Where exactly does NoPT apply?

midlifeflyer said:
It would be rare to do a PT coming on a NoPT route. ATC most likely would not instruct it unless there was a traffic management problem and they were treating at as an ordinary hold. A pilot would not request it unless the pilot had an issue, even a simple one like arriving too high for a normal descent or just wanted to hold to meet currency requirements) and wanted to do the hold.

I this case TAA means "Terminal Arrival Area." See AIM paragraph 5-4-5.d. In the KFAR RNAV approach shown above, it's the quarter and semi-circular areas allowing descent. They are not limited to RNAV(GPS) approaches. They are appearing, for example, in "GPS Required" versions of ILS approaches.
Click to expand...
Here's a cartoon from the AIM:
TAA.jpg
 
midlifeflyer said:
In this case TAA means "Terminal Arrival Area." See AIM paragraph 5-4-5.d. In the KFAR RNAV approach shown above, it's the quarter and semi-circular areas allowing descent. They are not limited to RNAV(GPS) approaches. They are appearing, for example, in "GPS Required" versions of ILS approaches.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

aterpster said:
Seems to me you're making this one complicated when the Left Base, Right Base, and Straight-In TAA's make the requirements quite clear.
Click to expand...

I still maintain per my original post that GPS approaches are a bit of an oddity. They are still designed with all the markings required for aligning you with the final approach course and positively identifying your location despite the fact that none of that is actually necessary with a GPS approach.

The AIM TAA's description to me reflect the fact that none of that is necessary so we're going to create new terms to describe these "legacy" items but the depiction on the approach plate (without referencing the AIM) and how I described it is the "legacy" method of how approaches were designed and intended to be flown before the ubiquity of GPS and Radar coverage. A GPS T-Route Approach would most likely be depicted as an ARC approach using a VOR or ground based navigation station where accurate determination of your precise location is not possible.

GPS and Radar Coverage have been real game changers but there are still a lot of legacy items that served a different purpose than they do today. I imagine we'll eventually start seeing GPS approaches that dont have IAFs at all or do what by today's standard would be nonsensical.

While understanding the legacy of the system may not be required, if you do understand the legacy of how/why approaches are designed the way they were/are, it makes it possible to figure things out without having to refer to the AIM.

aterpster said:
Yes, they are different approaches but of the same facility, thus Y and Z. It makes perfect sense to me.
Click to expand...

But what you said is that KENIR was made an IF on the Zulu approach to support the Yankee approach. They have no bearing on each other; they are different approaches. KENIR does not have to be an IF on the ZULU approach at all. As I stated, based on the equipment requirements it would seem to me the Zulu predates the Yankee approach and KENIR was an IF on the ZULU approach that the FAA decided to just turn into its own approach designated as Yankee.

Notably KENIR is designated as both the colocated IAF/IF on the yankee approach. On the Zulu it is designated as only the IF. While the designation of IAF has less meaning in the post-2006 world where you can start an approach at the IF, prior to 2006, you could not begin the Zulu approach at Kenir, only continue it. Legacy? Yes but see above.

midlifeflyer said:
The two versions of an ILS are appearing in a lot of areas. One is the "traditional ILS." The other is one which uses GPS technology, often by having a TAA component, as in the PGV example.
Click to expand...

Two approaches or two versions of the ILS weren't my issue.

The part that didn't make sense was aterpster's statement that KENIR was designated as an IF on the Zulu approach to support the HILPT and TAA's of the Yankee approach.

I did not even look at the Yankee approach until aterpster brought it up because, repeating myself a bit here, they are different approaches and have no bearing on each other.

midlifeflyer said:
It would be rare to do a PT coming on a NoPT route. ATC most likely would not instruct it unless there was a traffic management problem and they were treating at as an ordinary hold. A pilot would not request it unless the pilot had an issue, even a simple one like arriving too high for a normal descent or just wanted to hold to meet currency requirements) and wanted to do the hold.
Click to expand...

I've seen plenty of pilots request the hold for currency though admit that's on a VFR practice approach not an "actual" approach.
As to arriving too high, I dont know that I've seen a feeder route that is both defined as NoPT and would set you up to be too high. Feeder routes that have NoPT usually step you down and/or are part of the approach themselves usually as the IAF. GPS/Radar coverage has again changed the game as to how approaches are practically flown today vs how they were originally designed and intended to be flown in a non-GPS, non-Radar environment.
 
Last edited:
apr911 said:
But what you said is that KENIR was made an IF on the Zulu approach to support the Yankee approach. They have no bearing on each other; they are different approaches. KENIR does not have to be an IF on the ZULU approach at all. As I stated, based on the equipment requirements it would seem to me the Zulu predates the Yankee approach and KENIR was an IF on the ZULU approach that the FAA decided to just turn into its own approach designated as Yankee.
Click to expand...
The Z approach could have been designed with a different IF, but that would complicate the design process, use another fix name, and not make ATC happy.

Look at Reno (KRNO) The ILS 16R has X, Y, and Z versions, all of which use the same IF.
 
aterpster said:
The Z approach could have been designed with a different IF, but that would complicate the design process, use another fix name, and not make ATC happy.
Click to expand...

The Zulu approach already has a perfectly reasonable IF in the form of establishing inbound after procedure turn at altitude. Why would I fly all the way out to KENIR 15NM away (admittedly only 11-12NM from AQE), when the approach authorizes me to make a procedure turn and establish my own IF within 10NM of AQE?

The designation of KENIR as an IF is totally unnecessary; if you were coming from a position North of KENIR, you'd just fly the Yankee approach and if you were coming from a position South of KENIR you could fly the Yankee approach and do the HILPT or you could fly the Zulu approach and do the procedure turn after passing AQE.

The only time KENIR as an IF makes sense is when you've gone missed on the Zulu approach and are going to attempt the Zulu approach again.

And again think of this approach in the sense of a "non-GPS" or "non-Radar" environment. All you have is your VOR and your ADF. If Kenir were not on the final approach course, how would you know where you are and make that turn to final approach course? You'd fly to AQE as the IAF and execute a procedure turn before returning to AQE as the FAF and continuing the approach
 
apr911 said:
ZAGGY is even more interesting than KENIR. The PT is NA at ZAGGY only if you are flying southwest on V457 which is a 250 Bearing/radial off of ECG until ZAGGY at which point it turns further south. If you continued to fly the heading you were on on V457, you'd intercept the LOC about 5NM after passing ZAGGY and 3 NM outside of AQE. What's interesting to me is that ZAGGY is not listed as an acceptable IAF or IF and it has an MRA of 7000 coming off the ECG VOR so you may lose reception of ECG and awareness of where you are prior to intercepting the localizer signal. It seems to me that ZAGGY is intended as an IAF with the IF being the localizer intercept at 1600 but since it only works when you are flying southwest on V457 and its possible (and even likely) you will lose reception of the ECG VOR station during your decent, it cant actually be designated as such.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what it says. The entire approach (not the procedure turn) is not authorized if you're arriving at ZAGGY on V457 SW-bound. So you won't be doing any of that.

apr911 said:
Flying ZAGGY seems particularly dangerous to me in a non-GPS and non-radar environment. Not having flown this approach myself, I dont know that I'd be happy with that potential loss of awareness unless ATC had radar contact and was at least nominally providing me with vectors; it may be a short distance but if I were in a cloud and had a non-indicating catastrophic loss or progressive loss of vacuum, I could easily turn off course and get totally lost. Even the short distance isn't comforting since its possible I tuned the ILS frequency incorrectly and thereby completely flew past the localizer course which was also my IF, now I'm at 1600 feet with no good way of knowing where I am. If I were to accept this without radar contact, I'd only do so with GPS or a secondary VOR/CDI and I'd tune Kinston/ISO VOR Radial 024 into my secondary (or something between 024 which I know to be past the localizer and 029 which I know to be on the localizer at the NDB) in order to increase situational awareness. I'd have Kinston tuned in before reaching ZAGGY so that I could verify reception and position at ZAGGY with Kinston and given Kinston is used for flying missed approach and can be used to fly to AQE, I'd be reasonably confident of reception during this phase of the approach down to at least 2100.
Click to expand...

ZAGGY is only a feeder route to the IAF and it is not a NoPT route. You still have to do the procedure turn.
 
apr911 said:
I still maintain per my original post that GPS approaches are a bit of an oddity. They are still designed with all the markings required for aligning you with the final approach course and positively identifying your location despite the fact that none of that is actually necessary with a GPS approach.
Click to expand...
OK. I guess I have a problem with the idea that the approach type most available u the US is an oddity, but that's just me. But I guess I'm not getting the point that situational awareness and lining up on a final approach course without hitting something i the meantime is "not necessary." But that's just me too.

I've seen plenty of pilots request the hold for currency though admit that's on a VFR practice approach not an "actual" approach.
As to arriving too high, I dont know that I've seen a feeder route that is both defined as NoPT and would set you up to be too high. Feeder routes that have NoPT usually step you down and/or are part of the approach themselves usually as the IAF.
Click to expand...
They do, but I always recall they are minimum altitudes. Not often, but its is always possible to get there too high. Might be pilot choice, as in not stepping down in order to wait for a more rapid descent through icing conditions. Might be ATC keeping a flight higher than the minimum altitudes for traffic reasons and the pilot wanting to descend in the hold rather than dive for the next altitude.
 
dmspilot said:
No, that's not what it says. The entire approach (not the procedure turn) is not authorized if you're arriving at ZAGGY on V457 SW-bound. So you won't be doing any of that.

ZAGGY is only a feeder route to the IAF and it is not a NoPT route. You still have to do the procedure turn.
Click to expand...

You are correct. I misread the notation there as "procedure turn NA Southwest on v457" not the entire procedure. In this case, ZAGGY is depicted on the approach plate because it is relevant to when the approach is not permitted. I imagine ZAGGY would not be depicted at all if the approach could be made when traveling Southwest on V457.

Thanks for the correction.
 
dmspilot said:
No, that's not what it says. The entire approach (not the procedure turn) is not authorized if you're arriving at ZAGGY on V457 SW-bound. So you won't be doing any of that.
Click to expand...
The misunderstanding of that simple note seems to be widespread. I'm guessing a lot of it is just folks not encountering it in training.

I was working AOPA Pilot Protection Services at SnF. Most of the questions were about enforcement and BasicMed, but there was this guy who asked if I could explain the "arrivals at...Procedure NA" note to him on a chart - he was a CFII who had just never noticed it.

Parenthetically, this one raises an interesting "why?" question. Why is the NA for arrivals at ZAGGY on 472 southwest bound when it's just fine for arrivals at ZAGGY on V472 northeast bound or V1 southwest bound? It not the usual steep turn - that would preclude arivals northeast bound. I am not a procedure design guru by any stretch of the imagination, but my guess is altitude. V1 and V472 northwest bound have a 3,000' minimum altitude, while for V472 southwest bound it's 4,000 feet higher. @aterpster, how did I do?
 
When you leave areas with radar service, procedure turns are become important. Especially if you don’t have RNAV.
 
Last edited:
apr911 said:
You are correct. I misread the notation there as "procedure turn NA Southwest on v457" not the entire procedure. In this case, ZAGGY is depicted on the approach plate because it is relevant to when the approach is not permitted. I imagine ZAGGY would not be depicted at all if the approach could be made when traveling Southwest on V457.

Thanks for the correction.
Click to expand...
Sure it would. ZAGGY is an airway fix. It's how to get from the enroute structure onto the approach self-nav. For that matter, that's true of KENIR as well. Look at the approach chart in the context of the en route chart, not in a vacuum.
 
midlifeflyer said:
OK. I guess I have a problem with the idea that the approach type most available u the US is an oddity, but that's just me. But I guess I'm not getting the point that situational awareness and lining up on a final approach course without hitting something i the meantime is "not necessary." But that's just me too.
Click to expand...

Oddity in the historical sense and in the sense of pilotage.

Before GPS you had to fly to an identifiable ground fix to know precisely where you were, now you know precisely where you are at all times and the fixes are more "imaginary"... I'm reminded of the scene from Battlefield Earth (I know horrible movie) where they're trying to fly to Washington DC and are complaining that the map has all these lines (for state boundaries) but they cant see any of them outside and that they must have faded. While some state lines have visible natural boundaries or even man-made boundaries, in most instances it is hard to tell from the air when you've crossed from one state to the next.

Old school approaches had ground fixes that were most often radio VORs or NDBs with exact plot locations but could also be other prominent landmarks with exact plot locations such as those on an IFR "visual approach" or "contact approach" plate. That to me is the difference between a GPS and an older approach... An older approach could easily be flown in visual conditions without instruments by flying to the landmarks; a GPS approach still requires GPS because most GPS fixes dont correspond with anything identifiable on the ground.

GPS is the "oddity" because it does not rely on any form of pilotage or dead-reckoning.


midlifeflyer said:
They do, but I always recall they are minimum altitudes. Not often, but its is always possible to get there too high. Might be pilot choice, as in not stepping down in order to wait for a more rapid descent through icing conditions. Might be ATC keeping a flight higher than the minimum altitudes for traffic reasons and the pilot wanting to descend in the hold rather than dive for the next altitude.
Click to expand...

True you might be a little high but you wouldn't continue an approach if you couldn't meet stable approach criteria by the FAF would you? A procedure turn to reduce altitude would likely only be used in that scenario... ATC keeping you at a higher altitude would really depend on for how long and how high above the altitude you are held there... They may just as likely through you into a hold somewhere off the approach plate (or in the HILPT) until they can step you down appropriately.
 
Last edited:
apr911 said:
True you might be a little high but you wouldn't continue an approach if you couldn't meet stable approach criteria by the FAF would you?
Click to expand...
Of course not. But that's the whole idea of using a PT to reduce altitude - so you can meet stable approach criteria by the time you get to the FAF. I thought that's what I said.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Of course not. But that's the whole idea of using a PT to reduce altitude - so you can meet stable approach criteria by the time you get to the FAF. I thought that's what I said.
Click to expand...

That is what I said... I was putting into the context of one of your previous comments about it being rare to do a PT coming from a NoPT route or being instructed by ATC to do a PT and how a "pilot would not request it unless they had an issue."

Of course now I'm reading that comment again and realizing you were saying "even a simple issue like arriving too high..." When I first read it I thought you were saying they wouldn't request one for something like arriving high or just wanting to do the hold for currency
 
midlifeflyer said:
The misunderstanding of that simple note seems to be widespread. I'm guessing a lot of it is just folks not encountering it in training.

I was working AOPA Pilot Protection Services at SnF. Most of the questions were about enforcement and BasicMed, but there was this guy who asked if I could explain the "arrivals at...Procedure NA" note to him on a chart - he was a CFII who had just never noticed it.

Parenthetically, this one raises an interesting "why?" question. Why is the NA for arrivals at ZAGGY on 472 southwest bound when it's just fine for arrivals at ZAGGY on V472 northeast bound or V1 southwest bound? It not the usual steep turn - that would preclude arivals northeast bound. I am not a procedure design guru by any stretch of the imagination, but my guess is altitude. V1 and V472 northwest bound have a 3,000' minimum altitude, while for V472 southwest bound it's 4,000 feet higher. @aterpster, how did I do?
Click to expand...
It's mostly turn angle of course change: max of 120 degrees for ground-based IAPs; 90 for RNAV.
 
Another way of looking at a GPS approach as the oddity:

GPS approaches can be changed at will whenever necessary by the FAA. A new tower goes on the approach path? Great, lets just move the fixes. The pilot has to verify their approach plate is current and that their GPS fixes are current or are in the correct position. Theoretically a GPS approach could even be modified midde-cylce by FDC NOTAM moving a GPS fix.

With non-GPS approaches, moving a fix, particularly an IAF/IF, generally required moving the radio station.
 
dtuuri said:
Actually, the designation of KENIR as an IAF is unnecessary:

"When the IF is part of the en route structure, it may not be necessary to establish an initial approach segment. In this case, the fix is designated as an IF/IAF and intermediate segment standards apply (see section 2-5)."
https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/order/faa_order_8260.3d1.pdf page 2-17.
​
KENIR is on V290.
Click to expand...
"may not be necessary" is the operative term. If it is going to anchor a HILPT, the course reversal is an initial approach segment.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The misunderstanding of that simple note seems to be widespread. I'm guessing a lot of it is just folks not encountering it in training.

I was working AOPA Pilot Protection Services at SnF. Most of the questions were about enforcement and BasicMed, but there was this guy who asked if I could explain the "arrivals at...Procedure NA" note to him on a chart - he was a CFII who had just never noticed it.
Click to expand...

Since we're talking procedure turns, my brain just filled in the gap with Procedure Turn NA. Power of suggestion.


midlifeflyer said:
Parenthetically, this one raises an interesting "why?" question. Why is the NA for arrivals at ZAGGY on 472 southwest bound when it's just fine for arrivals at ZAGGY on V472 northeast bound or V1 southwest bound? It not the usual steep turn - that would preclude arivals northeast bound. I am not a procedure design guru by any stretch of the imagination, but my guess is altitude. V1 and V472 northwest bound have a 3,000' minimum altitude, while for V472 southwest bound it's 4,000 feet higher. @aterpster, how did I do?
Click to expand...

I would agree that its probably due to altitude and loss of reception of the ECG VOR which you are using for navigation at that point. Coming on V1 or V472 northwest bound takes you right over the airport before ZAGGY. ATC would probably have you intercept and fly the localizer back course at that point and execute the procedure turn inbound. Even if they did not, you are navigating off the Kinston VOR which does not have the reception altitude issue at ZAGGY that Elizabeth City (ECG) VOR does.

Notably ZAGGY is only not authorized when flying Southwest on V472. When flying South on V1 there is nothing stopping you from using it and if you were flying fix-to-fix from nearby victor airway fixes PEARS/WEMOX/PIDEE but again you'd be using a different VOR station to identify it in those instances, one where you do not have an MRA of 7,000ft.
 
aterpster said:
"may not be necessary" is the operative term. If it is going to anchor a HILPT, the course reversal is an initial approach segment.
Click to expand...
I didn't see any HILPT at KENIR on the Z approach, otherwise I agree. Too many discussions going on here for me to keep 'em straight, so I just saw the one on KENIR and didn't agree that the missed approach was the reasoning for it not being an IAF. Being an enroute fix lined up with final seemed more like it to me.
 
apr911 said:
Another way of looking at a GPS approach as the oddity:

GPS approaches can be changed at will whenever necessary by the FAA. A new tower goes on the approach path? Great, lets just move the fixes. The pilot has to verify their approach plate is current and that their GPS fixes are current or are in the correct position. Theoretically a GPS approach could even be modified midde-cylce by FDC NOTAM moving a GPS fix.

With non-GPS approaches, moving a fix, particularly an IAF/IF, generally required moving the radio station.
Click to expand...
There are strict limits that permit issuing an abbreviated amendment.
 
apr911 said:
The Zulu approach already has a perfectly reasonable IF in the form of establishing inbound after procedure turn at altitude. Why would I fly all the way out to KENIR 15NM away (admittedly only 11-12NM from AQE), when the approach authorizes me to make a procedure turn and establish my own IF within 10NM of AQE?

The designation of KENIR as an IF is totally unnecessary; if you were coming from a position North of KENIR, you'd just fly the Yankee approach and if you were coming from a position South of KENIR you could fly the Yankee approach and do the HILPT or you could fly the Zulu approach and do the procedure turn after passing AQE.

The only time KENIR as an IF makes sense is when you've gone missed on the Zulu approach and are going to attempt the Zulu approach again.

And again think of this approach in the sense of a "non-GPS" or "non-Radar" environment. All you have is your VOR and your ADF. If Kenir were not on the final approach course, how would you know where you are and make that turn to final approach course? You'd fly to AQE as the IAF and execute a procedure turn before returning to AQE as the FAF and continuing the approach
Click to expand...
You're debating design. Your comments would be more appropriately given to the FAA at the IFP Gateway.
 
aterpster said:
There are strict limits that permit issuing an abbreviated amendment.
Click to expand...

That's why I said "theoretically." There are limits on the FAA's ability to issue the amendment but they exist as a way to prevent issues arising from such an amendment... Moving a VOR station is comparatively more difficult and not something that could be done mid-cycle. Also moving a VOR station would not present as much issue since you'd know precisely where you are in relation to the fix of the VOR station, even though the station has moved.

aterpster said:
You're debating design. Your comments would be more appropriately given to the FAA at the IFP Gateway.
Click to expand...

No, I'm debating your comment that KENIR was made into an IF on the ZULU approach to support a completely different approach and how/why it was more likely the reverse (KENIR was already an IF and the YANKEE approach was created as an acceptable alternative/overlay)
 
Last edited:
So, re: starting an approach at an IF. I hadn't heard of this, but it looks as though you need to ask and get agreement from ATC that you are starting the approach at the IF. Not sure why I would go thru the extra work though, just ask for VTF. If you aren't in a radar environment, it's probably not worth the risk of doing it unless you are in a flat area. What am I missing?
 
aterpster said:
It's mostly turn angle of course change: max of 120 degrees for ground-based IAPs; 90 for RNAV.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but looking at the chart, heres' what we see:
  • ZAGGY on V472 southwest bound is a 20 degree turn to the AQE IAF (NA).
  • ZAGGY on V1 southwest bound, is a 25 degree turn to the AQE IAF (not NA).
  • ZAGGY on V472 northeast bound is a 161 degree turn to the AQE IAF (not NA).
IOW, the smallest turn is the one which is NA. That's why I thought of the altitudes getting there.
 
Last edited:
PaulS said:
So, re: starting an approach at an IF. I hadn't heard of this, but it looks as though you need to ask and get agreement from ATC that you are starting the approach at the IF. Not sure why I would go thru the extra work though, just ask for VTF. If you aren't in a radar environment, it's probably not worth the risk of doing it unless you are in a flat area. What am I missing?
Click to expand...
I think you are missing at least two things:
  • Not being vectored for a GPS approach is also very common, even in areas with radar coverage.
  • Asking for an IF straight in is not a lot of extra work. It's pretty standard stuff. I always tell ATC which fix I want for the approach (unless there's only one). That's basic to my briefing the approach - where am I coming from, where am I going to, what's the best way to get there. Asking for the "straight in " clearance if it's not offered takes an extra 3 seconds.
I've flown to that airport and that's exactly what I would do coming from the east/west/north. Ask for "Direct KENIR straight in for the ILS Y 20." (or, more likely, the GPS 20)
 
Last edited:
cowman said:
I'd never done this, normally ATC will vector you in a way that will make sense but I was curious so I fired up the Garmin 530W simulator to see what it would do.

I set it up on an RNAV approach and had it use an initial approach fix with "NoPT" which seems to be common to most RNAV approaches so that it would require a greater than 90 degree(in one case almost 180) turn to start the approach. Indeed it simply sequenced the approach and made a reaalllly early turn to come around and intercept the course from the selected IA to the next waypoint. I even got to see a message of "steep turn ahead" which I've never seen before...so... neat.

I don't think ATC would ever assign you a an initial fix where you had to make a near 180 but a 100 or 120 degree turn might make sense in certain scenarios I guess.
Click to expand...
aterpster said:
Here's a cartoon from the AIM:
View attachment 73892
Click to expand...

?? What's the punchline?
 
midlifeflyer said:
The misunderstanding of that simple note seems to be widespread. I'm guessing a lot of it is just folks not encountering it in training.

I was working AOPA Pilot Protection Services at SnF. Most of the questions were about enforcement and BasicMed, but there was this guy who asked if I could explain the "arrivals at...Procedure NA" note to him on a chart - he was a CFII who had just never noticed it.

Parenthetically, this one raises an interesting "why?" question. Why is the NA for arrivals at ZAGGY on 472 southwest bound when it's just fine for arrivals at ZAGGY on V472 northeast bound or V1 southwest bound? It not the usual steep turn - that would preclude arivals northeast bound. I am not a procedure design guru by any stretch of the imagination, but my guess is altitude. V1 and V472 northwest bound have a 3,000' minimum altitude, while for V472 southwest bound it's 4,000 feet higher. @aterpster, how did I do?
Click to expand...
The note is in error. It should read "Procedure NA for arrivals on V472 northeast bound."
 
apr911 said:
That's why I said "theoretically." There are limits on the FAA's ability to issue the amendment but they exist as a way to prevent issues arising from such an amendment... Moving a VOR station is comparatively more difficult and not something that could be done mid-cycle. Also moving a VOR station would not present as much issue since you'd know precisely where you are in relation to the fix of the VOR station, even though the station has moved.



No, I'm debating your comment that KENIR was made into an IF on the ZULU approach to support a completely different approach and how/why it was more likely the reverse (KENIR was already an IF and the YANKEE approach was created as an acceptable alternative/overlay)
Click to expand...
As in the Reno example policy is to use one IF for W, X, Y, and Z procedures for the same ILS.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I think you are missing at least two things:
  • Not being vectored for a GPS approach is also very common, even in areas with radar coverage.
  • Asking for an IF straight in is not a lot of extra work. It's pretty standard stuff. I always tell ATC which fix I want for the approach (unless there's only one). That's basic to my briefing the approach - where am I coming from, where am I going to, what's the best way to get there. Asking for the "straight in " clearance if it's not offered takes an extra 3 seconds.
I've flown to that airport and that's exactly what I would do coming from the east/west/north. Ask for "Direct KENIR straight in for the ILS Y 20." (or, more likely, the GPS 20)
Click to expand...

The only thing I'm missing is whether it's worth my while to ask for the IF. Typically, when flying IFR, I can't remember being lined up on the final approach course while enroute. When not being vectored I am typically cleared to an IAF. I have not had the situation where an IF would be advantageous to me over VTF or the IAF. Even when thoroughly briefed I'd still be leery of wanting an IF versus an IAF because of terrain around here. I guess I could brief it as above xxx altitude the IF would be ok, otherwise use the IAF, but it just seems like extra things to remember.

Around here most approaches are VTF, most but not all. So I learned early on to ask for what I want rather than let it be a surprise. That allows me to get the avionics set removing the guess work. I've had a few approaches where they told me to expect VTF, then they cleared me to a fix, no big deal other than I have to reload the approach in the avionics if the fix isn't on the final approach course and I've set up for VTF.
 
@luvflyin

Re: Contact Approach Plate

I realize there is no such thing as an actual contact approach plate and I could have worded that sentence a bit better; my point however remains the same: whether descending VFR in a known area towards an airport not in visual range, descending IFR in VMC in an unknown area but using a visual approach plate or descending VFR and conducting a contact approach following a visual approach plate in mostly visual weather that doesnt meet the VFR minimums, you are navigating by prominent ground landmarks that are not likely to be moved overnight.
 
Last edited:
apr911 said:
@luvflyin

Re: Contact Approach Plate

I realize there is no such thing as an actual contact approach plate and I could have worded that sentence a bit better; my point however remains the same: whether descending VFR in a known area towards an airport not in visual range, descending IFR in VMC in an unknown area but using a visual approach plate or descending VFR and conducting a contact approach following a visual approach plate in mostly visual weather that doesnt meet the VFR minimums, you are navigating by prominent ground landmarks that are not likely to be moved overnight.
Click to expand...

Gotcha.
 
midlifeflyer said:
  • Asking for an IF straight in is not a lot of extra work. It's pretty standard stuff. I always tell ATC which fix I want for the approach (unless there's only one). That's basic to my briefing the approach - where am I coming from, where am I going to, what's the best way to get there. Asking for the "straight in " clearance if it's not offered takes an extra 3 seconds.
Click to expand...
I am guessing I have become spoiled with a majority of my flying being on the wet coast or the northeast... I am usually asked by ATC while en-route and close to my destination "approach requested" and usually from there the vectoring begins...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top