I see. I always only get “directs” to the IAF, the FAF or a WP in between … Have to do more of them :-)
Flyer59 wrote:
I always only get “directs” to the IAF, the FAF or a WP in between
Should never be direct to the FAF.
Right, but I think one time i did get a direct to the FAF … (might remember that wrong)
I’d imagine a direct to FAF could well happen when you are already on the extended runway centreline.
You should never get a DCT to the FAF, whether on an RNAV approach or an approach using ground-based radio navigation as you need to be established on the final approach course prior to the FAF – 2 NM prior. Should you get DCT FAF you should decline it.
On a GNSS approach the best you can hope for in terms of DCT is to the IF but only if it will require a turn of less than x° to the final approach course. Of course you can get DCT to any other waypoints in the procedure which is the reason why loading the procedure into your FPL with the VECTORS-TO-FINAL transition is not recommended.
If you are expecting vectors to final and there are several IAF, you need to choose which one to load depending on the direction you are coming from, ie. the most likely route to the final approach. You should not get, nor should you accept DCT to any waypoint not in the procedure.
The CAA has published a very concise guide to GNSS approaches ( local copy )
It feels like the concept of an RNAV approach, whereby the controller does not know if you are performing a precision or non-precision approach, is inserting insecurity in them interpreting the flow.
Certain the phrase “cleared for the approach” contains “insecurity” for the controller because the instant the phrase is used, you may descend to the platform altitude. However, unless you are being vectored, you are responsible for your own obstacle clearance, so how far you are going to actually descend is not predictable to him.
So, for more years than I know, the UK never used that phrase, other than possibly in conjunction with descent clearances which took out all your vertical decisions. You got “left 230 degrees, report localiser established” and then you got “descend with the glislope, report 4D” etc.
Could you say what exactly you mean by platform altitude? I have never officially heard of it, except in your posts. Your term? A UK CAA term?
Usually it is where the FAF is e.g.
It’s not a term I invented.
Hmm.
But before, you said
Certain the phrase “cleared for the approach” contains “insecurity” for the controller because the instant the phrase is used, you may descend to the platform altitude
One usually gets the clearance together with the last vector, i.e. when still way off the final approach, so not on a published leg of the approach.And at that point you would descend to 2200 feet?
Yes; normally ATC avoid the uncertainty, by giving you descents all the way to the platform, before giving you “cleared for the approach”.
But not always. I had some recently, though I don’t recall where. It was possibly Pamplona or Le Touquet.
Much previous discussion of this here… search for e.g.
cleared for the approach
