Page 32 - June 2015 Volume 19 Number 6

•
5
•
T
T
Concorde Battery Corporation
Third Page 4/C Ad
had filed ‘direct’ to the closest entry point on one of the STARS designed for arrivals from the west, with subsequent waypoints leading to the best approach the airport had (in this case the ILS 29). Alternatively, we could have simply requested that routing change with Center somewhere over Montana, when we first realized the destination weather was perhaps not going to be as forecast. The other matter we should have considered earlier is the approach we would have automatically chosen if unable to obtain winds at HAO. The answer is pretty simple; if the airport has only one ILS, in the absence of other information, you rarely go wrong by planning for that approach. Those ILS installations cost the FAA a lot of money, and are almost always designed for the longest runway, with the most-favorable prevailing winds.
As it happens, the Shelbyville Three Arrival (SHB3), with the Joliet VOR (JOT) as the initial entry point, would have worked nicely for our inbound course from TIW to HAO. Although this arrival was not designed specifically for HAO, and would slightly interfere with the Lear’s maximal operational efficiency, it is published as an HAO arrival and does have a charted route from CEGRM intersection, just before CVG, which goes to Richmond VOR (RID). RID, in turn, is an entry point for a short leg to
HOLGR, the IAF for the only ILS 29 at HAO. If we had filed “TIW direct JOT, SHB3 CEGRM, direct RID, direct HOLGR” (then, in comments, “plan ILS 29”), instead of direct to the airport itself, we and the controllers would have known what we were intending to do if the conditions weren’t as forecast, well before our airplane got there.
If you always file with specific routing requests like this (as you probably should), you will find that the controllers will quite often change your carefully-considered plan. After a while, the tendency is to say, “ah, heck with it, I’ll just file direct to the airport and let them figure it out... they’re going to change it anyway.” But, this should be avoided. You can always request “direct to the airport” when conditions look favorable. But, when conditions are unexpectedly bad and the frequency is jammed, the overworked controllers are often happy to have you fly the route you planned with professional foresight, along published arrival corridors to the best approach available at your destination.
Then, when you hear everyone else on the frequency struggling with urgent last-minute requests, you can yawn, push your headset mike aside, and sip the last of the stale, tepid coffee as the FMS and autopilot allow you to drift peacefully through a maelstrom of airborne activity, on a route you programmed while the coffee was still hot and fresh.
Doing it the “easy” way does not always turn out to be the “easiest.” I
Kevin Ware is an ATP who also holds CFI, MEII and helicopter ratings, and is typed in several business jets. He has been flying for a living on and off since he was 20, and currently works as a contract pilot for several corporations in the Seattle area. When not working as a pilot, he is employed part-time as an emergency and urgent care physician for a large clinic in the Seattle area.
3
3
0
0
J
W
WI
I
N
N&
&
T
TU
U
R
R
B
B
I
IN
NE
E
JU
UN
N
E
E
2
20
01
15