aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
Fly Direct GORDE then cleared for the ILS 13
- Thread starter PilotC
- Start date
Maybe partially misreading me. The plates themselves are definitely pure FAA. But remember FF also has a "procedure advisor" which paints the approach on the moving map.
Take a look at the VOR or TACAN 22 at KTCL and check out the regulatory source document. I suspect the FAA chart showing LDK as an IAF is an error (among other things, it is not identified as one in the 8260-5) but either way, there is no PT defined on either the chart or the 8260-5. Nevertheless, if you pull up the chart in ForeFlight, it shows a barbed PT that is not on the chart itself.
BTW, the other discussion was about the chart itself. I pulled it up on FF to look at it and came across the anomaly. Curiosity armed, I also looked at the GTN Trainer with both the Garmin and Jepp databases and neither lists LDK as an IAF nor depicts a procedure turn, so it seems to be a FF creation.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yeah. FF's Procedure advisor led me to making a wrong assumption. See posts #'s 6,9,10, 14, 15. ForeFlight seems to have wrong assumptions built into their programming to plot those out.
Yep, the Jepp chart doesn't show LDK as an IAF and you are right the docs don't support. Further, if there was a IAF with a procedure turn, then it would be obliged to chart it and mark NoPT on the ones that don't need the PT like the one starting at OKW. It just appears that a spurious IAF was added to the LDK VOR frequency block. Can't vouch for the stuff FF adds. I never use that since I do have the geo plates.
I was wondering about that, Ron. Thanks.
Yes, as you point out, there are numerous indications of the lack of a PT.
Last edited:
Yeah, I saw. This one is really interesting. I can almost see listing LDK as an IAF since it's on the chart that way, but a non-existent barbed procedure turn with a protected side takes some serious creativity.
Just goes to show - as much as we love out EFBs, it is still up to us to be PIC and confirm the information it is giving us.
Last edited:
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Ah. LDK being advertised as an IAF on the gov chart is likely what causes the Procedure advisor to paint a bad picture. Now that ForeFlight and Jepp are working together maybe those kinds of mistakes will be fewer.
I still don't get it. OK, I get the thought process "we'll since there's an IAF in the photo, there must be a procedure turn" (which is not necessarily true). But how do you decide it's a barbed PT as opposed to a HILO, or for that matter a big teardrop, and which side is protected? And you must complete the turn how far from the fix? All of that is in the Advisor depiction.
I see a mistaken IAF on a chart but where's the data to support doing anything based on it?
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
I dunno. Only FF does. But somehow the Procedure advisor drew a PT where none exists. Ain't really no big thing at the end of the day. The Procedure advisor is a flight planning thing. You don't use it to navigate and fly the plane
John Collins
En-Route
The ForeFlight error is in the database. The approach database is an ARINC 424 coded database and is provided by a major international supplier of this data. A report of the error was sent to the database supplier for correction.
This summer, as part of the Jeppesen cooperation, ForeFlight has announced they will be transitioning to Jeppesen data instead of the FAA data. With the Jeppesen data, the approach will match the 8260 form and not show an IAF at LDK with a PT. The Jeppesen data will power all subscription levels of ForeFlight and does not require a separate Jeppesen chart subscription.
Edit: This was edited after some additional research.
This summer, as part of the Jeppesen cooperation, ForeFlight has announced they will be transitioning to Jeppesen data instead of the FAA data. With the Jeppesen data, the approach will match the 8260 form and not show an IAF at LDK with a PT. The Jeppesen data will power all subscription levels of ForeFlight and does not require a separate Jeppesen chart subscription.
Edit: This was edited after some additional research.
Last edited:
No, we don't use it to navigate and fly (unfortunately some do). But I still think it's a problem, particularly if someone isn't aware the potential exists.
It's a charting tool. The charts on FF are as official as any others. Many will use the Advisor as an enhanced chart to help select a suitable IAF,and to view, plan and brief the approach. Yeah, as soon as I looked at it I saw it was wrong, but it doesn't take much imagination to picture someone looking at the actual official chart on the screen with a big magenta procedure turn painted on it and and entirely miss the fact there is no black line under the magenta. If it were a GPS approach, the fact that you couldn't load it that was would help, but this is a VOR approach and a good, old school pilot might not even try to load it in the GPS for
I decided to point it out to ForeFlight and ask how the Procedure Advisor comes up with this stuff. I'll report their response.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Waiting to hear. I just may shoot them an email about it also.
The error has been reported to the FAA - that was in the other thread I referred to.
But I am still confused. Do you have access to the CIFP to see what it says? Or can you tell us how a procedure turn, including location, distance, and direction of turns is not in the 8260 can make its way into the database? This approach was last amended almost four years ago.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Thanks for the info
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
You can download the Coded Instrument Flight Procedures current (AIRAC 1706) file at:
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/cifp/
We use the CIFP as one of three database files that are required to use the ad hoc RNAV design tool, TARGETS.
https://targets.cssiinc.com/
CIFP is not an official source document. It often has some errors in most AIRAC cycles. Up until two years ago CIFP was by subscription only, and cost around $200 per year.
azure
Final Approach
If LDK isn't an actual IAF for that approach, then I don't know how the plates can be pure FAA. The plate in FF (brought up from the database, not using the procedure advisor) clearly shows LDK as an IAF. I'm too tired right now from a hike to check out the original plate from the FAA DTP site, but my guess is that LDK really IS an IAF, and it's not clear to me how you would fly that approach if arriving at LDK from the west. I'd expect the procedure to be NA for arrivals from certain directions, but there is nothing on the plate to indicate that.
But yeah, the flight path FF shows with LDK as an IAF seems to be completely made up, or else left over from an earlier version of the procedure. I wouldn't have even caught that since I've yet to use the procedure advisor. When I want the plate overlaid on the chart, I do "send to map" from the Plates page. Sounds like the PA is a nice feature in principle, but needs some debugging.
azure
Final Approach
Okay, I just read John Collins's post, and LDK as an IAF is an error in the database. Hope it gets fixed. I wonder how it is that the CIFP database depicts a PT that is not indicated even on the FF plate.
Now I'm curious, will have to look up the original plate. Later...
Now I'm curious, will have to look up the original plate. Later...
[
Look at the en route chart for the answer. Common error: forgetting that an approach has a context. It's is designed to get from the en route environment to the runway. All the IAFs for the approach are on airways. The FAA plate showing LDK as an IAF is an FAA charting error.
Last edited:
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
The FAA chart has the same error. The Jepp chart does not nor does the source document. LDK is only a FAF.
AggieMike88
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 20,804
- Location
- Denton, TX
- Display Name
Display name:
The original "I don't know it all" of aviation.
HHUBB9.GGG helps... tells me you were coming out of the DFW space. I am in Denton, so we are traveling some of the same airways. (PS. I am always looking for opportunities to fly with other IFR pilots in order to expand my knowledge and experience).
I am reading between the lines that the chain of events might have started when it was time to get which approach you were going to use figured out.
Did you ask for that approach or was it just offered up to you? If it was the former, did you include in your request how you wanted to join (aka vectors or direct to a fix)? Or was it the former and the approach controller got you kerfluffled by sending you to the wrong fix?
Can you find the Live ATC archive recording and share with us?
But seeing that you said, "I was expecting either radar vectors or GODHO." may answer my question. And my criticism is that you let the controller dictate your entry versus using Pilot In Command authority and asking for the desired entry.
Every CFI-I I have flown with shared the wisdom that I as PIC need to be the one asking for the specific IAP I want along with how I want to get on it.
This morning, taking a friend from DTO to 0F2 (Bowie), I took off VFR, but it was obvious the METAR at Bowie wasn't updating to show the broken layer between me and the runway. So after sorting out the pop up IFR flight plan request, I told the controller, "55WB requests the RNAV17 approach for Bowie, direct HIXEL." After a short "Standby", that was approved and we got the approach shot and done and both sides were happy. And me happy because I chose and asked for how the dance was to be done and that's what ATC was good to go with.
But returning, I did get an "expect this approach". Taking off from Bowie, I was able to remain VFR and get up to 4500 feet but that broken layer was beneath me and now extended to Denton, making DTO MVFR with ceilings at 2300ish). So another pop up clearance requested and obtained, along with ZFW putting me on the GREGGS8 arrival and direct GREGGS. 10-ish miles from GREGGS, I was directed to switch to Regional Approach. When I checked in, I hadn't made up my mind between the ILS18 or the RNAV18 yet, but I knew with the headwind I had, I still had time before passing GREGGS to give my request and receive my initial vectors. I was just about to push the button to ask for the ILS18 with vectors when the mind reader of a controller said to expect just that.
Anyhow, the TL;dr of this is that as PIC, you need to have figured out what you want to do in advance of talking to your last approach controller, including what IAP and how you want to be put on that IAP. My routine when checking on is usually "55iWB, level at __ thousand, we have weather and NOTAMs at _____. Request the XYZ approach direct [initial_fix_name]". Or replace the direct with "vectors" if I that works better for where I am in relation to the IAP.
And summary, if you had the plate up, saw that the course from ROCKK to GODHO was gonna make for one difficult turn to get on the arc. Then making th PIC request for VTF would have been the better choice for both shooting the approach, and getting your 430 set up and properly sequencing.
So.... when are we gonna go flying?
... and for anyone shocked by this, don't be. There are a lot of charts and errors do creep in. I find it much more surprising how few there are.
Hey, anybody who pays attention will eventually catch a charting error. I've found a few over the years. The FAA doesn't proofread things as well as Jepp does.
Harold Rutila
Pre-takeoff checklist
As an aside, direct GORDE is pretty typical at East Texas Regional aka Longview aka Gregg County (GGG). Another one that gets people around here is direct WESLI for the ILS Runway 19 at Waco (ACT).
Aren't both of these just more examples of the reason for the general advice ito avoid VTF and load a logical IAF? I've seen similar scenarios - where, even after saying to expect and even starting vectors to final, instruct to go direct to some fix outside the FAF - in a few places where I've flown.
I find it best to just put the waypoint in the flight plan and then press Direct To when I get one thats NOT already in the flight plan. So you need the correct spelling. Having it in the flight plan is where you want it, you might lose it and need it again. Theres a shortcut to activating the waypoints in the flight plan in my King KLN90B. Not sure about a Garmin. I would think there is.
Stuff like this does make single pilot IFR a challenge. "Rats, foiled again by my GPS!" (they are great when the cooperate, but they can aggravate)
Stuff like this does make single pilot IFR a challenge. "Rats, foiled again by my GPS!" (they are great when the cooperate, but they can aggravate)
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
In this example, arriving from the northwest and selecting the approach commencing at GODHO makes it easy to subsequently select direct GORDE when/if issued that clearance. For that matter selecting SKIDI would result in the same setup, but would not be good planning when arriving from the northwest.
RussR
En-Route
I have not typically used the "Procedure" functionality of Foreflight to determine approach procedures. While the SID and STAR functions are useful, I have not seen a need to do the same with approaches. But given this thread, I tried it out while planning an upcoming flight to Georgetown, TX, KGTU, and it gave me similar weirdness with procedure turns. See image. Coming from directly north, if flying the RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, the logical IAF to use is SILIW in the middle of the "T". Although a Hold-in-lieu-of-Procedure-Turn (HILPT) is published, coming from the north puts you in the "NoPT" portion of the Terminal Arrival Area. Therefore, you would not be expected to perform the PT.
Foreflight does not ask if you want to fly the HILPT, but plots the HILPT as part of your route, when this would probably be the most unlikely option. I did try adjusting the flight planned altitude to see if it was maybe deciding I needed the HILPT for descent, but that didn't make a difference.
I agree with others - don't rely on the "magenta line" depiction of approach procedures in Foreflight. Just pull up the actual chart.
Foreflight does not ask if you want to fly the HILPT, but plots the HILPT as part of your route, when this would probably be the most unlikely option. I did try adjusting the flight planned altitude to see if it was maybe deciding I needed the HILPT for descent, but that didn't make a difference.
I agree with others - don't rely on the "magenta line" depiction of approach procedures in Foreflight. Just pull up the actual chart.
spiderweb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2005
- Messages
- 9,488
- Display Name
Display name:
Ben
Yep. Flying the PT at SILIW without it being directed by ATC would, at minimum, **** them off. It also wastes gas.
azure
Final Approach
Even some approach certified GPSs do this. The 480, for example, will not ask you if you want to do the HILPT, it will depict it, and if flying coupled to the autopilot, will always perform it unless you intervene. It knows nothing of NoPT TAA sectors nor even NoPT routes. The best workaround IMO is to do a FlyLeg to the next waypoint just before you reach the hold fix if you are NoPT. A minor annoyance, but a persistent one, notwithstanding how great the 480 is in other ways.
ForeFlight is not a navigator. All it is doing its outlining the general course of the approach for situational awareness. It's leaving it up to the pilot to fly the approach properly based on the situation and ATC instructions - to avoid the PT when it is not too be used and to fly there PT when it is to be used.
Panel GPS has a true navigational purpose. In a GPSS system it will even fly the whole thing for you. I can't speak to the others, but the current Garmin panel units will still leave it up to the PIC. They will ask you whether or not you are going to do the PT.
Panel GPS has a true navigational purpose. In a GPSS system it will even fly the whole thing for you. I can't speak to the others, but the current Garmin panel units will still leave it up to the PIC. They will ask you whether or not you are going to do the PT.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
I believe the Garmin units will ask that question about a HILPT if the angle of intercept is ambiguous to the unit's algorithm. I don't know the limits of that algorithm. Perhaps John Collins does.
RussR
En-Route
I don't know the limits either, but Wally is right, sometimes the Garmins ask about the HILPT, sometimes they do not, depending on the intercept angle and how the NoPT segments are constructed. I haven't studied it in depth, but it seems that they ask if you want to do it when you are direct to the HILPT fix from the NoPT side - basically in case you need to do it for altitude or other reasons. If you are direct to the HILPT fix, NOT from a NoPT side of a TAA, it doesn't ask, it just assumes you will do it (since it's required by the chart. If you are on a segment such as from an IAF to the IF which is a NoPT segment, it will not give the option, expecting you don't want to do it. I could be wrong about some of those details.
Makes sense.
John Collins
En-Route
With ForeFlight, you can tap on the approach bubble in the route editor. It allows the pilot to Remove the Hold in lieu of PT or turn it back on. You can do other neat things such as select a different IAF, or Change the approach or ...
I use this to switch approaches when training.
I use this to switch approaches when training.