曝光臺(tái) 注意防騙 網(wǎng)曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營(yíng)店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費(fèi)者

recent reports of pilot and ATC confusion regarding procedure turn
and/or holding requirements of IFR approach procedures.
This month we will look at several common IFR approach
situations where confusion reigns:
● Making a Procedure Turn
● Making a Hold-in-Lieu-of Procedure Turn
● Expecting a Straight-In Approach
Although we don’t offer solutions to the misunderstandings
described, we hope that sharing these reports will encourage clearer
ATC-pilot communications.
The Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) section 5-4-9
describes requirements for when to execute a procedure turn
or hold-in-lieu-of procedure turn. In a nutshell, either of these
maneuvers is required when it is depicted on the approach chart.
However, the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu of-PT is not permitted
in three instances:
1) When the symbol “no PT” is depicted on the initial segment
being used
2) When ATC provides a radar vector to the final approach
course
3) When conducting a timed approach from a holding fix.
A note adds that ATC may assign a “straight-in” approach to ensure
the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is not to be flown.
Situation #1: Making a Procedure Turn
Seems clear enough, doesn’t it? But here’s what happened to a
GA pilot flying the SBA (Santa Barbara, California) VOR/GPS 25
approach in IMC:
n On IFR clearance to SBA. Final waypoint in that clearance is
KWANG, from which a straight-in approach via the SBA VOR/GPS
25 approach is indicated. Received radar vectors for sequencing
prior to KWANG, then “proceed direct ZACKS (the FAF and
also an IAF), maintain 2,100 until established, cleared GPS 25
approach.” Shortly thereafter, I was instructed to contact the Tower.
Per AIM 5-4-9, a procedure turn is required with this clearance.
ATC provided no radar vector to intercept the final approach
course, nor did ATC assign a “straight-in approach.” Considered
as an IAF, ZACKS does not have a “NoPT” indication, vs. KWANG,
which does. The fact that the assigned altitude (2,100 feet) was
below the 3,000 foot floor of the outbound procedure turn segment
aroused my suspicion. I queried the Tower Controller, who informed
me not to perform the course reversal and proceed straight in. I
was able to do so safely and landed without incident.
In my opinion, this misunderstanding could have resulted in a
very serious situation. Were another aircraft cleared straight-in
for the same approach behind me, and had I performed the course
reversal, there would have been two aircraft, in IMC, heading
in opposite directions, at the same altitude, following the highly
precise GPS course.
In discussions with others, confusion over procedure turns in radar
and RNAV environments seems surprisingly common, both among
pilots and controllers…Perhaps ATC should consider including
“cleared via straight in” or “cleared via procedure turn” in all
approach clearances to obviate similar misunderstandings.
SW-3, 11 FEB 2010 to 11 MAR 2010
SW-3, 11 FEB 2010 to 11 MAR 2010
Situation #2: Making a Hold-in-Lieu-of PT
A Cessna 182 pilot flying a non-precision approach to DMW
(Carroll County Regional Airport, Maryland) experienced the same
“cone of confusion” as the pilot in Situation #1 when attempting to
comply with the published requirement for a course reversal. The
flight was in IMC.
n I was on a short 20-minute flight to DMW. After receiving several
vectors for traffic flow, I was cleared direct to EMI, the IAF for
Number 363 March 2010
PILOT and ATC
Situation #3: Expecting a
Straight-In Approach
A corporate jet flight crew relearned a basic aviation lesson: When
in doubt, always ask.
n We were en route to BVS [Skagit County Regional Airport,
Washington] for an approach RNAV Runway 10. ATC cleared us
direct to SOCLO intersection, the IAF. We were on a north heading.
A clearance was later given to cross SOLCO intersection at 4,000
feet and cleared for the RNAV 10 approach. Since we were at 4,000
feet and the initial altitude for the approach was 3,900 feet and we
were not on a transition, we assumed…to be cleared for straight-in.
At SOLCO we turned inbound and resumed the approach without
entering the procedure turn. Whidby Approach informed us that
we were not cleared for a straight-in and that we should have
conducted the full approach.
The problem could have been avoided and I think that complacency
was the main factor. We do numerous approaches yearly and when
we are flying at the initial altitude and being vectored or cleared
　
中國(guó)航空網(wǎng) www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：CALL BACK 3(88)