RNAV 36, Joplin, MO

[AggieMike88]

Slight drift... what do the controllers have in front of them (besides the radar screen and keyboard) that aids them in issuing approach clearances and monitoring the aircraft they cleared on that approach?

 

[Clark1961]

Slight drift... what do the controllers have in front of them (besides the radar screen and keyboard) that aids them in issuing approach clearances and monitoring the aircraft they cleared on that approach?

A ouija board and a magic eight ball but they really don’t want to admit that so keep it quiet. K?

 

[Bill Watson]

Bill, you mentioned a book by Trescott. Can you give the name? I have returned to flying, having stopped before GPS's became so prevalent. The wife and I just purchased a Cardinal with a 430W, and while basic operation is not an issue, before I do much IFR with it, I'd like to get more comfortable with operating the unit.

Thanks,
Andrew

I guess it's a bit dated but we're talking about dated navigators here (G430w and GNS480). It's the best piece of written material I ran across and just picked it up last year.
http://www.maxtrescott.com/max_tres...gps-and-waas-instrument-flying-handbook-.html

I'm flying an RV10 with experimental EFISs by GRT using the G430w as the brain. It was a confusing mix until Trescott's book even though there is nothing on the GRT.

 

[aterpster]

Slight drift... what do the controllers have in front of them (besides the radar screen and keyboard) that aids them in issuing approach clearances and monitoring the aircraft they cleared on that approach?

At many locations they don't even have a radar screen.

 

[RussR]

I refer to the approach workload using a analogy, with the flight instruments as the "kids" and the GPS as the "wife." You need to listen to your wife (messages) and make input as needed, but you can't take your eyes off the "kids" for more than 5 seconds or they'll get into all sorts of trouble.

Oh man, I'm totally stealing that line. Hope that's alright, @SbestCFII !

 

[Bradley W]

I agree with the threader, RNAV landings are annoying and not needed. Unless the planes are full and they are not believe me they are not RNAV landings are wasteful. There are too many new things to learn to justify the couple minutes saved.
On a 4 hour flight saving 5 minutes is hardly noticed.
I really miss the old days with the NAV1 freq and the 3000 ft clearance !

 

[AggieMike88]

The discussion about the NoPT at JEMLO has been enlightening. Especially where it it applied to my goof for not seeing the NoPT information on the plate that was to the right of the holding pattern.

To continue the discussion, let's refer to the RNAV 31 for Ardmore, OK (see thumbnail).

If I was where the gold star is located in the lower right, heading of 320°-ish, and then cleared for the approach, unless the controller used the words "...straight in...", then doing the PT at NIXIE is expected by the controller?

Or is it more likely for an approach like this to be sent to SANJN based on where I'm currently coming from?

 

[jordane93]

Yes. They are supposed to say “cleared for the straight in RNAV 31.” I’ve maybe heard one controller ever say it. I like to think common sense and if I’m at the gold star, I’m not going to do a PT although I should really clarify that I’m cleared for the straight in RNAV.

 

[aterpster]

The discussion about the NoPT at JEMLO has been enlightening. Especially where it it applied to my goof for not seeing the NoPT information on the plate that was to the right of the holding pattern.

To continue the discussion, let's refer to the RNAV 31 for Ardmore, OK (see thumbnail).

If I was where the gold star is located in the lower right, heading of 320°-ish, and then cleared for the approach, unless the controller used the words "...straight in...", then doing the PT at NIXIE is expected by the controller?

Or is it more likely for an approach like this to be sent to SANJN based on where I'm currently coming from?

View attachment 57602

The controller would likely clear you direct NIXHE and he is supposed to say, "Cross NIXHE at (or at or above) 3,600, cleared for a straight-in RNAV Rwy 31 approach." Unlike Joplin where you were within a published segment (the TAA) in this case you are not on a published route or segment. If the controller fails to provide a crossing altitude at NIXHE you are then bound by FAR 91.175(i) to maintain your last assigned altitude until on a published segment of the approach.

 

[luvflyin]

The discussion about the NoPT at JEMLO has been enlightening. Especially where it it applied to my goof for not seeing the NoPT information on the plate that was to the right of the holding pattern.

To continue the discussion, let's refer to the RNAV 31 for Ardmore, OK (see thumbnail).

If I was where the gold star is located in the lower right, heading of 320°-ish, and then cleared for the approach, unless the controller used the words "...straight in...", then doing the PT at NIXIE is expected by the controller?

Or is it more likely for an approach like this to be sent to SANJN based on where I'm currently coming from?

View attachment 57602

Slight drift... what do the controllers have in front of them (besides the radar screen and keyboard) that aids them in issuing approach clearances and monitoring the aircraft they cleared on that approach?

Not quite sure exactly what you mean. As far as "aids them in issuing approach clearances" goes, I can think think of nothing. It's phraseology that is memorized. I've never seen 'phraseologies' written down and put at the position as a memory aid. As far "monitoring the aircraft they cleared on that approach" goes there is Radar of course. If you saw a plane drifting way off course you would say something. Here's one example from the controllers rule book.

b. If deviations from the final approach course are
observed after initial course interception, apply the
following:
1. Outside the approach gate: apply procedures
in accordance with subpara a, if necessary, vector the
aircraft for another approach.
2. Inside the approach gate: inform the pilot of
the aircraft’s position and ask intentions.
PHRASEOLOGY−
(Ident) (distance) MILE(S) FROM THE AIRPORT,
(distance) MILE(S) RIGHT/LEFT OF COURSE, SAY
INTENTIONS.

There are other more specific actions to be taken when simultaneous approaches to parallel runways are being used. There is also Mode C altitude readouts. If you see an airplane is abnormally low you tell the pilot. Sometimes, if it is a computerized Radar which almost all are nowadays, the Radar 'sees' it before the controller and bells and whistles start going of. It's called an MSAW, minimum safe altitude warning. If there is no Radar, either because there just isn't, or the airplane is below coverage then there isn't much more than a flight progress strip to remind you that this here airplane is on the approach. After awhile if you haven't heard from him cancelling, landing or missing, you figure somethings wrong and start looking for him. Thats about all the 'monitering' you're gonna get Non Radar. Maybe theres more stuff nowdays, it's been awhile since I've worked.
EDIT: There is a lot more stuff now. See @Radar Contact 's post #61 below

 

[Bradley W]

Does your approach have terrain ?

 

[luvflyin]

The discussion about the NoPT at JEMLO has been enlightening. Especially where it it applied to my goof for not seeing the NoPT information on the plate that was to the right of the holding pattern.

To continue the discussion, let's refer to the RNAV 31 for Ardmore, OK (see thumbnail).

If I was where the gold star is located in the lower right, heading of 320°-ish, and then cleared for the approach, unless the controller used the words "...straight in...", then doing the PT at NIXIE is expected by the controller?

Or is it more likely for an approach like this to be sent to SANJN based on where I'm currently coming from?

View attachment 57602

Yes and no. The controller is supposed to be expecting it. Is the particular controller you have at that moment expecting it, who knows. But the letter of the law is, unless he includes "straight in" with the clearance, you are supposed to do it and they are supposed to expect it. I cant figure out how to post the picture, but Aircraft 1 is in the exact same situation as the gold star in your example for the RNAV 31 at Ardmore. Here is the controllers rules:

Aircraft 1 can be cleared direct to CENTR. The intercept
angle at that IAF is 90 degrees or less. The minimum
altitude for IFR operations (14 CFR, section 91.177) along
the flight path to the IAF is 3,000 feet. If a hold in lieu of
procedure turn pattern is depicted at an IAF and a TAA is
not defined, the aircraft must be instructed to conduct a
straight-in approach if ATC does not want the pilot to
execute a hold-in-lieu procedure turn. “Cleared direct
CENTR, maintain at or above three thousand until CENTR,
cleared straight-in RNAV Runway One-Eight Approach.”

 

[aterpster]

Does your approach have terrain ?

What point are you trying to make?

 

[Larry in TN]

Another topic that this situation brings up, and one that is not well taught in General Aviation, is how and when to de-automate.

The OP went from autopilot on in NAV/LNAV mode to hand-flying while trying to reprogram the GPS. A better approach is often to de-automated in steps, i.e. don't go from full automation to nothing in one step, especially when you need to also accomplish the complex task of doing an unfamiliar reprogramming of the RNAV system. Use the automation that you have but de-automate enough to prevent it from compounding the problems by flying something that is not intended. Specifically, take the de-automate from NAV/LNAV to HDG but leave the autopilot engaged. This allows you to control the path with the heading bug while using the autopilot to reduce your workload significantly while you handle the complex reprogramming and/or discussions with ATC that might be necessary to clarify the clearance. Once the reprogramming is complete increase the level of automation by switching from HDG mode to NAV/LNAV again for the approach.

 

[Clark1961]

Another topic that this situation brings up, and one that is not well taught in General Aviation, is how and when to de-automate.

The OP went from autopilot on in NAV/LNAV mode to hand-flying while trying to reprogram the GPS. A better approach is often to de-automated in steps, i.e. don't go from full automation to nothing in one step, especially when you need to also accomplish the complex task of doing an unfamiliar reprogramming of the RNAV system. Use the automation that you have but de-automate enough to prevent it from compounding the problems by flying something that is not intended. Specifically, take the de-automate from NAV/LNAV to HDG but leave the autopilot engaged. This allows you to control the path with the heading bug while using the autopilot to reduce your workload significantly while you handle the complex reprogramming and/or discussions with ATC that might be necessary to clarify the clearance. Once the reprogramming is complete increase the level of automation by switching from HDG mode to NAV/LNAV again for the approach.

Yeah a couple of posts have already suggested using heading mode.

 

[AggieMike88]

Yeah a couple of posts have already suggested using heading mode.

Yes, having the correct inbound heading bugged on the DG and then engaging the AP's heading mode would have made a big difference. Let the electronics handle the lateral.

I had a stable airplane approaching JEMLO. It was past JEMLO and me trying to maintain lateral while puzzling out the GPS that got me unstable and quickly devolving toward being a statistic.

So I agree that switching modes on the AP would have helped prevent what happened. And a madness method I will remember in the future.

 

[AggieMike88]

"One must never forget when misfortunes come that it is quite possible they are saving one from something much worse; or that when you make some great mistake, it may very easily serve you better than the best-advised decision." Winston Churchill

 

[Clark1961]

Yes, having the correct inbound heading bugged on the DG and then engaging the AP's heading mode would have made a big difference. Let the electronics handle the lateral.

I had a stable airplane approaching JEMLO. It was past JEMLO and me trying to maintain lateral while puzzling out the GPS that got me unstable and quickly devolving toward being a statistic.

So I agree that switching modes on the AP would have helped prevent what happened. And a madness method I will remember in the future.

I saw that you had already picked up on switching modes.

I got bit once going missed from an ILS when I failed to switch from localizer back to heading mode. The 430w was sequenced to the missed and was trying to do the right thing but the autopilot wanted to do something totally different. Since the autopilot wasn’t following GPSS it got shut off and I hand flew the missed. Fortunately it was a training flight. Our old autopilots are truly a mixed blessing...

 

[mtuomi]

Another topic that this situation brings up, and one that is not well taught in General Aviation, is how and when to de-automate.

The OP went from autopilot on in NAV/LNAV mode to hand-flying while trying to reprogram the GPS. A better approach is often to de-automated in steps, i.e. don't go from full automation to nothing in one step, especially when you need to also accomplish the complex task of doing an unfamiliar reprogramming of the RNAV system. Use the automation that you have but de-automate enough to prevent it from compounding the problems by flying something that is not intended. Specifically, take the de-automate from NAV/LNAV to HDG but leave the autopilot engaged. This allows you to control the path with the heading bug while using the autopilot to reduce your workload significantly while you handle the complex reprogramming and/or discussions with ATC that might be necessary to clarify the clearance. Once the reprogramming is complete increase the level of automation by switching from HDG mode to NAV/LNAV again for the approach.

This is a very important point to make. I'm going through 135 training, and it is hammered into our heads. Always keep the HDG bug centered, and your first "line of defense" when something unexpected happens should always be "just use the heading mode". We don't use the autopilot disconnect at all unless it's an emergency, because it also disconnects FD and YD. Drop down levels of automation, but never go "full manual" at once unless you really, REALLY have to.

Great point.

 

[aterpster]

This is a very important point to make. I'm going through 135 training, and it is hammered into our heads. Always keep the HDG bug centered, and your first "line of defense" when something unexpected happens should always be "just use the heading mode". We don't use the autopilot disconnect at all unless it's an emergency, because it also disconnects FD and YD. Drop down levels of automation, but never go "full manual" at once unless you really, REALLY have to.

Great point.

That's been the smart way since the jets came in, if not before.

 

[Radar Contact]

Slight drift... what do the controllers have in front of them (besides the radar screen and keyboard) that aids them in issuing approach clearances and monitoring the aircraft they cleared on that approach?

On our radar, we usually have the main runways/finals depicted for the airports. We can easily key up whatever possible approaches other than the norm and see all the segments/fixes. With an additional key stroke I can see the fix names if I can't remember. Above the scope we have a computer that can quickly pull up the plates. We monitor the approach laterally via the radar and lines on it for your approach. As far as altitude, that depends. If you are landing at a GA airport we will make sure you stay at the issued alt till established then if you are a little high or low we don't police it...obviously would be way too time consuming. If you get dangerously low the computer will issue us an alert and we will issue it to you (if you're still with me), to the tower (if they don't have a radar feed) or in the blind if you switch to unicom already. At an airport like ORD we pay attention to all the alt's on the final because we are usually tunneling other traffic beneath them.

Random unsolicited/unrelated comment: Keep in mind, many of the non-pilot controllers have no idea how taxing a late switch can be with the automation (i.e. you think you're getting VTF and select that then they send you to a fix and clear you...I always load the full approach for this reason) nor what on earth you are using in the plane to get from where you are to the runway. Usually doesn't matter but every once in a while it can lead to confused expectations on both.

 

[AggieMike88]

Following up.....

I think I figured out what started my troubles....

I likely selected the wrong transition (starting point) when I was loading and activating the procedure.​

Using the GTN750 simulator, I Ioaded the RNAV36 approach for Joplin and played with the transition.

If I select JEMLO as the transition, the system will want to do the hold. And if you roll back to the first post in this thread, this is what my GNS480 was trying to do as it got me all messed up.




But if I had selected vectors, then the hold would not have been included in the sequence.




So likely the correct button pushing should have been

1. Select the RNAV36 approach with Vectors as the transition
2. Enter to load it into the modified flight plan
3. Execute the modified plan to replace the existing
4. Clear any discontinuities and verify the hold is not amongst the sequence
5. MAP to go back to "home" map page
6. DIRECT to go to the new flight plan, scroll down to JEMLO, Press Direct softkey to plot the line to JEMLO.

After work, I'm going to go out to the airplane and see if what I've discovered on the GTN750 Trainer is reflected on the GNS480. Again, to determine if selecting the wrong transition is what started the cascade of problems.


I'll say again that this incident has taught me a good lesson on how a disconnect can happen between the pilot and his GPS, and how such a disconnect can get the pilot in trouble quickly.

I did have early clues that this was the approach I was going to get. So I did brief it early, but as admitted early, totally overlooked the NoPT arc I highlighted just above.

And I'm now going to add to the "Avionics Set?" line of my checklist to do a closer review of the flight plan sequence to make sure it is what is expected and there isn't going to be any unwanted surprises.

 

[Clark1961]

Following up.....

I think I figured out what started my troubles....

I likely selected the wrong transition (starting point) when I was loading and activating the procedure.​

Using the GTN750 simulator, I Ioaded the RNAV36 approach for Joplin and played with the transition.

If I select JEMLO as the transition, the system will want to do the hold. And if you roll back to the first post in this thread, this is what my GNS480 was trying to do as it got me all messed up.



But if I had selected vectors, then the hold would not have been included in the sequence.




So likely the correct button pushing should have been

1. Select the RNAV36 approach with Vectors as the transition
2. Enter to load it into the modified flight plan
3. Execute the modified plan to replace the existing
4. Clear any discontinuities and verify the hold is not amongst the sequence
5. MAP to go back to "home" map page
6. DIRECT to go to the new flight plan, scroll down to JEMLO, Press Direct softkey to plot the line to JEMLO.

After work, I'm going to go out to the airplane and see if what I've discovered on the GTN750 Trainer is reflected on the GNS480. Again, to determine if selecting the wrong transition is what started the cascade of problems.


I'll say again that this incident has taught me a good lesson on how a disconnect can happen between the pilot and his GPS, and how such a disconnect can get the pilot in trouble quickly.

I did have early clues that this was the approach I was going to get. So I did brief it early, but as admitted early, totally overlooked the NoPT arc I highlighted just above.

And I'm now going to add to the "Avionics Set?" line of my checklist to do a closer review of the flight plan sequence to make sure it is what is expected and there isn't going to be any unwanted surprises.

The 750 should prompt you to accept or reject the Hold when jemlo is selected as I reported in post #17. Dunno what the 480 will do.

Be real careful with vectors to final. The procedure can skip the IAF so you may have to enter it manually if ATC expects you to go to the IAF. Some folks preach that VTF should never be used.

 

[AggieMike88]

Be real careful with vectors to final. The procedure can skip the IAF so you may have to enter it manually if ATC expects you to go to the IAF. Some folks preach that VTF should never be used.

Roger Roger.... will be careful.

 

[AggieMike88]

After going out to do some practice approaches today, I sat in the aircraft to see if what I put I Post #62 was correct....

It was.

When I put in JEMLO as the transition, the CNX80 did display the hold/procedure turn as part of the sequence. When I left it as Vectors, there was no turn displayed and the sequence stepped directlytoward the runway.

So added lesson learned is to do a better job grokking what the controller is clearing you for (“you’re being vectored toward JEMLO, so use Vectors as the transition”) and making sure that’s what you’re button pushing.

Also, take a moment to preview both the graphical depiction on the screen (the CNX80 will show it like the GTN pictures above) and the sequence in the flight plan to ensure you have it correct.

My time today also found the “Modify” soft key when you have the approach highlighted when viewing the flight plan. Pressing this gets you directly to the approach selection screen to make changes. My old way was many button presses. Finding this shortcut is a good thing.

 

[tsts4]

The 750 should prompt you to accept or reject the Hold when jemlo is selected as I reported in post #17. Dunno what the 480 will do.

Be real careful with vectors to final. The procedure can skip the IAF so you may have to enter it manually if ATC expects you to go to the IAF. Some folks preach that VTF should never be used.

That used to be the case before software v6.21. Now selecting VTF as the transition loads all the fixes so getting cleared direct to a fix is a non-issue.

 

[NoHeat]

If you are using an autopilot, for vectors as the transition I think you would have to start flying the approach with the autopilot in HDG mode, or a HDG-NAV mode if your autopilot has it.

So maybe you needed to not only choose the “vector” transition on the Garmin navigator, but also the HDG mode on the autopilot?

 

[AggieMike88]

I wish Joplin wasn't so far away. Really would like to go back and do this approach as a "get back on the horse" deal. Even under the foggles and with a safety pilot, going back there to do it would help cement all of these improvements in my mental processing.

 

[RussR]

I wish Joplin wasn't so far away. Really would like to go back and do this approach as a "get back on the horse" deal. Even under the foggles and with a safety pilot, going back there to do it would help cement all of these improvements in my mental processing.

No need to go all the way to JLN. Just head to Bowie, 0F2, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35. It is essentially the same approach - TAA, T-design, Hold-in-lieu at the IF, you'd be approaching it from the straight-in sector, etc. Really virtually the same approach.

 

[AggieMike88]

Thanks Russ!