Self Nav?

[Bushav8er]

Somewhat in the same vein, how common or available is 'self navigation' to an approach? I'm talking in a non-radar environment.
Example: arriving from west when approach is to the west. Once cleared the approach, request 'self nav' to final - instead of heading to the fix and tracking out, pro turn and in; turn south (in our example) to do more of a 'downwind' (maintaining altitudes of course) and squaring up the approach to final. It seems that this would be easier and quicker.

(Regardless of type of approach, obviously this would be using RNAV equipment)

[Cap'n P8]

All one has to do is ask. As long as traffic permits, I'm sure they would let you.

[husky]

Does this not fall into the category of designing your own instrument approach? Does that sound like a good idea?

[Bushav8er]

Not really. I've had ATC do this before, they actually asked if we could; self nav to an ILS intercept instead of vectors. If you don't pass over the VOR to track outbound and instead set up for a 2-3 mile parallel, on the protected side, (race track pro turn) to ILS intercept, at approved altitudes is it really a 'design' of your own? I'm just wondering how common it is or how available it is to get this.

[ahramin]

Husky, when you get vectors to final from ATC, are they designing an approach for you each time?

[navajo]

All one has to do is ask. As long as traffic permits, I'm sure they would let you.

I think even if ATC clears you to do that kind of self-navigating approach (which make sens since you respect all the minimum altitudes and distances and ATC knows what you're doing), I think it's the PIC responsability and not ATC responsability to know if you are violating the CARS or not.

[Cap'n P8]

All one has to do is ask. As long as traffic permits, I'm sure they would let you.

I think even if ATC clears you to do that kind of self-navigating approach (which make sens since you respect all the minimum altitudes and distances and ATC knows what you're doing), I think it's the PIC responsability and not ATC responsability to know if you are violating the CARS or not.

Yes you are correct PIC is always responsible, not saying you are trying to relieve yourself of responsibility. However, if you are in controlled airspace you can't do anything without a clearance, and if you don't let them know your plans you might have some splainin to do!

Husky...what? Home made approach is taxiing to the end of the runway making a waypoint in the GPS then OBSing the runway bearing. Absolutely NOT what we are talking about here. Example, you plan to shoot an appoach and MSA conveniently happens to put you on a 3 deg slope at the FAF. So you descend to MSA, go straight to the FAF, hang the gear and flaps out and turn the corner. It's 100 percent legal. But is it what ATC is expecting? Probably not, so all you have to do is ask.

[navajo]

Yes you are correct PIC is always responsible, not saying you are trying to relieve yourself of responsibility. However, if you are in controlled airspace you can't do anything without a clearance, and if you don't let them know your plans you might have some splainin to do!

I totally agree with you, but what I was saying is even if even if ATC clears you to self-navigate in control airspace in order to do the approach in a more efficient manner (like not doing a PT), the way I understand it, it doesn't means you're not violating the CARS. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is how I see it.

[AuxBatOn]

Just ask for manoevring airspace in the vicinity of [insert IF here].

[Cap'n P8]

Yes you are correct PIC is always responsible, not saying you are trying to relieve yourself of responsibility. However, if you are in controlled airspace you can't do anything without a clearance, and if you don't let them know your plans you might have some splainin to do!

I totally agree with you, but what I was saying is even if even if ATC clears you to self-navigate in control airspace in order to do the approach in a more efficient manner (like not doing a PT), the way I understand it, it doesn't means you're not violating the CARS. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is how I see it.

Here is the reference i was looking for from the AIM:

9.16 Straight-in Approaches from an Intermediate Fix
Published transitions normally are designated from an en route navigation aid to the primary approach aid upon which the procedure turn is based. However, to accommodate aircraft with modern avionics equipment and to improve fuel economy, transitions at some locations direct the pilot to an intermediate fix (IF) on the final approach course. Subject to ATC requirements and local traffic conditions, a straight-in approach may be made from this fix.

Intermediate fixes are usually located on the final approach track at the procedure turn distance specified in the profile view. This distance, which is normally 10 NM, is the distance within which the procedure turn should be executed. Accordingly, after passing the fix and manœuvring the aircraft onto the proper inbound track, descent may be made to the appropriate published altitude that would apply as if a procedure turn had been completed.

The abbreviation “NO PT” is used to denote that no procedure turn is necessary from the point indicated and will normally be shown adjacent to the IF. However, if the minimum altitude IF to the final approach fix (FAF) is not readily apparent, the “NO PT” abbreviation may be shown at some point between the fix and FAF, along with an altitude applicable for this segment.

Where more than one transition intersects the final approach track at different points, only the furthest intersection is designated as the IF. Pilots may begin a straight-in approach from any depicted transition that intersects the final approach track inside the designated IF provided that ATC is aware of their intentions and subsequent manœuvring is within the capabilities of the aircraft.

If the aircraft is badly positioned, laterally or vertically, after being cleared by ATC for the straight-in approach, pilots should climb to the procedure turn altitude, or the minimum altitude at the facility if one is depicted, and proceed to the FAF requesting clearance for a procedure turn.

NOTE: If the FAF is behind the aircraft, the pilot must conduct a missed approach and request further clearance from ATC.

The depiction of radials on a DME arc transition to an IF are normally limited to the radial forming the IAF at the beginning of the arc, the lead radial (if required) to indicate where the turn to the final approach track should be commenced, and radials forming step-down fixes if descent to lower altitudes can be approved. However, the arc may be joined from any radial that intercepts the depicted arc.



The way I interpret that, is that you can sequence your GPS/FMS, from the IF to the FAF and intercept that track to join a straight in final, and as long as you maintain MSA until you're on the track, you've haven't broken any regs.

[navajo]

I think you're right Cap'n P8,:

The abbreviation “NO PT” is used to denote that no procedure turn is necessary from the point indicated and will normally be shown adjacent to the IF. However, if the minimum altitude IF to the final approach fix (FAF) is not readily apparent, the “NO PT” abbreviation may be shown at some point between the fix and FAF, along with an altitude applicable for this segment.

if the "No PT" abbreviation is not mandatory for a straight-in approach (a lot of VOR/DME approach that could be easly be done straight-in don't have that "No PT"), and if:

Pilots may begin a straight-in approach from any depicted transition that intersects the final approach track inside the designated IF provided that ATC is aware of their intentions and subsequent manœuvring is within the capabilities of the aircraft.

by "transition", they mean any self-navigation that allows you to intercept the final approach track.

Anyway, I'm now more confident that TC will not give me any cadors if they hear me doing my straight-in approaches.

[Cap'n P8]

Well I did every day for two years up in YXL and nobody gave me any grief for it, so it's either legal...or they don't give a shit

[Bushav8er]

I get all that, done it too. I'm referring to more of an arrival from the opposite direction and turn around, read 'self nav', to the inbound.

flying east (090), ILS or LOC west (270) but NOT flying to the VOR outbound but rather making a "downwind" and around to the intercept.

or is that the

Pilots may begin a straight-in approach from any depicted transition that intersects the final approach track inside the designated IF provided that ATC is aware of their intentions and subsequent manœuvring is within the capabilities of the aircraft.

part?

[Cap'n P8]

I would say yes.

[Bushav8er]

Thanks...I'll ask ATC next time it comes up and take it from there.

Good to hear you're 'living the dream'...miss Wasaya?

[Cap'n P8]

Sometimes yes I do. I honestly loved working there. But I can also say I miss most of the places I've left (people and flying). But I still keep in regular contact with people from every company I've worked for so what more can you ask for at the end of the day.

Happy flying!