Vector Above G/S Intercept

[poadeleted20]

The IAF is also the FAF lightning bolt. So I couldn't descend to intercept altitude until past the IAF.

So looking back this should have been a turn outbound for the full procedure, like the others have said.

I hate when I have massive brain farts....

Glad you figured it out. One of the things I pound into my IR trainees is the mandatory nature of course reversals and the four specific exceptions to skip a published course reversal (in which case the course reversal is prohibited):

• Vectors to final
• Published NoPT route
• Already holding at the course reversal anchor fix at the depicted altitude
• Cleared "straight in" by the controller

We cover this repeatedly, and I try to get them as many opportunities as possible to have to make the choice in various situations on various approaches. I also make clear that there is never a situation where the course reversal is optional -- it's always either mandatory or prohibited., depending on those four criteria above.

But one important point to remember is that if it appears your approach clearance will result in intercepting the glide slope from above, either you or the controller has done something wrong, and then in accordance with 91.123, you should request clarification immediately.

 

[GMascelli]

Glad you figured it out. One of the things I pound into my IR trainees is the mandatory nature of course reversals and the four specific exceptions to skip a published course reversal (in which case the course reversal is prohibited):

• Vectors to final
• Published NoPT route
• Already holding at the course reversal anchor fix at the depicted altitude
• Cleared "straight in" by the controller

We cover this repeatedly, and I try to get them as many opportunities as possible to have to make the choice in various situations on various approaches. I also make clear that there is never a situation where the course reversal is optional -- it's always either mandatory or prohibited., depending on those four criteria above.

If there is any doubt I will advise ATC I am doing the PT for the approach.

Example: Turkey day flight to North Palm beach. Washington Center has me direct PAHOKEE (VOR) which is NoPT, Wash hands me off to Palm Beach approach, I check in and they immediately turn me direct YIGBO. I now have an easy turn to final for ILS RWY 8R. My response was have the wx at north palm beach and I'll be doing the PT to loose altitude. Palm beach clears me for the ILS 8R. I just like to make sure there is no confusion.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

it sounds like you arrived expecting vtf, then ignored the mounting evidence that it wasn't happening.

Yes that was apparently the deal. He assumed he was being vectored to the final approach course even tho' the "…cleared direct POINT….." should have alerted him that wasn't the case. To give the OP something useful to take away from the discussion I might add -- when ATC initiates radar vectors they're supposed to tell you what the vectors are meant to accomplish, like "…fly heading XXX vectors for the ILS xxx approach". There were at least 2 clues here that VTF wasn't happening along with the fact that crossing the FAF inbound 1000 feet high and on a 70 to 80 degree angle just didn't seem right. In my experience when something doesn't seem right it probably isn't, listen to that little voice from somewhere in the back of your mind.

 

[ARFlyer]

The little voice was there, I just kept getting distracted by things that should have been nonevents.

Trust me I'm ****ed off at myself.

 

[clarkmueller]

This sounds like a good candidate for an ASRS!

 

[John Collins]

The little voice was there, I just kept getting distracted by things that should have been nonevents.

Trust me I'm ****ed off at myself.

Are you afraid of telling us the approach you were flying? If not what is the approach and the airport.

 

[MarkZ]

Are you afraid of telling us the approach you were flying? If not what is the approach and the airport.

I think this thread highlights how this situation could be a lesson learned on expecting and not maintaining good situational awareness. The OP admitted this was the case, so I'm curious what relevance knowing the exact airport and approach has on the conversation.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

I think this thread highlights how this situation could be a lesson learned on expecting and not maintaining good situational awareness. The OP admitted this was the case, so I'm curious what relevance knowing the exact airport and approach has on the conversation.

Yeah I agree, it's irrelevant at this point. Could be most any number of places with an ILS where ATC isn't authorized to give VTF.

 

[John Collins]

I think this thread highlights how this situation could be a lesson learned on expecting and not maintaining good situational awareness. The OP admitted this was the case, so I'm curious what relevance knowing the exact airport and approach has on the conversation.

To simply check his facts. Was the point he was cleared to as he stated or was it an IAF, a FAF, or both? He could have miss-understood what was being asked of him or the controller could have been not following guidance. His reluctance to state the approach does not make sense to me unless the OP has something to hide. I would have used the information to offer advice and comment on what should have happened based on the specifics on the procedure.

 

[aterpster]

To simply check his facts. Was the point he was cleared to as he stated or was it an IAF, a FAF, or both? He could have miss-understood what was being asked of him or the controller could have been not following guidance. His reluctance to state the approach does not make sense to me unless the OP has something to hide. I would have used the information to offer advice and comment on what should have happened based on the specifics on the procedure.

I agree with you completely on all counts.

I won't play this speculation game. The OP didn't even deserve the responses he did get.

Knowing the specific procedure provides a whole lot of information. TRACON? RAPCON, Center? Radar service? If so MVA, etc, etc.

 

[John Collins]

Yeah I agree, it's irrelevant at this point. Could be most any number of places with an ILS where ATC isn't authorized to give VTF.

John,

The rules are quite specific but are dependent on the facts. If ATC isn't authorized to give VTF, they are not authorized by their guidance to clear an aircraft direct to the FAF which is not also an IAF and if so, they are instructed to expect the pilot to perform a PT. Under certain weather conditions, ATC may clear an aircraft direct to the FAF on an conventional approach, but only if specifically requested by the pilot. ATC is also instructed to not vector an aircraft to intercept the final approach course above the GS. Which case(s) apply are based on the facts of the approach procedure and the instructions provided by ATC. Anything else is speculation.

 

[aterpster]

John,

ATC may clear an aircraft direct to the FAF on an conventional approach, but only if specifically requested by the pilot.

Isn't that provision only for vectors to the final approach course and then only when specifically requested by the pilot and at an angle of 20 degrees or less? (7110.65, 5-9-1)

 

[peerlesscowboy]

John,

The rules are quite specific but are dependent on the facts. If ATC isn't authorized to give VTF, they are not authorized by their guidance to clear an aircraft direct to the FAF which is not also an IAF and if so, they are instructed to expect the pilot to perform a PT. Under certain weather conditions, ATC may clear an aircraft direct to the FAF on an conventional approach, but only if specifically requested by the pilot. ATC is also instructed to not vector an aircraft to intercept the final approach course above the GS. Which case(s) apply are based on the facts of the approach procedure and the instructions provided by ATC. Anything else is speculation.

John,
These questions have been answered to my satisfaction by the OP upthread. I've not a shred of doubt that he was cleared direct to the IAF and cleared for the approach with an altitude to maintain until established.
Pretty common clearance really, if you need a link to an approach chart I'd be happy to post one for your convenience

 

[John Collins]

John,
These questions have been answered to my satisfaction by the OP upthread. I've not a shred of doubt that he was cleared direct to the IAF and cleared for the approach with an altitude to maintain until established.
Pretty common clearance really, if you need a link to an approach chart I'd be happy to post one for your convenience

If you have the airport and approach in question that the OP is talking about, that is sufficient. What I don't understand is his reluctance to provide the information, seems to me to be a benign request. Lack of specifics suggests he has something to hide or is fearful of imagined repercussions.

 

[Everskyward]

If you have the airport and approach in question that the OP is talking about, that is sufficient. What I don't understand is his reluctance to provide the information, seems to me to be a benign request. Lack of specifics suggests he has something to hide or is fearful of imagined repercussions.

He probably read the thread about FAA surveillance of internet boards.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

If you have the airport and approach in question that the OP is talking about, that is sufficient. What I don't understand is his reluctance to provide the information, seems to me to be a benign request. Lack of specifics suggests he has something to hide or is fearful of imagined repercussions.

Or maybe he's just turned off by your attempt to turn what had been an informative discussion into something more like an inquisition?
"….check his facts"?, really maybe we should review the tapes too and put 'im under oath just to make sure he ain't lyin'?

 

[peerlesscowboy]

John,
This whole matter was cleared up in the first page, suggest you go back and read it carefully paying particular attention to the OP's post @22

 

[John Collins]

Or maybe he's just turned off by your attempt to turn what had been an informative discussion into something more like an inquisition?
"….check his facts"?, really maybe we should review the tapes too and put 'im under oath just to make sure he ain't lyin'?

So asking for the approach involved is an inquisition, interesting view.

 

[John Collins]

John,
This whole matter was cleared up in the first page, suggest you go back and read it carefully paying particular attention to the OP's post @22

I reread the post, there isn't a clue as to where the approach is located. It would not be the first time that a pilot was confused by these terms. Sorry the inquisition remains in effect.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

So asking for the approach involved is an inquisition, interesting view.

The inquisition is the suggestion you should "check his facts". If you'll notice I'm the first one to request a link to the approach chart, however further discussion proved that hardly useful. Unless of course you don't think he's being truthful ?

 

[peerlesscowboy]

I reread the post, there isn't a clue as to where the approach is located. It would not be the first time that a pilot was confused by these terms. Sorry the inquisition remains in effect.

You don't seem to understand, exactly where the approach is located is irrelevant. Fact is he was cleared direct to the IAF, then cleared for the approach with a altitude to maintain until established.
Yeah, I don't doubt he was confused about the clearance. Understandable I suppose with these young fella's who are used to radar contact everywhere above the treetops and vectors to the final approach course assumed. I suspect the confusion was not so much over under what conditions the procedure turn is or isn't required but rather how to tell if he wasn't on vectors to the final approach course, a situation increasingly seldom encountered in much of the country.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

The FAF is also the IAF on this approach.

What part of "The FAF is also the IAF on this approach." don't you understand, John?

 

[John Collins]

The inquisition is the suggestion you should "check his facts". If you'll notice I'm the first one to request a link to the approach chart, however further discussion proved that hardly useful. Unless of course you don't think he's being truthful ?

I have no way of knowing if he is being truthful or not, but presume he is truthful. That does not imply he understands some of the distinctions, particularly when a PT is required, the distinction between a vector and a direct clearance, what the maximum angle and distance from the FAF that is permitted by controller guidance, may the controller vector an aircraft to join the final approach course above the GS, and so on. By knowing the specifics of the procedure, what is permitted will become clear. If anything, it seams likely that the controller was not following guidance, but this is pure speculation.

 

[John Collins]

What part of "The FAF is also the IAF on this approach." don't you understand, John?

Prove it.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

Prove it.

He said so, that's enough for me. Don't you think he knows how to read an approach chart?

 

[peerlesscowboy]

........................... If anything, it seams likely that the controller was not following guidance, but this is pure speculation.

I doubt that. The controller cleared him direct to the IAF thence cleared for the approach with an altitude to maintain until established. How is this not following guidance?

 

[Velocity173]

Although the title is "vector" the OP said he wasn't being vectored. If he was that would be a controller bust as I indicated on page 1. He says he was given direct an FAF. Controller can't do that unless it is also an IAF and the pilot is expected to do the PT/HILPT. OP said was also an IAF, therefore he should have done the reversal IAW the procedure. Doesnt matter that we don't have the actual plate, the OP admitted he didn't do the full procedure.

To the OP, if I had a dollar for every PD that occurred when I worked approach, I'd be a rich man. As Mark said the controller in that case was probably quite surprise you pulled off a straight in, but unless it affected his traffic flow, they aren't going to care. I wouldn't think any inspector reading this would care either unless they had a lot of spare time on their hands. Learn from it & don't let it happen again. Done.

 

[Everskyward]

Although the title is "vector" the OP said he wasn't being vectored. If he was that would be a controller bust as I indicated on page 1. He says he was given direct an FAF. Controller can't do that unless it is also an IAF and the pilot is expected to do the PT/HILPT. OP said was also an IAF, therefore he should have done the reversal IAW the procedure. Doesnt matter that we don't have the actual plate, the OP admitted he didn't do the full procedure.

To the OP, if I had a dollar for every PD that occurred when I worked approach, I'd be a rich man. As Mark said the controller in that case was probably quite surprise you pulled off a straight in, but unless it affected his traffic flow, they aren't going to care. I wouldn't think any inspector reading this would care either unless they had a lot of spare time on their hands. Learn from it & don't let it happen again. Done.

Agree. I think it dawned on the OP what happened on Page 1. POA is not a required class and if the OP doesn't want to discuss it further it is up to him/her.

 

[John Collins]

I doubt that. The controller cleared him direct to the IAF thence cleared for the approach with an altitude to maintain until established. How is this not following guidance?

Depends on which story you rely on from the OP, the one he was being vectored or the one he was cleared direct to the FAF or the one he was cleared to the IAF/FAF. Regardless, it is pure speculation.

 

[Jaybird180]

Glad you figured it out. One of the things I pound into my IR trainees is the mandatory nature of course reversals and the four specific exceptions to skip a published course reversal (in which case the course reversal is prohibited):

• Vectors to final
• Published NoPT route
• Already holding at the course reversal anchor fix at the depicted altitude
• Cleared "straight in" by the controller

We cover this repeatedly, and I try to get them as many opportunities as possible to have to make the choice in various situations on various approaches. I also make clear that there is never a situation where the course reversal is optional -- it's always either mandatory or prohibited., depending on those four criteria above.

But one important point to remember is that if it appears your approach clearance will result in intercepting the glide slope from above, either you or the controller has done something wrong, and then in accordance with 91.123, you should request clarification immediately.

Where does the RNAV T fit into this where one is also not expected to do a PT?

 

[John Collins]

Where does the RNAV T fit into this where one is also not expected to do a PT?

The RNAV T follows the same rules for when a PT is required. The general rule is if the PT or HILPT is shown on the approach chart, it is required unless one of the four exceptions noted by Ron apply. In some cases where there is a TAA, entire segments may have the note NoPT in addition to specific routes that are marked NoPT.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

Depends on which story you rely on from the OP, the one he was being vectored or the one he was cleared direct to the FAF or the one he was cleared to the IAF/FAF. Regardless, it is pure speculation.

You can speculate all you want, what happened was obvious to most of us including the OP himself after a little discussion.
So it was a learning opportunity, that's why we're here.

 

[John Collins]

You can speculate all you want, what happened was obvious to most of us including the OP himself after a little discussion.
So it was a learning opportunity, that's why we're here.

Merry Christmas!

 

[aterpster]

You can speculate all you want, what happened was obvious to most of us including the OP himself after a little discussion.
So it was a learning opportunity, that's why we're here.

I guess it's my mindset, but I cannot or will not respond to an actual issue of this nature without having the approach chart.

 

[peerlesscowboy]

I guess it's my mindset, but I cannot or will not respond to an actual issue of this nature without having the approach chart.

The ATC tapes would be nice also but in lieu of I see no reason to doubt the OPs word. This is after all a discussion board, not a hearing and folks can participate…or not. Why would anybody want to post here when they wind up being accused of hiding something? What approach was it, and where? I have no idea, somewhere in Arkansas I'd guess? We haven't heard from the OP for awhile, did we lose him? Maybe that's why we don't have a link to the approach chart?

 

[peerlesscowboy]

Merry Christmas!

….and a Happy New Year

 

[Everskyward]

The ATC tapes would be nice also but in lieu of I see no reason to doubt the OPs word. This is after all a discussion board, not a hearing and folks can participate…or not. Why would anybody want to post here when they wind up being accused of hiding something? What approach was it, and where? I have no idea, somewhere in Arkansas I'd guess? We haven't heard from the OP for awhile, did we lose him? Maybe that's why we don't have a link to the approach chart?

Or maybe the OP is having a nice Christmas Eve and doesn't want to hang out on an internet board.

 

[aterpster]

The ATC tapes would be nice also but in lieu of I see no reason to doubt the OPs word. This is after all a discussion board, not a hearing and folks can participate…or not. Why would anybody want to post here when they wind up being accused of hiding something? What approach was it, and where? I have no idea, somewhere in Arkansas I'd guess? We haven't heard from the OP for awhile, did we lose him? Maybe that's why we don't have a link to the approach chart?

No one asked for the ATC tapes or for the date or for his N number.

The approach chart fills in gaps without going to the date or time of the handling. Typically, with such questions the procedure's title is posted. Like I said, it provides the procedure, what type of ATC facility, and extent of radar coverage.

(ho! ho! ho!)

 

[NoHeat]

If you ask for an RNAV approach, is it necessary to specify LPV if that is your intention, so that the controller will know to vector you out far enough that you are under the glideslope?

 

[TMetzinger]

^ Interested into the answer to this from a controller perspective. I've not yet ever received vectors to final on an RNAV approach, I've gotten vectors to an IF though, and always at an appropriate altitude.