Hi knowledgeable people,

Quick question for the ATC guys. I'm trying to settle a friendly disagreement (and possibly learn something in the process) regarding the legality of closing a STAR to an ILS using two waypoints that are not shared on an ILS but are shared on an RNAV.
Ex: - Let's say you have a STAR for Runway 36 that go abeam the runway "ALPHA" then go downwind for 10NM and has another waypoint "Bravo".
- Now let's say you have an ILS36 that possess a Waypoint 10NM final "Charlie" but no T bar that goes to Bravo.
- Also let's say this airport has an RNAV36 that do possess an approach that connects to the STAR and let's you do Bravo->Charlie

Can ATC clears you "Air Skyhighh from Bravo to Charlie clear for the ILS36 maintain 3000 until established?"

I personally think that if the approach itself do not have both waypoint connecting, you cannot do that (I'm sure I saw a circular about this exact thing but cannot find it). But I have been wrong before and would like either confirmation or update my knowledge.

Thank you

There needs to be a published connection between the STAR and the waypoint on the approach to be able to do this. This is basically what makes a STAR closed or open.

Alternatively, you could be cleared for the ILS approach with a route instruction, “after Bravo, cleared direct Charlie and cleared ILS36” but that’s something completely different from what you are describing.

AIC 12/21 is what you are looking for!

Consequently, after consultation with commercial stakeholders, air traffic controllers will no longer clear aircraft to self-navigate directly from an open STAR to an instrument approach for which no transition has been published. Additionally, pilots must not request or accept such clearances.

RegionalPilot wrote: ↑Thu Aug 05, 2021 6:24 pm AIC 12/21 is what you are looking for!

Consequently, after consultation with commercial stakeholders, air traffic controllers will no longer clear aircraft to self-navigate directly from an open STAR to an instrument approach for which no transition has been published. Additionally, pilots must not request or accept such clearances.

AIC 12/21 is exactly the document I was looking for.
Thanks to you two.

Is this new rule/procedure still in place? NavCanada has changed their website and it is quite difficult to find standing policies / service bulletains.

It looks like this AIC 12/21 has been scrubbed from their site / search.

I'd like to be able to use the RNP AR, RF leg to transition to an ILS to take advantage of the lower minimums. If you did it now, likely nobody would know, but it would take a lot of extra messing around with the FMC and a frequency flip at a high workload time so really wouldn't be safe, but I don't see why in the future approaches like this couldn't be designed.

co-joe wrote: ↑Sun Apr 24, 2022 5:55 am I'd like to be able to use the RNP AR, RF leg to transition to an ILS to take advantage of the lower minimums. If you did it now, likely nobody would know, but it would take a lot of extra messing around with the FMC and a frequency flip at a high workload time so really wouldn't be safe, but I don't see why in the future approaches like this couldn't be designed.

Are the APP controllers bored with all us requesting these non-vectored approaches? haha