Ever a reason to activate VTF??

midlifeflyer said:
I haven't seen an explanation. Then again, I haven't seen a reason to look for one. I suppose the underlying assumption is VTF means vectors to intercept the final approach course and not to a fix. Or maybe they bought into the idea that you don't activate VTF until it's a sure thing?

You can ask the question the opposite way too. Why do controllers announce they are giving vectors to final and then don't. I've heard it's much worse with some airline FMS - not as easy to correct as it is in a GA unit.

Fortunately, i don't have a horse in this particular race.
Click to expand...
Well. It’s anecdotal but to me all this VTF stuff sounds ignorant. I have been living in the FMS world for a while and find it to be much easier to manage and always have what I need at hand with contingency options easily executed. That’s why I was so confused as to why VTF should be avoided. From what has been said here it sounds like a dumb button and a poorly designed box.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I think that's right. The new avionics make the task of flying easier but the setup can be more complicated. I think part of the problem is (a) pilots who don't get transition training and (b) instructors who don't understand the systems either. I've received IPCs where I've surprised my instructor by showing them how some things work. And vice versa.
Click to expand...
RNAV makes the system generally more accurate and certainly much more flexible and versatile. But, take a device such as the G-1000 with all the knob twisting, it's a continuing process, not just set up. Before RNAV, flying the typical VOR IAP required, little if any knob turning once set up, until at the MAP. Same for ILS.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Well. It’s anecdotal but to me all this VTF stuff sounds ignorant. I have been living in the FMS world for a while and find it to be much easier to manage and always have what I need at hand with contingency options easily executed. That’s why I was so confused as to why VTF should be avoided. From what has been said here it sounds like a dumb button and a poorly designed box.
Click to expand...
That's interesting. I've heard that VTF is even worse with airline FMS systems.
 
aterpster said:
RNAV makes the system generally more accurate and certainly much more flexible and versatile. But, take a device such as the G-1000 with all the knob twisting, it's a continuing process, not just set up. Before RNAV, flying the typical VOR IAP required, little if any knob turning once set up, until at the MAP. Same for ILS.
Click to expand...
With the most modern systems it's mostly about the setup. The altitudes are all about ATC until cleared on a published route, but the avionics are capable of, for example, descending via a STAR to an included IAF and following the procedure, including procedure turns, down to DA with the pilot only taping the APR button when cleared for the approach and managing the throttle. That's light GA without auto-throttles. Even ground based navaids are getting easier with the newer avionics being much better about switching the CDI (although I prefer to do that manually when I bother with a ground-based approach)
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Well. It’s anecdotal but to me all this VTF stuff sounds ignorant. I have been living in the FMS world for a while and find it to be much easier to manage and always have what I need at hand with contingency options easily executed. That’s why I was so confused as to why VTF should be avoided. From what has been said here it sounds like a dumb button and a poorly designed box.
Click to expand...

I've also flown behind an FMS. And with Garmin boxes, including the G1000. An FMS is much more "sane" when it comes to engaging navigation to a final approach course. There is no distinct VTF selection. And, there's another crewmember to take care of it for you, assuming a part 121 operation.

Garmin decided to do things differently. If you select VTF, the box will remove all waypoints behind the FAF from the flight plan before giving you guidance with respect to the final approach course. If it turns out you need those fixes, you have to insert them from scratch. Here is what happened to me once: I was on vectors to final and just as the needle started moving, got the instruction, "...cross xyz at or above abc, cleared for the ... approach." Guess what? xyz was not there because I chose VTF. Because the needle started moving, I did not have "6 seconds" to reload the approach to get the fix back nor would I have had the extra time to select the fix and "direct".

I never used VTF again.

So, your statement, "...a dumb button and a poorly designed box", is SPOT ON! Yes! Stick it to Garmin. They're a bunch of idiots!

I do NOT blame the controllers, however. They do not know these things about the nav systems. How can they? There was nothing wrong with the instruction I got.

I heard that Garmin has fixed this in their latest revisions, though...fixes along the final approach course are retained. Can anyone verify this?
 
noahfong said:
I
I heard that Garmin has fixed this in their latest revisions, though...fixes along the final approach course are retained. Can anyone verify this?
Click to expand...
Garmin is too generic. The GTN series with current firmware retains the fixes in the flight plan. It's a couple screen touches to add back a fix. The GNS ones (430, 530) lose them and the whole approach needs to be reloaded.
 
Last edited:
If you receive vectors-to-final on an approach that has a course change at the FAF, does ATC expect you to intercept the extended final-approach course, or the leg leading to the FAF?
 
Hang 4 said:
Garmin is too generic. The GTN series with current firmware retains the fixes in the flight plan. It's a couple screen touched to add back a fix. The GNS ones (430, 530) lose them and the whole approach needs to be reloaded.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but if you can trash the company based on a limitation in only one of its products, why not?
 
Palmpilot said:
If you receive vectors-to-final on an approach that has a course change at the FAF, does ATC expect you to intercept the extended final-approach course, or the leg leading to the FAF?
Click to expand...
Since they wouldn't expect you to "intercept" a segment that isn't even published as part of the approach, i.e., the extended centerline of the runway, I'm sure they'd expect you on the published route segment. If they had said "Expect radar vectors for a visual approach", then I'd say if you're VFR and searching for the airport then go ahead and use VTF on your nav box.
 
Palmpilot said:
If you receive vectors-to-final on an approach that has a course change at the FAF, does ATC expect you to intercept the extended final-approach course, or the leg leading to the FAF?
Click to expand...
What’s an example of an Approach like that.
 
luvflyin said:
What’s an example of an Approach like that.
Click to expand...
Try the RNAV 5 into KGWW for an example of a bend between the intermediate and final approach segments (there are probably ones with a bigger bend but I know this one) . Basically, are vectors to the blue line or the green line?

upload_2022-5-3_9-9-10.png
 
midlifeflyer said:
Try the RNAV 5 into KGWW for an example of a bend between the intermediate and final approach segments (there are probably ones with a bigger bend but I know this one) . Basically, are vectors to the blue line or the green line?
Click to expand...
RNAV IAPs with course changes of up to 15 degrees aren't common, but not rare either. Most of them are in areas of significant terrain. As to your example, I can see a controller vectoring either to the intermediate segment (blue line) or to an extension of the final approach course (green line). In the later case, since it is not a published segment, the controller would either have to withhold approach clearance until FENUD, or state, "Cleared for the approach, cross FENUD at (or at or above) 1,700."
 
midlifeflyer said:
Try the RNAV 5 into KGWW for an example of a bend between the intermediate and final approach segments (there are probably ones with a bigger bend but I know this one) . Basically, are vectors to the blue line or the green line?

View attachment 106548
Click to expand...

I wasn't sure if there were RNAV Approaches like that. To get vectored to an extension of the Final Approach 'Segment', the Clearance would sound like this:
Fly heading ###, join the 047 course to FENUD, maintain [altitude at or above the MVA] until FENUD, cleared for the approach.

EDIT: @aterpster 's example with 'cross FUNUD at' is good also rather than the 'maintain until' in my example. However we can't know if 1700 is a good altitude unless we know their MVA. If the MVA is higher, that's the altitude they have to give.
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
I wasn't sure if there were RNAV Approaches like that. To get vectored to an extension of the Final Approach 'Segment', the Clearance would sound like this:
Fly heading ###, join the 047 course to FENUD, maintain [altitude at or above the MVA] until FENUD, cleared for the approach.
Click to expand...
Might you get either on an approach like this? Join the leg to FENUD or to the the extended FAC?
 
midlifeflyer said:
Might you get either on an approach like this? Join the leg to FENUD or to the the extended FAC?
Click to expand...
If by the 'leg to FENUD' you mean WADAP FENUD, sure. But we were talking about an extension of the Final Approach Segment. Yeah, you could call that the final approach course. But when it comes to getting a Clearance you must get an altitude to maintain until on a published segment of the Approach. If getting to FENUD anyway other than WADAP FENUD, you are not on a published segment of the Approach until FENUD.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Yeah, but if you can trash the company based on a limitation in only one of its products, why not?
Click to expand...
I didn’t read it that way. The 430/530 are ancient now. Pretty sure everyone here expected that there are likely improvements in the new boxes.

honestly my first thought was this group must be to cheap to buy modern equipment lol
 
@midlifeflyer . This all may be a moot point. There is the question of how the GPS Navigator is going to react to getting to FENUD other than from WADAP. Let's say you're going to do this straight in to FENUD via an extension of the Final Approach Segement thang. What would you do with 'box.'
 
luvflyin said:
@midlifeflyer . This all may be a moot point. There is the question of how the GPS Navigator is going to react to getting to FENUD other than from WADAP. Let's say you're going to do this straight in to FENUD via an extension of the Final Approach Segement thang. What would you do with 'box.'
Click to expand...
OBS to the FAF.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Try the RNAV 5 into KGWW for an example of a bend between the intermediate and final approach segments (there are probably ones with a bigger bend but I know this one) . Basically, are vectors to the blue line or the green line?

View attachment 106548
Click to expand...


I say green line, it is vectors to final, and the blue line is not on the final approach course. It's a good question though, one I hadn't considered. Hopefully someone has the correct answer.
 
aterpster said:
OBS to the FAF.
Click to expand...
Isn't there something about most Navigators, I'm pretty sure Garmin, that don't like you getting to the FAF from a point in space? The angle difference is pretty small here. I would think you would have leave WADAP FUDUP loaded while doing this.
 
I'd activate the leg between WADAP and FENUD. While the difference between the two colored lines is not that great, I assume the angle change is due to obstructions to the right of the approach. If the difference were more extreme, you might be getting close to something you don't want to hit.
I have no qualification to answer this by the way, JMO.
 
luvflyin said:
@midlifeflyer . This all may be a moot point. There is the question of how the GPS Navigator is going to react to getting to FENUD other than from WADAP. Let's say you're going to do this straight in to FENUD via an extension of the Final Approach Segement thang. What would you do with 'box.'
Click to expand...
There are some differences among the boxes. In some, activating VTF will give you the the 063 course to FENUD. in others, it will give you the 047° extended FAC. But one could always use Course to Fix in a Garmin or OBS mode in an Avidyne to paint the 047° course line.
 
luvflyin said:
Isn't there something about most Navigators, I'm pretty sure Garmin, that don't like you getting to the FAF from a point in space? The angle difference is pretty small here. I would think you would have leave WADAP FUDUP loaded while doing this.
Click to expand...
VTF and OBS mode both generally deal with getting to the FAF from a point in space. Just a straight line to infinity and beyond.

But I wouldn't use OBS mode in a Garmin for this.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Do you have any idea how many Garmin users I’ve confused with that terminology?
Click to expand...
Lol
Hell man every time I fly I learn something. Sometimes it’s something I forgot. I have forgotten almost everything about garmin boxes and the bulk of my G experience is way out of date… what little I remember. You could easily confuse me.

edit:
I am curious though… what else could they be called? It’s two knobs… that are concentric.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Lol
Hell man every time I fly I learn something. Sometimes it’s something I forgot. I have forgotten almost everything about garmin boxes and the bulk of my G experience is way out of date… what little I remember. You could easily confuse me.

edit:
I am curious though… what else could they be called? It’s two knobs… that are concentric.
Click to expand...
Garmin uses “big knob” and “small knob”. Apparently “inner” and “outer” could mean “closer to the panel” and “further away from the panel”.

but apparently “big” and “small” can’t refer to height. :rolleyes:
 
MauleSkinner said:
Garmin uses “big knob” and “small knob”. Apparently “inner” and “outer” could mean “closer to the panel” and “further away from the panel”.

but apparently “big” and “small” can’t refer to height. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Lol. My instructor and I would argue back and forth which knob was the big and small one.
 
Hang 4 said:
I'd activate the leg between WADAP and FENUD. While the difference between the two colored lines is not that great, I assume the angle change is due to obstructions to the right of the approach. If the difference were more extreme, you might be getting close to something you don't want to hit.
I have no qualification to answer this by the way, JMO.
Click to expand...
Looking at the terrain and obstructions around there, I don’t think the angle change was about obstructions. Most likely at ATC request to give a little more room away from KGSB traffic.
 
luvflyin said:
What’s an example of an Approach like that.
Click to expand...
The local example I'm aware of is a VOR approach. ATC never gave me VTF for that one, however; I always flew the procedure turn. (It's been a loooong time since I've flown it.)
 

Attachments

  • 05320V19R.PDF
    323.4 KB · Views: 5
luvflyin said:
Looking at the terrain and obstructions around there, I don’t think the angle change was about obstructions. Most likely at ATC request to give a little more room away from KGSB traffic.
Click to expand...
Definitely done for some airspace reason.
 
Palmpilot said:
The local example I'm aware of is a VOR approach. ATC never gave me VTF for that one, however; I always flew the procedure turn. (It's been a loooong time since I've flown it.)
Click to expand...
You can’t get vectors to final on that one. It can be done without the PT though and you can be vectored to join the NoPT segments without having started at the IAF. You really have to differentiate between Final Approach Segment and Final Approach Course on an Approach like this. You can never get vectored to join the Final Approach Segment. You can be vectored to join the Final Approach Course if there is an Initial/Intermediate Segment that is aligned straight in with the Final Approach Segment. There are thousands of Approaches like that.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
Garmin uses “big knob” and “small knob”. Apparently “inner” and “outer” could mean “closer to the panel” and “further away from the panel”.

but apparently “big” and “small” can’t refer to height. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
And no one has yet chimed in with "It's not the size of the knob". "Knob envy".....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top