Approach plate question

[ppragman]

I chuckle when we get a "cleared approach" 100 miles from the IAF while still in cruise (at 2am) and people are like... uh what do I do now?

Hell, just today:
Me: "I'd like a through clearance, and I'm almost established in the TAA."
ZAN: "Cleared through the Nikolai airport via the GPS RWY 4 approach, Cleared GPS 4 approach to Nikolai. On departure, cleared direct WINOR, climb and maintain 9,000, squawk 1234, Clearance Void if not off by 2310Z, time now 2206Z, change to advisory frequency approved, g'day."

 

[z987k]

Hell, just today:
Me: "I'd like a through clearance, and I'm almost established in the TAA."
ZAN: "Cleared through the Nikolai airport via the GPS RWY 4 approach, Cleared GPS 4 approach to Nikolai. On departure, cleared direct WINOR, climb and maintain 9,000, squawk 1234, Clearance Void if not off by 2310Z, time now 2206Z, change to advisory frequency approved, g'day."

That to. Through clearances FTW.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

I recall talking to a Hornet driver while I was working on my IR, he told me "Those (approach plates) are for lost communications." No instructor ever told me that, just explained that I am most likely to get vectors. Puts in perspective, really.

It's a bit more than that but the perspective is essentially correct.

Most IAPs are designed to be flown without communications or radar (there are a few exceptions; usually with a big RADAR REQUIRED as a note. There are still plenty of approaches in the US where the approach is below radar coverage and even line of sight communications. My favorite IFR dual cross country was one where my student asked Center for vectors to final instead of the DME arc. I chuckled when he did and you could hear the laughter in the controller's voice when he explained that he couldn't because we'd be below radar contact once we were left out current altitude. It was fun to watch my student scramble to re-brief the approach after skipping it thinking he was going to get vectors.

"Vectors to the final approach course" is a traffic management feature for approaches in a radar environment. Where it's available all the way down to the FAF/GSI you'll almost never get a full approach.

 

[rframe]

There are still plenty of approaches in the US where the approach is below radar coverage and even line of sight communications.

There are a few approaches within 30 minutes of here that have no radar coverage and you'll lose COM with Center after starting the approach.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Then there's the mysterious "Procedure turn NA"

I was holding off explaining this until I found another example.

Recall from 91.175 that you may not do a PT(unless you ask or a cleared for one) unless there is one depicted and required. Apparently (this part's a guess), there have been some issues with pilots thinking there's a PT when there isn't one.

So, it's not uncommon for approaches without a PT to have the note "Procedure Turn NA" in the profile view as a reminder to the pilot not to just make one up. BTW, that seems to be a FAA chart convention, not a Jepp one.

Here's another example: the RNAV (GPS) 30 into KMTV: http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1310/05648R30.PDF

 

[msmspilot]

It's a bit more than that but the perspective is essentially correct.

Most IAPs are designed to be flown without communications or radar (there are a few exceptions; usually with a big RADAR REQUIRED as a note. There are still plenty of approaches in the US where the approach is below radar coverage and even line of sight communications. My favorite IFR dual cross country was one where my student asked Center for vectors to final instead of the DME arc. I chuckled when he did and you could hear the laughter in the controller's voice when he explained that he couldn't because we'd be below radar contact once we were left out current altitude. It was fun to watch my student scramble to re-brief the approach after skipping it thinking he was going to get vectors.

"Vectors to the final approach course" is a traffic management feature for approaches in a radar environment. Where it's available all the way down to the FAF/GSI you'll almost never get a full approach.

And then you have the airports where the vectors take longer than flying the full procedure...

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

And then you have the airports where the vectors take longer than flying the full procedure...

Fortunately rare unless the delays are because of traffic. Of course if the extended vectors are because of traffic, the full procedure would still take longer..

 

[inigo88]

So, it's not uncommon for approaches without a PT to have the note "Procedure Turn NA" in the profile view as a reminder to the pilot not to just make one up. BTW, that seems to be a FAA chart convention, not a Jepp one.

Here's another example: the RNAV (GPS) 30 into KMTV: http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1310/05648R30.PDF

It's actually extremely common on government NACO charts. It is literally written any time the 45-degree procedure turn or holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn aren't indicated. According to the Instrument Flying Handbook - unlike the 45-degree procedure turn or holding pattern in lieu (which both give the pilot some options as far as entry and execution within protected airspace) - the teardrop is considered a non-standard course reversal procedure, and must be explicitly followed except as authorized by ATC. (Instrument Flying Handbook, p. 8-18)

You also see "Procedure Turn NA" in the profile view on straight ins (as you mentioned), and other non-standard course reversals like DME arcs.

Another good example is the LOC/DME BC RWY 16 in Redding, CA (KRDD): http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1310/00688LDBC16.PDF

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

It's actually extremely common on government NACO charts. It is literally written any time the 45-degree procedure turn or holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn aren't indicated.

I was thinking that but I try to avoid "always" descriptors. Here, for example, is the fairly recently amended ILS 35 into KAPA. What used to be an approach with transitions and a standard barbed PT is now a radar-only approach with no procedure turn and no "procedure Turn NA" notation.
(For those who want to toss in interesting approach charts to see who gets confused by them, notice that it also has no IAF )

But yes, it is standard fare on FAA charts.

 

[inigo88]

I was thinking that but I try to avoid "always" descriptors.

No you're absolutely right, and I'm sure someone will find an example of one without the "Procedure Turn NA." I think that might be something NACO added later (and might still be in the process of adding). But the point is that it's indeed common, and is simply there to remind us that we have to follow the course reversal verbatim and aren't afforded the same liberties we're allowed to take when the regular 45-degree PT barb is depicted (i.e. the 45, racetrack, teardrop and 80/260 are all listed as acceptable options in the instrument flying handbook, if I'm reading it right! ).

 

[n57flyguy]

It's a bit more than that but the perspective is essentially correct.

Most IAPs are designed to be flown without communications or radar (there are a few exceptions; usually with a big RADAR REQUIRED as a note. There are still plenty of approaches in the US where the approach is below radar coverage and even line of sight communications. My favorite IFR dual cross country was one where my student asked Center for vectors to final instead of the DME arc. I chuckled when he did and you could hear the laughter in the controller's voice when he explained that he couldn't because we'd be below radar contact once we were left out current altitude. It was fun to watch my student scramble to re-brief the approach after skipping it thinking he was going to get vectors.

"Vectors to the final approach course" is a traffic management feature for approaches in a radar environment. Where it's available all the way down to the FAF/GSI you'll almost never get a full approach.

I agree, it just made me realize the importance of planning for a lost communication situation, if anything at all. Kind of changed the way I think when flying IFR. When flying VFR my "big if" is always what do I do if I lose an engine now? How about now? While that reality exists while flying IFR, my "big if" is what do I do if I lose communications now? How about now?

It is not that vectors are a cop out, they do expedite traffic. But when the approach is briefed for a full procedure, there is no better feeling, to me, than throwing away your options because you thought ahead. If you have to use them, you are ready. Something I will usually say in a brief is "If I have to fly a full procedure..." The biggest issue I find with vectors especially on a 430 is "activating vectors to final." Suddenly, you could be doing a lot of button pushing if they take their ball back and you need to head to a fix. I think you have spoke of this before as well (maybe in the current briefing approaches thread in GT?).

My surmise; vectors are great, but don't get "vector reliant."

 

[z987k]

The biggest issue I find with vectors especially on a 430 is "activating vectors to final." Suddenly, you could be doing a lot of button pushing if they take their ball back and you need to head to a fix. I think you have spoke of this before as well (maybe in the current briefing approaches thread in GT?).

My surmise; vectors are great, but don't get "vector reliant."

That part's easy. Never use the vectors to final option. Actually look at the approach plate and pick an IAF somewhere. The 430 will auto cycle if you come inside it's current leg. And if for some reason it doesn't hitting the direct button twice (as opposed to D enter enter) will give you a selected leg.
I find it not too uncommon, while on vectors, especially if it's almost straight in from my direction, to suddenly be given, direct XYZ, maintain 3000 until established, cleared ILS. Or maybe you're 20 miles out when intercepting the final approach course and have been cleared approach, but there are step downs from here to the FAF, now you need those in between fixes.

 

[n57flyguy]

That part's easy. Never use the vectors to final option. Actually look at the approach plate and pick an IAF somewhere. The 430 will auto cycle if you come inside it's current leg. And if for some reason it doesn't hitting the direct button twice (as opposed to D enter enter) will give you a selected leg.
I find it not too uncommon, while on vectors, especially if it's almost straight in from my direction, to suddenly be given, direct XYZ, maintain 3000 until established, cleared ILS. Or maybe you're 20 miles out when intercepting the final approach course and have been cleared approach, but there are step downs from here to the FAF, now you need those in between fixes.

I have since learned that. It works very well, and have used it when told 'resume own.'

 

[ppragman]

Even in the lower 48 I always got GPS direct to an IAF as a point of practice if I figured I'd have to shoot an approach. It's actually paid off on more than one occasion, a couple times for sequencing ATC has asked me how many minutes out of the IAF I was, and a couple times the facility with radar service closed before I could get to where I was going and I needed to fly the full procedure anyway.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

That part's easy. Never use the vectors to final option. Actually look at the approach plate and pick an IAF somewhere.

I haven't checked it out myself but I heard there is an AIM revision coming to tell us not to choose the VTF option and seen the problem with choosing it a number of times.

 

[z987k]

I haven't checked it out myself but I heard there is an AIM revision coming to tell us not to choose the VTF option and seen the problem with choosing it a number of times.

Great now overzealous idiots will start failing instrument students for choosing VTF, when it may have been a valid choice... just because the AIM recommends it.
I mean, it's certainly a good recommendation, I just know how "people" interpret the AIM.... as if god himself wrote it as an addendum to the 10 commandments. /rant

 

[n57flyguy]

If anyone is interested, here is how you avoid the VTF 'trap':

Former editor of IFR Magazine made that with Avweb, very nice guy.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

The August AIM revision contains it as notes just after AIM 5-4-6.e:

==============================
NOTE-
1. In anticipation of a clearance by ATC to any fix published on an instrument approach procedure, pilots of RNAV aircraft are advised to select an appropriate IAF or feeder fix when loading an instrument approach procedure into the RNAV system.

2. Selection of “VectorstoFinal” or “Vectors” option for an instrument approach may prevent approach fixes located outside of the FAF from being loaded into an RNAV system. Therefore, the selection of these options is discouraged due to increased workload for pilots to reprogram the navigation system.
==============================

What I've been wondering is whether there's going to be an update to GPS software so it doesn't default to VTF.

 

[rframe]

I wish you could just hit VTF, then NRST, Intersections, select your restriction spot, hit enter, let it nav to the waypoint and as you cross let it continue to auto sequence the rest of the VTF approach that is sitting right there in the flight plan... though I really dont think its a big deal to select the appropriate IAF and activate leg either.

*Edit: you can just use the nearest waypoints page though, and reference your step down that way, though you dont get it added to the pretty magenta line

 

[DhruvK]

Recent G1000 software revisions load up all step-downs even if you select VTF. They just suspend nav with an intercept to the FAF. You can always go direct or cycle through the intermediate fixes on final manually.