Activate Approach vs Direct-To IAF

[Steamflyer]

Wow that’s a lot of ink spilled for something that has worked just fine since about 1995. Maybe too many theoreticians in the kitchen.

While understand it’s changing, activate approach has always meant take me to the first point on the approach (which you picked!) whereas load approach means put it in the flight plan for now.

Most of the time I end up loading the approach and it gets activated only with a direct-to; sometimes in less crowded areas can ask for a particular IAF and then when given direct to it, load and activate at once.

And as most know, always best to load with some IAF, though with the newer navigators it’s so fast to start over it’s sort of moot.

 

[midlifeflyer]

And as most know, always best to load with some IAF, though with the newer navigators it’s so fast to start over it’s sort of moot

It’s been easy to start over since at least the Garmin 430 and the KLN 94. I think they were the first with a dedicated PROC button.

But even more important, starting over is a necessary skill useful in a number of situations, and another I’ve seen pilots have trouble with.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Interesting.

Personally, I don’t think I’ve ever used “activate” since I got the instrument rating. I just “load” and let ATC tell me where to go. When I cross a fix or the approach path, it activates without any further effort. If you “activate” and ACT vectors you to a mid-point, you have to re-load the approach - which is a real pain right at the wrong time.

 

[StraightnLevel]

It’s been easy to start over since at least the Garmin 430 and the KLN 94. I think they were the first with a dedicated PROC button.

But even more important, starting over is a necessary skill useful in a number of situations, and another I’ve seen pilots have trouble with.

Sure, but why open yourself up to extra work during the single most task-saturated portion of the flight? Yes, you should be able to handle it, when necessary, but why make life harder than it needs to be?

 

[MauleSkinner]

You're going to open that can of worms? Then how about
"Engage"
"Make it so"
"Do it"
"Punch it"

You forgot “Hold my beer!”

 

[midlifeflyer]

Sure, but why open yourself up to extra work during the single most task-saturated portion of the flight? Yes, you should be able to handle it, when necessary, but why make life harder than it needs to be?

I'm all about making thigs as easy as possible. I do not "Activate Approach" even when I am directed to the transition I selected. I load approaches from a transition and never use VTF. Those tasks shouldn't need a mulligan.

When I refer to starting over as a necessary skill, I am not referring to it as an SOP when there is is more efficient method. I'm referring to the times it is the easiest and IMO most efficient way to handle the situation. I've mentioned my list of GPS Tasks Pilots Do Not Know How to Do for training purposes. Reloading (or switching) approaches is one of them. My list has four scenarios for it, but I am often confronted with a new one by a client. And, while it's not first on the list, it is the task which led to me creating the list.

(Starting over takes at most the same amount of time as loading it to begin with, and with reloading scenarios much shorter. With a GNS, we're talking 8-10 seconds. It's one of the longest because of the need to enter characters one-by-one by twisting knobs.)

 

[Ventucky Red]

I've mentioned my list of GPS Tasks Pilots Do Not Know How to Do for training purposes.

Is this list available for public consumption?

Thanks

 

[midlifeflyer]

Is this list available for public consumption?

Thanks

Sure. I’ve posted it here a few times. Nothing secret about it. This is the current version,

 

[Ventucky Red]

^^^^^^^ thanks

 

[midlifeflyer]

^^^^^^^ thanks

#4 is still a bit odd to me. During training, we do almost nothing except switch or reload approaches. Yet it was two events involving this task that led to the list. One was a friend calling me with a question about something that happened during a flight. The other was a fatal accident.

I think it’s a rote vs application vs understanding vs correlation level of learning thing. We know how, but don’t recognize it as the solution to a variety of issues.

 

[Clip4]

Yeah, they just have "Execute" instead.

Well, if you are shooting an approach you aren’t expecting to wound.

 

[Steamflyer]

Sure. I’ve posted it here a few times. Nothing secret about it. This is the current version,
View attachment 154428

Sums it up nicely. The role of anchor points seems to have disappeared in the direct to world. Also emphasis on using HDG mode if you have an autopilot during flight plan changes so you don't get into "where's it going now?"

 

[midlifeflyer]

Sums it up nicely. The role of anchor points seems to have disappeared in the direct to world. Also emphasis on using HDG mode if you have an autopilot during flight plan changes so you don't get into "where's it going now?"

I guess that depends on what you mean by “direct to.” If you mean direct to destination from origin, that is more of a VFR thing. If you mean that GPS nav is mostly about “to” rather than “from”, I agree. In a non-RNAV world, we navigated to or from a navaid. A Victor airway was always defined by a VOR and we used either from or to the navaid. At most the choice was which VOR.

Take this snippet. You are given an instruction to fly a heading to intercept the airway (not already having the airway loaded). VLOC, your choice is TYI and tune in the R269. RNAV, your potential entry point choices are TYI, FEBEL, and EXULE. What I’m finding is that people tend to look ahead with GPS, not behind.

 

[Initial Fix]

@midlifeflyer Is that an example you see flying in the mid Atlantic? I’m wondering if this is one of the “tools” different controllers/ regions use.

Here in the Midwest, I don’t remember ever getting something like that. Even if I have an airway loaded I seem to get cleared to a fix not airway.

 

[Steamflyer]

@midlifeflyer Is that an example you see flying in the mid Atlantic? I’m wondering if this is one of the “tools” different controllers/ regions use.

Here in the Midwest, I don’t remember ever getting something like that. Even if I have an airway loaded I seem to get cleared to a fix not airway.

The coasts do this sort of stuff all the time. Middle is just “go direct have a great day.”

Not understanding how to use and load an anchor whether VOR or waypoint is critical to be able to join and airway or course.

 

[midlifeflyer]

@midlifeflyer Is that an example you see flying in the mid Atlantic? I’m wondering if this is one of the “tools” different controllers/ regions use.

Here in the Midwest, I don’t remember ever getting something like that. Even if I have an airway loaded I seem to get cleared to a fix not airway.

Depends where. But yes, an initial clearance that includes an ATC route with radar vectors to join it is not at all unusual. If it's a SID it just loads, but it might just be a non-SID clearance.

I mentioned how some got on the list. That one was from a question asked in an aviation forum by a pilot confused by a clearance they got out of the Charlotte, NC area. If you want to look, I'm not sure but IIRC, it was out of AHK just west of Charlotte. Something like radar vectors to join T398.

 

[Initial Fix]

Depends where. But yes, an initial clearance that includes an ATC route with radar vectors to join it is not at all unusual. If it's a SID it just loads, but it might just be a non-SID clearance.

I mentioned how some got on the list. That one was from a question asked in an aviation forum by a pilot confused by a clearance they got out of the Charlotte, NC area. If you want to look, I'm not sure but IIRC, it was out of AHK just west of Charlotte. Something like radar vectors to join T398.

View attachment 154551

Thanks mark! I’m adding to my list of skills to revisit since I don’t get them.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

@midlifeflyer Is that an example you see flying in the mid Atlantic? I’m wondering if this is one of the “tools” different controllers/ regions use.

Here in the Midwest, I don’t remember ever getting something like that. Even if I have an airway loaded I seem to get cleared to a fix not airway.

Memphis does something similar all the time, though it's not to join an airway, it's to join a radial off the VOR.

It certainly isn't a common thing away from the coasts, but not unheard of either.

 

[M20K]

It's actually called something more like what it is in the new Axis equipment.

I believe all Garmin Navigators are being changed to show Direct [IAF]. Just a matter of when you got your last update (and if they've changed it already in the current releases).

 

[M20K]

So this pretty much establishes that the "Activate Approach" function is pretty much a button macro for Direct-To IAF. How many button presses does it actually save?

Pending the airspace and knowing that I'm not going to know where I'm going until the last minute. If you sit on the FP page you can just hit the (now saying) Direct to [IAF] or pick where they're sending you to (or RV if you want). So if you're on the page, then it's 1 button to go to the IAF.

 

[asicer]

Pending the airspace and knowing that I'm not going to know where I'm going until the last minute. If you sit on the FP page you can just hit the (now saying) Direct to [IAF] or pick where they're sending you to (or RV if you want). So if you're on the page, then it's 1 button to go to the IAF.

So you press the Direct to [IAF] button instead of the IAF and then direct to? 1 whole button! woot

 

[M20K]

So you press the Direct to [IAF] button instead of the IAF and then direct to? 1 whole button! woot

Well, yes, in that case. Or if you get sent somewhere else, you're on the page to quickly select whatever other fix they're sending you to or switch to RV if that's what they give you.

And yeah, regardless of where you are, it really doesn't matter as it is only a couple of buttons away. But if you're in the NYC area or parts of So Cal, sometimes anything to make the work load simpler while single pilot IFR just makes life simpler.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I believe all Garmin Navigators are being changed to show Direct [IAF]. Just a matter of when you got your last update (and if they've changed it already in the current releases).

It’s already shown up in the GTNxi. I think I can safely say it won’t appear in the GNS series

 

[midlifeflyer]

So you press the Direct to [IAF] button instead of the IAF and then direct to? 1 whole button! woot

No. Same button press. Just an arguably more accurately descriptive label on the button.

If we want to be technical, it’s Direct to [Selected Transition], which might not be an IAF.

 

[asicer]

No. Same button press. Just an arguably more accurately descriptive label on the button.

If we want to be technical, it’s Direct to [Selected Transition], which might not be an IAF.

Huh?
Button sequence 1 (old firmware): [Activate Approach]
Button sequence 1 (new firmware): [Direct to transition]
Button sequence 2: [transition] [Direct-To]

 

[midlifeflyer]

Huh?
Button sequence 1 (old firmware): [Activate Approach]
Button sequence 1 (new firmware): [Direct to transition]
Button sequence 2: [transition] [Direct-To]

I might have misunderstood. You were going back to the original question about loading and then going D→ instead of "Activating" anything. I was only referring to your sequence 1 old vs new.

The extra button press(s) is irrelevant to me since I'm typically Loaded long before it's time to activate anything other than the current enroute portion of my flight plan.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Sure. I’ve posted it here a few times. Nothing secret about it. This is the current version,
View attachment 154428

Bumping for a comment on my #6 if you are interested. A very pleasant surprise. This is the basic scenario. It's one where I require the approach to be coupled until DA (although it works hand-flying too).

You are coming from the northwest expecting the TTA ILS Y, an ILS approach which requires GPS. You are arriving as in airplane Position 1. You were previously told to expect and are now receiving vectors to IKTOW. You've loaded the approach with IKTOW as the transition, which automatically includes the hold at IKTOW. "ATC" vectors you into Position 2 and instructs, "Direct IKTOW. Cleared straight in ILS Y Runway 3 approach."

What has been repeatedly catching my people has been the simple task of clearing/bypassing the hold at IKTOW.

A couple of months ago, I flew with a pilot who cleared the hold before receiving the straight in instruction. I was so pleasantly surprised I didn't even follow up with, "There's an aircraft departing IFR. I'm not speaking with them yet. Expect to hold as published at IKTOW" (my #4.c.).

 

[Steamflyer]

Bumping for a comment on my #6 if you are interested. A very pleasant surprise. This is the basic scenario. It's one where I require the approach to be coupled until DA (although it works hand-flying too).

You are coming from the northwest expecting the TTA ILS Y, an ILS approach which requires GPS. You are arriving as in airplane Position 1. You were previously told to expect and are now receiving vectors to IKTOW. You've loaded the approach with IKTOW as the transition, which automatically includes the hold at IKTOW. "ATC" vectors you into Position 2 and instructs, "Direct IKTOW. Cleared straight in ILS Y Runway 3 approach."

What has been repeatedly catching my people has been the simple task of clearing/bypassing the hold at IKTOW.

A couple of months ago, I flew with a pilot who cleared the hold before receiving the straight in instruction. I was so pleasantly surprised I didn't even follow up with, "There's an aircraft departing IFR. I'm not speaking with them yet. Expect to hold as published at IKTOW" (my #4.c.).

Is this 430 specific? I think the newer navigators ask if you want to hold or not at say IKTOW when loaded. The fastest way is to start over and just reload it most of the time. May be important to push HDG on AP, may not matter depending on install and progress along the approach.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Is this 430 specific? I think the newer navigators ask if you want to hold or not at say IKTOW when loaded. The fastest way is to start over and just reload it most of the time. May be important to push HDG on AP, may not matter depending on install and progress along the approach.

(I'm sorry. I forgot the graphic. Just edited to enter it.)

It's not. Even the latest Garmins will put that hold in automatically in this situation. Here's the way it works.

• Coming in from an angle where straight in would involve a turn greater than 90 degrees, the navigator will automatically include the hold.​

• Coming in from an angle where straight in would involve a turn less that 90°, including a NoPT TAA, it will ask if you want the hold.​

• Coming in along a PT route (but not a TAA), it will not include the hold at all.​

​

Excellent point about switching to HDG mode. I recommend that as an SOP for pretty much all changes to the flight plan until you've verified NAV will do what you want. Yes, there are situations in which it's fine to leave it in NAV mode, but I'm not aware of any in which it's bad to switch to HDG.

But the fastest way in every GPS I'm familiar with is to remove the hold. That can be a little different depending on not only the unit but apparently the software revision. For reintroducing the hold at IKTOW, yes, that's reloading.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You are coming from the northwest expecting the TTA ILS Y, an ILS approach which requires GPS. You are arriving as in airplane Position 1. You were previously told to expect and are now receiving vectors to IKTOW. You've loaded the approach with IKTOW as the transition, which automatically includes the hold at IKTOW. "ATC" vectors you into Position 2 and instructs, "Direct IKTOW. Cleared straight in ILS Y Runway 3 approach."

What has been repeatedly catching my people has been the simple task of clearing/bypassing the hold at IKTOW.

A couple of months ago, I flew with a pilot who cleared the hold before receiving the straight in instruction. I was so pleasantly surprised I didn't even follow up with, "There's an aircraft departing IFR. I'm not speaking with them yet. Expect to hold as published at IKTOW" (my #4.c.).

View attachment 154970

I don't think ATC can clear you straight in with more than a 90º turn to final, can they?

Also, if you were north of the IF and the pilot cleared the hold *before* being told to go straight in, wouldn't that be incorrect? Or was that scenario what you've got the #2 airplane on the graphic for?

 

[midlifeflyer]

I don't think ATC can clear you straight in with more than a 90º turn to final, can they?

That’s correct. The vectors brought the pilot to #2 before issuing the clearance. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear enough on that.

Also, if you were north of the IF and the pilot cleared the hold *before* being told to go straight in, wouldn't that be incorrect? Or was that scenario what you've got the #2 airplane on the graphic for?

At that point (#2) he was in the NoPT area of the TAA and even without the words “cleared straight in,” the HILPT would not be used. He made the judgement call that ATC was not going to vector him back to a position requiring the PT.

I think this was a reasonable thing to do, but we talked in the debrief about timing the hold removal. But this pilot was the only one so far who demonstrated awareness of being in a TAA.

 

[Steamflyer]

I don't think ATC can clear you straight in with more than a 90º turn to final, can they?

Recently got a vector on an approach to avoid turning more than 90 degrees when joining a leg of the "T" from one of the IAFs. So maybe any upcoming turns are supposed to be less than 90 degrees. This was on a missed and a divert following delay vectors, so everything was being decided and loaded on the fly since the filed alternate, while useable and appropriate, was not as desirable for other reasons if there was a choice.

 

[Kirby perkins]

Yeah, I’ve always thought the main benefit is less about saving button presses and more about reducing the chance of selecting the wrong fix or leg. Once you’re comfortable with the navigator, the difference is pretty minor.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Yeah, I’ve always thought the main benefit is less about saving button presses and more about reducing the chance of selecting the wrong fix or leg. Once you’re comfortable with the navigator, the difference is pretty minor.

That fits in with one of the most common errors I see - assuming the flight plan reflects what you want instead of looking and verifying.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Recently got a vector on an approach to avoid turning more than 90 degrees when joining a leg of the "T" from one of the IAFs. So maybe any upcoming turns are supposed to be less than 90 degrees. This was on a missed and a divert following delay vectors, so everything was being decided and loaded on the fly since the filed alternate, while useable and appropriate, was not as desirable for other reasons if there was a choice.

You can read about the 90° limit in the ATC manual here. It's really an adaptation of TERPS standards to the ATC world. You know those approach chart Plan View notes about certain fixes not being usable from certain airways?

 

[WDD]

I must be the odd one out, but I find the "load" and "activate" to make intuitive sense. Even so, the updated "activate - Direct to ACME" update is even clearer. I'll probably see that on the 650xi when I get firmware updates in Feb with my 2 year IFR check.

 

[WDD]

Wow that’s a lot of ink spilled for something that has worked just fine since about 1995

I thought this was the entire point of the POA?

You're going to open that can of worms? Then how about
"Engage"
"Make it so"
"Do it"
"Punch it"

Cheese it
Let's ride
Saddle that horse and kick it
Time to make the donuts
Drop the clutch

 

[tsts4]

I must be the odd one out, but I find the "load" and "activate" to make intuitive sense. Even so, the updated "activate - Direct to ACME" update is even clearer. I'll probably see that on the 650xi when I get firmware updates in Feb with my 2 year IFR check.

You’re not alone. I earned my IR via the Cessna-King part 141 course flying behind a G1000 and activating the approach was the way I was taught. I carried that process over into my own plane with a Garmin G3X paired with a GTN 650 which essentially has the same logic and buttonology as the G1000. One thing I never developed the habit for was using the VTF transition even after Garmin “fixed” it some years ago,

 

[FORANE]

I'll probably see that on the 650xi when I get firmware updates in Feb with my 2 year IFR check.

Yes, you will see that. The latest firmware I loaded to my 650xi includes that language for active approach.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I must be the odd one out, but I find the "load" and "activate" to make intuitive sense. Even so, the updated "activate - Direct to ACME" update is even clearer. I'll probably see that on the 650xi when I get firmware updates in Feb with my 2 year IFR check.

It's easy to learn what it does and never have a problem. But I'm not sure it's particular intutitive that "Activate Approach" means "only activate this part of the approach." I'm sure there have been plenty of pilots who have hit it expecting to activate the nearest available waypoint or leg of the approach, not be given a 180.

You’re not alone. I earned my IR via the Cessna-King part 141 course flying behind a G1000 and activating the approach was the way I was taught.

That's interesting. I can honestly say that, since I choose a transition fix closest to my route of flight, I have joined approaches places other than the transition I initially chose far more often than at that initial transition. Direct to the IF. Vectors to final. Join a segment.

In recurrent training, I've seen pilots who understand what it actually does. I have also seen pilots who Activate Approach expecting some intermediate leg or waypoint to become active and are surprised when the AP turns them away from the approach, as in the graphic I posted earlier. My sample is small, but if Garmin is bothering to change it, I suspect there's a reason.