Vectors-to-Final to Off-Airport VOR or NDB?
John Clonts
when the navaid is on the airport. Doesn't make much sense to me-- can
anybody here confirm or deny that?
Thanks,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
David Megginson
> I read somewhere that VTF could only be given for VOR and NDB
> approaches when the navaid is on the airport. Doesn't make much
> sense to me-- can anybody here confirm or deny that?
Not in Canada, anyway -- I've been vectored to final for a (practice)
NDB approach with the NDB several miles off the field. Can you
remember where you read that?
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, da...@megginson.com, http://www.megginson.com/
Robert Moore
> "John Clonts" writes:
>> I read somewhere that VTF could only be given for VOR and NDB
>> approaches when the navaid is on the airport. Doesn't make
>> much sense to me-- can anybody here confirm or deny that?
> Not in Canada, anyway -- I've been vectored to final for a
> (practice) NDB approach with the NDB several miles off the
> field. Can you remember where you read that?
How did you determine the MAP if you did not overfly the VOR/ADF?
With the VOR/ADF on the field, location of the MAP is obvious and
seems to be the reason for only giving VTF if the VOR/ADF is
located on the field and is the MAP.
Bob Moore
Steven McNicoll
"John Clonts" <jcl...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:b81fi...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> I read somewhere that VTF could only be given for VOR and NDB approaches
> when the navaid is on the airport. Doesn't make much sense to me-- can
> anybody here confirm or deny that?
>
It's not true.
David Megginson
> How did you determine the MAP if you did not overfly the VOR/ADF?
Stopwatch.
> With the VOR/ADF on the field, location of the MAP is obvious and
> seems to be the reason for only giving VTF if the VOR/ADF is
> located on the field and is the MAP.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, or the terminology is different in the
U.S. By 'vectors to final', I assumed that you meant a vectored
approach rather than a full-procedure approach.
A VOR or ADF on the field can easily serve as the IAF, and as long as
you have an IAF, you can fly a full procedure. As far as I know, the
reason for a vectored approach is usually just efficiency and
convenience -- around here, nobody but an IFR student (like me) would
fly a full procedure when radar service is available.
Steven McNicoll
"Robert Moore" <rmoo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9364A4652C06Crm...@65.32.1.8...
>
> How did you determine the MAP if you did not overfly the VOR/ADF?
>
You will overfly it.
>
> With the VOR/ADF on the field, location of the MAP is obvious and
> seems to be the reason for only giving VTF if the VOR/ADF is
> located on the field and is the MAP.
>
The navaid does not need to be on the field to be vectored to the final
approach course.
John Clonts
Steven McNicoll <ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:WkYoa.34259$ey1.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Good, thanks!
John
John Clonts
David Megginson <da...@megginson.com> wrote in message
news:871xzvb...@megginson.com...
> "John Clonts" <jcl...@hot.rr.com> writes:
>
> > I read somewhere that VTF could only be given for VOR and NDB
> > approaches when the navaid is on the airport. Doesn't make much
> > sense to me-- can anybody here confirm or deny that?
>
> Not in Canada, anyway -- I've been vectored to final for a (practice)
> NDB approach with the NDB several miles off the field. Can you
> remember where you read that?
>
Rummage, rummage... Oh yes, here it is, from Gene Whitt's site:
http://www.whittsflying.com/Pageg33%20IFR%20Procedures.htm#anchor90304 ,
under "Getting Vectors.to the Approach Final"
Thanks,
John
KP
That's not true. See FAAO 7110.65 5-1-6.
You may be vectored to anything depicted on the controller's video map.
Sometimes the VOR, NDB, or TACAN FACs are depicted; sometimes they aren't.
If the final approach course isn't depicted it doesn't matter what type of
approach it is (except PAR) or where the navaid is you won't get vectors.
Centers are restricted a bit more than terminal facilities. See 5-9-1d for
details.
Since you'll join the FAC at least three miles from the FAF you'd find the
MAP the same way you'd find it any other time.
John Clonts
Steven McNicoll <ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:WkYoa.34259$ey1.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
Let's say I'm getting vectors to final on the TPL VOR-15
<http://myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthCentral/TPL_vr15.pdf>
and I do not have DME. "N7NZ, turn left 180 to join final approach course,
maintain 3000 til established, cleared VOR 15". I don't know whether I'm
inside or outside the 10mi TPL ring. How do I know when to descend from
3000 to 2200? To 1700?
Cheers,
John
Bob Gardner
Bob Gardner
"John Clonts" <jcl...@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:b81pv...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Steven McNicoll
>
> Rummage, rummage... Oh yes, here it is, from Gene Whitt's site:
> http://www.whittsflying.com/Pageg33%20IFR%20Procedures.htm#anchor90304 ,
> under "Getting Vectors.to the Approach Final"
>
Gene Whitt wrote:
"The normal intercept of a radar vector is within the intermediate segments.
Only on an on-airport VOR or NDB can the radar vector intercept the final
approach. The usual length of the intermediate segment is five miles except
for shallow interceptions of an ILS."
It appears Mr. Whitt has confused Final Approach Segment with Final Approach
Course. Mr. Whitt may be an excellent instructor as far as stick and rudder
skills are concerned, but his web site is riddled with errors.
Phil Rynn
established on final, or if you are inside of GEREL, you can descend to at
or above 1700 (provided you have intercepted the FAC). The 2200'
restriction is only for the outbound leg of the PT as long as you maintain
within 10nm. GEREL is defined off of WACO VORTAC and TEMPLE VOR DME. If
you are at GEREL and you have DME, then it will be reading 10.2. Check the
note by the intersection on the plan view for clarification.
Philnews:b81pv...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Steven McNicoll
>
> Let's say I'm getting vectors to final on the TPL VOR-15
> <http://myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthCentral/TPL_vr15.pdf>
> and I do not have DME. "N7NZ, turn left 180 to join final approach
course,
> maintain 3000 til established, cleared VOR 15". I don't know whether I'm
> inside or outside the 10mi TPL ring. How do I know when to descend from
> 3000 to 2200? To 1700?
>
The controller must advise you of your position relative to a fix on the
final approach course, in most cases the final approach fix is used. If you
want an in-cockpit indication use the Waco 202 radial, DME is not required
to identify GEREL.
j...@obilivan.net
Steven McNicoll wrote:
> It appears Mr. Whitt has confused Final Approach Segment with Final Approach
> Course. Mr. Whitt may be an excellent instructor as far as stick and rudder
> skills are concerned, but his web site is riddled with errors.
It's easy to confuse for those who don't understand the differences as well as
you. The FAA doesn't help when they insist on using the generic "final approach
course" when, in fact, the intermediate segment may have a different course than
the final approach segment.
J Haggerty
will be to the Intermediate, and not to final. So it should be a Vector to
Intermediate in those cases rather than a VTF.
Joe is right when he says that the final course is not always the same as
the intermediate course. Good example would be parallel runways with a
shared NDB or VOR FAF. More than likely, they'll share the Procedure turn
tracks, but have different headings for final after crossing the FAF.
Example would be KTYS NDB Rwy 5L vs Rwy 5R.
--
JPHaggerty
<j...@obilivan.net> wrote in message news:3EA499A1...@obilivan.net...
j...@obilivan.net
J Haggerty wrote:
> Technically, Mr Whitt is correct. If the VOR is off-airport, then the vector
> will be to the Intermediate, and not to final. So it should be a Vector to
> Intermediate in those cases rather than a VTF.
> Joe is right when he says that the final course is not always the same as
> the intermediate course. Good example would be parallel runways with a
> shared NDB or VOR FAF. More than likely, they'll share the Procedure turn
> tracks, but have different headings for final after crossing the FAF.
> Example would be KTYS NDB Rwy 5L vs Rwy 5R.
There are lots of off-airport VOR and NDB approaches where the facility is the
FAF and their is a course change of up to 30 degrees at the facility.
A course change at the final approach waypoint is also permitted in RNAV
criteria provided it is required to avoid obstacles (and inevitably noise
sensitive areas).
Steven McNicoll
"J Haggerty" <jph...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:d83pa.36593$4P1.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> Technically, Mr Whitt is correct. If the VOR is off-airport, then the
vector
> will be to the Intermediate, and not to final. So it should be a Vector to
> Intermediate in those cases rather than a VTF.
> Joe is right when he says that the final course is not always the same as
> the intermediate course. Good example would be parallel runways with a
> shared NDB or VOR FAF. More than likely, they'll share the Procedure turn
> tracks, but have different headings for final after crossing the FAF.
> Example would be KTYS NDB Rwy 5L vs Rwy 5R.
>
No, Mr. Whitt is wrong. "Vectors to final" is vectors to the final approach
COURSE, not the final approach SEGMENT.
Pilot/Controller Glossary
FINAL APPROACH COURSE- A bearing/radial/track of an instrument approach
leading to a runway or an extended runway centerline all without regard to
distance.
SEGMENTS OF AN INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE- An instrument approach
procedure may have as many as four separate segments depending on how the
approach procedure is structured.
a. Initial Approach- The segment between the initial approach fix and the
intermediate fix or the point where the aircraft is established on the
intermediate course or final approach course.
b. Intermediate Approach- The segment between the intermediate fix or
point and the final approach fix.
c. Final Approach- The segment between the final approach fix or point and
the runway, airport, or missed approach point.
d. Missed Approach- The segment between the missed approach point or the
point of arrival at decision height and the missed approach fix at the
prescribed altitude.
FAA Order 7110.65N Air Traffic Control
Section 9. Radar Arrivals
5-9-1. VECTORS TO FINAL APPROACH COURSE
Except as provided in para 7-4-2, Vectors for Visual Approach, vector
arriving aircraft to intercept the final approach course:
a. At least 2 miles outside the approach gate unless one of the following
exists:
1. When the reported ceiling is at least 500 feet above the MVA/MIA and
the visibility is at least 3 miles (report may be a PIREP if no weather is
reported for the airport), aircraft may be vectored to intercept the final
approach course closer than 2 miles outside the approach gate but no closer
than the approach gate.
2. If specifically requested by the pilot, aircraft may be vectored to
intercept the final approach course inside the approach gate but no closer
than the final approach fix.
b. For a precision approach, at an altitude not above the
glideslope/glidepath or below the minimum glideslope intercept altitude
specified on the approach procedure chart.
c. For a nonprecision approach, at an altitude which will allow descent in
accordance with the published procedure.
NOTE-
A pilot request for an "evaluation approach," or a "coupled approach," or
use of a similar term, indicates the pilot desires the application of
subparas a and b.
d. EN ROUTE. The following provisions are required before an aircraft may
be vectored to the final approach course:
1. The approach gate and a line (solid or broken), depicting the final
approach course starting at or passing through the approach gate and
extending away from the airport, be displayed on the radar scope; for a
precision approach, the line length shall extend at least the maximum range
of the localizer; for a nonprecision approach, the line length shall extend
at least 10NM outside the approach gate; and
2. The maximum range selected on the radar display is 150 NM; or
3. An adjacent radar display is set at 125 NM or less, configured for
the approach in use, and is utilized for the vector to the final approach
course.
4. If unable to comply with subparas 1, 2, or 3 above, issue the
clearance in accordance with para 4-8-1, Approach Clearance.
REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Approach Clearance, Para 4-8-1.
FAAO 7110.65, Final Approach Course Interception, Para 5-9-2.
Stan Prevost
course at the FAF, from intermediate segment to final approach segment?
Around here, where there is an approach with a 28 degree course change at
the FAF, the vector is to the intermediate segment, but the controllers say
"vector to final approach course". What should they say or do if that is
wrong?
"Steven McNicoll" <ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:JR8pa.36880$4P1.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
j...@obilivan.net
speak, left over from the early days of vectors only to a localizer.
Sydney D. Hoeltzli
> Let's say I'm getting vectors to final on the TPL VOR-15
> <http://myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthCentral/TPL_vr15.pdf>
> and I do not have DME. "N7NZ, turn left 180 to join final approach course,
> maintain 3000 til established, cleared VOR 15". I don't know whether I'm
> inside or outside the 10mi TPL ring. How do I know when to descend from
> 3000 to 2200? To 1700?
?? Maybe I don't understand the question
You're inside the 10 mile TPL ring if you're established and past
GEREL, which is defined as the 202 degree radial off WACO -- no
DME required. So as long as you have 2 VORs, just set up the
2nd for WACO 202 and a glance will tell you ("same side safe" rule)
Look at the plan view for when you can descend. Looks to me
like 1700 as soon as established inbound and w/in 10 miles
In any event the controller should give you a distance "5 miles
from Temple, maintain 2200 until established, cleared for the
VOR 15 approach at TPL"
Now here's MY question about the approach: why the note "radar
required for procedure turn"?? Is it to make sure nobody
wanders into the restricted area?
Cheers,
Sydney
Sydney D. Hoeltzli
> There are lots of off-airport VOR and NDB approaches where the facility is the
> FAF and their is a course change of up to 30 degrees at the facility.
> A course change at the final approach waypoint is also permitted in RNAV
> criteria provided it is required to avoid obstacles (and inevitably noise
> sensitive areas).
This is an interesting question: can one receive radar vectors onto the
intermediate segment course for these approaches? The 7110.65 very
distinctly
refers to "vectors to the final approach COURSE" (Section 5-9-1).
I see no provision for vectoring airplanes onto any other course of an
IAP.
My belief is, if ATC is able to provide radar vectors for such an
approach,
they still must vector you onto the final approach COURSE, not the
intermediate
course.
But I sit ready to be corrected and directed to the appropriate 7110.65
reference.
Cheers,
Sydney
Sydney D. Hoeltzli
> "The normal intercept of a radar vector is within the intermediate segments.
> Only on an on-airport VOR or NDB can the radar vector intercept the final
> approach. The usual length of the intermediate segment is five miles except
> for shallow interceptions of an ILS."
> It appears Mr. Whitt has confused Final Approach Segment with Final Approach
> Course. Mr. Whitt may be an excellent instructor as far as stick and rudder
> skills are concerned, but his web site is riddled with errors.
I'm sure Mr. Whitt would appreciate an email drawing his attention to
any
errors you find.
Cheers,
Sydney
Sydney D. Hoeltzli
> So what kind of vector should be given when the procedure track changes
> course at the FAF, from intermediate segment to final approach segment?
> Around here, where there is an approach with a 28 degree course change at
> the FAF, the vector is to the intermediate segment, but the controllers say
> "vector to final approach course". What should they say or do if that is
> wrong?
Stan:
Are you in fact being vectored onto the final approach course? Or onto
the intermediate course?
I think this is a very good question.
Can you link to the approach? What approach is it?
Cheers,
Sydney
Sydney D. Hoeltzli
> Rummage, rummage... Oh yes, here it is, from Gene Whitt's site:
> http://www.whittsflying.com/Pageg33%20IFR%20Procedures.htm#anchor90304 ,
> under "Getting Vectors.to the Approach Final"
It seems to me, reading this, that Gene is mixing two concepts here.
1) vectors to final
You receive vectors to the final approach COURSE, not to
the "final approach segment" or the "intermediate approach
segment"
2) intermediate vs final approach *segment* of the approach
Vectors to the final approach COURSE must be outside the FAF
(ie, on the intermediate segment of the approach), unless the
navaid is on the field, in which case there often isn't a
charted FAF.
Gene is saying in this case you are getting vectors to the
final approach *segment* of the course. (TERPS gurus may
see it differently). I disagree with Gene.
The trick is: in order to give you vectors to the final
approach course, the *controller* must have an approach
gate displayed on his scope. IOW, there's sort of
a "virtual" final approach segment, and you still must be
vectored onto the final approach course outside of it.
In any case, I don't think Gene meant to say you can not receive
radar vectors for an approach based on an off-airport navaid.
He meant that an off-airport navaid generally has a charted
intermediate segment, and you're being vectored onto the
final approach COURSE w/in this intermediate SEGMENT.
Personally, trying to look at every instrument approach and parse
it into "initial" "intermediate" and "final" segments makes my
head hurt. The Take-Home point for the pilot is (IMO):
*you can not receive radar vectors to the final approach
course INSIDE the FAF, if there is one charted
*if there is not a charted FAF because the approach is based
on an on-field navaid, you can not be vectored onto the
final approach course closer than 5 miles from the navaid
(in effect, a virtual FAF)
Wally Roberts had an excellent article on his web site about
vectors to final. Anyone know if Wally's articles wound up
somewhere on the web?
Anyway, here's an onfield VOR approach which illustrates
the concept IMO:
http://myairplane.com/databases/approach/NorthCentral/3SQ_v_gr9.pdf
Note that the IAF and FAF are both defined as DME or radar
fixes. The controller must vector you onto the final approach
course outside DRUID, the FAF.
Compare w/ this onfield VOR approach:
http://myairplane.com/databases/approach/EastCentral/MWA_vr20.pdf
There is no charted FAF, but if you were getting vectors to the
final approach course from Center, the controller must vector
you onto the FAC outside the "approach gate" they have defined
on their scope (in fact, it's probably the LOM for the ILS to the
same runway)
Any clearer?
Sydney
Stan Prevost
"Sydney D. Hoeltzli" <hoel...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3EA544BC...@swbell.net...
Vectors are to the intermediate segment, as vectors to the final approach
course outside the FAF would not be on the procedure track. Our local DE
loves to have instrument candidates fly this approach with VTF on
checkrides, and then he asks them "Now what was wrong with that
instruction?"
VOR/DME-B, Madison County Executive Airport, Huntsville, AL (MDQ)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M18A21D44
A typical vector is "Fly heading 050, vectors to final approach course".
Stan
Stan Prevost
<j...@obilivan.net> wrote in message news:3EA59096...@obilivan.net...
> Its not really wrong, it is simply a less-than-precise term of "art" so to
> speak, left over from the early days of vectors only to a localizer.
>
That's how we have always treated it.
Stan
John Clonts
> John Clonts wrote:
>
> > Let's say I'm getting vectors to final on the TPL VOR-15
> > <http://myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthCentral/TPL_vr15.pdf>
> > and I do not have DME. "N7NZ, turn left 180 to join final approach
course,
> > maintain 3000 til established, cleared VOR 15". I don't know whether
I'm
> > inside or outside the 10mi TPL ring. How do I know when to descend from
> > 3000 to 2200? To 1700?
>
> ?? Maybe I don't understand the question
>
> You're inside the 10 mile TPL ring if you're established and past
> GEREL, which is defined as the 202 degree radial off WACO -- no
> DME required. So as long as you have 2 VORs, just set up the
> 2nd for WACO 202 and a glance will tell you ("same side safe" rule)
>
Yes, I had missed that fact about the 202 radial from waco. Thanks!
> Look at the plan view for when you can descend. Looks to me
> like 1700 as soon as established inbound and w/in 10 miles
>
> In any event the controller should give you a distance "5 miles
> from Temple, maintain 2200 until established, cleared for the
> VOR 15 approach at TPL"
>
> Now here's MY question about the approach: why the note "radar
> required for procedure turn"?? Is it to make sure nobody
> wanders into the restricted area?
>
Good question, I'll ask my instructor...
Cheers,
John
j...@obilivan.net
"Sydney D. Hoeltzli" wrote:
You're trying to read the 7110.65 like it's a regulation. It is not. Rather, it is
an FAA order to implement FAA policy. FAA policy, of course, cannot be in conflict
with FARs. The FARs require that you maintain the last assigned altitude if
vectored into an unpublished segment of an instrument approach procedure. Thus,
where there is a course change at the FAF then it becomes appropriate for the radar
vector to be to the course that defines the intermediate segment.
Radar vectors onto an instrument approach can occur earlier than the intermediate
segment, but they cannot occur later than at a specified point in the intermediate
segment. That is covered by 7110.65, Paragraph 5-9-1. That states distances from
the approach gate and the final approach fix. By definition, the final approach
segment does not begin until the final approach fix or point.
Steven McNicoll
"Stan Prevost" <spre...@highstream.net> wrote in message
news:mZapa.61088$c42....@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> So what kind of vector should be given when the procedure track changes
> course at the FAF, from intermediate segment to final approach segment?
> Around here, where there is an approach with a 28 degree course change at
> the FAF, the vector is to the intermediate segment, but the controllers
> say "vector to final approach course". What should they say or do if that
is
> wrong?
>
"Vector to intercept Smithtown 090 radial", or a reasonable facsimile
thereof.
When initiating a vector ATC must advise the pilot of the purpose of the
vector. If they're not going to vector the aircraft to the final approach
course they shouldn't be saying "vector to final approach course". But if
they do say "vector to final approach course", what makes you think they're
vectoring you to the intermediate segment?
What approach is this?
Steven McNicoll
<j...@obilivan.net> wrote in message news:3EA59096...@obilivan.net...
>
> Its not really wrong, it is simply a less-than-precise term of "art" so to
> speak, left over from the early days of vectors only to a localizer.
>
Vectors ONLY to a localizer? What days were those?
Steven McNicoll
>
> John Clonts wrote:
>
> > Rummage, rummage... Oh yes, here it is, from Gene Whitt's site:
> > http://www.whittsflying.com/Pageg33%20IFR%20Procedures.htm#anchor90304 ,
> > under "Getting Vectors.to the Approach Final"
>
> It seems to me, reading this, that Gene is mixing two concepts here.
>
> 1) vectors to final
>
> You receive vectors to the final approach COURSE, not to
> the "final approach segment" or the "intermediate approach
> segment"
>
You can certainly receive vectors to the intermediate approach segment.
That's the segment you're being vectored to when you're being vectored to
the final approach course.
Steven McNicoll
> j...@obilivan.net wrote:
>
> > There are lots of off-airport VOR and NDB approaches where the facility
is the
> > FAF and their is a course change of up to 30 degrees at the facility.
>
> > A course change at the final approach waypoint is also permitted in RNAV
> > criteria provided it is required to avoid obstacles (and inevitably
noise
> > sensitive areas).
>
> This is an interesting question: can one receive radar vectors onto the
> intermediate segment course for these approaches?
>
Yes. On approaches the limitation is the Final Approach Fix, that's the
closest to the field one may be vectored.
>
> The 7110.65 very distinctly
> refers to "vectors to the final approach COURSE" (Section 5-9-1).
>
> I see no provision for vectoring airplanes onto any other course of an
> IAP.
>
Nor any prohibition either.
Ron Natalie
"Steven McNicoll" <ronca...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:Ixbua.59872$ey1.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
\
> > I see no provision for vectoring airplanes onto any other course of an
> > IAP.
> >
>
> Nor any prohibition either.
>
>
> >
> > My belief is, if ATC is able to provide radar vectors for such an
> > approach,
> > they still must vector you onto the final approach COURSE, not the
> > intermediate
> > course.
I think the point that Steve is dancing around is that ATC can vector you wherever
they want. The issue is that there are exactly two ways to pick up an approach
on your own navigation: at an IAF, or onto a final that ATC has vectored you.
Certainly I've been vector'd all over creation before ATC plopped me down on final.
Steven McNicoll
>
> Vectors are to the intermediate segment, as vectors to the final approach
> course outside the FAF would not be on the procedure track. Our local DE
> loves to have instrument candidates fly this approach with VTF on
> checkrides, and then he asks them "Now what was wrong with that
> instruction?"
>
> VOR/DME-B, Madison County Executive Airport, Huntsville, AL (MDQ)
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?M18A21D44
>
> A typical vector is "Fly heading 050, vectors to final approach course".
>
I don't see anything necessarily wrong with it, other than possible
confusion. There's no requirement that the segment being vectored to must
be on the procedure track. In fact, there is at least one example in FAAO
7110.65 where that is not the case.
j...@obilivan.net
Steven McNicoll wrote:
Mid-1950s, or thereabouts. There were only ILSes and L/F Range Legs.
Stan Prevost
The intermediate segment is R-250, FAC is R-042. Vectors are always "Fly
heading 050, intercept R-250, vectors to final approach course."
> What approach is this?
>
>
VOR/DME-B Madison County Executive Airport, Huntsville, AL (MDQ)
http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthEast/MDQ_vdB.pdf
So for FAR 91.175(j), should the pilot perform a procedure turn after
receiving vectors to the intermediate segment?
(j) Limitation on procedure turns. In the case of a radar vector to a final
approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach
for which the procedure specifies "No PT," no pilot may make a procedure
turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.
j...@obilivan.net
Stan Prevost wrote:
> "The intermediate segment is R-250, FAC is R-042. Vectors are always "Fly
> heading 050, intercept R-250, vectors to final approach course."
>
> > What approach is this?
> >
> >
>
> VOR/DME-B Madison County Executive Airport, Huntsville, AL (MDQ)
>
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthEast/MDQ_vdB.pdf
>
> So for FAR 91.175(j), should the pilot perform a procedure turn after
> receiving vectors to the intermediate segment?
>
> (j) Limitation on procedure turns. In the case of a radar vector to a final
> approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach
> for which the procedure specifies "No PT," no pilot may make a procedure
> turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.
The section in the ATC handbook that permits radar vectors to the final approach
course also permits vectors to segments of an approach, or routes leading to an
approach, prior to the intermediate segment. Exampe Ventura VOR 064 radial 054
degrees, 14.5 miles intercepts the Burbamk localizer at TOAKS. TOAKS could be
the intermediate fix of SILEX could be the intermediat fiz (More likely because
the HIL is located there).
SoCal vectors you to intercept the VTU 054 radial 7 miles prior to TOAKS, by
saying "Fly heading 010 to intercept the VTU 054 radial" (approximately 8 miles
prior to TOAKS)..." cleared for the ILS Runway 8 approach, maintain 4100 until
established." You have thus been vectored into an early segment which is
obviously not the final approach course but the segment is annotated "NoPT." No
ambiguity here, the NoPT requirement applies to your flight.
Or, lets say SoCal vectors you onto V299 8 miles north of FIM, He says, Fly
heading 220 to intercept the V-299, maintain 8000 until crossing FIM, cleared
for the ILS Runway approach. There is no NoPT annotated on the airway, but
three is on the initial approach segment after FIM.
Your case at KMDQ is virtually identical to the first instance I set forth at
Burbank, being vectored to the VTU initial approach segment's radial.
At the KMDQ VOR/DME-B, the250 radial is annotated NoPT so you cannot make a
procedure turn. If the vector had been to the Decatur 045 radial, same
restriction. Lets say the Decatur-CATOK segment did not contain NoPT but the
CATOK-RQZ does, you encounted a NoPT immperative along your route of flight
prior to the course reversal fix, thus a course reversal is not required and, in
fact cannot be done without an amended clearance.
Bottom line: If yout vectored to a segment of in IAP that is not the final
approach course, but contains the regulatory imperative NoPT, you cannot make a
procedure turn (without requesting one and probably being denied such)
Stan Prevost
at
> Burbank, being vectored to the VTU initial approach segment's radial.
>
> At the KMDQ VOR/DME-B, the250 radial is annotated NoPT so you cannot make
a
> procedure turn. If the vector had been to the Decatur 045 radial, same
> restriction. Lets say the Decatur-CATOK segment did not contain NoPT but
the
> CATOK-RQZ does, you encounted a NoPT immperative along your route of
flight
> prior to the course reversal fix, thus a course reversal is not required
and, in
> fact cannot be done without an amended clearance.
>
Yes, I should have not have raised the question for discussion relative to
this particular approach since the intermediate segment is annotated NoPT.
I was thinking in terms of a dogleg approach without a NoPT annotation, in
the case of vectors to the intermediate segment. I am curious if ATC uses
the same language as they do here, saying "vectors to final approach course"
when it the vector is actually to the intermediate segment that is not
aligned with the FAC, and what do they expect for the PT since they are
calling it vectors to final. If there was no course change at the FAF, no
PT would be required in the case of vectors, and I don't really see why the
course change creates the need for a PT following vectors. These approaches
with course changes at the FAF don't seem to be very common, at least in my
experience and in thumbing through numerous books of approach procedures.
Maybe they are more common in mountainous or congested areas. One is Cortez,
CO (CEZ) VOR 21.
BTW, I wish I had all my back copies of the KMDQ VOR/DME-B approach, I don't
remember the history of annotations on the intermediate segment. Until a
year or so ago, the approach was VOR/DME or GPS-B. I remember some time
prior to the change, CATOK was added, as I remember it was added as an IAF,
apparently for GPS use, but that might be wrong. At some point it was shown
as a computer navigation fix, an x with the name in parentheses. When the
GPS was removed, CATOK changed from a CNF to an IF. I can't remember when
the NoPT annotation on the intermediate segment appeared. Maybe Mike Weller
or some other local ng player can answer.
Stan
j...@obilivan.net
Ron Natalie wrote:
>
> I think the point that Steve is dancing around is that ATC can vector you wherever
> they want. The issue is that there are exactly two ways to pick up an approach
> on your own navigation: at an IAF, or onto a final that ATC has vectored you.
> Certainly I've been vector'd all over creation before ATC plopped me down on final.
ATC is limited to how late they can vector you onto the approach procedure, but not how early.
j...@obilivan.net
Stan Prevost wrote:
> Yes, I should have not have raised the question for discussion relative to
> this particular approach since the intermediate segment is annotated NoPT.
> I was thinking in terms of a dogleg approach without a NoPT annotation, in
> the case of vectors to the intermediate segment. I am curious if ATC uses
> the same language as they do here, saying "vectors to final approach course"
> when it the vector is actually to the intermediate segment that is not
> aligned with the FAC, and what do they expect for the PT since they are
> calling it vectors to final. If there was no course change at the FAF, no
> PT would be required in the case of vectors, and I don't really see why the
> course change creates the need for a PT following vectors. These approaches
> with course changes at the FAF don't seem to be very common, at least in my
> experience and in thumbing through numerous books of approach procedures.
> Maybe they are more common in mountainous or congested areas. One is Cortez,
> CO (CEZ) VOR 21.
>
Cortez is somewhat acadmenic because there is neither TRACON nor Center radar
coverage. But, let's say there were. If ATC vectored you onto the 350 radial,
and within 10 miles of the facility, you would be expected to proceed
straight-in since you are within the PT completion area. 7110.65, 5-9-1
requires only that the vector altitude be "compatible with the procedure" since
this is a NPA. What that means is not defined.
If this lack of precision concerns you, and it is a lack of precision, perhaps
you should write to the director of Air Traffic Services at FAA DC Puzzle
Palace. ;-)
They have their own kingdom going there, so getting through to them is not
exactly easy.~
Stan Prevost
<j...@obilivan.net> wrote in message news:3EBBADB5...@obilivan.net...
>
>
> >
>
> Cortez is somewhat acadmenic because there is neither TRACON nor Center
radar
> coverage. But, let's say there were. If ATC vectored you onto the 350
radial,
> and within 10 miles of the facility, you would be expected to proceed
> straight-in since you are within the PT completion area. 7110.65, 5-9-1
> requires only that the vector altitude be "compatible with the procedure"
since
> this is a NPA. What that means is not defined.
>
> If this lack of precision concerns you, and it is a lack of precision,
perhaps
> you should write to the director of Air Traffic Services at FAA DC Puzzle
> Palace. ;-)
>
> They have their own kingdom going there, so getting through to them is not
> exactly easy.~
>
Yes, the lack of precision bothers me, but the real thing that bothers me is
the apparent inconsistency between ATC expectations (as you state them) and
FAR 91.175(j) which a pilot must comply with. That FAR is specific that the
vector must be to the FAC or FAF for a PT to not be flown, it says nothing
that allows skipping the PT in the case of vectors to an intermediate
segment. Oh..... wait...... maybe I get it; by saying that the vector is
to a segment within the PT completion area, maybe you mean that that segment
terminates at the FAF, and the vector to the intermediate segment which then
leads to the FAF with no intervening fixes could be considered to be a
vector to the FAF. Yeah, I could buy that. :-)
Stan
Max T, CFI
One is under own navigation. In that case, you self navigate to the IAF, fly a procedure turn
(unless it's label NoPT), and fly the approach.
The other is via vectors. If you get vectors to an approach, you're not allowed to do a
procedure turn (unless you ask and have permission). I think you point out that the language
they use is a little imprecise. Whenever they provide vectors, they save that they're for
the "final approach course." More precise language might be vectors "for the instrument approach"
as they can bring you in on any segment as long as it's prior to the FAF.
Max T, CFII
Stan Prevost <spre...@knology.net> wrote in message news:tCVua.51385$xf.1...@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com...
Ron Natalie
"Max T, CFI" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3oVva.818903$3D1.461238@sccrnsc01...
> Whenever they provide vectors, they save that they're for
> the "final approach course." More precise language might be vectors "for the instrument approach"
> as they can bring you in on any segment as long as it's prior to the FAF.
> Max T, CFII
No, there seesm to be no provision to fly an instrument approach starting at any place
other than an IAF or having been vectored to final. When the FAA has been
pressed for other rulings, they have disavowed any other way.
Steven McNicoll
<j...@obilivan.net> wrote in message news:3EB96A69...@obilivan.net...
So what prevented vectors to a L/F range leg?
Your statement; "Its not really wrong, it is simply a less-than-precise term
of 'art'
so to speak, left over from the early days of vectors only to a localizer.",
sounds flaky to me. If there was a time when approach vectors were given
only to a localizer, then why would the leftover phraseology be "vector to
final approach course" and not "vector to the localizer"?
There were approaches other than ILS and LF Range in the mid fifties. I
have a 1954 Michigan state aeronautical chart, the aeronautical data is
current to December 1, 1953. There are twenty Jeppesen approach plates on
the back of the chart, I assume that covers every approach in the state at
that time. Of the twenty approaches, eleven are LF Range, four are D/F
(NDB), three are Omnirange (VOR), and just one is an ILS. The next earlier
Michigan chart that I have is from 1950, with aeronautical data to November
1, 1949. It has only eleven approach plates, all LF Range.
Steven McNicoll
>
> The intermediate segment is R-250, FAC is R-042. Vectors are always "Fly
> heading 050, intercept R-250, vectors to final approach course."
>
Well, they're asking the impossible. If they expect you to join the R-250
then the vectors clearly are NOT to the final approach course.
>
> VOR/DME-B Madison County Executive Airport, Huntsville, AL (MDQ)
>
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthEast/MDQ_vdB.pdf
>
> So for FAR 91.175(j), should the pilot perform a procedure turn after
> receiving vectors to the intermediate segment?
>
> (j) Limitation on procedure turns. In the case of a radar vector to a
final
> approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an
approach
> for which the procedure specifies "No PT," no pilot may make a procedure
> turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.
>
Well, let's assume they gave you a proper clearance. If they tell you to
join the R-250 you should NOT make a procedure turn. The R-250 intermediate
segment is clearly marked NoPT, and, as you point out in FAR 91.175(j), in
the case of an approach for which the procedure specifies "No PT," no pilot
Steven McNicoll
>
> BTW, I wish I had all my back copies of the KMDQ VOR/DME-B approach, I
don't
> remember the history of annotations on the intermediate segment. Until a
> year or so ago, the approach was VOR/DME or GPS-B. I remember some time
> prior to the change, CATOK was added, as I remember it was added as an
IAF,
> apparently for GPS use, but that might be wrong. At some point it was
shown
> as a computer navigation fix, an x with the name in parentheses. When the
> GPS was removed, CATOK changed from a CNF to an IF. I can't remember when
> the NoPT annotation on the intermediate segment appeared. Maybe Mike
Weller
> or some other local ng player can answer.
>
I have a plate dated 98001, it's amendment 5. No CATOK, there's a note with
an arrow pointing to the DCU R-046 that reads, "2900 NoPT to RQZ VORTAC
046[degrees] (8.1) and 070[degrees] (10)."
Steven McNicoll
>
> Yes, the lack of precision bothers me, but the real thing that bothers me
is
> the apparent inconsistency between ATC expectations (as you state them)
and
> FAR 91.175(j) which a pilot must comply with. That FAR is specific that
the
> vector must be to the FAC or FAF for a PT to not be flown, it says nothing
> that allows skipping the PT in the case of vectors to an intermediate
> segment.
>
That's no different than the inconsistency between the direction of turns
when approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower
specified in FAR 91.126(b) and the illustration of a traffic pattern in the
AIM.