Illegal IFR APP Procedure?

[Hang 4]

@Hang 4

Hang 4, read the section from Velocity173. There is a very limited exception at pilots request. Otherwise, you are always vectored to an approach fix for any GPS approach. Note: it does not have to be IAF. It just base to an AF.

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

Just passing on my experience, almost always get vectors to join between IAF and FAF, rarely get direct to IAF. Maybe we're are talking about something different. Definition of approach gate:
"APPROACH GATE− An imaginary point used within ATC as a basis for vectoring aircraft to the final approach course. The gate will be established along the final approach course 1 mile from the final approach fix on the side away from the airport and will be no closer than 5 miles from the landing threshold."
My interpretation of that is you can be vectored to intercept 2 miles outside the approach gate, which I assume would be inside of the IAF on most approaches. Trying to understand, not argue.. I'd actually prefer to get direct to a fix, much easier single pilot IFR.

 

[tspear]

FAF is an Approach Fix. It is in the name.
Compare this to ILS. On an ILS, ATC can vector to final which is an imaginary line extending straight out from the runway.
For RNAV/RNP, ATC is required to vector you to a fix, or a segment/leg outside of a fix.

Tim

 

[Hang 4]

Tim,

My only point is that I seem to often get vectors to the approach before the FAF and inside the IAF (assuming there are only those two fixes on the approach). So I don't hear cross the IAF or the FAF, but get a final vector 20-30 degrees from the approach course to join. Maybe I'm not getting the point.

 

[luvflyin]

@Hang 4

Hang 4, read the section from Velocity173. There is a very limited exception at pilots request. Otherwise, you are always vectored to an approach fix for any GPS approach. Note: it does not have to be IAF. It just base to an AF.

@Velocity173

Nice to know I recalled it correctly. How did you find the correct manual section?

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol...fm/go/document.current/documentNumber/7110.65

The 5-9-1 above is part of the story. It refers to 4-8-1 h. concerning RNAV Approaches. In a nutshell, yes you can get Vectors to Final. But you don't get maintain[altitude] until 'joining/intercepting/established on' the Localizer/Final Approach Course. You get it until the Fix. They gotta let you know what fix they are vectoring you to. They aren't supposed to just say Vectors to Final and then spring the Fix on you at the last minute. Gotta give you some time to push some buttons on the magic box and get ready for it. At least 5 miles is what they came up with.

 

[luvflyin]

Tim,

My only point is that I seem to often get vectors to the approach before the FAF and inside the IAF (assuming there are only those two fixes on the approach). So I don't hear cross the IAF or the FAF, but get a final vector 20-30 degrees from the approach course to join. Maybe I'm not getting the point.

Yeah. It looks like a VTF, walks like a VTF, but it doesn't Quack exactly like VTF. There are some little differences in phraseology used. (play on the old saying "if it looks like duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.)

 

[John Collins]

FAF is an Approach Fix. It is in the name.
Compare this to ILS. On an ILS, ATC can vector to final which is an imaginary line extending straight out from the runway.
For RNAV/RNP, ATC is required to vector you to a fix, or a segment/leg outside of a fix.

Tim

Tim,

A vector is an assigned heading to fly, the controller is providing for the navigation. Direct to a fix is "own navigation" where the pilot is using their avionics for the navigation. ATC can use either method for joining an RNAV approach. The 7110.65Y section 5-9-1 provides instructions for vectors to the final approach course, which are independent of the approach being a GPS or RNAV approach, other than the exceptions for ceilings at least 500 ft above MVA/3 SM visibility or pilot requests to be vectored inside the gate fix to the FAF that are permitted for ILS, are not permitted for GPS/RNAV. Section 4-8-1 provides for clearing an aircraft for an RNAV approach either after the aircraft is established on a route or portion of an approach or:

4. Where adequate radar coverage exists, radar facilities may vector aircraft to the final approach course in accordance with Paragraph 5−9−1, Vectors to Final Approach Course, and Paragraph 5−9−2, Final Approach Course Interception.
5. Where adequate radar coverage exists, radar facilities may clear an aircraft to any fix 3 NM or more prior to the FAF, along the final approach course, at an intercept angle not greater than 30 degrees.

Note the terminology, rule 4. uses the term vector, rule 5. uses the terminology "may clear".

Also if the route is a random route, the controller must assign an altitude to maintain.

 

[Bill Haley]

I have gotten vectors to final on many RNAV (GPS) approaches. With vectors to final, it is usually between the IAF and the FAF................Sometimes I get cleared to the IAF and get instructions like "Cleared direct SOXOE, maintain 3000' until established, cleared RNAV 18 approach." If vectored to final between IAF and FAF it would be the same clearance while on a given heading which will intercept the final approach course between IAF and FAF.

 

[geezer]

Back to the OP and his instructor.

My issue here is the instructor did the button pushing to convert the approach from the expected to his version.

The pilot being trained should have been required to respond successfully to the unexpected change in the clearance. He should have decided how he could fly from where he was to the runway, done the changes in the navigation equipment to accomplish a safe flight from that point on. If the PIC (OP) was not skilled to make the changes that the instructor did, he should have done the procedure turn, and continued the approach as he expected to.

Sudden changes from the mentally pictured sequence to a new one that has not been thought out is how critical elements of an approach are missed, and aircraft fly outside the protected limits of the approach. I have heard airliners announce "No thanks, I will fly the published procedure" when offered a shortcut with radar vectors.

When in any doubt, fly what you briefed and understand. The terrain in this case is relatively benign, but that is not always true. Google TWA flight 514, Mount Storm, VA. They were flying an approach that they had not properly briefed.

 

[midlifeflyer]

ATC Instructions I recalled:

-Direct to ILIAC
-Cleared for GPS36
-Radar Services Terminated & Fly Missed Approach as published

You also mentioned not being on a NoPT route. With that addition, it sounds pretty straightforward to me.

Not knowing how the approach was initially loaded, im still not sure exactly what happened but your description sounds like your instructor chose to dump the approach and make up his own. "Why?" is a conversation you should have with him.

 

[midlifeflyer]

What? That's definitely false. VTF is pretty common on RNAV approaches

As far as I can tell, they are both pretty common. I expect either when going to a towered airport (and don't care whuch I get), but usually request direct to a fix nontowered.

 

[WDD]

From my understanding I think he did this. Which would have been incorrect as the PT is required.

Help out a IFR student here. Where on the plate does it say a Procedure Turn is required?

If you are on a direct path to the IAF from the south, looks like you wanted to originally turn around 360 degreed, doing a Procedure Turn to get yourself right back to your original heading. (Which means it's not really a turn from your original course - not needed for lining up for the approach, etc.)

 

[John Collins]

The rule is that if a PT is charted, it must be flown. There are 4 exceptions to the rule: 1) You are being vectored to final; 2) The route segment is charted NoPT; 3) ATC clears you with the magic words "Straight In"; or timed approaches are in effect. If none of these exceptions apply, you are required to do the PT. I would expect that in most cases based on your scenario, one would be cleared "Straight In". If you were not cleared Straight In, I would recommend you ask the controller to do so.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Help out a IFR student here. Where on the plate does it say a Procedure Turn is required?

It doesn't have to. As @John Collins response says, if it is on the chart, it must be flown unless an exception applies.

 

[RussR]

Help out a IFR student here. Where on the plate does it say a Procedure Turn is required?

The rule is that if a PT is charted, it must be flown. There are 4 exceptions to the rule: 1) You are being vectored to final; 2) The route segment is charted NoPT; 3) ATC clears you with the magic words "Straight In"; or timed approaches are in effect. If none of these exceptions apply, you are required to do the PT. I would expect that in most cases based on your scenario, one would be cleared "Straight In". If you were not cleared Straight In, I would recommend you ask the controller to do so.

Your reference is AIM 5-4-9.

 

[WDD]

It doesn't have to. As @John Collins response says, if it is on the chart, it must be flown unless an exception applies.

So, anything marked "Hold" before an IAF is to be considered a racetrack procedure turn?

 

[flyingron]

Actually, a racetrack or teardrop depicted as a heavy line is a required PT on the approach, so in the case depicted if you start the approach at ILIAC (and not cleared straight in), you must flyi it. If you fly to WATEN or WAWLS you're exempted due to the NoPT designation on those legs. There's no TAA here so there's no other ways (other than being vectored to final, which also doesn't require a PT) to commence the approach.

The word "HOLD" on that plate refers to the altitude restriction. The HOLD is a HOLD without that word appearing anywhere. Look at some other plates that have hold-in-loos.

 

[Dave Theisen]

I used to teach at a school where all the CFI’s argued whether a procedure turn was required on a certain approach, so one time when I was shooting the approach with a student I asked the Controller if she expected us to do the turn or not and I got a classic response: “I never know what to expect from you pilots”.

 

[WDD]

How is a pre approach hold depicted vs a procedure turn?

 

[John Collins]

Controllers have guidance in 7110.65 in section 4-8-1(a.), note 7 and 4-8-1(e.).

4−8−1. APPROACH CLEARANCE
a. Note 7. 14 CFR Section 91.175(j) requires a pilot to receive a clearance to conduct a procedure turn when vectored to a final approach course or fix, conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure specifies “NO PT.”

e. If a procedure turn, hold-in-lieu of procedure turn, or arrival holding pattern is depicted and the angle of intercept is 90 degrees or less, the aircraft must be instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn or hold-in-lieu of procedure turn.

Pilots have guidance in the AIM:

5−4−9. Procedure Turn and Hold−in−lieu of Procedure Turn
a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final
approach course. The procedure turn or hold−in− lieu−of−PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart, unless cleared by ATC for a straight−in approach. Additionally, the procedure turn or hold−in−lieu−of−PT is not permitted when the symbol “No PT” is depicted on the initial segment being used, when a RADAR VECTOR to the final approach course is provided, or when conducting a timed approach from a holding fix. The altitude prescribed for the procedure turn is a minimum altitude until the aircraft is established on the inbound course. The maneuver must be completed within the distance specified in the profile view. For a hold−in−lieu−of−PT, the holding pattern direction must be flown as depicted and the specified leg length/timing must not be exceeded.
NOTE−
The pilot may elect to use the procedure turn or hold−in−lieu−of−PT when it is not required by the procedure, but must first receive an amended clearance from ATC. If the pilot is uncertain whether the ATC clearance intends for a procedure turn to be conducted or to allow for a straight−in approach, the pilot must immediately request clarification from ATC (14 CFR Section 91.123).

The relevant regulations are found in 91.175(j) Limitation on procedure turns and in 97.3.

97.3 Symbols and terms used in procedures.
As used in the standard instrument procedures prescribed in this part—
Procedure turn means the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach course. The outbound course, direction of turn, distance within which the turn must be completed, and minimum altitude are specified in the procedure. However, the point at which the turn may be begun, and the type and rate of turn, is left to the discretion of the pilot.

The determination of "when it is necessary to ... "is left to the procedure designer when they follow TERPS guidelines.

The FAA General Counsel Opinion is attached.

 

[luvflyin]

Pre

How is a pre approach hold depicted vs a procedure turn?

pre approach hold ??? Not sure what you mean by that. If you mean an HILPT, it is depicted in bold black

 

[luvflyin]

I used to teach at a school where all the CFI’s argued whether a procedure turn was required on a certain approach, so one time when I was shooting the approach with a student I asked the Controller if she expected us to do the turn or not and I got a classic response: “I never know what to expect from you pilots”.

And that is often because they don’t know what they are supposed to expect. But they are supposed to.

 

[WDD]

Pre

pre approach hold ??? Not sure what you mean by that. If you mean an HILPT, it is depicted in bold black

If ATC puts you in a hold prior to moving you to the IAF.

 

[luvflyin]

If ATC puts you in a hold prior to moving you to the IAF.

They can do that anywhere whether it’s Charted or not. The ones that are Charted are Arrival Holds. They are thin black

 

[Palmpilot]

...Look at some other plates that have hold-in-loos.

hold-in-lieu

 

[WDD]

• Arrival hold = thin black
• Missed hold = dashed black

• Procedure turn = either solid thick black or dashed line. Why is the procedure turn in the example chart not dashed instead of it being solid black?

• A hold is a hold if it doesn’t say hold
• If something says hold it isn’t a hold but a procedure turn that wants you to hold altitude during the turn

So… is that all correct? Almost?

 

[midlifeflyer]

hold-in-lieu

Maybe he was referring to

 

[luvflyin]

hold

• Arrival hold = thin black
• Missed hold = dashed black

• Procedure turn = either solid thick black or dashed line. Why is the procedure turn in the example chart not dashed instead of it being solid black?

• A hold is a hold if it doesn’t say hold
• If something says hold it isn’t a hold but a procedure turn that wants you to hold altitude during the turn

So… is that all correct? Almost?

I’ve never seen a dashed Procedure Turn. You will see dashed Missed Approach Holds. Sometimes they are at an IAF where a Procedure Turn starts and sometimes they are aligned with the Procedure Turn inbound. It’s not uncommon for folk to refer to these as a HILPT. They are not. If you choose to do the racetrack method of Procedure Turn, they give you a nice picture of what it will look like. You can do the racetrack method though, even if there is not one there. A holding pattern does not need the word Hold on the Chart. When you see it, it is telling what the Minimum Holding Altitude is, and sometimes the Maximum Altitude. If you see “Hold” it will be associated with a Holding Pattern. But not all Holding Patterns will have it.

 

[luvflyin]

hold-in-lieu

It is good to hold while in the loo. Otherwise it could get messy

 

[David Megginson]

I have read by a few ATC plus and FAA rep that ATC is not allowed to do vectors to final for any GPS approach. It will always be to an approach fix.
So consider that aspect from a training perspective.


Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

Don't count on that across the border. I recently got VTF for an RNAV (LPV) approach into CYOW. Originally, I was cleared for an initial waypoint at the end of the T, but then I got vectored around for conflicting traffic, and in the end ATC put me on an intercept for an extended final (as if it were an ILS). No big deal, but a bit of last-moment button pushing.

 

[RussR]

I have read by a few ATC plus and FAA rep that ATC is not allowed to do vectors to final for any GPS approach. It will always be to an approach fix.
So consider that aspect from a training perspective.


Tim

Don't count on that across the border. I recently got VTF for an RNAV (LPV) approach into CYOW. Originally, I was cleared for an initial waypoint at the end of the T, but then I got vectored around for conflicting traffic, and in the end ATC put me on an intercept for an extended final (as if it were an ILS). No big deal, but a bit of last-moment button pushing.

His statement isn't correct here either. It's routine to get vectors to final on an RNAV approach, just like an ILS or anything else. It, of course, DOES depend on radar coverage and type of control facility.

 

[EdFred]

His statement isn't correct here either. It's routine to get vectors to final on an RNAV approach, just like an ILS or anything else. It, of course, DOES depend on radar coverage and type of control facility.

...and the amount of traffic or how busy the controller is, or isn't.

 

[tspear]

@John Collins

Do you have any incite on the RNAV vector to final or only to an approach point?

Tim

 

[RussR]

@John Collins

Do you have any incite on the RNAV vector to final or only to an approach point?

Tim

7110.65Z, para 5-9-1 is your reference for vectors to final. It makes no exception for RNAV procedures. There IS an additional limitation on RNAV procedures regarding how close to the FAF the controller can vector you compared to a non-RNAV procedure, but this only applies in edge cases (i.e. tight vectors). There is no prohibition against vectors to final for RNAV procedures.

I'm not sure what the controllers you were talking to or reading about were saying, or if there was a miscommunication, because vectors to RNAV finals is a routine operation and happens all day long. If you are an active IFR pilot flying RNAV procedures, I'm really surprised you haven't ever been issued vectors to final. All the (modern) GPS units have an option to load "vectors to final" as well.

 

[Hang 4]

I always get VTF to an RNAV, even one with "T" fixes. Single pilot, I'd rather get the fix as a transition vs vectors as it reduces the workload.

 

[midlifeflyer]

@John Collins

Do you have any incite on the RNAV vector to final or only to an approach point?

Tim

Does having actually received vectors to final rather than to an IAF/IF at both towered and untowered airports count? OTOH, do you have any reference to say they can't?

Funny. some history on the exact opposite. Years ago when RNAV (GPS) was fairly new, and I was based at KAPA in Denver, I used to fly them for practice with Denver Approach. I asked for direct to an IAF and Denver TRACON informed me they were unable - their sopes were not yet set up to see those RNAV waypoints! So of course, it was vectors to final.