Help with instrument approach

ahmad

ahmad

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 9, 2017
Messages
477
Location
S Illinois
Display Name
Display name:
Midwest Aviator
I thought I knew everything(at least that's what I tell my wife) but I am confused on this.

If I am shooting the approach for the ILS 10 from one of the feeder routes (pampi or Dueas) I would be going direct Dutch. Here is where I am confused. At Dutch Do I go outbound 288 then do a turn(left or right?) to set up and intercept the localizer course of 108? Or do I do the procedure turn at Dutch to intercept the localizer from Dutch?
 

Attachments

  • 00943IL10.pdf
    300.9 KB · Views: 186
I'm sure others will be along with better answers, but if I'm flying the full approach I'd do the HILPT there at Dutch. I don't think that how you enter the hold is super important as long as you stay in the protected area, but it'd probably be either a teardrop or direct entry depending on which feeder route you're coming in from.

(This should probably be moved to the Cleared for the Approach forum.)
 
As @tsts4 said, from either of those transitions, you do the racetrack procedure turn at DUTCH. Pretty straightforward.

My question is, what about it is confusing you? Why would you do a course reversal other than the only one show on the chart? Or is something about the holding pattern bothering you?
 
Let’s state the obvious - if you’re getting vectors, you probably wouldn’t have to fly the course reversal, just intercept the final and go. If you’re commencing the approach from one of the fixes, then yes, you’d fly the course reversal using an appropriate entry, circle in it til you’re at 2400 and then fly the approach inbound.
mark.staggs said:
I don't think that how you enter the hold is super important as long as you stay in the protected area, but it'd probably be either a teardrop or direct entry depending on which feeder route you're coming in from.
Click to expand...
Looks like a direct entry from DUEAS and a teardrop from PAMPI but YMMV.
 
ahmad said:
I thought I knew everything(at least that's what I tell my wife) but I am confused on this.

If I am shooting the approach for the ILS 10 from one of the feeder routes (pampi or Dueas) I would be going direct Dutch. Here is where I am confused. At Dutch Do I go outbound 288 then do a turn(left or right?) to set up and intercept the localizer course of 108? Or do I do the procedure turn at Dutch to intercept the localizer from Dutch?
Click to expand...
The FAA recommended entries for that HILPT are Direct for DUEAS and Teardrop for PAMPI. From DUEAS you’d turn to the out bound heading, 288. From PAMPI turn to 250. Give or take. Account for the wind.
 
File with FAM as a waypoint and take the question out of the question.
 
Thank you all. I understand it completely now. I think I wasn't thinking about HILPT and that's where the confusion came about.

Still training for the instrument rating. Tomorrow my cfi and I will file my 1st IFR flight.
 
EdFred said:
File with FAM as a waypoint and take the question out of the question.
Click to expand...

Ha. That would make it easy but I am trying to fully understand approach charts etc. FAM as IAF would add a bunch of miles to the trip going from KMVN.
 
Not that it changes the OP question or the answer, but the only feeder route depicted is from FARMINGTON. (For those just joining the underlined is clearly wrong, they are all 3 feeder routes, somehow on my 1st obviously to brief of look at the plate I didn't notice that altitudes)

PAMPI and DUEAS s are just radials to help identify DUTCH.

You can still fly from them to DUTCH since DUTCH is an IAF.
But they technically are NOT feeder routes, since they are thin line and have no designated altitudes other than the MSA.

from page 8-18 of the instrument flying handbook...
The main procedure,
or final approach course is a thick, solid line. A
DME arc, which is part of the main procedure course, is also
represented as a thick, solid line. A feeder route
is depicted with a medium line and provides
heading, altitude, and distance information. (All three
components must be designated on the chart to provide a
navigable course.) Radials, such as lead radials, are shown
by thin lines.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind if told to go direct DUTCH from certain directions you won’t be at the appropriate altitude to intercept the G/S inbound. For example, if you were inbound from DAEUS you’d be high then unstable trying to dive bomb to the glide slope. When you see a course reversal or HILPT, consider the altitude you might be at before arriving and it makes sense that you’d have to perform a maneuver to lose altitude first.
 
ahmad said:
Ha. That would make it easy but I am trying to fully understand approach charts etc. FAM as IAF would add a bunch of miles to the trip going from KMVN.
Click to expand...

Wait til' they assign you the BC for 28 because the winds are out of the west. :)
 
brcase said:
Not that it changes the OP question or the answer, but the only feeder route depicted is from FARMINGTON.

PAMPI and DUEAS s are just radials to help identify DUTCH.

You can still fly from them to DUTCH since DUTCH is an IAF.
But they technically are NOT feeder routes, since they are thin line and have no designated altitudes other than the MSA.

from page 8-18 of the instrument flying handbook...
The main procedure,
or final approach course is a thick, solid line. A
DME arc, which is part of the main procedure course, is also
represented as a thick, solid line. A feeder route
is depicted with a medium line and provides
heading, altitude, and distance information. (All three
components must be designated on the chart to provide a
navigable course.) Radials, such as lead radials, are shown
by thin lines.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Click to expand...


Thank you. Well explained.
 
EdFred said:
File with FAM as a waypoint and take the question out of the question.
Click to expand...
If you get a Clearance via FAM, and you don't get a reroute that takes FAM out, yeah. If you do get it in your departure clearance, you can avoid the reroute thing by departing and going Nordo. Or wait. If they give you reroute not over FAM, don't read it back and quit talking to them.:ihih:
 
brcase said:
Not that it changes the OP question or the answer, but the only feeder route depicted is from FARMINGTON.

PAMPI and DUEAS s are just radials to help identify DUTCH.

You can still fly from them to DUTCH since DUTCH is an IAF.
But they technically are NOT feeder routes, since they are thin line and have no designated altitudes other than the MSA.

from page 8-18 of the instrument flying handbook...
The main procedure,
or final approach course is a thick, solid line. A
DME arc, which is part of the main procedure course, is also
represented as a thick, solid line. A feeder route
is depicted with a medium line and provides
heading, altitude, and distance information. (All three
components must be designated on the chart to provide a
navigable course.) Radials, such as lead radials, are shown
by thin lines.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Click to expand...
They are more than "...PAMPI and DUEAS s are just radials to help identify DUTCH..." They are Feeders that are not Radials. They are Courses To CG. Neither DUEAS or PAMPI generate radials.
 
brcase said:
Not that it changes the OP question or the answer, but the only feeder route depicted is from FARMINGTON.

PAMPI and DUEAS s are just radials to help identify DUTCH.
Click to expand...
You may want to review that again. PAMPI & DUEAS are indeed feeder routes.
 
If you are cleared direct to a fix, then you’d have the course reversal, but that is quite rare. Usually you’d be vectored in to intercept the course and if not I’d probably request it. Most of the fixes are adding an extra 5-10 minutes and for me they unnecessarily hang out too far over the lake (technically breaking a club rule if in the club plane being outside of gliding distance of land).

In my airplane, my RNAV approaches are weird, I need to intercept a designated fix and it has to register and click on, otherwise it’s not loaded, I practice it and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. For that reason and in my airplane, I prefer Localizer approaches, much easier to input the frequency and get vectors in to intercept.

Question, for localizer approaches, to be fully legal, could you just set your NAV radio to the localizer frequency, and if vectored in to intercept by ATC, technically you do not need to use any GPS?

Some airports have a Localizer approach with a glide path which is very nice, but the glide path would be for reference only?

Then ILS is a localizer + glide path but must have a WAAS GPS?

If you are using VOR or LOC approaches, then does that mean you are not required to have a current GPS database to be legal?
 
mandm said:
If you are cleared direct to a fix, then you’d have the course reversal, but that is quite rare. Usually you’d be vectored in to intercept the course and if not I’d probably request it. Most of the fixes are adding an extra 5-10 minutes and for me they unnecessarily hang out too far over the lake (technically breaking a club rule if in the club plane being outside of gliding distance of land).

In my airplane, my RNAV approaches are weird, I need to intercept a designated fix and it has to register and click on, otherwise it’s not loaded, I practice it and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. For that reason and in my airplane, I prefer Localizer approaches, much easier to input the frequency and get vectors in to intercept.

Question, for localizer approaches, to be fully legal, could you just set your NAV radio to the localizer frequency, and if vectored in to intercept by ATC, technically you do not need to use any GPS?

Some airports have a Localizer approach with a glide path which is very nice, but the glide path would be for reference only?

Then ILS is a localizer + glide path but must have a WAAS GPS?

If you are using VOR or LOC approaches, then does that mean you are not required to have a current GPS database to be legal?
Click to expand...
To answer all your questions in one fell swoop. You do not need RNAV to do an ILS/LOC Approach unless the Chart says it is required.
 
luvflyin said:
To answer all your questions in one fell swoop. You do not need RNAV to do an ILS/LOC Approach unless the Chart says it is required.
Click to expand...

What are the requirements for an ILS? Is that just a Localizer with glide path? So just the CDI and NAV radio? There’s no database for those, only updated approach charts.
 
EdFred said:
No just gotta remember reverse sensing if old school instruments.
Click to expand...
An HSI is not old school? :)

The fact that a localizer array is on the approach end of the runway rather than the departure end on a BC is kinda significant too, I think.
 
luvflyin said:
They are more than "...PAMPI and DUEAS s are just radials to help identify DUTCH..." They are Feeders that are not Radials. They are Courses To CG. Neither DUEAS or PAMPI generate radials.
Click to expand...

I thought I looked and didn't see the altitude. You are correct. Great thing about POA is when you (I) are wrong, everyone gets to see it.

At least I posted the reference that clearly showed I was wrong.

Thanks for the correction

Brian
CFI_G/ASEL :)
 
Last edited:
brcase said:
Not that it changes the OP question or the answer, but the only feeder route depicted is from FARMINGTON.
Click to expand...

The fact that the route from FARMINGTON starts at an IAF makes it an initial segment of the approach, not a feeder route.

PAMPI and DUEAS s are just radials to help identify DUTCH.

You can still fly from them to DUTCH since DUTCH is an IAF.
But they technically are NOT feeder routes, since they are thin line and have no designated altitudes other than the MSA.
Click to expand...

The 3400 and 3500 depicted along those routes are designated minimum altitudes, so they are feeder routes. The fact that one of those attitudes coincides with a portion of the MSA circle is coincidental.
 
brcase said:
I thought I looked and didn't see the altitude. You are correct. Great thing about POA is when you (I) are wrong, everyone gets to see it.

At least I posted the reference that clearly showed I wrong.

Thanks for the correction

Brian
CFI_G/ASEL :)
Click to expand...

In your defense, there are no fix-defining VOR radials depicted on that chart, and thus there are no thin lines, which would have made it obvious by comparison that the feeder routes are actually medium lines.
 
brcase said:
I thought I looked and didn't see the altitude. You are correct. Great thing about POA is when you (I) are wrong, everyone gets to see it.

At least I posted the reference that clearly showed I wrong.

Thanks for the correction

Brian
CFI_G/ASEL :)
Click to expand...
Wasn’t about who was wrong or correcting you. It was about getting the information out there for the benefit of all.
 
Palmpilot said:
In your defense, there are no fix-defining VOR radials depicted on that chart, and thus there are no thin lines, which would have made it obvious by comparison that the feeder routes are actually medium lines.
Click to expand...
There is one. The FAM R-144. It and I-CGI define TANZI.
 
Palmpilot said:
The fact that the route from FARMINGTON starts at an IAF makes it an initial segment of the approach, not a feeder route.
Click to expand...
I have completely given up the need to distinguish "feeders" from any other type of approach transition, except as a purely academic exercise. I can't see any practical difference.
 
We are all learning here. Great info and discussion.

I was hesitant to ask because I just passed the written a few weeks ago with a 94 score.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
In your defense, there are no fix-defining VOR radials depicted on that chart, and thus there are no thin lines, which would have made it obvious by comparison that the feeder routes are actually medium lines.
Click to expand...
I think @brcase's defense is not paying attention. We all do that from time to time. I don't think it's about the thickness of the lines, but the course, distance, and especially altitude on transitions as opposed to radials used solely to identify an intersection which has only the frequency and radial (and DME distance if it can be identified that way). I guess we all learn things differently. You might differentiate these two based on line thickness. I look at the information provided and it seems obvious without comparing line thickness.

upload_2023-6-8_8-34-1.png upload_2023-6-8_8-51-38.png
 
Those are not radials. Radials are off VORs. DUEAS and PAMPI are fixes with courses to DUTCH. If you had an ADF (or GPS) you could navigate to DUTCH from those two fixes, but not with just a VOR/LOC nav.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top