Ibra wrote:
I know that should work in my GPS: direct IAF (activate approach & load missed) and later scroll and direct IF or any other points (as long as it’s not close to FAF), still I was always told you should not do that and rather activate legs
It is very common in the US to be cleared direct to an IF to begin an approach. ATC has limitations to do that however, they are supposed to advise the pilt at least 5 NM from the IF and the intercept angle to the intermediate leg can be no more than 90 degrees. ATC can also clear the aircraft to a step down fix outside the FAF, but the intercept angle is limited to 30 degrees. One approach where most approach clearances are to the IF is found at KPAO direct to DOCAL. A similar situation exists at KJQF RNAV 20 or ILS 20, where most approach clearances are to the IF LEEMO. In these cases, activating the leg ending at the IF would not follow the clearance, but direct-to would. Some GPS navigators won’t accept direct-to the FAF, but will accept direct o any other fix on the procedure prior to the FAF.
Also, many IAF also have a PT (Procedure Turn) or HILPT (Hold In Lieu of a Procedure Turn) located at an IAF and the PT or HILPT must be flown unless one of 4 exceptions apply 1 – vectors to final, 2 – Cleared straight In, 3 No PT is charted on the segment being flown, and 4 – Timed approaches in use.
I think it’s worth discussing SERA.8015 in this context, I am not sure why you think it’s irrelevant?
I see lot of flaws for this to apply,
SERA.8015: when vectoring or assigning a direct routing not included in the flight plan, which takes an IFR flight off published ATS route or instrument procedure, an air traffic controller providing ATS surveillance service shall issue clearances such that the prescribed obstacle clearance exists at all times until the aircraft reaches the point where the pilot re-joins the flight plan route or joins a published ATS route or instrument procedure
“Radar & Approach ATC owns obstacle clearance”, AFAIK this is wrong in few situations when PIC is flying IFR in Golf, it will be good to have a reference?
I can’t decipher the relevance of half the posts no matter how I read them. Neither can others…
Peter wrote:
Vectored or not, and exactly in what circumstances? That’s an astonishing one-liner.
We were discussing vectoring and directs. (I really do think that the moderator feed that you use to read posts is not good since you lose context.)
SERA requires ATC to ensure obstacle clearance
Vectored or not, and exactly in what circumstances? That’s an astonishing one-liner.
When you are cruising IFR in IMC at MSA (+/-1000ft to +/-5nm obstacles), you will have a tough time getting any ATC clearance, they can’t ensure anything
I suggest sticking to the topic, please. Actually the topic has been pretty well done to death, intellectually if not practically since so few people who actually fly IFR in Europe have posted, and most posts are off topic anyway.
Yes it’s grey without clear procedure on what they should use to ensure that
When you are cruising IFR in IMC at MSA (+/-1000ft to +/-5nm obstacles), you will have a tough time getting any ATC clearance, they can’t ensure anything
In the other hand, ATC may issue clearances in that scenario by asking pilot to ‘confirm ground in-sight?’ or ‘confirm visual or VMC?’ before issuing vector or direct bellow MVA or MEA (or even bellow MSA sometimes), if I hit a mountain on direct bellow radar while off route after an ‘Affirm, Victor Mike Charlie’, it’s not ATC problem, it’s fully compliant with SERA.8015 !
Ibra wrote:
it’s not what you said the other time regarding this new SERA.8015?
There’s no contradiction. SERA requires ATC to ensure obstacle clearance. It doesn’t specify what procedures they should use.
NCYankee wrote:
To select an IF within a procedure that is not an IAF, you select the IAF first and then scroll thru the procedure flight plan entry and set the cursor to the IF followed by Direct-To.
I know that should work in my GPS: direct IAF (activate approach & load missed) and later scroll and direct IF or any other points (as long as it’s not close to FAF), still I was always told you should not do that and rather activate legs
Mooney_Driver wr__Italic__ote:
Quote So if you have an approach chart which shows segment altitudes but TAA below those, then you’d descend below the segment altitude?
In US, the TAA segment altitude can never be below the IAF it serves, so this is not possible. An approach clearance authorizes the pilot to descend to the minimum altitude for a charted segment of the procedure once they are established on that segment. This includes any feeder routes. A TAA segment us considered an RNAV feeder route, so once inside a TAA segment, the aircraft is established on the Feeder route and may descend to the charted segment altitude.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Quote How can it be that in a certified GPS vital data such as intermediate waypoints are missing in an approach? For me, that would disqualify the unit for flying that approach.
I would always expect that an IF would be part of the procedure, but not necessarily selectable as one of the points that the GPS select procedure dialog would offer. To select an IF within a procedure that is not an IAF, you select the IAF first and then scroll thru the procedure flight plan entry and set the cursor to the IF followed by Direct-To.