How do I request an LPV approach

[alfadog]

So today I took the C172 up to get my head back into finishing up my IR. Wasn't able to snag anybody for safety pilot so I left the hood in the bag, flew a few holds at FUSZY, practiced a few xwind landings at X51 (17G25 direct - yea!), and then called Miami approach for a practice approach at the home drome, KTMB.

My question is how do y'all ask for an LPV approach? The plate says "RNAV (GPS) RWY 27L". I think I asked for the GPS RWY 27L because that is how the ATIS put it. And when I was given my final turn, I believe it was "cleared GPS approach RWY 27L". But I could be misremembering and it was RNAV, not GPS. I certainly know that LPV was not mentioned except when I mentioned it.

So if you want to fly the WAAS approach, the LPV RWY 27L, do you mention that or do you just ask for the RNAV or GPS approach and your choice of LNAV or LPV is your own business?

And do you ask for GPS or RNAV?

 

[rrmkru]

There is no separate approach you have to be cleared for. If you have WAAS coverage you can fly to LPV minimums. If for some reason the LPV doesn't show on the gps then increase minimums accordingly.

 

[azure]

My question is how do y'all ask for an LPV approach? The plate says "RNAV (GPS) RWY 27L". I think I asked for the GPS RWY 27L because that is how the ATIS put it. And when I was given my final turn, I believe it was "cleared GPS approach RWY 27L". But I could be misremembering and it was RNAV, not GPS. I certainly know that LPV was not mentioned except when I mentioned it.

Normally ATC wouldn't mention it, because the difference is whether you fly the glideslope, and to what minimums you can descend. ATC doesn't know whether you have WAAS, so they cannot know whether you can fly the LPV. If it mattered to them, they would have to ask you (and so far they never have asked me).

Though it's an interesting question since with an ILS or LOC approach, I do believe you can be cleared specifically for one or the other. And it can make a difference as to whether you can legally bust the stepdown minimums inside the FAF if the temperatures are such that the glideslope takes you below them. But I've always just asked for the RNAV, and flown the glideslope to LPV minimums unless my CFII (or DPE ) specifically told me to fly the LNAV only approach.

So if you want to fly the WAAS approach, the LPV RWY 27L, do you mention that or do you just ask for the RNAV or GPS approach and your choice of LNAV or LPV is your own business?

I think you just ask for the RNAV -- but again, if it makes a difference to ATC, I would guess they'll ask you and you tell them.

And do you ask for GPS or RNAV?

I don't think it matters. I think all LPVs are RNAV(GPS), but I'm not 100% sure of that.

 

[alfadog]

Though it's an interesting question since with an ILS or LOC approach, I do believe you can be cleared specifically for one or the other. And it can make a difference as to whether you can legally bust the stepdown minimums inside the FAF if the temperatures are such that the glideslope takes you below them. But I've always just asked for the RNAV, and flown the glideslope to LPV minimums unless my CFII (or DPE ) specifically told me to fly the LNAV only approach.

That is what made me wonder. On the ILS plate for KTMB it says "ILS or LOC RWY 9R" as its "name". I believe, in that case, you have to ask for one or the other and you will be specifically cleared for one or the other. In other words, one plate covers two different approaches, in a sense. The name of the RNAV plate does not reference how you will fly it, LPV or LNAV, it is just "the RNAV approach".

 

[alfadog]

There is no separate approach you have to be cleared for. If you have WAAS coverage you can fly to LPV minimums. If for some reason the LPV doesn't show on the gps then increase minimums accordingly.

How do you word your request?

 

[rrmkru]

How do you word your request?

RNAV RWY XX

 

[poadeleted20]

The name of the RNAV plate does not reference how you will fly it, LPV or LNAV, it is just "the RNAV approach".

That's correct -- the controller should merely say "cleared RNAV runway xx approach." The specific mins to which you fly it are your business only, not theirs.

 

[alang]

Just monitor your GPS unit to see what type of GPS/RNAV approach it is annunciating. On the Garmins it will show LPV or VNAV or VNAV+ (which is a unique Garmin function that creates an artificial glide slope that you can fly but only to the MDA mins.). All come from the generic GPS/RNAV RW XX approach which is what you are cleared for.

Alan

 

[poadeleted20]

Just monitor your GPS unit to see what type of GPS/RNAV approach it is annunciating. On the Garmins it will show LPV or VNAV or VNAV+

Actually, what you see on the Garmins is LPV, L/VNAV, LNAV+V, LP, or LNAV, the first two being pseudo-precision, the third being LNAV with advisory-only vertical guidance, and the last two being lateral guidance only with LP being localizer precision and LNAV being (more or less) VOR precision. And there are more and more LP minimums being published, so if you haven't seen it yet, you may see it soon. Of course, without WAAS, all you have is plain old LNAV, which annunciates as "APR" in the Garmins.

 

[aterpster]

Actually, what you see on the Garmins is LPV, L/VNAV, LNAV+V, LP, or LNAV, the first two being pseudo-precision, the third being LNAV with advisory-only vertical guidance, and the last two being lateral guidance only with LP being localizer precision and LNAV being (more or less) VOR precision. And there are more and more LP minimums being published, so if you haven't seen it yet, you may see it soon. Of course, without WAAS, all you have is plain old LNAV, which annunciates as "APR" in the Garmins.

The only reason an LPV approach isn't called a precision approach is because of a muddled-up FAA. LPV uses ILS TERPs, and ILS minimums (assuming the runway is up to snuff). If you can go to 200 and 1/2 on Runway "A" with either the ILS or LPV, it is in fact a distinction without a difference.


The only difference between ILS and LPV is there is less certainty of LPV availability for flight planning purposes. And, with an unmonitored ILS there is actually little difference in that respect.

Finally, LNAV is a whole lot better than any VOR IAP; particularly LNAV with WAAS augmentation.

As to LP, the FAA is learing that it has siting (or design criteria) issues at some locations. That is presently in a state of flux as John Collins can tell you.

 

[poadeleted20]

The only reason an LPV approach isn't called a precision approach is because of a muddled-up FAA. LPV uses ILS TERPs, and ILS minimums (assuming the runway is up to snuff). If you can go to 200 and 1/2 on Runway "A" with either the ILS or LPV, it is in fact a distinction without a difference.

The only difference between ILS and LPV is there is less certainty of LPV availability for flight planning purposes. And, with an unmonitored ILS there is actually little difference in that respect.

There is one other difference -- the standard alternate minimums for RNAV(GPS) approaches are the nonprecision 800-2, regardless of WAAS in the airplane or published LPV mins for that approach.

Finally, LNAV is a whole lot better than any VOR IAP; particularly LNAV with WAAS augmentation.

No argument there, but in terms of the presentation and needle responses, LNAV is about the same as VOR, while LP is about the same as LOC which is roughly three times the sensitivity of VOR at the same distance.

 

[aterpster]

There is one other difference -- the standard alternate minimums for RNAV(GPS) approaches are the nonprecision 800-2, regardless of WAAS in the airplane or published LPV mins for that approach.

Like I said, it is a matter of future availability not the precision of an LPV approach.

 

[gismo]

Though it's an interesting question since with an ILS or LOC approach, I do believe you can be cleared specifically for one or the other.

I don't think you can be cleared for ILS or LOC separately if both are operational but I suspect that if you asked for the LOC 25 it's likely that ATC will parrot your request and issue a clearance for the LOC instead of the (more correct AFaIK) ILS 25 when both are on the chart and available. In any case I'm certain that if you were cleared for an ILS and there were LOC mins on the chart (and no NOTAM prohibitions for the LOC) it would be perfectly legal to fly the LOC.

It's certainly possible to be cleared for a LOC approach when that's all there is on the chart and a few ILSs have no LOC mins so I would expect some confusion by ATC if you requested a LOC approach in that case.

And it can make a difference as to whether you can legally bust the stepdown minimums inside the FAF if the temperatures are such that the glideslope takes you below them. But I've always just asked for the RNAV, and flown the glideslope to LPV minimums unless my CFII (or DPE ) specifically told me to fly the LNAV only approach.

I'm pretty certain that the issue of busting intermediate stepdowns when following a glideslope on a GPS approach only applies when the GS is "advisory" as in LNAV+V (a Garmin invention IIRC). IOW, if you're following the GS on a LNAV/VNAV or LPV you don't have to be concerned about stepdowns beyond the FAF.

I think you just ask for the RNAV -- but again, if it makes a difference to ATC, I would guess they'll ask you and you tell them.

I don't think it matters. I think all LPVs are RNAV(GPS), but I'm not 100% sure of that.

If there are any plates left with "or GPS" in the title it would be correct to ask for the GPS approach on those. Otherwise the correct request is RNAV. That said, people (mea culpa) ask for a GPS approach all the time and IME ATC is about 50/50 on replying with a clearance with the word GPS vs RNAV. Old habits die hard.

 

[azure]

I don't think you can be cleared for ILS or LOC separately if both are operational but I suspect that if you asked for the LOC 25 it's likely that ATC will parrot your request and issue a clearance for the LOC instead of the (more correct AFaIK) ILS 25 when both are on the chart and available. In any case I'm certain that if you were cleared for an ILS and there were LOC mins on the chart (and no NOTAM prohibitions for the LOC) it would be perfectly legal to fly the LOC.

I've certainly asked for, and been cleared for, practice LOC approaches when both LOC and GS transmitters were operational. But as you say, that could just be ATC parroting my request and I'm not sure whether in that case you would have to observe the stepdown altitudes. Based on what you're saying then, it sounds like there is no meaningful difference between the restrictions imposed when cleared for an ILS vs. a LPV. Inside the FAF, you only have to observe the stepdown altitudes if you have no vertical guidance. I'm still unsure about that though, since there are approaches that are named "ILS or LOC" which to me, implies that you could be cleared explicitly for a LOC approach. I'd like to see a reference that settles this, if there is one. I'll look through the AIM later...

I'm pretty certain that the issue of busting intermediate stepdowns when following a glideslope on a GPS approach only applies when the GS is "advisory" as in LNAV+V (a Garmin invention IIRC). IOW, if you're following the GS on a LNAV/VNAV or LPV you don't have to be concerned about stepdowns beyond the FAF.

Agreed. I was trying to draw a contrast between the ILS or LOC case vs. RNAV with LPV minimums, thinking that with an ILS ATC could require you with an explicit LOC clearance to observe stepdown altitudes even if you had vertical guidance. I know for sure they can't do that on an RNAV with LPV minimums because the approach is simply an RNAV, and whether you use the vertical guidance and fly to the LPV minimums depends on your equipment and GPS integrity.

If there are any plates left with "or GPS" in the title it would be correct to ask for the GPS approach on those. Otherwise the correct request is RNAV. That said, people (mea culpa) ask for a GPS approach all the time and IME ATC is about 50/50 on replying with a clearance with the word GPS vs RNAV. Old habits die hard.

I guess I don't have any old habits there, I always ask for the RNAV. ATC, on the other hand, sometimes offers "the GPS".

 

[alang]

Actually, what you see on the Garmins is LPV, L/VNAV, LNAV+V, LP, or LNAV, the first two being pseudo-precision, the third being LNAV with advisory-only vertical guidance, and the last two being lateral guidance only with LP being localizer precision and LNAV being (more or less) VOR precision. And there are more and more LP minimums being published, so if you haven't seen it yet, you may see it soon. Of course, without WAAS, all you have is plain old LNAV, which annunciates as "APR" in the Garmins.

I've never seen an LP or L/VNAV approach. I have the impression that the latter is only available to planes that have higher end equipment, I.e. found on transport planes. Is this correct? I have dual Garmin 430W's. Can I fly an LP approach if I find one?

Alan

 

[DutchessFlier]

I've never seen an LP or L/VNAV approach. I have the impression that the latter is only available to planes that have higher end equipment, I.e. found on transport planes. Is this correct? I have dual Garmin 430W's. Can I fly an LP approach if I find one?

Alan

Yes you can and with the WAAS equipment, the annunciator message in the lower left hand corner of the display will show you the type of approach the unit is displaying, as Ron indicated above.

 

[John Collins]

I've never seen an LP or L/VNAV approach. I have the impression that the latter is only available to planes that have higher end equipment, I.e. found on transport planes. Is this correct? I have dual Garmin 430W's. Can I fly an LP approach if I find one?

Alan

In your neck of the woods, checkout KSTS RWY 14 for a LNAV/VNAV. Your 430W should annunciate L/VNAV. For LP, it depends on the version of software and AFMS you have. If you are at version 3.3 or later and have the associated AFMS (to make it legal) you can do LP procedures. They were just added to the database in the current cycle, so if your DB is older than 2/7/2013 they won't show up. If you meet the requirements, you can find a LP at Rio Vista (O88) RNAV RWY 25.

 

[aterpster]

No argument there, but in terms of the presentation and needle responses, LNAV is about the same as VOR, while LP is about the same as LOC which is roughly three times the sensitivity of VOR at the same distance.

I believe LNAV CDI sensitivity in a TSO C145/146 navigator is the same as LP or LPV lateral sensitivity. It's alerting and integrity that are different.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

I believe LNAV CDI sensitivity in a TSO C145/146 navigator is the same as LP or LPV lateral sensitivity. It's alerting and integrity that are different.

That's my understanding as well. It should scale from 0.3nm full scale deflection at the FAF down to 350 feet full scale deflection at the MAP.

 

[Bill Watson]

My question is how do y'all ask for an LPV approach?

Very very carefully.

Yesterday, after being told to expect the ILS for 16 at KAVL, I requested the RNAV 16 approach (that's all you need do). The request was accepted.

However once the vectoring started, the controller forgot and cleared me for the ILS. I confirmed clearance even though I was setup for and intended to fly the RNAV (I should not have confirmed the wrong approach). The controller realized his 'mistake' and cleared me for the RNAV which I confirmed.

Unfortunately, the last vector and the 2 clearances were a bit late and I was vectored thru the final course. As I turned back and the controller apologized I was forced to wonder where the granite in the clouds might be since this was hilly terrain. After a moment of light panic I realized that I could see the hills with the GRT's synthetic vision and of course they were no problem as we flew it down to minimums and landed. This glass panel stuff is great!

Anyway, the main problem I've had in practicing or flying RNAV approaches is that many controllers lack familiarity with the procedures. I'm also guessing that they will/must default to the ILS unless the RNAV is specifically requested.

Yesterday and today were great days for some actual IMC work except that the ground temps were close to freezing yesterday and the weather on both days was just nasty enough to discourage practice in it. It helps to have a mission.

 

[alfadog]

Very very carefully.

Yesterday, after being told to expect the ILS for 16 at KAVL, I requested the RNAV 16 approach (that's all you need do). The request was accepted.

However once the vectoring started, the controller forgot and cleared me for the ILS. I confirmed clearance even though I was setup for and intended to fly the RNAV (I should not have confirmed the wrong approach). The controller realized his 'mistake' and cleared me for the RNAV which I confirmed.

Unfortunately, the last vector and the 2 clearances were a bit late and I was vectored thru the final course. As I turned back and the controller apologized I was forced to wonder where the granite in the clouds might be since this was hilly terrain. After a moment of light panic I realized that I could see the hills with the GRT's synthetic vision and of course they were no problem as we flew it down to minimums and landed. This glass panel stuff is great!

Anyway, the main problem I've had in practicing or flying RNAV approaches is that many controllers lack familiarity with the procedures. I'm also guessing that they will/must default to the ILS unless the RNAV is specifically requested.

Yesterday and today were great days for some actual IMC work except that the ground temps were close to freezing yesterday and the weather on both days was just nasty enough to discourage practice in it. It helps to have a mission.

I actually had something like that happen last weekend. I called up Miami approach and asked for a practice GPS approach 27L KTMB. As I got closer, the same controller told me expect a downwind for 27L. He had forgotten my request or?? I came back and said I wanted a practice LPV approach. He was nice but asked me to repeat. I said I wanted to be vectored to the LPV 27L outside of ZAGUN (FAF). He nicely asked me to repeat AGAIN and finally got what I wanted. While being vectored another fellow called up for a practice GPS approach at X51. The controller said that X51 did not have a GPS approach. The pilot says "I have the plate in front of me." Then the controller locates the approach. Nice guy but not too familiar with the RNAV approaches?

This miscommunication between me and the controller is what prompted this question in the first place.

 

[John Collins]

I actually had something like that happen last weekend. I called up Miami approach and asked for a practice GPS approach 27L KTMB. As I got closer, the same controller told me expect a downwind for 27L. He had forgotten my request or?? I came back and said I wanted a practice LPV approach. He was nice but asked me to repeat. I said I wanted to be vectored to the LPV 27L outside of ZAGUN (FAF). He nicely asked me to repeat AGAIN and finally got what I wanted. While being vectored another fellow called up for a practice GPS approach at X51. The controller said that X51 did not have a GPS approach. The pilot says "I have the plate in front of me." Then the controller locates the approach. Nice guy but not too familiar with the RNAV approaches?

This miscommunication between me and the controller is what prompted this question in the first place.

It was a good question. It is possible that in both examples, the terminology used could have confused the controller, particularly if they were new at the job. An experienced controller would most likely understand the request for a GPS approach was in fact a request for the RNAV RWY 10 approach at X51 and that your request for the LPV was in fact a request for the RNAV RWY 27L approach at KTMB. A less experienced controller would have been trained from day one to recognize and call these procedures by their RNAV title and might not know these other non standard terms to describe the procedures being requested.

Here is an excerpt in the guidance given to controllers on approach clearances (the emphasis is mine):

The name of the approach, as published, is used to identify the approach, ...

The name as published is the name that appears on the chart. If there is an "or" in the name of the approach, then it can be identified as either name, example "VOR or GPS RWY 10" can be identified as "VOR RWY 10" or "GPS RWY 10".

 

[DutchessFlier]

Agreed, John:

Best to always use the name of the approach as it is printed on the plate. That cuts through alot of confusion. In the NY/NE airspace, there are many many RNAV/GPS approaches published, and the controllers are used to working with them. That might not be the case in other regions, YMMV. Most of the 'overlay' approaches are going going gone now.

 

[aterpster]

Agreed, John:

Best to always use the name of the approach as it is printed on the plate. That cuts through alot of confusion. In the NY/NE airspace, there are many many RNAV/GPS approaches published, and the controllers are used to working with them. That might not be the case in other regions, YMMV. Most of the 'overlay' approaches are going going gone now.

No doubt. So, in some cases I still must request the GPS approach. (Two examples attached.)

At DHT I still have to do the HILPT at the FAF, which was removed from criteria probably in the late 1990s.

 

[Velocity173]

The controller is required to clear you for what is depicted on the approach plate name and not what's in parenthesis. (4-8-1 (6) 7110.65). They can't clear you for the GPS. Although controllers do it because they might be parroting the pilot, it's actually incorrect. Asking for an LPV approach doesn't exist. They have no idea if an aircraft is executing LPV or LNAV anyway unless the pilot specifies. It doesn't affect their separation, sequencing, or MSAW requirements so it doesn't matter. Circling is important at controlled airfield because you're IFR in the circle. If it's uncontrolled, they probably won't care (radar services terminated) because they're protecting the whole area until you cancel.

 

[aterpster]

The controller is required to clear you for what is depicted on the approach plate name and not what's in parenthesis. (4-8-1 (6) 7110.65). They can't clear you for the GPS. Although controllers do it because they might be parroting the pilot, it's actually incorrect. Asking for an LPV approach doesn't exist. They have no idea if an aircraft is executing LPV or LNAV anyway unless the pilot specifies. It doesn't affect their separation, sequencing, or MSAW requirements so it doesn't matter. Circling is important at controlled airfield because you're IFR in the circle. If it's uncontrolled, they probably won't care (radar services terminated) because they're protecting the whole area until you cancel.

What about in the two examples I posted directly above your post?

 

[John Collins]

What about in the two examples I posted directly above your post?

The FAA is attempting to retire all of the overlay and stand alone GPS procedures. In some cases, the runway would not qualify for a RNAV replacement or would substantially decrease the usability of the approach options, so the existing procedure is kept as the lesser of two evils. I expect you are fully aware of this, but I added it for other readers.

 

[aterpster]

The FAA is attempting to retire all of the overlay and stand alone GPS procedures. In some cases, the runway would not qualify for a RNAV replacement or would substantially decrease the usability of the approach options, so the existing procedure is kept as the lesser of two evils. I expect you are fully aware of this, but I added it for other readers.

That could very well be the case at KIZA but the KDHT procedure should have been retired long ago. Those IAF/FAF HILPTs were dropped early on because they play havoc with the avionics.

 

[aterpster]

Checked the production plan.

KDHT is scheduled to revise in December; KIZA in February, 2014.

 

[Velocity173]

What about in the two examples I posted directly above your post?

Sure. GPS is the approach. Even with the typical RNAV (GPS) depiction, I'm sure we've all gotten a clearance for GPS and not RNAV. To me its not a big deal, I'm just saying, technically the controller isn't suppose to include what's in the parenthesis in the clearance. More importantly, asking for an LPV approach is definitely out of the ballpark as far as approach clearance phraseology. I'd simply come back and say I have your request, then clear the guy for the RNAV. Whether or not his particular GPS goes into LPV is of no use to the controller.

 

[John Collins]

Sure. GPS is the approach. Even with the typical RNAV (GPS) depiction, I'm sure we've all gotten a clearance for GPS and not RNAV. To me its not a big deal, I'm just saying, technically the controller isn't suppose to include what's in the parenthesis in the clearance. More importantly, asking for an LPV approach is definitely out of the ballpark as far as approach clearance phraseology. I'd simply come back and say I have your request, then clear the guy for the RNAV. Whether or not his particular GPS goes into LPV is of no use to the controller.

What is your understanding of a clearance for an ILS if the approach title is "ILS", but has a Localizer option. Is it any different if the title is "ILS or LOC". In other words, is it always the pilot's choice to fly the approach to Localizer minimums using the Localizer procedure if cleared for the ILS? Similar question, if the approach title is VOR or GPS, is it the pilot's option to use either navigation system regardless of which the controller clears the aircraft for assuming that there isn't a NOTAM to the contrary?

I have been searching for specific guidance in 7110.65 and the AIM and have not encountered it as of yet.

 

[Velocity173]

What is your understanding of a clearance for an ILS if the approach title is "ILS", but has a Localizer option. Is it any different if the title is "ILS or LOC". In other words, is it always the pilot's choice to fly the approach to Localizer minimums using the Localizer procedure if cleared for the ILS? Similar question, if the approach title is VOR or GPS, is it the pilot's option to use either navigation system regardless of which the controller clears the aircraft for assuming that there isn't a NOTAM to the contrary?

I have been searching for specific guidance in 7110.65 and the AIM and have not encountered it as of yet.

Well John "understanding" is the best word to describe it. As you said there really isn't any definitive answer in the AIM or the .65.

Since I don't do ATC anymore I asked 3 controller friends the ILS question. All of them work at Class C or higher facilities. First one came back and said he would just clear the aircraft for the LOC. Second answer was a clearance for the ILS and if the pilot came back and said we want the LOC, simply say "approved." Last answer my friend said they were just having this debate at work the other day. He said he clears the aircraft for what's published in the title. If they choose to do a LOC, oh well. He doesn't believe you can clear someone for anything not in the title. I agree with this, with the caveat as I said for a circling approach because the 7110.65 states to include it in the clearance. So, if a guy chooses to do a LOC for training and there is no statement saying "LOC only NA" then I wouldn't care if they did a LOC with an ILS clearance.

Only problem I believe with the above is this. If a guy does a LOC without notifying ATC, the controller may noticed the aircraft going below the glide path and issue a safety alert. More importantly the aircraft could dive to the MDA instead of doing a CANPA and send off MSAW alerts. Still I don't believe it's that important. To me if someone came back and said I want a LOC for an approach that had only ILS in the title, wouldn't be much different than a guy saying they're going to do LNAV instead of LPV on an RNAV (GPS). No big deal. Unless it's circling, what minimums you choose is up to you.

I didn't bring up the second question to my controller friends. All I'll say is if I was on position I would say "cleared approach" and wouldn't care if they were using a VOR or GPS. The "specific procedure to be flown" is the same so it wouldn't matter. Not gonna know from the controller's side what type of Nav you're using anyway.

Of course you could sit a dozen controllers in a room and get different answers to both of these questions. To me personally the topics don't pose a safety issue do I wouldn't care what side a controller takes. I'm surprised Steven hasn't chimed in on this thread. I'd be interested in knowing how he would handle these situations.

 

[alang]

In your neck of the woods, checkout KSTS RWY 14 for a LNAV/VNAV. Your 430W should annunciate L/VNAV. For LP, it depends on the version of software and AFMS you have. If you are at version 3.3 or later and have the associated AFMS (to make it legal) you can do LP procedures. They were just added to the database in the current cycle, so if your DB is older than 2/7/2013 they won't show up. If you meet the requirements, you can find a LP at Rio Vista (O88) RNAV RWY 25.

Thanks, I have them on my list to check out align with a PAR approach at Beale.

Alan