Interesting Approach - Not Sure I've Seen This Before

bigmo

bigmo

Pre-Flight
Joined
Feb 4, 2024
Messages
37
Location
KALN
Display Name
Display name:
bigmo
Flew my wife and I down to Nashville for a great weekend of music and landed at KJWN. SUPER busy airport for a Friday arrival. Was told to expect the RNAV2 early on by Nashville Approach. Wound up playing the vector game for 20 mins while a bunch of PJs landed. There were 3-4 GA aircraft in the same boat as me, and luckily I was first to get called out. When it was my turn I was cleared straight in via FUNJO, but had a greater than 90 degree turn (was holding via vectors to the northwest of FUNJO). No issue as I can slow things down quite a bit. I mentally thought it was odd that I was cleared straight in and then realized there's no procedure turn or barb whatsoever. Initially, when I was told to expect this approach, I was on a heading of around 160, so the turn at FUNJO would have nearly been a 180.

I've not seen this before. Is this just one of those approaches that controllers will always vector until something that resembles a 90 degree or less turn (mine was probably 120 degrees)?
 

Attachments

  • jwn.jpg
    jwn.jpg
    165.5 KB · Views: 123
bigmo said:
Flew my wife and I down to Nashville for a great weekend of music and landed at KJWN. SUPER busy airport for a Friday arrival. Was told to expect the RNAV2 early on by Nashville Approach. Wound up playing the vector game for 20 mins while a bunch of PJs landed. There were 3-4 GA aircraft in the same boat as me, and luckily I was first to get called out. When it was my turn I was cleared straight in via FUNJO, but had a greater than 90 degree turn (was holding via vectors to the northwest of FUNJO). No issue as I can slow things down quite a bit. I mentally thought it was odd that I was cleared straight in and then realized there's no procedure turn or barb whatsoever. Initially, when I was told to expect this approach, I was on a heading of around 160, so the turn at FUNJO would have nearly been a 180.

I've not seen this before. Is this just one of those approaches that controllers will always vector until something that resembles a 90 degree or less turn (mine was probably 120 degrees)?
Click to expand...
So you arrived at FUNJO heading about 160 and turned inbound? You must have done it pretty slow and tight to stay within tolerance. What Annunciation did you get? Did it allow LPV. For what it's worth the 90 degree thing you were talking about applies at IAF's. The required intercept for the Controller to give you for the IF, FUNJO, is no more than30 degrees...

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.

EDIT: I got this wrong. Didn’t read the entire section. See @John Collins post #12 below.
 
Last edited:
Yep. Just one of a number of approaches with no procedure turns.

luvflyin said:
The required intercept for the Controller to give you for the IF, FUNJO, is no more than30 degrees...
Click to expand...
I have a question about that. This is an approach which could have been designed as a T with 90 degree turns at the intermediate fix, FUNJO, built into the procedure. It's surprising that ATC has to treat it just like a VTF.
 
Thanks guys for the info & confirmation. I would have questioned it, but they were SUPER busy and frankly knew I could easily make the turn. The way they were vectoring us to the west of the IF, had I been on the south end of my vectored circuit, I'd have been much closer to a 30 degree entry. He called me out at the north side (I was the lowest of the 3-4 stacked aircraft), so my entry was much closer to a 90 degree entry. I do recall my GTN displaying 'Sharp Turn' or something as it rolled into the IF.

Truth be told, I knew I could make the turn and after 20+ mins of vectors, I was ready to land (and my wife was getting nauseous).

This was more about me understanding that the entry was out of the norm. TBH, I don't think I've seen an approach without a procedure turn, or if I did, I was getting vectored straight in and it just didn;t register as odd.

Appreciate the info!
 
Does it have anything to do with the IF being 12+ miles from the runway threshold and 6 miles from the FAF? Seems like that offers a lot of room to make some sort of buttonhook turn to get established, but then I also fly a slow-as-molasses bugsmasher, not a bizjet.
 
In the Citation I was once cleared for an RNAV approach to a smaller airport in Texas. The turn at the IAF was close to 170 degrees with no published course reversal procedure. In fact, I was very close to a victor airway that the approach said NA headed my direction. I questioned the center controller, and they cleared me to maneuver as necessary. So, I did. KBMQ RNAV 01 southbound maybe 2nm east of V163.
 
bigmo said:
Thanks guys for the info & confirmation. I would have questioned it, but they were SUPER busy and frankly knew I could easily make the turn. The way they were vectoring us to the west of the IF, had I been on the south end of my vectored circuit, I'd have been much closer to a 30 degree entry. He called me out at the north side (I was the lowest of the 3-4 stacked aircraft), so my entry was much closer to a 90 degree entry. I do recall my GTN displaying 'Sharp Turn' or something as it rolled into the IF.

Truth be told, I knew I could make the turn and after 20+ mins of vectors, I was ready to land (and my wife was getting nauseous).

This was more about me understanding that the entry was out of the norm. TBH, I don't think I've seen an approach without a procedure turn, or if I did, I was getting vectored straight in and it just didn;t register as odd.

Appreciate the info!
Click to expand...
I’ve been wondering how it looked. FUNJO is Flyby, not Flyover. How far from WOSOR were you when you got established on Final?
 
I’m most definitely not the most experienced pilot. It’s possible the controller was right and I flew it wrong. When he called me out of my circuit I was probably equidistant from the IF and FAF. Just a hair north of due west from FUNJO.

His instructions were (as close as I can remember) / tail number direct FUNJO, cleared RNAV 2 (and cleared me to land the second I crossed FUNJO).

My end I had the approach loaded (ve tire to final), hit direct to FUNJO (as a flyover), and armed approach. From there nothing was weird. Besides me thinking the turn was more than 90 degrees - the Garmin thought it was sharp too apparently.

This is all a learning exercise for me as this was new territory.
 
I like the comment on the plate about the Procedure Turn NA if coming in on V49.

WHAT PROCEDURE TURN????? :D
 
luvflyin said:
So you arrived at FUNJO heading about 160 and turned inbound? You must have done it pretty slow and tight to stay within tolerance. What Annunciation did you get? Did it allow LPV. For what it's worth the 90 degree thing you were talking about applies at IAF's. The required intercept for the Controller to give you for the IF, FUNJO, is no more than30 degrees...

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.
Click to expand...
You are mixing up FAF and IF.
 
luvflyin said:
So you arrived at FUNJO heading about 160 and turned inbound? You must have done it pretty slow and tight to stay within tolerance. What Annunciation did you get? Did it allow LPV. For what it's worth the 90 degree thing you were talking about applies at IAF's. The required intercept for the Controller to give you for the IF, FUNJO, is no more than30 degrees...

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.
Click to expand...
For RNAV application on an unpublished route, the angle can be up to 90 degrees at the IF.

2. Established on a heading or course direct to the IF at an angle not greater than 90 degrees, provided the conditions are met:
(a) Assign an altitude in accordance with b2 that will permit a normal descent to the FAF.
NOTE− Controllers should expect aircraft to descend at approximately 150-300 feet per nautical mile when applying guidance in
subparagraph h2(a).
(b) Radar monitoring is provided to the IF.
(c) The SIAP must identify the intermediate fix with the letters “IF.”
(d) For procedures where an IAF is published, the pilot is advised to expect clearance to the IF at least 5 miles from the fix.
Click to expand...

So nearly 180 degrees to the IF, the controller was not complying with guidance, but it is not limited to 30 degrees.
 
Pinecone said:
I like the comment on the plate about the Procedure Turn NA if coming in on V49.

WHAT PROCEDURE TURN????? :D
Click to expand...

The note does not mention a Procedure Turn, it says: "Procedure NA for arrivals at JOVNA on V49 Southwest bound", meaning the procedure is not authorized using V49 southbound because the angle of turn would be more than 90 degrees at JOVNA if V49 still existed, which it does not. So I would have not commented on your post if you had written "WHAT V49?????",
 
John Collins said:
JOVNA if V49 still existed, which it does not. So I would have not commented on your post if you had written "WHAT V49?????",
Click to expand...
I've been seeing a bunch of those recently. Saw one last week where in went into the regulatory source document and saw a NOTAM and then amendment removing the note with respect to another airway, but nothing with respect to the one I was looking at. I would expect this type of note to have pretty low priority, so not particularly surprised about some being missed..
 

midlifeflyer said:
Yep. Just one of a number of approaches with no procedure turns.


I have a question about that. This is an approach which could have been designed as a T with 90 degree turns at the intermediate fix, FUNJO, built into the procedure. It's surprising that ATC has to treat it just like a VTF.
Click to expand...

midlifeflyer said:
Yep. Just one of a number of approaches with no procedure turns.


I have a question about that. This is an approach which could have been designed as a T with 90 degree turns at the intermediate fix, FUNJO, built into the procedure. It's surprising that ATC has to treat it just like a VTF.
Click to expand...
Good question that follows the logic. I was wrong, I didn’t read the entire section about it. 90 at an IF is good. My post edited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top