Vectors for FAF

dmccormack

dmccormack

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
10,945
Location
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Display Name
Display name:
Dan Mc
Yesterday I needed to fly an approach to get through an overcast layer after a long XC.

My last clearance was "Direct, Rostraver" (Destination Airport).

Cleveland was busy and after I asked for the approach, was never cleared to the (logical) Initial Approach Fix (Furix, which is 7.8 miles form the FAF).

I plugged Furix into the GPS and headed there. I was 3 miles from Furix when I heard, "Fly Direct OSSAR, maintain 5000" (Which is the FAF).

I plugged in OSSAR but was now intercepting the FAF with a 50 degree intercept angle, and still 1300 feet high.

It really would have been far simpler to clear me to the IF, then I'd be on my way.

So my question is this -- any else been doing significant maneuvering on GPS approaches to get established on the inbound heading and at the min altitude by the time you reach the FAF?

I've had this happen several times now with different GPS approaches, while on ILS and even VOR approaches I'm usually vectored to within 30 degrees and at min altitude before being established.
 
How far out where you from OSSAR when you were cleared for the approach and free to descend?

I've had this happen, but usually get the descent in plenty of time to cross the FAF at the published altitude. Once I "nudged" ATC with a query "will we be able to descend to xxx soon", but all other times they were aware that I was high.

The 50 degrees bothers me though. The whole point of the T layout is so that you can navigate without course reversals and the point of the IF-FAF leg is to get you "gently" established on the final approach course.

So, you gave us the setup, but you weren't clear what happened between the clearance direct to the FAF at 5000 and when you actually got there. If you hadn't been cleared for the approach, you'd have had to hold at the FAF, no?
 
TMetzinger said:
How far out where you from OSSAR when you were cleared for the approach and free to descend?

I've had this happen, but usually get the descent in plenty of time to cross the FAF at the published altitude. Once I "nudged" ATC with a query "will we be able to descend to xxx soon", but all other times they were aware that I was high.

The 50 degrees bothers me though. The whole point of the T layout is so that you can navigate without course reversals and the point of the IF-FAF leg is to get you "gently" established on the final approach course.

So, you gave us the setup, but you weren't clear what happened between the clearance direct to the FAF at 5000 and when you actually got there. If you hadn't been cleared for the approach, you'd have had to hold at the FAF, no?
Click to expand...

I was about 3.5 from the FAF when cleared direct OSSAR, then shortly thereafter cleared GPS 26 approach.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm up to it since I'm flying IMC frequently, but it sure seems to pack 10 lbs into a 5 lb bag when you have to descend at a rate of 1000 FPM and turn 50 degrees to get inbound and established before the FAF.

We were in cloud the whole time and if less proficient or flying a less capable a/c, those heave and drop approaches could be dicey.
 
I understand... I suggest you call the QA folks at the TRACON, because that doesn't seem normal to me. I've gotten vectors to the FAF but never with that sort of intercept angle. I've gotten cleared to the IF with large angles, but that's easily dealt with.
 
TMetzinger said:
I understand... I suggest you call the QA folks at the TRACON, because that doesn't seem normal to me. I've gotten vectors to the FAF but never with that sort of intercept angle. I've gotten cleared to the IF with large angles, but that's easily dealt with.
Click to expand...

I should clarify -- no vectors. In fact, I was inbound to the IF and Cleveland controller said, "Are you able direct OSSAR?"

I said, "I'll take vectors to OSSAR..."

"I won't give you vectors -- fly direct OSSAR.."
 
Im confused, when did they clear you for the approach? I assume this was a straigt -in fix FURIX that you wanted but appch decided to have you go to a Final Fix instead? Typically if terminal radar services are being provided on any NP approach you ask for it will be vectored/cleared to FAF unless you specifically ask for something different. Been screwed myself on that one a time or 2 stuck up high lke that.
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
OH... in that case you signed up for the dunk (although you may not have realized it).
Click to expand...

yeah -- kinda.

After I requested GPS I was told to expect GPS 26, and was flying direct to the logical (closest) IF.

I was on standby long enough that by the time that exchange happened, the hard right was required, vectors or no.

I really didn't have a choice, other than to cancel that approach and ask for another.
 
Dan this has happened to me once. It was an approach right at a handoff boundary. They cleared me direct to the FAF but for the approach and kept me 2000 feet high. I would have had to really dive down to actually make the approach. I told them three times that I could not make the approach. But Chi-app would not clear me for lower even though I requested it. The second chi-app cleared for the approach (.2 from the FAF) I declared a missed and went around and then was able to get lower on the published missed.
 
Yeah, since you were getting a GPS approach, what "can you go direct OSSAR" meant was "can you handle the approach from where you are" and not the normal "are you equipped to navigate direct to OSSAR"?
 
Sounds like someone in the Tracon was trying to help you and failing miserably. However, as noted above, your acceptance of "direct FAF" was a contributing factor. There comes a time when you just have to say, "unable" and press on with whatever alternative there is. Personally, I would not accept a clearance direct to the FAF on a GPS approach -- IF or farther out only, for exactly the reasons you discovered.
 
Ron Levy said:
Sounds like someone in the Tracon was trying to help you and failing miserably. However, as noted above, your acceptance of "direct FAF" was a contributing factor. There comes a time when you just have to say, "unable" and press on with whatever alternative there is. Personally, I would not accept a clearance direct to the FAF on a GPS approach -- IF or farther out only, for exactly the reasons you discovered.
Click to expand...

Yeah -- lesson well learned.

I'm still not sure what benefit accrued to either me or TRACON to clear me to the FAF when the IF would have been far easier, was well within range when the clearance was issued, and would have provided both of us less overall effort.
 
smigaldi said:
Dan this has happened to me once. It was an approach right at a handoff boundary. They cleared me direct to the FAF but for the approach and kept me 2000 feet high. I would have had to really dive down to actually make the approach. I told them three times that I could not make the approach. But Chi-app would not clear me for lower even though I requested it. The second chi-app cleared for the approach (.2 from the FAF) I declared a missed and went around and then was able to get lower on the published missed.
Click to expand...

This weekend I took my dad and his friend (VFR only pilot) up in the soup for a demo of an ILS. I made the mistake of putting my intention "published missed approach after ILS 05 MSS, then vectors for GPS 24 at PTD"

Boston vectored me direct FAF, "maintain 3000" (1500' above the GS intercept altitude), then bugged me if I was "Going missed yet?" while descending though cloud.
 
dmccormack said:
This weekend I took my dad and his friend (VFR only pilot) up in the soup for a demo of an ILS. I made the mistake of putting my intention "published missed approach after ILS 05 MSS, then vectors for GPS 24 at PTD"

Boston vectored me direct FAF, "maintain 3000" (1500' above the GS intercept altitude), then bugged me if I was "Going missed yet?" while descending though cloud.
Click to expand...
That would be very annoying.
 
smigaldi said:
interested passenger. Could that be read as nervous passengers?

Seeing the sausage made is not always the best thing for the uninitiated.
Click to expand...

LOL!

Very true...

Well, my dad was in back. he was pretty quiet, but did fine.

Bill (my dad's friend and a new Cherokee owner) grabbed the OS handle just before we hit the wall of cloud (we were in rain until then from higher clouds).

There were a few bumps -- to be expected in rain clouds -- but nothing too untoward.

They both climbed out at the conclusion of the 45 minute flight and expressed their amazement at the process and the equipment (G430).

I kept all the stupid mistakes to myself.
 
Everskyward said:
Yup, you don't want to say "oops" or any other four-letter word within earshot of the passengers...
Click to expand...
I stopped briefing friends flying with me about anything that could possibly go wrong. Twice now I have mentioned things and then a few minutes later they actually broke.

First time I was describing how the magnetos are separate from the electrical system running all the appliances in the plane how the engine would keep running even if the battery and alternator dies. Less than 10 minutes later the ALT comes on and we have a dead ALT. Would not reset either.

A few years later I was describing the manifold back I have for my vacuum failure while in flight and the darn vacuum light actually comes on as I am telling him about it! It was a true vacuum failure too!!

I will never, ever, mention anything about spar corrosion anywhere near where the plane can hear it for fear if actually dropping a wing.
 
smigaldi said:
The mark of a wise pilot!!!
Click to expand...

I've been telling my students that the mark of a good pilot is, "You never look like you are doing much."

I gave a ride to some friends who wanted to go to CLT. I dodged thunderstorms, avoided towering CU, diverted to let one go potty, climbed back into the soup and arrived within 30 minutes of the planned schedule, shot an ILS approach to near mins while "keeping the speed up," dodged 737 traffic while crossing active runways on the Worlds Longest Taxi to the Active (without progressive -CLT gnd was way busy) -- the works.

When we got back on the drive home from the airport, one of the pax said, "I was sort of surprised at how little there was to do -- you just talked to ATC, did what they said, and we were in Charlotte."

Uh hunh.
 
dmccormack said:
This weekend I took my dad and his friend (VFR only pilot) up in the soup for a demo of an ILS. I made the mistake of putting my intention "published missed approach after ILS 05 MSS, then vectors for GPS 24 at PTD"

Boston vectored me direct FAF, "maintain 3000" (1500' above the GS intercept altitude), then bugged me if I was "Going missed yet?" while descending though cloud.
Click to expand...
I hope you called the ATC facility after you landed and spoke to the supe about it -- that's just not playing by the ATC book, and nothing gets fixed if nobody complains to the boss.
 
Ron Levy said:
I hope you called the ATC facility after you landed and spoke to the supe about it -- that's just not playing by the ATC book, and nothing gets fixed if nobody complains to the boss.
Click to expand...

Actually, I did not, though I should have.

After calling in the IFR cancellation went back to Mom and Dad's and did the family thing.
 
dmccormack said:
I've been telling my students that the mark of a good pilot is, "You never look like you are doing much."

I gave a ride to some friends who wanted to go to CLT. I dodged thunderstorms, avoided towering CU, diverted to let one go potty, climbed back into the soup and arrived within 30 minutes of the planned schedule, shot an ILS approach to near mins while "keeping the speed up," dodged 737 traffic while crossing active runways on the Worlds Longest Taxi to the Active (without progressive -CLT gnd was way busy) -- the works.

When we got back on the drive home from the airport, one of the pax said, "I was sort of surprised at how little there was to do -- you just talked to ATC, did what they said, and we were in Charlotte."

Uh hunh.
Click to expand...

I've found this depends a lot on who's in the plane. I've had passengers remark "Wow, you make this look really easy, I would have thought it to be very difficult." I've also had passengers say "Wow, I can't do this, there's too much going on, I have no idea how you can handle this." Part of it depends on what you're doing and where you're going. In general, I think people who don't have a lot of exposure to flying in small planes will miss most of what you're doing, but there's still enough going on that if you're observant, you'll notice.

This weekend, I took my girlfriend up flying for her first flight in a small plane. She was paying close attention to what I was doing (and I was explaining parts of it), but she also has an interest in learning for herself. So, she noticed a good amount of the workload (although certainly not all of it).

I try to share what exactly I'm doing dependent on who's in the plane. If the person has an interest in learning for him or herself, then I'll be explaining some more things and saying a few more things about what I'm doing. If the person is, say, my mom, I will try to make it look like I'm not doing much. An observant passenger, though, should always notice that you're actually doing quite a bit.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I've found this depends a lot on who's in the plane. I've had passengers remark "Wow, you make this look really easy, I would have thought it to be very difficult." I've also had passengers say "Wow, I can't do this, there's too much going on, I have no idea how you can handle this." Part of it depends on what you're doing and where you're going. In general, I think people who don't have a lot of exposure to flying in small planes will miss most of what you're doing, but there's still enough going on that if you're observant, you'll notice.

This weekend, I took my girlfriend up flying for her first flight in a small plane. She was paying close attention to what I was doing (and I was explaining parts of it), but she also has an interest in learning for herself. So, she noticed a good amount of the workload (although certainly not all of it).

I try to share what exactly I'm doing dependent on who's in the plane. If the person has an interest in learning for him or herself, then I'll be explaining some more things and saying a few more things about what I'm doing. If the person is, say, my mom, I will try to make it look like I'm not doing much. An observant passenger, though, should always notice that you're actually doing quite a bit.
Click to expand...

True, but there's a difference between a passenger, an interested observer, and a student.

Try as you might, not everyone wants to learn to fly. I won't push if that's the case.

Obviously each should come away from the flight with a different perspective.
 
dmccormack said:
True, but there's a difference between a passenger, an interested observer, and a student.

Try as you might, not everyone wants to learn to fly. I won't push if that's the case.

Obviously each should come away from the flight with a different perspective.
Click to expand...

Yep... I think the vast majority of the people I've taken flying are interested observers and people who would like to, one day, become students.
 
There is an imaginary point called the Final Approach Gate which usually is located one mile outside of the Final Approach Fix. Unless the rules in FAAH 7110.65 (ATC Regs) have changed, the controller should vector you outside of the approach gate with no more than a 30 degree intercept. Sometimes (due to wind correction angles) a 50 degree difference on paper can really be a 30 degree intercept. At any rate, "direct XXX" is also a vector and in my opinion the controller provided weak service to you.

Please have a look at this link: http://www.terps.com/ifrr/feb98c.pdf
 
Dan,

The only approach into my home field, JSV, is a GPS approach. It is a standard "T" RNAV/GPS approach. I have learned to request the IF that I want when center hands me off to Razorback approach. If I dont they will clear me to the FAF @ 3000' which is the minimum altitude at the IF. I will occasionally take the direct to FAF so I can do the PT (Holding Pattern PT) for currency. I always request the PT if thats what I want to do, because they will not expect it even tho its depicted on the approach plate. I usually let center know that I want the GPS approach before the handoff also, then approach is expecting it.
 
MarkM said:
Dan,

The only approach into my home field, JSV, is a GPS approach. It is a standard "T" RNAV/GPS approach. I have learned to request the IF that I want when center hands me off to Razorback approach. If I dont they will clear me to the FAF @ 3000' which is the minimum altitude at the IF. I will occasionally take the direct to FAF so I can do the PT (Holding Pattern PT) for currency. I always request the PT if thats what I want to do, because they will not expect it even tho its depicted on the approach plate. I usually let center know that I want the GPS approach before the handoff also, then approach is expecting it.
Click to expand...

That's a good policy...

I usually confirm with ATC that I'm doing a PT, even when it's published. Usually the response is -- "uuhh...ok, .."

One thing that was different on this approach was that I was with Cleveland Center until established, then switched to PIT for about a minute before switching to advisory.

I usually arrive from the south, east, or west, and there's time to coordinate the approach with PIT, but this time I was arriving from the Northeast, and the handoff was late.
 
MarkM said:
Dan,

The only approach into my home field, JSV, is a GPS approach. It is a standard "T" RNAV/GPS approach. I have learned to request the IF that I want when center hands me off to Razorback approach. If I dont they will clear me to the FAF @ 3000' which is the minimum altitude at the IF. I will occasionally take the direct to FAF so I can do the PT (Holding Pattern PT) for currency. I always request the PT if thats what I want to do, because they will not expect it even tho its depicted on the approach plate. I usually let center know that I want the GPS approach before the handoff also, then approach is expecting it.
Click to expand...

The holding pattern PT depicted on most standard GPS approach diagrams is only intended to be flown if you arrive at the center of the 'T' from the airport side. Arrivals from that side are generally made to the ends of the 'T' but you can choose to head straight to the center if it's depicted as an IAF and then you should be expected to fly the HILPT without asking ATC (no harm in asking anyway). If you fly to the center from the side away from the airport and want to go around the hold or if you want to make more than one circuit you should (as you indicated) clue ATC as to your intentions and get a clearance for that.
 
lancefisher said:
The holding pattern PT depicted on most standard GPS approach diagrams is only intended to be flown if you arrive at the center of the 'T' from the airport side. Arrivals from that side are generally made to the ends of the 'T' but you can choose to head straight to the center if it's depicted as an IAF and then you should be expected to fly the HILPT without asking ATC (no harm in asking anyway). If you fly to the center from the side away from the airport and want to go around the hold or if you want to make more than one circuit you should (as you indicated) clue ATC as to your intentions and get a clearance for that.
Click to expand...
When the center fix is an IAF with a HPILPT, unless there's an NoPT indication for entries to the center fix from the "away" side, the HPILPT is mandatory unless the controller clears you "straight in" or you otherwise coordinate your bypass of the HPILPT with the controller. Ref: AIM Section 5-4-9b3. This is a point often not well understood by controllers or pilots, and has led to confusion, but the book answer is clear.
 
Ron Levy said:
When the center fix is an IAF with a HPILPT, unless there's an NoPT indication for entries to the center fix from the "away" side, the HPILPT is mandatory unless the controller clears you "straight in" or you otherwise coordinate your bypass of the HPILPT with the controller. Ref: AIM Section 5-4-9b3. This is a point often not well understood by controllers or pilots, and has led to confusion, but the book answer is clear.
Click to expand...

True, but AFaIK the "NoPT label should be present on the "away side" area of the standard T if there's a HILPT depicted unless there are special circumstances.
 
lancefisher said:
True, but AFaIK the "NoPT label should be present on the "away side" area of the standard T if there's a HILPT depicted unless there are special circumstances.
Click to expand...
Usually there is a note to the effect of "NoPT for arrivals on courses xxx to yyy," but if there isn't, then the HPILPT is mandatory unless one of the exceptions in the AIM applies (cleared straight in, holding at the fix at the depicted altitude, etc).
 
Ron Levy said:
Usually there is a note to the effect of "NoPT for arrivals on courses xxx to yyy," but if there isn't, then the HPILPT is mandatory unless one of the exceptions in the AIM applies (cleared straight in, holding at the fix at the depicted altitude, etc).
Click to expand...

On most of the "standard T" GPS approach diagrams, the "NoPt" label sits along the edge of the 'D' side. There are exceptions though.
 
I think we're talking about different things -- the TAA GPS approaches versus the non-TAA T-shaped approaches. Different rules for the two types, both for printing and for flying. There's no D-shaped area on a non-TAA T-shaped approach, which is what I thought we were talking about.
 
dmccormack said:
Yesterday I needed to fly an approach to get through an overcast layer after a long XC.

My last clearance was "Direct, Rostraver" (Destination Airport).

Cleveland was busy and after I asked for the approach, was never cleared to the (logical) Initial Approach Fix (Furix, which is 7.8 miles form the FAF).

I plugged Furix into the GPS and headed there. I was 3 miles from Furix when I heard, "Fly Direct OSSAR, maintain 5000" (Which is the FAF).

I plugged in OSSAR but was now intercepting the FAF with a 50 degree intercept angle, and still 1300 feet high.

It really would have been far simpler to clear me to the IF, then I'd be on my way.

So my question is this -- any else been doing significant maneuvering on GPS approaches to get established on the inbound heading and at the min altitude by the time you reach the FAF?

I've had this happen several times now with different GPS approaches, while on ILS and even VOR approaches I'm usually vectored to within 30 degrees and at min altitude before being established.
Click to expand...

FURIX is not an IAF, it's an Intermediate Fix. The IAFs on this approach are HOMEE and MILWO. You could have been cleared via FURIX provided certain conditions were met, but it doesn't sound like they had been.
 
roncachamp said:
FURIX is not an IAF, it's an Intermediate Fix. The IAFs on this approach are HOMEE and MILWO. You could have been cleared via FURIX provided certain conditions were met, but it doesn't sound like they had been.
Click to expand...

You are correct -- I should have written "Intermediate Fix," not "Initial Approach Fix."

I was cleared direct to the FAF, and both IAFs were at least 10 miles behind.
 
MarkM said:
Dan,

The only approach into my home field, JSV, is a GPS approach. It is a standard "T" RNAV/GPS approach. I have learned to request the IF that I want when center hands me off to Razorback approach. If I dont they will clear me to the FAF @ 3000' which is the minimum altitude at the IF. I will occasionally take the direct to FAF so I can do the PT (Holding Pattern PT) for currency. I always request the PT if thats what I want to do, because they will not expect it even tho its depicted on the approach plate. I usually let center know that I want the GPS approach before the handoff also, then approach is expecting it.
Click to expand...
i have a similiar situation.

TRACON will have me heading to the east on an approach to the west. They will vecotr me to the FAF which will require a procedure turn to turn the almsot 180 degrees. The first time they did that and I flew the procedure turn the TRACON wanted to know jsut what I was doing. I told the published PT to get on course. They calmed down.

Since then when I get handed off I reqest the IAF at the end of the 'T' that way I make a 90 degree left turn and then fly a mile and make another 90 degree left turn. They like that much better and when I request it I can tell the TRACON figures out that it is a much nicer way to vector me in.

I think the main problem is that the TRACON guys do not get a lot of IFR traffic for my airport so they just are not all that familiar with the approach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top