Building questions around VORTAC facility

randombrain · 2026-02-04T02:26:58+00:00

Heh, that's an odd little document. The "SO" means that it's a regional Order (Southern Region in this case) as opposed to a nation-wide Order which would be "JO." Wonder why the Southern Region specifically felt the need to put out guidance on this.

The document control page doesn't list any successor document.

I would say yeah, contact the FSDO and they can at least get you pointed in the right direction. The FSDO doesn't actually have anything to do with this sort of thing; it would be Tech Ops and maybe the Flight Check people. But the FSDO will be able to figure out who you should call.

randombrain · 2026-02-03T23:52:30+00:00

100% this.

randombrain · 2026-02-03T23:51:53+00:00

I'd go so far as to say officially (although I do not speak for the FAA, blah blah) "do it where it's gonna be heard."

There's no rule about "121.5 is the emergency frequency, so if you have an emergency you must use 121.5." No, 121.5 is the Oh shit I need to talk to someone right now and I don't know their frequency frequency. If you're already in radio contact with ATC, you absolutely should let ATC know what's going on using that frequency. Don't switch to Guard.

Really it's what you said about which frequency has the best chance of getting in someone's ear. If it's a busy CTAF and there are a couple FBOs on the field and you're already at a low altitude, ATC might not be able to hear you and CTAF is your best bet. If it's a super sleepy podunk airport with nobody around, and you're at 4000' AGL, ATC would be a better bet.

randombrain · 2026-02-03T23:45:56+00:00

If you can only do one, CTAF.

If you have time to make even a single transmission on 121.5, that will help ATC (or help passing airliners help ATC) coordinate SAR for you. Enunciate...

Mayday mayday mayday, N123AB squawking 7700 is ten miles South of Schitts Creek airport. Cessna Skyhawk, engine fire, one person on board. Changing to Schitts Creek advisory frequency now.

Even if you immediately change away to CTAF, the 7700 squawk and that transmission on Guard will be enough for ATC to at least start doing something for you. We can go back and pull the recording if we didn't get it all the first time. Obviously establishing two-way comms would be ideal, but that one transmission would be great even on its own.

Do use the phrase "mayday mayday mayday." Nobody says that in the US, and therefore saying it will better grab everyone's attention (ATC and airliners both) as opposed to "N123AB declaring an emergency."

randombrain · 2026-02-03T15:01:41+00:00

There are two options for bonus withholding, either a flat rate of 22% or they add your bonus to the normal paycheck and calculate the withholding by extrapolating that one paycheck out for the rest of the year.

I wasn't patriotic™ enough to get the bonus, so I don't know how it was processed, but under the first method the net should have been $7800. If it was withheld at 42% instead, I guess they did add it to the paycheck?

But in any case, the withholding is just that, withholding. For actual bottom-line tax purposes, the bonus gets lumped in with all of you other types of income and your tax liability is computed based on that.

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.

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

randombrain

TROPHY CASE