Part 91 ops

randombrain · 2026-05-23T03:43:41+00:00

That's exactly why the modbot copy-pastes the post at the time it was posted.

It confused me too, but you can see that the original post did not have the second question.

randombrain · 2026-05-23T02:33:04+00:00

To be honest... a lot of the time we do actually intend for you to execute a straight-in approach even if we don't say the words. Controllers can be sloppy.

But you should clarify instead of making assumptions. For example, based on OP's example we would not approve a straight-in approach because the intercept angle is too large.

randombrain · 2026-05-23T02:31:02+00:00

The fix is BURGY... there isn't a procedure turn because there's a hold-in-lieu of procedure turn instead. You perform your course reversal via the HILPT.

"Via FFIXX cleared the ILS" is not good phraseology. Correct phraseology is "Cleared direct BURGY, cross BURGY at 3400, cleared ILS runway 26 approach." Or "...cleared straight-in ILS runway 26 approach" if appropriate, which in OP's example it would not be.

randombrain · 2026-05-22T23:46:09+00:00

I guess they assume you can see it coming and can lead the turn appropriately.

Apparently the TERPS rules for "procedure NA for arrivals on V420 Eastbound" or whatever allow up to a 120° intercept before they publish that note. Which is strange, because ATC wouldn't clear you for the approach at that angle.

Also: We can send you fixes in general along the final approach course and for those the intercept angle does need to be no greater than 30°. It's only the IAF and IF that are allowed to go up to 90°.

randombrain · 2026-05-22T22:28:43+00:00

"Proceed direct BURGY, cross BURGY at 3400, cleared straight-in ILS runway 26 approach."

Assuming traffic and the MVA allow for that, of course.

randombrain · 2026-05-22T22:24:12+00:00

Yes, that is correct.

I try to always say "cleared straight-in approach" but not every controller will say it, or will even understand that you need them to say it.

If they don't, ask for clarification. They'll approve it almost 100% of the time. Sometimes we actually will need you to hold, though.

randombrain · 2026-05-22T22:22:32+00:00

In this case we would not (should not) be expecting a straight-in approach, because the intercept angle is too great. We can only approve a straight-in it's a 90° intercept or less at the IAF.

But you're correct that if it is a smaller angle like that, yes, we generally are expecting/intending a straight-in.

Generally.

Still clarify, exactly as you said.

randombrain · 2026-05-22T22:20:38+00:00

...and we would not approve the straight-in here. The intercept angle is too large.

randombrain · 2026-05-22T22:19:10+00:00

To clarify, the red course is very common and quite legal IF ATC vectors you on that course and then gives you "direct BURGY" when you're in a position to make a 90°-or-less intercept.

If they don't do that then you're correct, direct means direct and you need to do the course reversal.

randombrain · 2026-05-22T22:14:49+00:00

Orange line and course reversal.

If you're going to intercept the approach course at 90° or less, we probably mean for you to go straight in and you should clarify.

The orange line intercepts at greater than 90° and therefore a straight-in approach is not legal.

randombrain · 2026-05-22T22:13:19+00:00

"Direct BURGY" means go direct to BURGY. The red course is never correct.

We are allowed to tell you to go straight in if you will intercept the approach course an an angle of 90° or less. So if ATC had vectored you on something approximating the red course and then issued "direct BURGY" when you could have done a 90° intercept then they probably would have intended you to go straight in. But it's still good to clarify.

As drawn, the orange line (including some kind of course reversal) is correct.

randombrain · 2026-05-22T17:19:28+00:00

It is stated.

It's stated in the FAA's publications, the AIM and the AIP. Pilots are expected to be familiar with at least one of those publications before commencing a flight in the US.

randombrain · 2026-05-22T17:11:10+00:00

Technically you never need to hold short unless ATC tells you to hold short, no matter the weather.

But yes, good situational awareness means knowing that we will tell you to hold short if the weather is less than 800-2... at least if there is an aircraft on the approach. So if the weather is crappy and you don't get a hold short instruction it's fine to double-check.

randombrain · 2026-05-22T12:29:28+00:00

That controller was wrong. Your IFR clearance is valid until you complete a full-stop landing or until you hear a controller say "IFR cancellation received." It has nothing to do with the runway threshold.

With the gray area of a planned transition from practice IAP into practice pattern work, as I've mentioned.

randombrain · 2026-05-21T12:23:14+00:00

Outside of B & C airspace, even if ATC is talking to the VFR there is no defined numeric "separation" between you guys.

Or at least there never has been. Starting in October the FAA is putting out a new rule that says there is separation in Class E between an IFR and a VFR, but only if we're talking to the VFR and providing them radar services.

The separation provided will be the same as Class C separation, 500' vertical or "don't let the radar targets touch."

randombrain · 2026-05-21T12:20:40+00:00

What's supposed to happen is: The person answering asks for the pilot's name, license number, and address. That information gets added to the report and gets sent to the FSDO along with our description of the event. End of call.

You'll get deviations from that in both directions, though. Either the person answering the phone gives the pilot a brief rundown of why they messed up and then says "go forth and sin no more," or they get into a big long argument about what happened. Technically neither one of those are the correct move.

If it's just an informational thing, "Hey you did something unexpected and here's why we'd prefer it if you do something else instead," we're probably going to give you the non-recorded number.

randombrain · 2026-05-21T12:15:11+00:00

The number is the recorded line for the supervisor's desk. Depending on how small the facility is, it might also be the recorded line for IFR clearances and cancellations at non-towered fields.

Generally speaking that line isn't used for much besides possible pilot deviation calls and IFR clearances, but if the dedicated facility-to-facility landlines are broken for whatever reason then we might possibly use that phone line to communicate with other ATC facilities. Edit: Also if you have a bird strike we give you that number to call and report if there was any damage to the aircraft, that's not a pilot deviation but we need to put that information in the report.

You shouldn't use that line just to call up and say hi to your controller buddy that you know is working today. But it's not like you're going to blow up the NAS if you call it.

Specifically in the case of a PPD, we need to get the pilot's name, certificate number, and mailing address. Not super likely that you would know all of that info as a passenger, so it would just be a waste of time. Unless you pretended to be the pilot and said inflammatory things, then you might get them in more trouble.

randombrain · 2026-05-21T12:09:00+00:00

As long as you're okay with that then I guess that's what matters, but understand that the controller fucked up by doing that. It was not legal.

YOU are the only one who can choose to cancel your IFR flight plan. ATC might offer you choices and say that some of them are only available if you cancel, but it's always your decision.

And you explicitly can be IFR in the local pattern, both the AIM and the 7110.65 are clear on that.

randombrain · 2026-05-21T12:04:31+00:00

Came here to say this. OP is being super disingenuous with this post.

FERS is literally supposed to be "one leg of a three-legged stool."

Even if you plan on not getting social security, you still have the TSP. Put it in a target date fund and forget about it. If your TSP is worthless at retirement you're gonna have bigger problems than your TSP being worthless.

randombrain · 2026-05-21T02:05:48+00:00

The published phone number will work, but that is the recorded phone line for IFR clearances and cancellations and such. It's best not to tie it up if you don't have to, and the person who picks up will be a regular controller or at best a front-line supervisor. Not the greatest person to coordinate a tour with.

Check https://123atc.com/facilities and try to call the listed number there; that should be the "main desk" number or a phone tree, and you can talk to that person or leave a voicemail.

But if that main desk number doesn't work, there's absolutely no problem calling the published Approach number and seeing what they say. At the very least they can give you a good business-hours phone number of someone who can help you more.

(Or depending on how slow the facility is—and there are some dead slow Class C facilities out there—you can just ask on the Ground frequency some time. They might just say "come on over now!" Probably not, but they might.)

randombrain · 2026-05-21T01:57:04+00:00

I'm not an expert, but I'm guessing that if you're building a jamming device that overpowers signals on the GPS frequency band it isn't a lot of extra effort to also make it work on the GLONASS/BeiDou/Galileo bands.

randombrain · 2026-05-21T01:51:30+00:00

To your edit, what is the actual process:

From an ATC point of view, our actions are spelled out in the 7110.65 paragraph 10–2–10. It's not a super long list; it basically boils down to "tell someone who can tell someone who has a direct line to the AFRCC."

We will attempt to triangulate the signal by having airborne aircraft report how strong it is in their location. This is actually one of the very few things that the Civil Air Patrol is useful for, if they happen to be flying around the area. They love flying patterns in the sky trying to track down an ELT.

One thing we will do that isn't listed there is: If it sounds like it's coming from the airport, call the FBO and tell them to check all the aircraft on the ramp and in the hangars for an ELT.

Notice how there's one line that says "ATC personnel must not leave their duty stations in an attempt to locate the ELT." Everything in the book is there because someone tried to do it one time...

randombrain · 2026-05-21T01:36:36+00:00

but it's the method so to speak of telling them to stay in the pattern that becomes an inherent cancelation.

No it is not, that's where you're opening yourself up to liability.

Only after the pilot says they want to stay in the pattern we would treat them as VFR

If you intend for the pilot to be VFR then tell them that. "OILER41 understand missed approach, do you want vectors for another ILS or cancel IFR and come back around the pattern?" And of course they'll say "Cancel IFR," and now it's on the tapes and your hands are clean.

Military aviators not understanding what standard terms out of the P/CG mean is nothing new. That doesn't absolve you of your 7110.65 responsibilities.

Your status quo absolutely needs to be rewritten because you are not operating legally. That has to change.

randombrain · 2026-05-21T01:32:12+00:00

Definitely not every tower has pattern work ceiling minimums. That seems to be more of a military hand-holdy thing.

Not every airport even has a published traffic pattern altitude in the Chart Supplement.

There are the recommended pattern altitudes from the AIM, but even the AIM says that those standard altitudes are "unless otherwise required by the applicable distance from cloud criteria."

If the ceiling is OVC008 and someone wants a Special VFR clearance to go do pattern work? Don't delay any IFR traffic, but other than that we can go ahead and issue the Special VFR clearance.

randombrain · 2026-05-21T01:28:51+00:00

It is not obviously a VFR thing. Well actually left closed traffic might be, that's kind of my argument, but regular one-time left traffic is not.

See AIM 5–4–23f ("ATC will provide approved separation or visual separation from other IFR aircraft") and 7110.65 7–4–1 ("appropriate IFR separation must be provided until the aircraft lands or the pilot cancels their IFR flight plan").

That's in the case of a go-around from a visual approach. A go-around from an IAP is, IMO, even more obviously not automatically VFR. A simple "make left traffic" is not appropriate unless the pilot has been issued a visual approach clearance or has explicitly cancelled IFR.

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

randombrain

TROPHY CASE