IFR Approach Debate

[drgwentzel]

IFR Flyers,

I had a difference of opinion with another pilot yesterday during an IFR approach, so let me run the scenario by the group and let's discuss what the group think is.

I was the pilot flying and the other pilot was the pilot monitoring. We were flying into EWR shooting an ILS approach into runway 22R. https://www.airnav.com/depart?http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2109/00285IL22R.PDF

On the en-route structure we were cleared direct AGNSS and told to descend to 3000'. The GPS showed that we were 35 miles from this fix.

The direct track to AGNSS put us on a 90 degree intercept angle to the ILS approach course. At about 5 miles before to AGNSS ATC stated, "UE4388 cleared for the ILS 22R approach."

As I got closer to the course I switched to heading mode and turned the plane about 30 degrees to the right to obtain a more shallow intercept angle. The other pilot immediately objected and stated, "No, you have to cross AGNSS first because that was our clearance."

I retorted, "No, he did not state something like, '...cross AGNSS at 3000, cleared for the approach.' He simply stated, '...cleared for the approach.' Therefore, we can fly any heading or altitude which will intercept the localizer and glide slope and fly the approach effectively and safely."

He just remained silent, but I could tell he didn't agree. I said, "We'll discuss it on the ground." Unfortunately, we were in a hurry and just left it alone.

My thought is, if the controller wanted us to cross a fix, fly a heading or hold an altitude or airspeed, that would have been placed in the clearance dialogue.

Something like, "UE4388, fly heading 090, cross AGNSS at 3000, 180 knots until 5 mile final, cleared for the approach."

None of that was stated. What are the thoughts of the group?

 

[MauleSkinner]

You were cleared to AGNES, and then the approach. The controller did not use proper terminology, but your clearance to a fix on the approach doesn’t authorize you to fly “any heading or altitude that will intercept the localizer and glideslope.” You’re still cleared to the fix on the approach.

if he wanted you to fly an altitude or heading to intercept, he would have given you those.

 

[flyingron]

If you're not on a published feeder route or part of the approach you shouldn't be wandering off your assigned route. I don't think this approach clearance wording was proper, according to the controller rules.

 

[Timbeck2]

At about 5 miles before to AGNSS ATC stated, "UE4388 cleared for the ILS 22R approach."

Controller was wrong. He should have said, "five miles from AGNSS turn right heading ***, maintain three thousand until established on the localizer, cleared ILS runway two two right approach." If the controller had done it the right way, you wouldn't be having this dispute.

Unless of course you're paraphrasing then all bets are off.

 

[luvflyin]

IFR Flyers,

I had a difference of opinion with another pilot yesterday during an IFR approach, so let me run the scenario by the group and let's discuss what the group think is.

I was the pilot flying and the other pilot was the pilot monitoring. We were flying into EWR shooting an ILS approach into runway 22R. https://www.airnav.com/depart?http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2109/00285IL22R.PDF

On the en-route structure we were cleared direct AGNSS and told to descend to 3000'. The GPS showed that we were 35 miles from this fix.

The direct track to AGNSS put us on a 90 degree intercept angle to the ILS approach course. At about 5 miles before to AGNSS ATC stated, "UE4388 cleared for the ILS 22R approach."

As I got closer to the course I switched to heading mode and turned the plane about 30 degrees to the right to obtain a more shallow intercept angle. The other pilot immediately objected and stated, "No, you have to cross AGNSS first because that was our clearance."

I retorted, "No, he did not state something like, '...cross AGNSS at 3000, cleared for the approach.' He simply stated, '...cleared for the approach.' Therefore, we can fly any heading or altitude which will intercept the localizer and glide slope and fly the approach effectively and safely."

He just remained silent, but I could tell he didn't agree. I said, "We'll discuss it on the ground." Unfortunately, we were in a hurry and just left it alone.

My thought is, if the controller wanted us to cross a fix, fly a heading or hold an altitude or airspeed, that would have been placed in the clearance dialogue.

Something like, "UE4388, fly heading 090, cross AGNSS at 3000, 180 knots until 5 mile final, cleared for the approach."

None of that was stated. What are the thoughts of the group?

Bad clearance by the Controller. FAR 91.175 (i) has some stuff to say about what you have to do when you get a bad clearance like that altitude wise. If you want some history on where that came from, google TWA 514. As far as the maneuvering to get a better angle at AGNSS, that's a no no also. I don't know the reference right off hand and don't have time to look right now.

TWA Flight 514

 

[drgwentzel]

If you're not on a published feeder route or part of the approach you shouldn't be wandering off your assigned route. I don't think this approach was proper, according to the controller rules.

That's part of the point...the controller should have provided a heading to intercept and an altitude to maintain until established. This was not a visual approach clearance.

When I hear ATC simply state only, "Cleared for the Approach" and nothing else, as far as I'm concerned, that cancels any prior assigned heading, fix, altitude or airspeed restrictions. When we are CLEARED for the approach with nothing else stated, IMHO *we* become responsible for getting established on the localizer and GS safely and efficiently.

Probably, in such a nebulous clearance, querying the controller would have been most appropriate.

 

[Clip4]

We’re you IFR you and the controller were wrong. VFR not so much.

 

[David Megginson]

IFR Flyers,

I had a difference of opinion with another pilot yesterday during an IFR approach, so let me run the scenario by the group and let's discuss what the group think is.

I was the pilot flying and the other pilot was the pilot monitoring. We were flying into EWR shooting an ILS approach into runway 22R. https://www.airnav.com/depart?http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2109/00285IL22R.PDF

On the en-route structure we were cleared direct AGNSS and told to descend to 3000'. The GPS showed that we were 35 miles from this fix.

The direct track to AGNSS put us on a 90 degree intercept angle to the ILS approach course. At about 5 miles before to AGNSS ATC stated, "UE4388 cleared for the ILS 22R approach."

As I got closer to the course I switched to heading mode and turned the plane about 30 degrees to the right to obtain a more shallow intercept angle. The other pilot immediately objected and stated, "No, you have to cross AGNSS first because that was our clearance."

I retorted, "No, he did not state something like, '...cross AGNSS at 3000, cleared for the approach.' He simply stated, '...cleared for the approach.' Therefore, we can fly any heading or altitude which will intercept the localizer and glide slope and fly the approach effectively and safely."

He just remained silent, but I could tell he didn't agree. I said, "We'll discuss it on the ground." Unfortunately, we were in a hurry and just left it alone.

My thought is, if the controller wanted us to cross a fix, fly a heading or hold an altitude or airspeed, that would have been placed in the clearance dialogue.

Something like, "UE4388, fly heading 090, cross AGNSS at 3000, 180 knots until 5 mile final, cleared for the approach."

None of that was stated. What are the thoughts of the group?

In Canada, at least, I think you'd have been right — "cleared for the approach" means you can go ahead and fly it by the most expeditious means possible (and, up here, also implies permission to descend to MSA, though I know that's not the case in the U.S.). A new clearance cancels out the old one, and I would have expected "After AGNSS, cleared for the XXX approach..." if they'd still wanted me to fly via the fix. But that said, it's ambiguous enough that I would have asked ATC for clarification (I'm never shy about that).

Sometimes, when there's not much traffic around, we even get "Cleared for an approach", which means you can pick whichever one you want and join it any way you want.

(Update: corrected typo reported by @Clip4 "MDA" => "MSA".)

 

[drgwentzel]

Bad clearance by the Controller. FAR 91.175 (i) has some stuff to say about what you have to do when you get a bad clearance like that altitude wise. If you want some history on where that came from, google TWA 514. As far as the maneuvering to get a better angle at AGNSS, that's a no no also. I don't know the reference right off hand and don't have time to look right now.

TWA Flight 514

So that investigation really helps! Especially this quote,

"It was common practice at the time for controllers to release a flight to its own navigation with "Cleared for the approach," and flight crews commonly believed that was also authorization to descend to the altitude at which the final segment of the approach began. No clear indication had been given by controllers to Flight 514 that they were no longer on a radar vector segment and therefore responsible for their own navigation.

Procedures were clarified after this accident. Controllers now state, "Maintain (specified altitude) until established on a portion of the approach," and pilots now understand that previously assigned altitudes prevail until an altitude change is authorized on the published approach segment the aircraft is currently flying."

 

[midlifeflyer]

I don't understand the comments saying the controller was wrong. Exactly what is wrong with a 90 degree turn at an IF? It's the most common turn at an IF on a TAA. You are 2.4 from the next waypoint and almost 7 from the FAF. I'd be flying direct to AGNSS per the instruction and turning onto the FAC.

 

[David Megginson]

I don't understand the comments saying the controller was wrong. Exactly what is wrong with a 90 degree turn at an IF? It's the most common turn at an IF on a TAA. You are 2.4 from the next waypoint and almost 7 from the FAF. I'd be flying direct to AGNSS per the instruction and turning onto the FAC.

I don't think people are saying that routing would have been wrong. I think it's just that the controller should have been clearer or the pilot should have asked for clarification, either

"Five miles from AGNSS; cleared for the XXX approach..." (and maybe a vector, if they wanted the OP to join the approach directly)

or

"After AGNSS, cleared for the XXX approach..." (if they'd wanted the pilot to continue on the old clearance to AGNSS first, then join the approach)

 

[dtuuri]

At about 5 miles before to AGNSS ATC stated, "UE4388 cleared for the ILS 22R approach."

As I got closer to the course I switched to heading mode and turned the plane about 30 degrees to the right to obtain a more shallow intercept angle.

Lessee, you're going 2 or 3 miles per minute and somewhat closer than 5 miles, say about 4 remaining when you turned. If you wait for AGNSS you'll blast through the localizer and need to come back to re-intercept. Your way, you make a nice pretty turn-on and don't scare the controller cause you're pointed straight at La Guardia after you cross AGNSS. I'm with YOU, Captain! Good job.

 

[dtuuri]

...as far as I'm concerned, that cancels any prior assigned heading, fix, altitude or airspeed restrictions. When we are CLEARED for the approach with nothing else stated, IMHO *we* become responsible for getting established on the localizer and GS safely and efficiently.

With emphasis on "safely". IIRC, a DC-8(?) crew took a short-cut to final off a DME arc in Alaska and paid the ultimate price.

 

[luvflyin]

I don't understand the comments saying the controller was wrong. Exactly what is wrong with a 90 degree turn at an IF? It's the most common turn at an IF on a TAA. You are 2.4 from the next waypoint and almost 7 from the FAF. I'd be flying direct to AGNSS per the instruction and turning onto the FAC.

??? The Controller was absolutely wrong in not giving an altitude to maintain until established on a published segment. The pilot was wrong in not complying with ‘direct AGNSS.’ The is 90 degrees enough or not is another part of the discussion.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Agreed….the only thing I’d a done differently is made sure my intercept turn included the IF at AGNSS. That may have required turning before AGNSS so that you fly thru the fix. 3,000 feet is the MSA so that’s fine.

Lessee, you're going 2 or 3 miles per minute and somewhat closer than 5 miles, say about 4 remaining when you turned. If you wait for AGNSS you'll blast through the localizer and need to come back to re-intercept. Your way, you make a nice pretty turn-on and don't scare the controller cause you're pointed straight at La Guardia after you cross AGNSS. I'm with YOU, Captain! Good job.

 

[PaulS]

As soon as there was a doubt, you should have asked.

 

[Timbeck2]

I don't understand the comments saying the controller was wrong. Exactly what is wrong with a 90 degree turn at an IF? It's the most common turn at an IF on a TAA. You are 2.4 from the next waypoint and almost 7 from the FAF. I'd be flying direct to AGNSS per the instruction and turning onto the FAC.

As you know, I’m usually the first to defend controllers. The 90 degree turn wasn’t what I referenced when I said he was wrong. It was the abbreviated approach clearance in which the PTAC only consisted of a C; he left out the PTA part.

 

[midlifeflyer]

??? The Controller was absolutely wrong in not giving an altitude to maintain until established on a published segment. The pilot was wrong in not complying with ‘direct AGNSS.’ The is 90 degrees enough or not is another part of the discussion.

I know the best thing for a controller to do is to give or restate the altitude to maintain but he was already given an altitude to maintain until AGNSS. The last assigned altitude until on a published course.

sorry, but I had no problem understanding what the controller said and what I was expected to do, assuming, of course, that we are getting a verbatim description.

 

[bluesky74656]

My original thought was that, given the phrasing, you wouldn’t be in a vectors to final situation and would be expected to fly the course reversal at AGNSS. Then I looked at the procedure and saw that there isn’t a course reversal and the only way to get on the approach is radar vectors.

I would have expected an intercept vector, but without one I think you’d have to treat the present heading as an intercept vector. By which I mean that you would fly that heading until the localizer started coming in, then turn inbound to intercept without needing to actually fly over AGNSS. I would also maintain the last assigned altitude until established.

Probably easier in a Bonanza than whatever you were flying.

 

[Captain Bubba]

I don't understand the comments saying the controller was wrong. Exactly what is wrong with a 90 degree turn at an IF? It's the most common turn at an IF on a TAA. You are 2.4 from the next waypoint and almost 7 from the FAF. I'd be flying direct to AGNSS per the instruction and turning onto the FAC.

The rules for RNAV are a bit different. For other approaches intercept angles while being vectored are generally 30 degrees or less.

The reference is in FAA order 7110.65.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap5_section_9.html

 

[Larry in TN]

As an airline pilot who has flown into EWR many hundreds of times, including flying the same approach earlier today, I can't imagine New York Approach issuing that clearance. In my experience, they always provide a final vector and they always provide an altitude to maintain in the approach clearance unless you are already on a published segment. What made this instance different?

In any case, your RNAV Navigator (your GPS) would have treated AGNSS as a Fly-By waypoint, not a Fly-Over waypoint. It would have led the turn to final so that you wouldn't overshoot final. With such a clearance, I would leave the airplane in LNAV mode for the turn to final and not armed the approach (LOC/GS) until it has established me on the final course. This would prevent the LOC capture from messing up the smooth turn to final that the RNAV (GPS) was attempting to accomplish.

Now, how well your GPS handles the Fly-By waypoint and turn to Final may vary depending on what equipment the airplane had.

 

[PaulS]

As an airline pilot who has flown into EWR many hundreds of times, including flying the same approach earlier today, I can't imagine New York Approach issuing that clearance. In my experience, they always provide a final vector and they always provide an altitude to maintain in the approach clearance unless you are already on a published segment. What made this instance different?

In any case, your RNAV Navigator (your GPS) would have treated AGNSS as a Fly-By waypoint, not a Fly-Over waypoint. It would have led the turn to final so that you wouldn't overshoot final. With such a clearance, I would leave the airplane in LNAV mode for the turn to final and not armed the approach (LOC/GS) until it has established me on the final course. This would prevent the LOC capture from messing up the smooth turn to final that the RNAV (GPS) was attempting to accomplish.

Now, how well your GPS handles the Fly-By waypoint and turn to Final may vary depending on what equipment the airplane had.

You know, I read the post again. He was cleared to AGNSS about 35 miles out, then about 5 miles out he was cleared for the approach, I've been cleared like this many times, he was not on vectors to final. . He should have crossed AGNSS, he absolutely screwed up, lucky he wasn't violated.

 

[bluesky74656]

You know, I read the post again. He was cleared to AGNSS about 35 miles out, then about 5 miles out he was cleared for the approach, I've been cleared like this many times, he was not on vectors to final. . He should have crossed AGNSS, he absolutely screwed up, lucky he wasn't violated.

That’s what I thought until I looked at the chart. There’s no course reversal and there’s a note that radar is required for the procedure entry. There’s no way to get on the procedure except vectors to final. So, he was on vectors to final, they just forgot to give him a vector.

 

[bluesky74656]

Actually, this is Newark so it should be easy to figure out. What time was this, we can find it on LiveATC.

 

[PaulS]

That’s what I thought until I looked at the chart. There’s no course reversal and there’s a note that radar is required for the procedure entry. There’s no way to get on the procedure except vectors to final. So, he was on vectors to final, they just forgot to give him a vector.

It was the IF, he said he was on a 90 degree intercept, he was on radar, I would have just flown to AGNSS, made the turn and flown the approach. If I had any question, especially if another pilot in the cockpit questioned me, I would have called the controller and asked.

 

[Larry in TN]

You know, I read the post again. He was cleared to AGNSS about 35 miles out, then about 5 miles out he was cleared for the approach, I've been cleared like this many times, he was not on vectors to final. . He should have crossed AGNSS, he absolutely screwed up, lucky he wasn't violated.

That's my read as well. However, since he was on a random (i.e. non-published) routing to AGNSS, the approach clearance should have included an altitude assignment.

I'm also a bit confused by it as this isn't a clearance for an ILS that I've ever seen New York Approach issue for flights into EWR. I've only heard them do it, with an altitude assignment, for the charter visual approach procedure, the Stadium Visual Rwy 29. For the ILS, they'll give us Direct TEB (for the ILS 22L which is currently unavailable), which COULD work as we're saying, but they'll also give a vector to join within a few miles of the centerline. They never let us navigate the turn to final at TEB.

So, two things that, in my experience, are unusual. The approach clearance with an altitude assignment and not providing a final turn to the final approach course. I'm not saying that it didn't happen that way, just that it would be very unusual if it did.

 

[Sluggo63]

...assuming, of course, that we are getting a verbatim description.

This. I was wondering if the LiveATC recording is available. Sometimes what we hear and what we remember aren't exactly what actually happened.

 

[Sluggo63]

It was the IF, he said he was on a 90 degree intercept, he was on radar, I would have just flown to AGNSS, made the turn and flown the approach. If I had any question, especially if another pilot in the cockpit questioned me, I would have called the controller and asked.

Seems like this is getting lost in the discussion. Anytime there's a question in the cockpit about a clearance, I always just get on the radio and ask.

The other pilot immediately objected and stated, "No, you have to cross AGNSS first because that was our clearance."

I retorted, "No, he did not state something like, '...cross AGNSS at 3000, cleared for the approach.' He simply stated, '...cleared for the approach.' Therefore, we can fly any heading or altitude which will intercept the localizer and glide slope and fly the approach effectively and safely."

He just remained silent, but I could tell he didn't agree. I said, "We'll discuss it on the ground." Unfortunately, we were in a hurry and just left it alone.

This is a HUGE red flag in a crewed airplane. Just get on the mic and ask "you want us to cross AGNSS first or do you want us on a heading to intercept?" That would have cleared up any confusion, and would have brought the crew back together CRM-wise. I can't count how many times someone will dial in an altitude into the MCP and the other pilot will say something like "I thought he said..." Right there is my cue to get on the radio and confirm that we both heard the same altitude. I don't care if I'm right, or the other pilot is right. I just want us to be right.

 

[luvflyin]

As you know, I’m usually the first to defend controllers. The 90 degree turn wasn’t what I referenced when I said he was wrong. It was the abbreviated approach clearance in which the PTAC only consisted of a C; he left out the PTA part.

Could they have vectored him to final, yeah. Should they have, that is arguable. But they didn’t vector him to final. So PT is not a part of what happened to the OP. It wasn’t a PTAC. It was an AC. And they left the A out.

 

[luvflyin]

I know the best thing for a controller to do is to give or restate the altitude to maintain but he was already given an altitude to maintain until AGNSS. The last assigned altitude until on a published course.

sorry, but I had no problem understanding what the controller said and what I was expected to do, assuming, of course, that we are getting a verbatim description.

I hear what your saying. But it’s more than a ‘best thing’ to give the altitude. It is a required thing. The Controller never said(I’m taking the OP’s narrative at face value) maintain 3000 until AGNSS. He was cleared direct AGNESS and descended to 3000. Then later, simply Cleared for the Approach. Never was given maintain 3000 until AGNESS. Yeah, it’s a no harm no foul kinda thing in this particular scenario in as much as 3000 is the minimum altitude at AGNSS.

 

[luvflyin]

As an airline pilot who has flown into EWR many hundreds of times, including flying the same approach earlier today, I can't imagine New York Approach issuing that clearance. In my experience, they always provide a final vector and they always provide an altitude to maintain in the approach clearance unless you are already on a published segment. What made this instance different?

In any case, your RNAV Navigator (your GPS) would have treated AGNSS as a Fly-By waypoint, not a Fly-Over waypoint. It would have led the turn to final so that you wouldn't overshoot final. With such a clearance, I would leave the airplane in LNAV mode for the turn to final and not armed the approach (LOC/GS) until it has established me on the final course. This would prevent the LOC capture from messing up the smooth turn to final that the RNAV (GPS) was attempting to accomplish.

Now, how well your GPS handles the Fly-By waypoint and turn to Final may vary depending on what equipment the airplane had.

Yeah on the flyby thing. The whole Direct AGNESS thing wouldn’t have worked in the first place without the plane being RNAV equipped.

 

[Clip4]

In Canada, at least, I think you'd have been right — "cleared for the approach" means you can go ahead and fly it by the most expeditious means possible (and, up here, also implies permission to descend to MDA, though I know that's not the case in the U.S.). A new clearance cancels out the old one, and I would have expected "After AGNSS, cleared for the XXX approach..." if they'd still wanted me to fly via the fix. But that said, it's ambiguous enough that I would have asked ATC for clarification (I'm never shy about that).

Sometimes, when there's not much traffic around, we even get "Cleared for an approach", which means you can pick whichever one you want and join it any way you want.

Really? Where does you are cleared for the approach you can descend to the MDA come from. Sounds like a good way to die.

• 602.127 (1) Unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit, the pilot-in-command of an IFR aircraft shall, when conducting an approach to an aerodrome or a runway, ensure that the approach is made in accordance with the instrument approach procedure.
  

 

[luvflyin]

Really? Where does you are cleared for the approach you can descend to the MDA come from. Sounds like a good way to die.

• 602.127 (1) Unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit, the pilot-in-command of an IFR aircraft shall, when conducting an approach to an aerodrome or a runway, ensure that the approach is made in accordance with the instrument approach procedure.

Just checked, yup, D is right next to S on a keyboard

 

[Kritchlow]

My vote is the OP was wrong. Have gotten several similar clearances. Never questioned it.
If you could do whatever you wanted, what would stop you from making figure eights in the sky for an hour before you executed the approach?

 

[midlifeflyer]

The rules for RNAV are a bit different. For other approaches intercept angles while being vectored are generally 30 degrees or less.

The reference is in FAA order 7110.65.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap5_section_9.html

That discusses vectors to the final approach course (which applies just as much to vectors to the FAC on an RNAV approach). This scenario is not vectors to the FAC. Instead it was

we were cleared direct AGNSS

 

[midlifeflyer]

You know, I read the post again. He was cleared to AGNSS about 35 miles out, then about 5 miles out he was cleared for the approach, I've been cleared like this many times, he was not on vectors to final. . He should have crossed AGNSS, he absolutely screwed up, lucky he wasn't violated.

Of course. Me too. Direct to an IF, cleared for the approach. Pretty basic. I have no idea why so many are treating the blue line as though it were the red line.

 

[midlifeflyer]

That's my read as well. However, since he was on a random (i.e. non-published) routing to AGNSS, the approach clearance should have included an altitude assignment.

You mean like

n the en-route structure we were cleared direct AGNSS and told to descend to 3000'. The GPS showed that we were 35 miles from this fix.

Yes, if I recall the Dot 65 correctly, ATC should have repeated the altitude with the approach clearance as, "maintain 3000 until AGNSS. Cleared for..." But the OP's description indicates the problem was not the altitude. It was not understanding the lateral instruction to go direct to AGNSS and turn onto the extended FAC 6.7 nm before the PFAF.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Really? Where does you are cleared for the approach you can descend to the MDA come from. Sounds like a good way to die.

• 602.127 (1) Unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit, the pilot-in-command of an IFR aircraft shall, when conducting an approach to an aerodrome or a runway, ensure that the approach is made in accordance with the instrument approach procedure.

99.9999% certain he did not mean while 35 miles away from any IAF, but that "cleared for the approach" means permission to descent to all published altitudes, in sequence, including the MDA.

But I can't imagine @David Megginson' is correct that in Canada, a clearance direct to an IAF or IF combined with an approach clearance, cancels the "direct" portion and allows a pilot to create their own intercept to the FAC without ever going to the IAF or IF.

 

[flyingpreacher]

@drgwentzel Can you give us an approximate (closer the better) time when this approach clearance was given? We could go back and track down the audio through LiveATC and remove all the confusion and give you a better answer. (If nobody gets to it before then, I'll work to pull it while y'all are sleeping tonight as I've got the graveyard shift with nothing but time.)

 

[dtuuri]

OP said, "As I got closer to the course I switched to heading mode..."

So, at his speed (I'd guess near 200 KIAS) and "closer" than 5 nm from the IF, this looks to me to be about the same thing an autopilot would do only hedged a tad early for human response time. If you look at the RNAV approach to the same runway the IF is a fly-by waypoint (aren't they all?) for autopilot turn anticipation. I see no serious difference in the OP's technique and even see evidence of good thinking. YMMV.