RNAV 36, Joplin, MO

[AggieMike88]

Let’s dissect this approach, RNAV 36 into Joplin and how it didn’t go very well for me.

I was given that yesterday during a PnP flight. I think I did several items wrong which caused me to get way behind the aircraft and eventually go missed. Weather was 600 OVC and Mist, tops were about 4000. Aircraft is 55WB, C182/G and has a CNX80/GNS480 and coupled Autopilot.

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1711/00540R36.PDF

I was approaching from the SE and was told by KC Center to expect this approach and “vectors to JEMLO for spacing” and for the RNAV 36 approach. I acknowledged that and got the approach loaded in the box. After some steering vectors I was cleared direct JEMLO and for the approach.

At JEMLO is where I began the confusion chain... The 480 was indicating that the next item in the sequence was the procedure turn. But in “the rush” to do the approach I disconnected the AP and turned inbound to the runway. I was full on milk bottle at this time.

But it between JEMLO and LOVRE, i never regained a stable approach. Twice while dealing with the GPS, I looked back to find myself in a 30-degree bank that I don’t remember inputting, and one of those looked a whole lot like an an unusual attitude setup from IFR training. After recovering from the last one, and 15 more seconds of not successfully regaining the needles (I only had an LNAV indication on the GPS), I called missed, climbed and went toward MITBY.

I chose not to try again and first told ATC I was going to Fayetteville (my alternate) but then chose to just return home.

Now for the self critique..

1) while I have done lots of approaches in VFR and MVFR conditions, this was my first solo down to near minimums. So there was some apprehension and second guessing of ability. To fix this I plan to find a local CFII and try to get more approaches in actual conditions. Try to increase both proficiency and confidence.

2) not doing the procedure turn and uncoupling the AP was a bad decision. By accepting JEMLO at the start of the approach, the PT is the charted action and ATC should know this. So seeing me do that would be normal. Plus this would have allowed the AP to handle the lateral duties for the whole approach while I managed speed and altitude. And the 4nm back to JEMLO would be plenty of time to get settled and ready for the descent.

My “shortcut” created unnecessary additional work because I got the GPS out of sequence, causing big distractions, which started the chain of becoming unstable and never heading straight on the approach course.

To fix this: trust the system and don’t roll my own short cuts. Also remember to ask ATC questions when doubt about what they want me to do arises. Hindsight, I should asked for HOXER since I wasn’t that far and the angle of the heading would work. But if they insisted on JEMLO, the remind them I’ll be doing the PT as published.

Questions and critical is welcome from the gallery.. point of this is for all to learn.

And a question from me... for this approach, if I was due south of JEMLO and was given “cleared direct JEMLO and the RNAV36 approach”, because the start is JEMLO, I still execute the PT, correct?

 

[Clark1961]

As you said just ask ATC what they need. Last time I took the middle instead of one of the ends of the T the controller initiated the hold conversation. He did not expect it and fortunately neither did I. From a practical point of view from the south any turn at JEMLO is less than the 90 degree turns from the ends of the T.

Getting more actual in helps. Even flying the gps sim helps learn what to expect from the damn box (and I’m the worst when it comes to asking “what’s it doing now?”)

 

[jordane93]

Sounds like you did a lot of things right. You went missed in a timely matter rather than fudging with your GPS to try to fix it in IMC while still trying to fly the approach. Read up on this.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2013/april/30/new-atc-phraseology-for-rnav-approaches

 

[mtuomi]

JEMLO has NoPT from the south, so no-go on the PT. You do the PT only if you get cleared direct JEMLO from the north outside the 088-268 TAA.

 

[Bill Watson]

Thanks for sharing. If you fully brief the plate you’ll see that a PT isn’t required for the entry you made. You’d also find that if you did do the PT without announcing your intent, ATC might actually express surprise. {edit) I’d wager that this PT is rarely flown except for altitude loss.

Welcome to doing it for real. Great decision in going back home! Sometimes that’s the best you can do.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[AggieMike88]

If you fully brief the plate you’ll see that a PT isn’t required for the entry you made

Okay... but since I had programmed th GPS with JEMLO as the IAF, it wanted to do the PT.

 

[mtuomi]

Okay... but since I had programmed th GPS with JEMLO as the IAF, it wanted to do the PT.

Yes, what you do is you sequence the GPS so the active leg is JEMLO-RARRO. The NoPT is important and if you started to do one, ATC would go mad and if they had a really bad day, they could violate you.

 

[drjcustis]

I’m pretty sure that once you reached JEMLO and turned inbound to RARRO your GPS would sequence automatically. If not, I agree with AggieMike that you would hit flight plan and select the next leg to fly.

The only constructive criticism I would make is that as a low time IFR pilot, ask the controller for more help. Don’t accept a vector to final, instead ask for the full approach. If there’s traffic sequencing, ask to be behind them and for delay vectors. Don’t be rushed and don’t be pushed into something you’re not comfortable with.

Finally, great job on the go around!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Clark1961]

I’m pretty sure that once you reached JEMLO and turned inbound to RARRO your GPS would sequence automatically. If not, I agree with AggieMike that you would hit flight plan and select the next leg to fly.

The only constructive criticism I would make is that as a low time IFR pilot, ask the controller for more help. Don’t accept a vector to final, instead ask for the full approach. If there’s traffic sequencing, ask to be behind them and for delay vectors. Don’t be rushed and don’t be pushed into something you’re not comfortable with.

Finally, great job on the go around!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree with you that if the pilot isn’t comfortable then ask for more help. That said RNAV approaches flown with GPS are simple in structure. Dropping GPSS to heading mode would have let him continue the approach while figuring out the buttonology.

Overall I agree that Mike did good by going missed. His response to seek more training is excellent. No problems at all with the pilot. IA cert is another license to learn with tighter rules.

 

[mtuomi]

I would seek a bit more ground training, not necessarily flying. This is a briefing error, not a flying error.

 

[NoHeat]

Does your autopilot allow a HDG NAV combination? Or maybe a HDG GPSS combination?

Some autopilots will allow you to start out the approach by setting the heading bug and flying on the HDG mode, then allow you to select the combined HDG-NAV mode which will automatically switch from the heading, as you near the approach course, to tracking the approach course. I'm just wondering if that would have worked for you -- in this scheme you would set your heading bug so that you would intercept the approach course a bit south of JEMLO, then while on that heading you would push the autopilot button combination to enter the HDG-NAV mode. Maybe then it would have turned you automatically as you neared the approach course, and then flown you toward JEMLO on the approach course continuing in that direction without a procedure turn.

 

[Bill Watson]

Okay... but since I had programmed th GPS with JEMLO as the IAF, it wanted to do the PT.

You've got to get control of the GPS. Letting it do what it wants isn't quite cutting it. The GNS480 is a very capable device by all accounts but it is a bit 'different' by those same accounts. I'm betting that no one in this thread actually has any experience with it but you need to gain it.

I would seek a bit more ground training, not necessarily flying. This is a briefing error, not a flying error.

Maybe a bit more buttonology training.

I'm trying to remember how to 'skip a PT' on my G430w and I can't remember though I've done it more than a few times. I'm headed to Trescott's book. Since it covers the 480, I'd suggest the same.

It's funny but the biggest challenge in steam gauge land is staying oriented in 3D. The biggest challenge in GPS/WAAS/EFIS land is command of the buttonology.

 

[luvflyin]

Sure glad to be reading about this from you rather than from somewhere else about you. Good job going Missed when the airplane started getting out in front of you.

 

[luvflyin]

...............................It's funny but the biggest challenge in steam gauge land is staying oriented in 3D. The biggest challenge in GPS/WAAS/EFIS land is command of the buttonology.

Yeah. GPS does add a lot to 'task management.' When I returned to flying after many years off, from before the GPS days, and doing an IPC, I was convinced that GPS was invented to increase Autopilot sales. Click, click, click...............click, enter. Click, click, click.............click. Wipe brow, repeat....repeat. Whew, one down, four to go...Agghhh!!! where did my heading go.....

 

[AggieMike88]

I'm trying to remember how to 'skip a PT

That is also something I need to add to the tool bag. So I agree learning more about to get the box to do what I want is to be added to the list. I wonder if the “fly leg” command would be the thing to do

The AP does have heading mode. I didn’t think of using that, but that would have definitely helped keep me on the inbound course versus the mess I made trying to ham hand fly while also attempting to sort out the GPS sequence.

 

[Clark1961]

That is also something I need to add to the tool bag. So I agree learning more about to get the box to do what I want is to be added to the list. I wonder if the “fly leg” command would be the thing to do

The AP does have heading mode. I didn’t think of using that, but that would have definitely helped keep me on the inbound course versus the mess I made trying to ham hand fly while also attempting to sort out the GPS sequence.

On the 430w ya just select the next waypoint then Direct. It will fly you back to the magenta between the previous and current waypoints. This behavior bit me on a STAR once...

That said I don’t know if the 430w will fly the HILPT in the approach you were on. Will fire up the sim to find out. The old King GPS would not throw in a ‘random’ hold like your 480 did in this case. Of course with the King I was mostly hand flying anyway since it didn’t do the turns right on a GPS approach.

 

[Clark1961]

Both the GNS and GTN sims prompt the user to chose whether or not to do the course reversal when the JEMLO transition is selected for the RNAV (GPS) 36 at KJLN.

 

[Tspin]

...I'm trying to remember how to 'skip a PT' on my G430w and I can't remember though I've done it more than a few times. I'm headed to Trescott's book. Since it covers the 480, I'd suggest the same.

It's funny but the biggest challenge in steam gauge land is staying oriented in 3D. The biggest challenge in GPS/WAAS/EFIS land is command of the buttonology.

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

 

[neilw2]

Just for clarity, when you got vectors to JEMLO, I'd imagine he cleared you for the approach at that point. Considering you were receiving vectors to final I would not expect to have to do the procedure turn at all, even it was depicted from the southeast. Did he say something like "Cleared for the straight in RWY 36 approach?" If he didn't I would have clarified with the controller. Your self critique is wrong about just flying the PT, even it was depicted from your route of flight. When getting vectors to final ATC never expects you to do a procedure turn unless specifically told to or you request it.

Either way good job knowing when it just wasn't feeling right.

Lastly, maybe because I was trained without a AP but with my AP now I find it best to use it in cruise when in IMC and when established on the final approach course if you want to use it for your approach. I hate trying to use it when getting vectors, etc. Too much can happen like you have just shown for me to trust to fly it correctly until I'm on the published final approach course leg and it can easily screw up a whole approach if it starts doing things you weren't expecting- which is more likely when getting vectored around before being established on the final approach course. I guarantee if you hand flew it from the start of the vectors to that point you would have had a much easier time dealing with GPS silliness.

Thanks for sharing your story. Takes a good man to put himself out there for the peanut gallery here, but I always learn something when somebody does!

 

[GMascelli]

Thanks for sharing the ride and giving us all a chance to learn from your experience.

We can all speculate and think what we would do different to prepare and fly the approach. Bottom line you BROKE THE CHAIN, made the correct call and went missed.

Current and proficient are two different animals, and this includes keeping proficient with our avionics. When it comes to buttonology if we don’t use it, we lose it.

I think I’ll get some flight time and really review my 530 buttonology.

 

[aterpster]

And a question from me... for this approach, if I was due south of JEMLO and was given “cleared direct JEMLO and the RNAV36 approach”, because the start is JEMLO, I still execute the PT, correct?

You need to understand the TAA concept. If you were arriving to JEMLO on a course of 268 clockwise to 088 you were in the NoPT straight-in sector. The holding pattern is not permitted unless you receive a separate holding clearance from ATC. The other two TAA sectors require the course reversal holding pattern (HILPT). TAAs are a great aid, but they have to be understood and used correctly.

 

[Larry in TN]

The other two TAA sectors require the course reversal holding pattern (HILPT).

And, if arriving from the north in one of those sectors, request direct to the applicable IAF (HOXER or WEVED) which avoids the HILPT.

I see two separate issues that this highlights. Knowing whether or not the PT/HILPT is required and knowing how to program your RNAV for each situation. Both areas are often not taught well by CFIIs. In any case, relying on the RNAV unit to know what it is suppose to do is not the best strategy.

This reminds me of an interesting bug in the Smith FMS in the 737 NG which has been present for a number of years. When loading a STAR that has different branches based on which runway is in use you must select the approach first then the arrival. If you select the arrival first, then the approach, it will often load the speed and altitude constrains from the wrong transition even though the correct transition fixes are loaded. Not sure why that bug is allowed to exist for multiple years and software revisions...

 

[luvflyin]

 

[aterpster]

And, if arriving from the north in one of those sectors, request direct to the applicable IAF (HOXER or WEVED) which avoids the HILPT.

Exactly, but that is the second lesson.

I see two separate issues that this highlights. Knowing whether or not the PT/HILPT is required and knowing how to program your RNAV for each situation. Both areas are often not taught well by CFIIs. In any case, relying on the RNAV unit to know what it is suppose to do is not the best strategy.

And, it has become more complex because more recent TAA's do not have the T legs, with few exceptions. This is because a change in basic RNAV criteria requires longer T legs than the 5 miles at JLN. And, there are other new TAAs with a Y rather than a T. Those can get awkward.

This reminds me of an interesting bug in the Smith FMS in the 737 NG which has been present for a number of years. When loading a STAR that has different branches based on which runway is in use you must select the approach first then the arrival. If you select the arrival first, then the approach, it will often load the speed and altitude constrains from the wrong transition even though the correct transition fixes are loaded. Not sure why that bug is allowed to exist for multiple years and software revisions...

Bugs thrive on complexity. Think of the poor corporate pilot who has to use Garmin, Rockwell, and Honeywell.

 

[Clark1961]

Exactly, but that is the second lesson.


And, it has become more complex because more recent TAA's do not have the T legs, with few exceptions.

And then there is this monstrosity:
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1711/11441R24.PDF

Even @AggieMike88 could fly it without the magic box throwing a HILPT at him.

 

[aterpster]

And then there is this monstrosity:
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1711/11441R24.PDF

Even @AggieMike88 could fly it without the magic box throwing a HILPT at him.

They are getting more inventive with the relatively small course changes. That one is a bummer with the offset to the runway. I like this one better because it lines up with the runway although it is very restrictive for entry from the en route structure:

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1711/09919r28.pdf#nameddest=(HTH)

 

[flyingron]

And then there is this monstrosity:
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1711/11441R24.PDF

Even @AggieMike88 could fly it without the magic box throwing a HILPT at him.

That one just has a lot of legs. There's only one IAF and no PT to worry about.

 

[Clark1961]

They are getting more inventive with the relatively small course changes. That one is a bummer with the offset to the runway. I like this one better because it lines up with the runway although it is very restrictive for entry from the en route structure:

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1711/09919r28.pdf#nameddest=(HTH)

That’s a good one fer sure.

On the DWX approach there is a small problem with a tall hill off the end of the runway that requires the offset. Sort of curious about why no terrain shading since it is a new approach. Also no class E to surface (or at least below minimums) so things could get interesting for someone who is legal VFR there. Not much traffic so no real concern though.

 

[SbestCFII]

Unless I am missing something, approaching JEMLO from the SE, no PT is required, you can turn straight in unless you need to do the PT to lose altitude (this should be approved by ATC in that circumstance). It sounds like your interaction with the 480 was the cause of most of your control woes. I haven't used a 480, but if it is anything like the 430, I would have activated the leg to RARRO and let the GPS auto-sequence from there. From JEMLO, it's a straight shot to the airport. A post-facto suggestion would have been to use heading mode turning inbound and re-couple for the inbound leg. 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. You made the right decision to discontinue the approach when you did and your self-corrective action plan is spot on.

 

[aterpster]

That’s a good one fer sure.

On the DWX approach there is a small problem with a tall hill off the end of the runway that requires the offset. Sort of curious about why no terrain shading since it is a new approach. Also no class E to surface (or at least below minimums) so things could get interesting for someone who is legal VFR there. Not much traffic so no real concern though.

The Jepp chart has colored terrain.

 

[flyingron]

Well, the first thing you should do is sit down and read the GNS480 pilot guide. It's required to be in the aircraft (though you can download a copy from Garmin).

Anyhow, the answer here is two-fold. First, the GNS480 doesn't undestand TAAs. Since JEMLO isn't marked as NoPT it wants to fly it. As soon as it tells you it's about to enter the hold, push SUSP and it will go to the next leg automagicly. Similarly, if you are in the hold, pushing the SUSP button says "give me another turn around the race track.

 

[BigBadLou]

Mike, first off, THANK YOU for recognizing you had a problem and taking corrective action. We know there were many who either didn't recognize their problematic situation or didn't correct it. So thank you for making a call and sticking to it, you're here to tell the story.

Now for some feedback/advice from a fellow instrument pilot:
A) they do not expect you to do a full PT on a vectored approach, unless you request it (so either request it or don't fly it)
B) you can load the RNAV approach with either an IAF or VTF where VTF guarantees no PT
C) when I need time to deal with a distraction in the cockpit, I ask Otto to hold a heading and I occasionally check my on-course situation (and I of course verify that Otto IS holding the heading)
D) definitely go for some real IMC with a CFII (or a SP friend you trust), you will appreciate it since you mentioned you got no IMC during training - and NOW is the perfect time to go into IMC, we have a lot warm thick fluff above us at 1000 AGL

 

[flydigital]

Deleted, had missed the TAA depictions. Apologies.

 

[AggieMike88]

Well, the first thing you should do is sit down and read the GNS480 pilot guide. It's required to be in the aircraft (though you can download a copy from Garmin).

Roger that.

I also have the Thomassen (www.avionicswest.com) book based on a recommendation you gave me years ago. I'll see if anything is in there about what I encountered.

Anyhow, the answer here is two-fold. First, the GNS480 doesn't undestand TAAs. Since JEMLO isn't marked as NoPT it wants to fly it. As soon as it tells you it's about to enter the hold, push SUSP and it will go to the next leg automagicly. Similarly, if you are in the hold, pushing the SUSP button says "give me another turn around the race track.

I'll get the simulator downloaded to my laptop and check out that suggestion

 

[Clark1961]

It's been mentioned that coming from south that NO PT is the procedure or regulation. Not disagreeing, but hoping for a reference here because this has come up in discussion in my local IFR club meetings and there is certainly some discrepancy when looking at the AIM (see below for excerpt).

From our teachings, NO PT (or Radar vectors to the final approach course) is your only indication that you should not fly the PT, so via the T entry IAFs. From a "direct JEMLO cleared approach" entry, there isn't a NO PT and thus technically you should fly the PT. This is from a procedures/regulatory viewpoint.

!

What part of the No PT from the south note on the chart do you not like?

 

[mtuomi]

It's been mentioned that coming from south that NO PT is the procedure or regulation. Not disagreeing, but hoping for a reference here because this has come up in discussion in my local IFR club meetings and there is certainly some discrepancy when looking at the AIM (see below for excerpt).

From our teachings, NO PT (or Radar vectors to the final approach course) is your only indication that you should not fly the PT, so via the T entry IAFs. From a "direct JEMLO cleared approach" entry, there isn't a NO PT and thus technically you should fly the PT. This is from a procedures/regulatory viewpoint.


Addition: I see that the term "Radar Vectors to final approach course" may be confusing. I've always considered this to be a specific heading to intercept the course, and NOT a "direct IAF" clearance. But I am second guessing this now. Anyone have references that clarify this? Great thread/discussion BTW!

What do you mean there isn't a NoPT? Yes there is.

 

[flydigital]

What do you mean there isn't a NoPT? Yes there is.

Yes, you're right, I missed the TAA depictions, and was confusing RNAV approaches without such depictions with ones that do. Apologies.

 

[luvflyin]

It's been mentioned that coming from south that NO PT is the procedure or regulation. Not disagreeing, but hoping for a reference here because this has come up in discussion in my local IFR club meetings and there is certainly some discrepancy when looking at the AIM (see below for excerpt).

From our teachings, NO PT (or Radar vectors to the final approach course) is your only indication that you should not fly the PT, so via the T entry IAFs. From a "direct JEMLO cleared approach" entry, there isn't a NO PT and thus technically you should fly the PT. This is from a procedures/regulatory viewpoint.

In reality, in my experience, and consistent with what is being said here, ATC DOES NOT expect you to fly the PT in nearly all cases, even if they make a mistake and give you a direct center IAF from more than 90deg. I surprised a controller once in this case by making the PT (hold in lieu) when my intercept to final was about 130 degrees. He assumed I would make the big turn but absent his "cleared straight in" and my knowledge that they are not supposed to clear a straight in beyond 90 deg intercept on an RNAV/GPS approach, I assumed incorrectly that we were on the same page. Obviously in this case it was an ATC mistake and I should have been vectored to 90deg or less for intercept before the direct IAF clearance (and told cleared straight in) since he expected straight in.

Even with obvious straight in intercept, ATC sometimes won't make this clear, so I'll always confirm in the readback of clearance, i.e. "Direct JEMLO at or above 3100 cleared RNAV 36 and please confirm this will be straight in" or "please confirm full PT" if >90. Never been surprised by their response, it is always "affirmative, cleared straight in".

Regarding the Garmin 400/500 series, the later software will ask if you want to fly the course reversal when loading the approach. If you don't want it, as mentioned, you can activate the inbound leg, or you can also Clear/Delete the hold item in the approach from the Flight Plan page.

I would like to see some kind of update on the charts that makes this totally clear from the center IAF i.e. "NO PT unless authorized by ATC".

Here is the AIM reference BTW (bolding is mine):

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.​

In summary, ATC [almost] never expects a PT in this case, but you're technically required to do it unless cleared straight in or on Radar Vectors to the final approach course (or on a timed approach from a holding fix). Thus, always confirm with ATC to avoid this very common cause of confusion.


Addition: I see that the term "Radar Vectors to final approach course" may be confusing. I've always considered this to be a specific heading to intercept the course, and NOT a "direct IAF" clearance. But I am second guessing this now. Anyone have references that clarify this? Great thread/discussion BTW!

Yeah, it is a good discussion. In this case he was not vectored to the Final Approach Course. He was told “vectors to JEMLO for spacing.” The approach clearance was "After some steering vectors I was cleared direct JEMLO and for the approach." 'Final approach course' never entered into it. Because he arrived at JEMLO between the 268 degree and 088 degree courses to JELMO and that 'sector' is advertised on the Chart as NoPT it's a done deal. You not only don't need to do the HILPT, you may not do it unless you get approval from the controller. The controller does not need to include "straight in" with the approach clearance. If you had the same approach, but it was not a 'TAA Approach' and you arrived at JELMO direct from a point in space, not established on a published segement, then the HILPT is required unless the controller includes "straight in" with the approach clearance. Even if you arrived at JELMO practically straight in. A reference is AIM 5-4-6 e. I think there is an Advisory Circular out there about this also.

 

[flydigital]

If you had the same approach, but it was not a 'TAA Approach' and you arrived at JELMO direct from a point in space, not established on a published segement, then the HILPT is required unless the controller includes "straight in" with the approach clearance. Even if you arrived at JELMO practically straight in. A reference is AIM 5-4-6 e. I think there is an Advisory Circular out there about this also.

Thanks. I for one have learned/relearned quite a bit here. I was of course discussing non-TAA accidentally, based on my recent discussion with other pilots on similar but NON-TAA approach questions. To be honest I haven't seen a "TAA approach" in a long time, and we apparently don't have many in our local area (I'm still looking), and it deserves a full review in our IFR club which I'll be suggesting based on this thread.

 

[AggieMike88]

The discussion about No PT at JEMLO for the arrival vector I was on has me adding this to the confession...

I totally missed that part of the IAP plate as I was briefing myself.

I had looked at the HOXER leg and saw that was NoPT. I had read just about every other part of the plate, but eyes and brain totally missed the information I circled.



So add to the lesson to do a better job looking for these NoPT arcs.