When Are You A Non-Radar Arrival?
Even though you might be on radar, there are times you’re expected t
o fly the entire procedure.
By Wally Roberts
IT’S NORMAL TO GET RADAR VEC-tors to the “final approach course.” How-ever, when faced with a non-radar transi-tion from the en route structure to the ap-proach, you’re sometimes faced with com-plex and ambiguous options. Unfortu-nately, the FAA hasn’t provided any good guidance information in this area for a very long time.
You’re responsible for executing an approach in its entirety, with only the fol-lowing three exceptions: a radar vector to either the final approach course, or (in un-usual circumstances) to an earlier segment of the IAP; a visual approach; or, a contact approach.Unless you’re vectored to the fi-nal approach course, you’re a non-radar ar-rival for purposes of the approach proce-dure, even though ATC might see you on radar.
Some ATC radar facilities improvise clearances by short-cutting a required seg-ment of an IAP, without providing radar vectors in accordance with the ATC Hand-book. Since controllers aren’t trained on in-strument approach criteria (TERPs) and re-quirements, if they approve a pilot request for a “short-cut,” that approval is only based on other IFR traffic, and in no way relieves the pilot from the procedural re-quirement (FAR 97) of flying the full ap-proach procedure.
Where you begin
In November 1994, the FAA chief coun-sel issued a legal interpretation that reaf-firmed the implicit intent of TERPs criteria, which requires a non-vectored instrument approach to begin at the appropriate initial approach fix (IAF), and (where appropriate to the route) that any published feeder route be used. In unusual circumstances (where an approach doesn’t have an IAF), the in-termediate segment must be entered di-rectly from the airway that leads to the FAF.
The letter further states that a course re-versal must be executed, unless one of the three requirements of FAR 91.175(j) is sat-isfied, or, unless the IAP doesn’t have a published course reversal. Finally, the let-ter states that a published DME arc can only be started at the published IAF for the arc (this last item has raised a lot of contro-
IFR Refresher
versy, and begs for some long overdue up-the approach segments to accommodate dating of the TERPs criteria). aircraft turning and descent gradient re-
The TERPs criteria serve not only to pro-quirements. At mountainous airports, every vide vertical and lateral protection from ob-aspect of the IAP is critical. But, some of stacles, they provide smooth blending of (continued on next page)
When Are You..
(continued from page 5)
the stuff seems a bit arbitrary at flat-land airports, especially where pilots have good local knowledge.
The folks who develop the IAPs must make judgment calls about local traffic flow and chart readability. There is cer-tainly room, however, for improvements in the criteria used to develop feeder routes and initial approach segments, especially with the emergence of IFR GPS proce-dures. Your best policy is to conform with the transition requirements of an IAP 100 percent of the time. This ensures safety throughout the system, and could keep an inspector at bay someday.
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：When Are You A Non-Radar Arrival?
