ILS question

NUWATC Rookie

This question has had me jumping through a lot of pubs and i have kinda hit a dead end. I'll give it to you guys and please try to back up your answer. After i read what you guys have to say if it is different from what i have found ill post my research. So hear goes. Can you clear an aircraft to the IAF of an ILS approach and clear him for the straight in, ie: cross (fix) @ (alt) cleared strait in(approach), keep in mind it is just an IAF and not an IAF/IF, and the hold in leu of procedure turn symbol is depicted. This isn't an RNAV approach but i would still be using the 90 degree criteria for strait ins. It just doesn't make sense to me that the aircraft should have to do the procedure turn. But i cant find any way around it. Let me know if you guys have came across this before or are able to find an answer.

SnowAviation Senior Member Escondido, CA

The answer could be dependent on the particular approach, could you either post the name or an image of the approach plate for reference?


The answer may be in the AIM paragraph 5-4-9

So it sounds like, assuming that you are at (KNUW) Whidbey ILS Y 14, if you cleared a pilot direct to LETEC this directly applies, but if you clear them to SOBEE it doesn't. In the real world if you clear them direct and the intercept is a reasonable amount of degrees then the pilot will comply without question. However if you are using a high intercept angle, like say more than 40 degrees, then a pilot may not be willing to comply.

MikeATC Retired FAA, NATCA Member Nashville TN

NU,
The answer is "NO", read further into vectoring for the ILS, you will see maximum of 30 degrees is allowed to intercept the localizer, unless the pilot is executing a full approach and the procedure is published.

P_to_the_R Ruler of the Movement Area funkytown

I think Snow Aviation is smart.

atcguruaf Rico Suave AZ

Compared to all the yahoos on here, that's not saying much. haha

Happy Turkey Day, y'all!

barty Trusted Member

This comes up for argument every so often with pilots as well.

To sum it up, I doubt you'll find many pilots who will execute a procedure turn or hold in lieu of if they are in a position where they can intercept the localizer at a decent angle and be established before glide slope intercept. I've asked one of my instructors and the DE who performed my instrument checkride and both said that they'd never expect anyone to do a 180 to enter a hold or to fly a procedure turn, just to fly back on the same heading they were previously flying simply because the procedure lacked the words "NoPT" on it.

If you think about it, the only reason why a procedure turn or hold in lieu of exists is to provide a course reversal to align an aircraft with the final approach course. If you're already more or less aligned, there's no practical reason to fly one. I guess to protect yourself from the anal retentive, letter of the law types, ATC should state "cleared for the straight in" or the pilot should query if they are cleared for the straight in, but from a safety standpoint I see nothing wrong with flying an approach straight in.

brycewitte Newcomer San Diego, CA

Like it is highlighted above. Make sure you include "straight in" with your clearance. Otherwise, they are authorized to make the PT even if it looks like they can intercept the course just fine. Another little problem might come up if you cleared the AC direct the fix and you THINK it might be within a 30 degree intercept and you clear him the straight in. Unless you know his on course heading it might come back and bite you in the ass later. If you say straight in approach and he isn't within that 30 degrees he can do his turn. I prefer hard vectors over direct fix clearances any day. Hope this helps.

NUWATC Rookie

Thanks for the input guys, Snow, i think you got to where i hit the dead end at, the AIM and AIP read the same way, they talk about the intermediate approach fix. "When ATC is radar vectoring to the final approach course or to the intermediate fix, ATC may specify in the approach clearance "CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN". Now i cant realy find anyone that would argue with me that even if the Hold in lieu of PT is published and i give the aircraft a decent intercept angle that i should be able to say strait in and it would be safe, but the fact remains that the way im reading it, it is not aproved. Take a look at these 2 approaches if you have a chance. ILS Y Rwy 14 NUW, and the ILS Rwy 16 PAE. you will notice that the PAE approach has Webve listed as IAF/IF, but Sobee is only listed as IAF, and it is because there is another IAF further out for the PAE approach. But im still wondering if there is a way around this. Maby if i could find a terps manual. But i think that anything that an IF can be used for then certainly an IAF should be interchangeable with.

SnowAviation Senior Member Escondido, CA

After re-reading your basic question...

Yes.

While the Hold in lieu of PT appears “required” in fact it’s not required (necessary)
when you are aligning the pilot up with the final approach course via radar vectors.
When you state "CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN" then the pilot is compelled to comply with
that instruction by 14 CFR ? 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions,
if he cannot comply then he must tell you.

Need more? Ok, then lets looks at 14 CFR ? 91.175 paragraph (j):


Before someone jumps on the fact that is says "Procedure Turn" remember that a "Hold in lieu
of PT" is indeed a procedure turn also. Also, if you clear someone direct to a fix that is for
most interpretations a radar vector since you are providing the initial navigation and separation from terrain.


At I read it, you don't even need to say "Cleared Straight-In" if you don't want to.

Most Procedure Turns and “Hold in lieu of PT” procedures are designed to allow a pilot
who is finding his way to that fix on his own via airways and standard routes to get aligned and
shoot the approach, when you add a controller who is vectoring them to the fix everything
changes.

DairyCreamer Senior Member Elsewhere

Of course... when you have multiple instances of ILS approaches without any depiction on the radar scope, it's kinda hard to use vectoring.

Yay for full approaches.

~Nate