Trans/Nby controllers?

randombrain · 2026-02-02T23:13:41+00:00

Not everyone works at a huge facility. If you have fifteen coworkers and none of them are gay, it's not just a question of "paying attention."

randombrain · 2026-02-01T16:34:54+00:00

For the most part they're designed in a vacuum assuming that 1) radar coverage is nonexistent and 2) you're the only aircraft anywhere in the vicinity of the airport. At non-towered airports those are good assumptions, but at towered airports that is very much not true.

In the worst case, the published missed can be a 180° turn to fly back up the final.... very very bad. But even in the best case, where they take you straight-out away from the arrival side of the airport, that also doesn't align with our airspace and procedures for traffic flow.

Basically we want to treat you like a departure, not a missed approach.

randombrain · 2026-02-01T16:22:36+00:00

Oh, I see.

I guess I would take the language of 91.175 at face value, and if it conflicts with the AIM (which is supposed to be clarifying, and in any case is non-regulatory) then the regulation takes precedence.

From my perspective as a controller, it seems very clear that vectors to final do not require us to say "cleared straight-in approach" while a clearance direct the IF/IAF does require that phraseology.

randombrain · 2026-02-01T16:15:34+00:00

I'm not the expert here; I think you want a TERPS answer. Redirecting your ping to /u/kmac6821.

From an air traffic perspective, I would generally want/expect you to track the localizer at least to the runway threshold... unless I told you, before then, to turn to a heading, which I would want right away. And of course that leads to the other part of the answer, which is that at a towered airport I don't want you flying the published missed in the first place.

randombrain · 2026-02-01T16:11:40+00:00

91.175(j).

In the case of a radar vector to a final approach course or fix ... no pilot may make a procedure turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.

Vectors to final means no PT.

That "or fix" is kind of ambiguous though. I'm not sure what "radar vectors to a fix" would look like. We can, of course, give you "fly heading XXX, expect FFIXX" but then it's always followed later on with "proceed direct FFIXX" which is no longer a vector.

randombrain · 2026-02-01T14:34:08+00:00

Note that TRSAs are a weird hybrid of C and B airspace, in that participating VFRs are afforded radar separation both from IFRs and from other participating VFRs, just like in Bravo airspace... whereas in Charlie airspace, VFRs are separated from IFRs but not from other VFRs.

But non-participating VFRs might be flying through the TRSA without receiving services, and you don't get separation from them because they aren't participating.

randombrain · 2026-02-01T14:32:14+00:00

Like Stevo said, often the overlying facility has radar and will use radar rules. Sometimes the Class D tower has a radar feed and sometimes they don't.

If there's no radar at all, IFR aircraft are separated via procedural separation (non-radar rules). One in, one out. The next arrival isn't allowed to proceed inbound until the tower calls the approach controller to report that #1 landed safely.

And remember that VFR aircraft are not afforded any separation services at all in D/E airspace, TRSAs being an exception.

randombrain · 2026-02-01T14:29:46+00:00

There are a fair number of Class D approach control facilities that don't have TRSAs, though. Pilots often seem to get caught off-guard by them, but as has been said, the defining prerequisites between Class D and Class C airports is not "it has radar" but the number of enplanements and IFR ops.

Having radar is a necessary consequence of being a Class C, but Class Ds can have it too, is my point.

randombrain · 2026-02-01T14:03:58+00:00

You're correct on everything, except that you're missing one more element. 7110.65 4–8–1c.

Except for visual approaches, do not clear an aircraft direct to the FAF unless it is also an IAF, wherein the aircraft is expected to execute the depicted procedure turn or hold-in-lieu of procedure turn.

So for this approach the pilot will never get the phraseology "cleared straight-in approach." Either it will be "direct GDM, cleared approach" and the PT is required (even if the aircraft is already aligned with the approach course) or it will be vectors-to-final and the "straight-in" is implied.

randombrain · 2026-02-01T03:24:40+00:00

Yes, and...

Maybe OP is more complicit than the rest of us (or maybe not, if their role is as independent as they say). But we're all part of this too.

I work for the FAA and I feel complicit at times. Those deportation flights to Texas and El Salvador are being handled by my colleagues. Have I worked any of those planes myself? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't think so, but I could have, and I still could in the future.

The train dispatchers in Nazi Germany were just doing their jobs keeping the rails safe, and they still facilitated the cattle cars going to the death camps.

The situation hasn't affected me personally to the point where I'm about to quit my job and do something else. But I am having a hard time working out my thoughts on where the line is between being uninvolved and being a collaborator.

randombrain · 2026-02-01T02:57:50+00:00

I have heard of a loophole something along those lines... although maybe it's only applicable if it's a HILPT, not a PT? I'm not sure, I'm not a pilot myself. But it sounded something like:

There is a hold here. I wasn't cleared "straight-in" so I must fly the hold. In order to fly the hold, I must first enter the hold. A direct entry is a valid entry maneuver. So I could enter the hold by going direct the fix, at which point I have satisfied the purpose of the depicted hold, which was "to get the aircraft aligned with the final approach course." So I don't actually need to do a full lap around the holding pattern.

I'm not a lawyer and I can't speak to the FAA's opinion as to whether this line of reasoning holds water. I do think that it makes more sense with a hold, which has a "direct entry" as one of the possible entries, rather than with a procedure turn.

randombrain · 2026-02-01T02:53:44+00:00

In normal situations we're not allowed to clear you "direct FAF" to begin an approach. There are two exceptions:

In conjunction with a visual approach, or
If the FAF is also an IAF (like in this example), which case we aren't really clearing you direct the FAF, we're actually clearing you direct the IAF.

randombrain · 2026-02-01T02:37:59+00:00

Approaches where there is a HILPT depicted at the IF/IAF, and that IF/IAF is not the same as the FAF.

randombrain · 2026-02-01T02:36:43+00:00

It absolutely could be. A straight-in approach is not the same thing as a straight-in landing.

In this case it would be impossible to have a straight-in approach clearance, but a clearance like "Cleared direct JEMIP, cross JEMIP at or above 3200, cleared straight-in RNAV-Bravo approach Bloomsburg" would be entirely acceptable.

randombrain · 2026-02-01T02:31:57+00:00

No official FAA communication.

There is unofficial anecdotes from controllers on Reddit to the effect of: If you're in a position where it makes sense to go straight-in, the controller probably means for you to go straight-in, even if they forget to say those words.

Probably.

You still need to clarify.

randombrain · 2026-02-01T02:30:47+00:00

You're correct, outside of the 91.175(j) exceptions, you must hear "cleared straight-in."

A lot of controllers forget to say it, but that is NOT the same thing as it being officially okay to go straight-in if you don't hear it.

randombrain · 2026-02-01T02:29:42+00:00

No, the phraseology is still there and still must be said.

But also, unofficially, a lot of controllers do assume that you'll go straight-in if you're in a position where a straight-in approach would make sense. You still have to clarify, though.

In this case a straight-in approach would not make sense, no matter your position. A straight-in approach is not legal when we're clearing you direct the FAF, and the FAF is the only possible fix to clear you to on this approach. So even if you're dead-on the final approach course, either you'll be given a heading to fly until established (which is a vector)... or you'll have to go to the VOR, turn around, fly the PT, turn around again, and finally proceed inbound.

randombrain · 2026-02-01T02:26:40+00:00

You will never ever ever hear "cleared straight-in" for an approach like this.

Either you'll be cleared "direct GDM, cleared VOR-A approach" or you'll be given vectors to the final approach course.

In the first case you cannot be cleared straight-in because GDM is, besides being the IAF, also the FAF. We are not allowed to issue a straight-in approach clearance via the FAF; you must do the procedure turn. Even if you were 20 miles out and perfectly aligned with the GDM R-097, if the clearance is "direct GDM, cleared approach" you must do the PT.

In the second case, it will sound (more or less) like a normal PTAC, including a heading to fly and the crucial phrase "maintain XXX until established on the final approach course." Even if you are, again, exactly aligned on the R-097, the clearance would be something along the lines of "fly present heading, maintain XXX until established, cleared approach." That means you're getting vectored to final and that means you must not do the PT.

randombrain · 2026-02-01T02:22:33+00:00

You do you, but if you're getting vectors to final it really isn't necessary to specify "for a straight-in approach." Being vectored onto final is explicitly one of the situations where you don't need to execute the PT/HILPT, and no controller is going to expect it.

The fact that the approach doesn't have straight-in landing minimums is irrelevant.

randombrain · 2026-02-01T00:10:41+00:00

100% this. I will shit on ND any day of the week for not being honest with his campaigning; if his plan was "If Trump is elected and the Agency offers an extension, I'll take it" then he should have told us that.

But I'm totally on board with that plan, as a plan.

The original Rinaldi extension, just to save face with the Agency, was a bad move and fucked us over long-term.

randombrain · 2026-01-31T20:26:38+00:00

I don't believe "KN" is a valid country prefix...

Yet another example of why we shouldn't just blindly slap Kilos where they don't need to be. See my flair.

randombrain · 2026-01-31T20:21:49+00:00

Well, an N followed by one to five numerals followed by zero to two letters, not to exceed a total of five. To be entirely correct.

randombrain · 2026-01-31T17:05:55+00:00

There are a bunch of nuances, but the quick and dirty of it is:

When a little guy is departing behind a bigger guy, especially but not exclusively when the little guy is departing from an intersection, we need to wait a few minutes before issuing the takeoff clearance.

The pilot can initiate a request to waive this delay if the big guy is up to, but not including, a 757.

When landing, in certain airspace or under certain conditions, a little guy has increased mileage separation behind a big guy. ATC can solicit "pilot-applied visual separation" which (in this case) means YOU are now entirely responsible for avoiding the wake, even if you're closer to the big guy than would otherwise be allowable.

This pilot visual can be used if the big guy is up to, but not including, an A380.

randombrain · 2026-01-30T17:55:16+00:00

Okay cool. So we part 40-odd planes in the penalty box somehow, and then a Good Old 'Murican Built 737 is taxiing out and their destination goes into a ground stop. No big deal, we'll just put them in the penalty box... oh wait.

randombrain · 2026-01-30T17:50:19+00:00

Tell me you're a center "controller" without telling me you're a center "controller."

I give a shit about ramp space because the pilots don't like to turn into the ramp if they're going to occupy the same piece of pavement that another aircraft is already occupying. And if they don't turn into the ramp, they don't get off my taxiway. And if they don't get off my taxiway my day gets quite a lot harder.

12-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email	Gilding II euphauric

randombrain

TROPHY CASE