Feeder route question

[wind_shear]

Hello all, reference KPAE ILS Z 16R. For flying the full procedure starting at PAE using the feeder to WEBVE (338 degree radial and 13.9 DME) would you do this by intercepting and flying the 338 degree radial all the way to WEBVE for the course reversal or are you supposed to fly the 338 degree radial until intercepting the back course of the localizer and track that outbound until WEBVE for the course reversal? thanks much

https://flightaware.com/resources/airport/PAE/IAP/ILS+Z+OR+LOC+Z+RWY+16R/pdf

 

[luvflyin]

unless you were using an HSI

I think you responded to a post I deleted just after I posted it. I wanted to reword it. Anyway, the Feeder starts at PAE, not I-PAE. So it's the PAE 338r. I'd probably get on the Localizer and track it outbound as soon as I could though. You would be on the Front Course getting reverse sensing because you're flying it backwards unless ya got one of them HSI/CDI's with the magic button and you used it. The Back Course would be South of the airport

 

[wind_shear]

What i meant to say was intercepting and tracking the LOC outbound, not the back course, my mistake!

 

[wind_shear]

I'm just reviewing a lot of these IAPs with feeders like this and it looks like they all pretty much set you up for an intercept on the LOC to a PT or HILPT fix but i cant recall if you're supposed to fly that charted radial until intercepting the LOC or just fly the radial all the way to the fix

 

[flyingron]

The feeder here points you at the hold fix. I'd follow the radial until I pass the station and then execute the hold entry once crossing the intersection. You're either going to have to have GPS or DME anyhow or else you can't be doing that anyhow.

 

[wind_shear]

So you would track the 338R off of PAE to WEBVE for the course reversal?

 

[flyingron]

So you would track the 338R off of PAE to WEBVE for the course reversal?

If all I had was a VOR and DME, yes, I'd fly the 338 radial. That's what the approach tells you to do.
I've got a GPS, however, so I'm going direct to WEBVE which is going to be (within margin of error) the same thing.

 

[Clip4]

Real world, you getting radar vectors to intercept the LOC outside Jugba. Without vectors you are doing the Course reversal. Notice there is also a feeder route from PAE to Weebe.

 

[wind_shear]

If all I had was a VOR and DME, yes, I'd fly the 338 radial. That's what the approach tells you to do.
I've got a GPS, however, so I'm going direct to WEBVE which is going to be (within margin of error) the same thing.

Well yes loading and activating the approach would be the easiest thing to do if you were GPS equipped and switch over to VLOC prior to intercepting the final approach course

 

[wind_shear]

Real world, you getting radar vectors to intercept the LOC outside Jugba. Without vectors you are doing the Course reversal. Notice there is also a feeder route from PAE to Weebe.

Agreed. Vectors to final definitely makes it easier but it's still a good idea to stay proficient and request to do the full procedure from time to time

 

[flyingron]

Well yes loading and activating the approach would be the easiest thing to do if you were GPS equipped and switch over to VLOC prior to intercepting the final approach course

Eh? There's no obligation to be in VLOC mode prior to intercepting the final approach course. I think you mean the Final Approach Segment. And it's only boneheaded GPSs like the 430/530 that required "Activation" (and even then it's often a bad idea).

 

[flyingron]

Notice there is also a feeder route from PAE to Weebe.

That's what we're talking about. He wanted to know if you would intercept the LOC outbound. The answer is that feeder points you at the hold-in-loo fix (the intersection is on that radial), so you fly until you get to the fix, do your teardrop or whatever you want for an entry and then come in on final.

 

[chemgeek]

Assuming you were previously cleared to PAE, if subsequently cleared for the approach with no further instructions, you would be expected to fly the depicted feeder route to WEBVE, which would be direct from PAE to WEBVE, either by tracking the 338 PAE radial, or GPS direct between PAE and WEBVE, at or above 3000.

If not cleared to PAE, you should be issued a clearance to an IAF, or to a fix with a published feeder route or procedure track to an IAF. Or be issued vectors.

 

[dtuuri]

I'd probably get on the Localizer and track it outbound as soon as I could though.

This. The radial and front course are almost on top of each other. Any small deviation in your track to the right would miss the fix and make your entry pretty sloppy looking, not that anybody is going to take a picture of it. So cheat left a touch and get on the localizer.

 

[luvflyin]

This. The radial and front course are almost on top of each other. Any small deviation in your track to the right would miss the fix and make your entry pretty sloppy looking, not that anybody is going to take a picture of it. So cheat left a touch and get on the localizer.

Yeah. We check our VOR’s to be within +/- 4 degrees. +/- 4.5 degrees is the TERP tolerance. So it’s a no harm, no foul cheat. And ya get to practice some reverse sensing.

 

[aterpster]

The

I'm just reviewing a lot of these IAPs with feeders like this and it looks like they all pretty much set you up for an intercept on the LOC to a PT or HILPT fix but i cant recall if you're supposed to fly that charted radial until intercepting the LOC or just fly the radial all the way to the fix

Here is the regulation. Note: FROM PAE VOR/DME TO WEVBE INT/PAE VOR/DME 13.93 DME, COURSE AND DISTANCE 337.82/13.93. That's all about the PAE VOR/DME radial and course, not the IPAE localizer. Legally, you don't intercept the localizer until turning inbound in the holding pattern.

 

[luvflyin]

Says the same as the Gov, but the artists at Jepp make it very clear

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Hello all, reference KPAE ILS Z 16R. For flying the full procedure starting at PAE using the feeder to WEBVE (338 degree radial and 13.9 DME) would you do this by

1) intercepting and flying the 338 degree radial all the way to WEBVE for the course reversal or are you supposed to
2) fly the 338 degree radial until intercepting the back course of the localizer and track that outbound until WEBVE for the course reversal?

A feeder route's job is to get you from the enroute structure to the initial approach fix (WEBVE, in this case).

However, since WEBVE is also on the localizer, if the feeder and the final approach course aren't aligned, the 338 radial technically doesn't intercept the localizer course until WEBVE anyway, so your two options above are identical. That is to say: It really doesn't matter.

In reality, if I was flying the feeder, with the needle centered on the 338 radial, and the localizer needle centered before I got to WEBVE, I'd probably stick with the localizer needle since otherwise I would need to make an uncharted, unexpected (by ATC) turn later to get back on course - Unless I just called that the HPILPT and my off course was a "teardrop entry".

Clear as mud? It's a distinction without a difference.

 

[aterpster]

Clear as mud? It's a distinction without a difference.

Nonetheless, the PAE-WEBVE feeder route is the PAE 338 radial.

 

[wind_shear]

Alot of great information here! Thank you all

 

[flyingron]

Nonetheless, the PAE-WEBVE feeder route is the PAE 338 radial.

Yeah, someday you'll get a feeder that's more than a few degrees off the final approach course and then you'll bust if you decide to hop over and track the final course outbound. Learn to fly the procedures as published.

 

[aterpster]

Yeah, someday you'll get a feeder that's more than a few degrees off the final approach course and then you'll bust if you decide to hop over and track the final course outbound. Learn to fly the procedures as published.

The procedure as published is to fly the PAE 338 radial to DME 19.3, then enter the HILPT. Inbound in that hold you correct as necessary to track the localizer inbound. There is no other legal way to do it.

 

[Ryan F.]

Have to agree in particular with the last two comments. There's a right way, then there's everything else. "It's the same as... " or "what's the difference..." There is a difference. Just do it correctly, because just like flyingron said, one time you'll assume "what's the difference" and there WILL be a difference.

 

[luvflyin]

Have to agree in particular with the last two comments. There's a right way, then there's everything else. "It's the same as... " or "what's the difference..." There is a difference. Just do it correctly, because just like flyingron said, one time you'll assume "what's the difference" and there WILL be a difference.

Agreed. But if on this very narrow angle, IF while tracking the 338r, normal error took you a little left, AND I-PAE had already been Id'd, AND the needle came alive, would you bust an applicant for following it to WEBVE?

 

[aterpster]

Agreed. But if on this very narrow angle, IF while tracking the 338r, normal error took you a little left, AND I-PAE had already been Id'd, AND the needle came alive, would you bust an applicant for following it to WEBVE?

There is no requirement to tune and identify the localizer while outbound to WEBVE.

 

[flyingron]

If he tuned the localizer and started following that from PAE, I'd be happy with the bust. This is just plane wrong.
We had an airliner crash out in Virginia because they tuned in the wrong NAVAID (the local VOR rather than the ILS) an tracked that perfectly centered into a mountain.

 

[luvflyin]

There is no requirement to tune and identify the localizer while outbound to WEBVE.

I know.

 

[luvflyin]

Sheesh. How big and bold do I need to make IF

 

[aterpster]

I know.

Why then, would you ask this question?
"Agreed. But if on this very narrow angle, IF while tracking the 338r, normal error took you a little left, AND I-PAE had already been Id'd, AND the needle came alive, would you bust an applicant for following it to WEBVE?"

 

[Ryan F.]

Agreed. But if on this very narrow angle, IF while tracking the 338r, normal error took you a little left, AND I-PAE had already been Id'd, AND the needle came alive, would you bust an applicant for following it to WEBVE?

Take a practical test with me and find out...

 

[luvflyin]

Why then, would you ask this question?
"Agreed. But if on this very narrow angle, IF while tracking the 338r, normal error took you a little left, AND I-PAE had already been Id'd, AND the needle came alive, would you bust an applicant for following it to WEBVE?"

Why ask the question? To get an answer? Are you putting forth the proposition that you should NOT tune and ID I-PAE until after passing WEBVE?

 

[aterpster]

Why ask the question? To get an answer? Are you putting forth the proposition that you should NOT tune and ID I-PAE until after passing WEBVE?

No, I am not. Depends upon your "steam gauge" avionics and your priorities.

I would do what the state-of-the-art RNAV avionics would do. Good lesson for anyone interested: do this IAP from PAE in a Garmin trainer.

 

[chemgeek]

Why would one NOT fly the published feeder route if that were your (implied or explicit) clearance? If deciding on flying an "alternate" route to the IAF on this or another approach, what is the criteria for selecting the "alternate" procedure? Surely the depicted route is not too complicated to fly. If you have a VOR or GPS, you can fly the feeder route as depicted with no issue.

 

[luvflyin]

No, I am not. Depends upon your "steam gauge" avionics and your priorities.

I would do what the state-of-the-art RNAV avionics would do. Good lesson for anyone interested: do this IAP from PAE in a Garmin trainer.

Everything I’ve been saying is about ‘steam gauge’ avionics. I thought that seemed obvious.

 

[luvflyin]

Why would one NOT fly the published feeder route if that were your (implied or explicit) clearance? If deciding on flying an "alternate" route to the IAF on this or another approach, what is the criteria for selecting the "alternate" procedure? Surely the depicted route is not too complicated to fly. If you have a VOR or GPS, you can fly the feeder route as depicted with no issue.

I’m not in anyway talking about flying an ‘alternate route.

 

[chemgeek]

I’m not in anyway talking about flying an ‘alternate route.

Anything but the depicted feeder route is an "alternative", unapproved routing if cleared for the approach at PAE with no further instructions. In this particular case, the feeder route and the back course of the localizer are not too far apart, and with the slop in VOR tolerance ATC probably can't tell what you are doing, and likely it doesn't matter for obstacle avoidance...but if tracking the localizer outbound is "close enough," then how far apart would the proper and "alternative" navigation to the IAF have to be to be "not close enough"? That seems to be a bit of a slippery slope in decision-making that one doesn't have to go down as the depicted feeder route is easy enough to fly and should guarantee obstacle clearance as well as ATC expectations for traffic separation.

 

[dtuuri]

Why would one NOT fly the published feeder route if that were your (implied or explicit) clearance?

I'll play. WEBVE is the intersection of two VOR radials, if setting aside GPS and trying follow the feeder. Due to fix displacement error, VOR accuracy limits and operational imperfection you could be pretty well displaced from the localizer when you commence your HILPT. I think it would indicate superior airmanship to monitor the localizer and track it if it's "alive" or even bear left of the feeder course (within allowable limits, of course) in order to do that. What you "can't" do is follow the feeder to intercept the localizer, at least if trying to determine WEBVE because: AirNav: Information on fix WEBVE . Think of closing a scissors. Just a little angular change results in a BIG change in the cutting point, i.e., fix location. Taking the localizer to 13.9 DME puts you at WEBVE with the most accuracy, legal or otherwise, IMO.

 

[luvflyin]

Anything but the depicted feeder route is an "alternative", unapproved routing if cleared for the approach at PAE with no further instructions. In this particular case, the feeder route and the back course of the localizer are not too far apart, and with the slop in VOR tolerance ATC probably can't tell what you are doing, and likely it doesn't matter for obstacle avoidance...but if tracking the localizer outbound is "close enough," then how far apart would the proper and "alternative" navigation to the IAF have to be to be "not close enough"? That seems to be a bit of a slippery slope in decision-making that one doesn't have to go down as the depicted feeder route is easy enough to fly and should guarantee obstacle clearance as well as ATC expectations for traffic separation.

I would be flying the ‘depicted feeder route.’ Using navigational equipment available to me. In this case it would be two VHF Nav receivers, at least one of them with Localizer. I’m not going to turn off the one set to the PAE 338r.

 

[Palmpilot]

If your VOR receiver were off by six degrees, you would miss the holding fix by 1.4 NM. Would that be a problem?

 

[chemgeek]

I'll play. WEBVE is the intersection of two VOR radials, if setting aside GPS and trying follow the feeder. Due to fix displacement error, VOR accuracy limits and operational imperfection you could be pretty well displaced from the localizer when you commence your HILPT. I think it would indicate superior airmanship to monitor the localizer and track it if it's "alive" or even bear left of the feeder course (within allowable limits, of course) in order to do that. What you "can't" do is follow the feeder to intercept the localizer, at least if trying to determine WEBVE because: AirNav: Information on fix WEBVE . Think of closing a scissors. Just a little angular change results in a BIG change in the cutting point, i.e., fix location. Taking the localizer to 13.9 DME puts you at WEBVE with the most accuracy, legal or otherwise, IMO.

No objection to monitoring the localizer outbound. No objection to even using the localizer to "cheat" the outbound VOR route to stay to the right of the localizer before reaching WEBVE so as not to complicate the HILPT course reversal. But flying the localizer outbound is not an approved routing. Again, here, it likely makes little practical difference because of the small angular difference. But pull up another approach plate at another airport with a larger angular displacement between the feeder route to the HILPT and the localizer back course and then...at what displacement does tracking the localizer outbound become unacceptable? With only one VOR, you will have your hands full for sure. With GPS the route to WEBVE is easy-peasy.