Brief approach

adk said:
Anybody who flies to Newark more than twice a year knows to expect direct TEB. I’m sure these guys also get confused on the way out when they’re cleared direct SBJ and get go “uhhh we’re filed over PARKE” ... RTFC
Click to expand...

I stopped giving SBJ to departures while I was still in training cause I got tired of explaining it's on page 2 of the SID
 
TUCKnTRUCK said:
If it were worded (direct TEB join the loc) etc might reduce the questions I guess.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.

"Proceed direct Teterboro VOR, cleared ILS runway 22L" or "Proceed direct Teterboro VOR, join the 22L localizer" should be way more than sufficient.

If the phraseology is vague or rushed I could see being confused by something like "Proceed direct Teterboro, cleared approach" because that's ambiguous on which Teterboro, which runway and which approach. But you're N90 and you're busy so they should probably just RTFC. :)
 
NovemberEcho said:
I asked this on a FB forum and the general consensus from the corporate pilots was that the ATIS should say "expect ILS 22L from TEB" and that it's very rare to ever get direct an initial approach fix in the US.
Click to expand...

Direct to IAF isn't that rare, especially for RNAV approaches. It is less confusing for pilots if you say "direct TEB VOR" though.

Especially when it is someplace I don't go a lot: I would hear TEB and immediately think airport, not the VOR (that isn't on the enroutes or sectionals in this case, just the TAC, which we probably wouldn't have anyway or be looking at).
 
Last edited:
drunkenbeagle said:
Direct to IAF isn't that rare, especially for RNAV approaches. It is less confusing for pilots if you say "direct TEB VOR" though.

Especially when it is someplace I don't go a lot: I would hear TEB and immediately think airport, not the VOR (that isn't on the enroutes or sectionals in this case, just the TAC, which we probably wouldn't have anyway or be looking at).
Click to expand...
But it is on the approach chart which In theory should’ve been at least glanced at.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
We're all human, I don't memorize every fix on the plate briefing it. And until I'm cleared for the approach, I'm probably not looking at it right then either.
Click to expand...

But you are hopefully listening and hear the 10 people in front of you being given direct TEB, and unless TEB suddenly started getting served by airlines they're def not landing there
 
NovemberEcho said:
But you are hopefully listening and hear the 10 people in front of you being given direct TEB, and unless TEB suddenly started getting served by airlines they're def not landing there
Click to expand...


You would be surprised how quickly you learn to tune out calls that are for another tail number - there’s a lot of airplane stuff going on at the same time and all. And I’m usually not on frequency for more than one or two arrivals once switched to approach.

I never screw up stuff like this, of course. Just saying how others might.
 
We usually do our descent briefing before T/D. I wish more ATIS or at least D-ATIS had the current arrival and approach in use. Makes everything so much easier than just guessing based on winds and past experience, less chance of entry errors by not having to do it while pretty actively flying while coming down through 250 or something.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
We're all human, I don't memorize every fix on the plate briefing it. And until I'm cleared for the approach, I'm probably not looking at it right then either.
Click to expand...
Nobody does. But why not check the IAF that’s in the area you’re coming from (N,S,E,W) and program the approach with it in there? It should at least sound familiar now and there’s no reprogramming if you get it. If you’re within 30 miles of the airport you’ll know what’s going on, and it’s a hell of a lot easier to reprogram VTF for an extended centerline while on a heading than it is to dig out a fix and reprogram the box and get going to it.

Whether it’s putting the destination in twice, “sandwiching” the FAF, whatever you need to do, always program an IAF.

“RTFC”. I like it.
 
milleR said:
Nobody does. But why not check the IAF that’s in the area you’re coming from (N,S,E,W) and program the approach with it in there? It should at least sound familiar now and there’s no reprogramming if you get it. If you’re within 30 miles of the airport you’ll know what’s going on, and it’s a hell of a lot easier to reprogram VTF for an extended centerline while on a heading than it is to dig out a fix and reprogram the box and get going to it.

Whether it’s putting the destination in twice, “sandwiching” the FAF, whatever you need to do, always program an IAF.

“RTFC”. I like it.
Click to expand...

Well to be fair (ugh) these guys all came from the south, around the "hook" north of CDW is where they were given direct TEB
 
NovemberEcho said:
Well to be fair (ugh) these guys all came from the south, around the "hook" north of CDW is where they were given direct TEB
Click to expand...

In my (quite limited) experience, way more likely scenario is getting a different approach because the airport turned around, or a random hold, or penalty vector, or any number of other things more likely than direct to an IAF on an ILS (assuming radar). Coming from the wrong way, I'm pretty much never going to expect direct to a fix that goes straight in. My assumption would be that ATC has to vector for that anyway, unless there is a course reversal charted there.
 
As they get vectored to the north they’re thinking, “dammit where the hell is this guy taking me? Does he think I’m going to TEB?!” Then you get the clearance “proceed direct TEB.” That would throw me for a loop an I’d query too if I wasn’t familiar with the flow of your airspace.
 
ppragman said:
As they get vectored to the north they’re thinking, “dammit where the hell is this guy taking me? Does he think I’m going to TEB?!” Then you get the clearance “proceed direct TEB.” That would throw me for a loop an I’d query too if I wasn’t familiar with the flow of your airspace.
Click to expand...

Well to be fair they're only a little north of PHLBO so they'd been on the STAR for most of that northbound trek
 
NovemberEcho said:
Well to be fair (ugh) these guys all came from the south, around the "hook" north of CDW is where they were given direct TEB
Click to expand...
Right. Except TEB is the ONLY IAF on the approach.


49B211D8-F583-4E54-A96E-2C23E3893E6A.png


Unlike back home where you might have several

B4433550-8E24-4BC3-9358-0801BE49A65D.png
 
milleR said:
Unlike back home where you might have several
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why one is more likely to disregard an IAF. I'm an idiot corporate pilot who's never flown into EWR. Despite my desire to be better, 97.4% of my approach briefs are along the lines of, "This will probably be the visual backed up by the (ILS/RNAV to RWY xx). The frequency is xxx.xx, the final approach course is xxx, faf is xxxxx at x,xxx. I expect a (PAPI/VASI/REIL/ALSF/MALSR....)

I use flight aware and flight radar 24 to try and determine what runway is in use before I can pick up the ATIS, but it's a guess. Apparently the ILS referenced to EWR only had one IAF, and I could hope between that and listening to the previous aircraft, I'd have a good idea as to what's going on. However, I can completely understand the confusion that may occur if given the clearance to proceed direct Teterboro. I've had enough clearances to fixes that weren't on my route that my first instinct may be to question it. We're creatures of habit and to pretend that we can simply overcome that because we're superior aviators, while a laudable goal is also unrealistic.

As a controller, you issue direct TEB all the time and expect the pilots to understand it. As a pilot, I hear direct to (an airport that I presume has a hell of a lot more corporate traffic than EWR) and an confused.

I seem to recall an effort by the FAA to change the name and identifiers airports and VORs specifically to avoid this kind of confusion. Sounds like the TEB VOR needs a new name and ID.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 
U_of_I_Tweak said:
Which is precisely why one is more likely to disregard an IAF. I'm an idiot corporate pilot who's never flown into EWR. Despite my desire to be better, 97.4% of my approach briefs are along the lines of, "This will probably be the visual backed up by the (ILS/RNAV to RWY xx). The frequency is xxx.xx, the final approach course is xxx, faf is xxxxx at x,xxx. I expect a (PAPI/VASI/REIL/ALSF/MALSR....)

I use flight aware and flight radar 24 to try and determine what runway is in use before I can pick up the ATIS, but it's a guess. Apparently the ILS referenced to EWR only had one IAF, and I could hope between that and listening to the previous aircraft, I'd have a good idea as to what's going on. However, I can completely understand the confusion that may occur if given the clearance to proceed direct Teterboro. I've had enough clearances to fixes that weren't on my route that my first instinct may be to question it. We're creatures of habit and to pretend that we can simply overcome that because we're superior aviators, while a laudable goal is also unrealistic.

As a controller, you issue direct TEB all the time and expect the pilots to understand it. As a pilot, I hear direct to (an airport that I presume has a hell of a lot more corporate traffic than EWR) and an confused.

I seem to recall an effort by the FAA to change the name and identifiers airports and VORs specifically to avoid this kind of confusion. Sounds like the TEB VOR needs a new name and ID.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Confusion will happen and humans are human. But in this particular case, if the IAF (TEB) was programmed in the box from the get-go and briefed (as the only option) then there shouldn’t have been mass confusion.

Always program an IAF.

Oh, and RTFC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top