could possibly fly an approach and never use the runway at all. Shocking, isn't it? Tracon apparently hasn't spent time at airports where approaches exist, but which are not designated for any runway at all; one must circle no matter what, and all runways are encompassed by the approach.

 

KGEY, in Wyoming, uses the RNAV(GPS)-A approach, which has no designated runway. In fact, the the only minima are circling, despite the fact that the procedure is aligned with runway 07, within 3 degrees. The descent angle from the last step-down fix at ZUNOB, to the runway threshold, however, is 3.3 degrees, and doesn't qualify for straight-in minima. One may fly the approach and land straight-in if one can identify the runway and make the threshold using normal maneuvers, and the absence of straight-in minima doesn't preclude this. One also isn't prevented from flying the approach when ruwnay 7 is closed, and landing on runway 34 or 16. No big deal at all.

 

GPSKGEY.gif

Of course, one might fly the VOR-B at KWJF and have to make a choice between runway 6 or 24, because there's no way to make a straight-in approach. One might simply use the procedure for practice and never land, as the USAF often does at that location. One might use the procedure to get beneath weather, then cancel, and go elsewhere, such as following the highway to Lone Pine, California. One is not obligated to land. It's a circling procedure, and one has a choice of runways, or no runways; a closed runway doesn't invalidate the use of the procedure, and despite the two runways being the same piece of concrete, one may be closed where the other is open (I flew just such an approach several days ago to a desert location, due to runway construction and obstacles). One may very well be flying an approach to a closed runway; one may fly an approach to a closed runway without landing or ever intending to land.

 

Tracon would have us believe that because he quoted a paragraph stating that one must not deviate from the procedure, that one is obligated to land; this was the intent when he or she tried to tell us such claptrap. The truth is that the missed approach procedure is there for a reason, and one may fly an approach and have zero intent to land, as traffic often does at Fox Field. That reason isn't just the inability to land. One may fly an approac to a closed runway without any intent of landing on that runway, but may circle to another runway, execute the missed approach, or simply cancel and proceed visually to another airport. One is under no obligation, by accepting an approach clearance, to land, as an approach clearance isn't a landing clearance.

 

 

 

VORKWJF.gif

 

One may fly the procedure to an airport with multiple runway and choose among them, or to a specific one. The procedure may be one, as we've seen here, which has no runway designation, or it could be as previously shown to a closed runway for which the approach is designated, with a sidestep or circle to land. The runway being closed in any event, does NOT preclude the assigning of an approach to that runway.

 

VORKOGD.gif

 

Go figure.

Edited by avbug
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...