How much info about IAP is known to controllers?

[keith]

I fly in the NJ/NY/CT area, my home airport being Lincoln Park (N07).  At this airport, and at others, two specific aspects of instrument approaches stand out to me, with regards to interaction with ATC:

1) the few times I have asked for an approach from a feeder (not the IAF), the controller has given me the impression that he/she thinks the approach cannot be flown from that point.


For the the RNAV (GPS) RWY 19 approach into N07
(http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0810/06637R19.PDF)

2) when cleared from ZASEB (again, have never been given the approach SAX even if I am going to fly over SAX), the instruction is always, "xx from ZASEB, maintain 3000 until established on the final approach course, cleared RNAV RWY 19 approach."

My questions, then:
1) is ATC aware of the presence and function of feeder routes? I ask this because I recently saw a 'cheat sheet' that was apparently used by ATC for various approaches, and feeder routes were not included. That, coupled with my experiences as a pilot lead me to that question.

2) specifically for the approach into N07, why am I always given 3k until established, when I'm being cleared from the IAF that allows 2700 after the IAF? Is there an operational benefit to this for ATC, or does THEIR documentation not include the 2700' segment between the IAF (ZASEB) and the IF (WANVA) ?

It seems to me the instruction could really be: "cross ZASEB at 3000, cleared approach"  (the distance not required since I'm not being vectored to the final approach course, but the altitude is required since I am on a random route to ZASEB, ie. being vectored to ZASEB).

This would require less radio time, and allow me to descend to 2700 after ZASEB.

None if this is a big deal...I just figured there are a few controllers (at least one from N90, too) who read these forums, and perhaps I could get their take on this.

[goowe]

Hmm, I'd like to add some more if I could.

How easy is it for a controller in N90 to look up a resource like this chart? The facilities I've visited have those neat touch screen monitors above their radars (there's a name for the system, but I forget what it is?) that allow them to view any chart (or anything, really) in seconds...

[aevins]

N90 is equipped with the same technology you describe

[drfinal]

Keith--check your pm...

[FlySafe]

I think the equipment you are referring to is SA-IDS 4 or ACE IDS.  either way, you only have access to whatever is loaded into the system....

[Unbeliever]

1) the few times I have asked for an approach from a feeder (not the IAF), the controller has given me the impression that he/she thinks the approach cannot be flown from that point.

If you mean From SAX, he's right.  You're not on the approach until you are on the thick black line. 

If you mean from ZASEB, then probably a call into the facilities QA number is in order to remind them that ZASEB->WANVA is part of the approach, or if things are quiet, a "BTW, ZASEB is an IAF for this approach."

Or maybe they've got procedures in place to VTF everybody when in radar coverage.  I know in SoCal, 9 times out of 10 they want you VTF'ed and you specifically have to ask for the full procedure.

--Carlos V.

[mk]

but aren't you estabolished once you've crossed the IAF?  The MVA the controller is dealing with may be 3000'...so even if it is, at ZASEB, you're on a PUBLISHED portion of the approach, and you can descend right?  I'm looking at that tower to the north of ZASEB and i'm thinking the MVA may be 3000'. 

but you are correct..the phraseology should be.."cross ZASEB at 3000', cleared RNAV ...."

[djmodifyd]

well...in my facility we do have the IDS4 system..which we can, with a couple mouse clicks, look up all the approach charts that we use.

i can almost guarantee that the MVA in the controllers area is 3000 if he/she is saying maintain 3000 until established.

Im not quite sure what you mean by a feeder...are you talking about the SAX VOR Transition?  If so...that is for a n on-radar situation...and that is basically what the 2700 feet is for reference that.

if you are under RADAR, the controller is responsible to give you an appropriate altitude that is safe for terrain and obstruction until you are established on a section of the approach...which as said before are the thick black lines.

NON-Radar, you would be told to procede via the SAX Vor transition and report ZASEB or WANVA inbound. then you would be cleared and told frequency changed approved.


Also, legally, a controller can only send you  direct to a IAF or IF, NOT an FAF.  and have to be within a 90 degree turn to be cleared.  OR you can be vectored to intercept the final approach course between a IAF and a FAF, to have no greater than a 30 degree intercept angle, AND the approach course must be depicted on the controllers radar scope.

You will be told to "procede direct ZASEB, cross ZASEB at 3000 (due to mva) cleared RNV RWY 19 Approach Lincoln Airport."

i really hope this makes sence...i typed this all on my iphone...so there are probably many spelling errors and i may not "flow" very well..lol

let me know if i can help any more at all...or just send me a pm.

[davolijj]

I would think you could get away with flying the SAX transition as part of the approach, even in a radar enviroment if you filed or were cleared via: ..SAX.SAX071.ZASEB..N07.  Because neither SAX direct ZASEB nor SAX direct N07 puts you on a published non-radar routing with altitude information available for the route segment, those routings wouldn't work for the SAX transition.  If you have the SAX071R as part of your flight plan, it's just the same as if you were on a Victor airway which joins an approach route segment.

Here are our procedures for IFR altitude assignments:

4-5-6. MINIMUM EN ROUTE ALTITUDES

Except as provided in subparas a and b below, assign altitudes at or above the MEA for the route segment being flown. When a lower MEA for subsequent segments of the route is applicable, issue the lower MEA only after the aircraft is over or past the Fix/NAVAID beyond which the lower MEA applies unless a crossing restriction at or above the higher MEA is issued.

Aslo:

5-6-1. APPLICATION

Vector aircraft:

c. At or above the MVA or the minimum IFR altitude except as authorized for radar approaches, special VFR, VFR operations, or by para 5-6-3, Vectors Below Minimum Altitude.

And by the way, the centers use a tool called ERIDS (EnRoute Information Display System) for accessing all FAA manuals and published charts.  It's basically just a huge database of PDF files with a touch-screen user interface.  No cool pictures, menus, or blueprints of Heinz Field like SA-IDS or IDS4 has.

[keith]

The feeder (SAX to ZASEB) IS a published segment of the approach. It is designed to transition from the enroute structure to the approach. I would think it would be possible to be cleared for the approach from SAX, regardless of whether it's a RADAR or non-RADAR situation.  That's ok, though, it's a minor technicality.

I'm more interested in why I'm told to maintain 3000 until established 'on the final approach course'. I'm beginning to suspect it's simply habitual phrasing more than anything else.

Next time I fly it, if the controller isn't swamped, I will point out that the approach permits me to drop to 2700 after ZASEB and say, "do you mind if we cross ZASEB at 3000 then go lower?"

[SkanknTodd]

i typed this all on my iphone...

impressive

[djmodifyd]

i typed this all on my iphone...

impressive

lol yea it took forever

[keith]

By way of an update, I flew to Monmouth County (KBLM) a little while ago, my filed/cleared route was via Colts Neck (COL).

Approaching the VOR, I was told to "cross Colts Neck at or above [altitude], cleared VOR-A approach".  COL is a feeder to GUESS.  GUESS is the IAF.

There is some evidence that you can fly the approach from the feeder (not the IAF) in a radar environment without having the portion beyond the feeder in the originally cleared route. In other words, I cannot see why it would be necessary to include the portion AFTER the feeder in the filed route.