RNAV vectors

[Dan Luke]

Anybody ever get vectors to final for RNAV approaches?

Around here (Mobile. AL), I never hear it, although there are plenty of
ARNAVs with lower minimums than the VOR approaches at both airports. If you
ask ATC for one of the ARNAVs, they'll clear you to an IAF every time.

Is there something special about vectoring for ARNAVs?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> Anybody ever get vectors to final for RNAV approaches?
>
> Around here (Mobile. AL), I never hear it, although there are plenty of
> ARNAVs with lower minimums than the VOR approaches at both airports. If
> you ask ATC for one of the ARNAVs, they'll clear you to an IAF every time.
>
> Is there something special about vectoring for ARNAVs?
>

What kind of RNAV approaches are you referring to? Stand alone GPS
approaches tend to be made so that vectoring doesn't provide an advantage.

[Dan Luke]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

>> Is there something special about vectoring for ARNAVs?
>>
>
> What kind of RNAV approaches are you referring to? Stand alone GPS
> approaches tend to be made so that vectoring doesn't provide an advantage.

Example: http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0612/00268R18.PDF

Wouldn't there be some occasions when vectors to final would remove the need
for the course reversal that would be required by a clearance to OTMEE?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Peter R.]

Dan Luke > wrote:

> Anybody ever get vectors to final for RNAV approaches?

Yes, I have been offered vectors to final for an RNAV/GPS approach a few
times in both the northeast and mid-Atlantic (US) areas. In all cases I
declined the offer and instead requested vectors to a specific IAF.

These days I even save the back and forth game by including the direct-to
IAF request within my first call to the facility.

"Bonanza XXX, level 5000 with current weather, requesting RNAV/GPS 24
approach Dunkirk and requesting direct IYZZY (some crazy IAF name) when
able."

--
Peter

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> Example: http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0612/00268R18.PDF
>
> Wouldn't there be some occasions when vectors to final would remove the
> need for the course reversal that would be required by a clearance to
> OTMEE?
>

Yup, that one would. There is something special about vectoring to final on
GPS approaches, though. Unlike localizers or VOR radials, a GPS FAC has a
definite "end". The course does not extend beyond what's charted so there's
nothing to intercept.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, I have been offered vectors to final for an RNAV/GPS approach a few
> times in both the northeast and mid-Atlantic (US) areas. In all cases I
> declined the offer and instead requested vectors to a specific IAF.
>

Why request vectors to an RNAV (GPS) IAF?

[Roy Smith]

"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> Anybody ever get vectors to final for RNAV approaches?

Sure. And what's so cool about the internet today is that not only can I
show you the chart for the approach
(http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0612/00286VDG24.PDF), I can also show you how we
flew it
(http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N275BM/history/20061215/1953Z/KHPN/KPOU)
.. Now all we need are the ATC tapes and a webcam sitting on the pilot's
shoulder :-)

On the other hand, I'm not sure if a "... or GPS ..." approach is quite the
same thing as a "RNAV GPS ..." approach.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Example: http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0612/00268R18.PDF
>>
>>Wouldn't there be some occasions when vectors to final would remove the
>>need for the course reversal that would be required by a clearance to
>>OTMEE?
>>
>
>
> Yup, that one would. There is something special about vectoring to final on
> GPS approaches, though. Unlike localizers or VOR radials, a GPS FAC has a
> definite "end". The course does not extend beyond what's charted so there's
> nothing to intercept.
>
>
According to your handlers in ATO that set policy, vectors to final are
not "legal" unless the FAC is on the video map.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sure. And what's so cool about the internet today is that not only can I
> show you the chart for the approach
> (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0612/00286VDG24.PDF), I can also show you how
> we
> flew it
> (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N275BM/history/20061215/1953Z/KHPN/KPOU)
> . Now all we need are the ATC tapes and a webcam sitting on the pilot's
> shoulder :-)
>
> On the other hand, I'm not sure if a "... or GPS ..." approach is quite
> the
> same thing as a "RNAV GPS ..." approach.
>

No, RNAV approaches have RNAV in the name.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> According to your handlers in ATO that set policy, vectors to final are
> not "legal" unless the FAC is on the video map.
>

I don't have handlers in ATO or anywhere else.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Sure. And what's so cool about the internet today is that not only can I
>>show you the chart for the approach
>>(http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0612/00286VDG24.PDF), I can also show you how
>>we
>>flew it
>>(http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N275BM/history/20061215/1953Z/KHPN/KPOU)
>>. Now all we need are the ATC tapes and a webcam sitting on the pilot's
>>shoulder :-)
>>
>>On the other hand, I'm not sure if a "... or GPS ..." approach is quite
>>the
>>same thing as a "RNAV GPS ..." approach.
>>
>
>
> No, RNAV approaches have RNAV in the name.
>
>

A lot of the older ones have just "GPS" (as opposed to "or GPS). The
ones that say "GPS Runway 8" (for example) are RNAV IAPs.

[Stan Prevost]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
>
> There is something special about vectoring to final on GPS approaches,
> though. Unlike localizers or VOR radials, a GPS FAC has a definite "end".
> The course does not extend beyond what's charted so there's nothing to
> intercept.
>

From the P/CG:

==================

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.

COURSE-

a. The intended direction of flight in the horizontal plane measured in
degrees from north.

b. The ILS localizer signal pattern usually specified as the front course or
the back course.

c. The intended track along a straight, curved, or segmented MLS path.

==================

Final Approach Course is not the same as Final Approach Segment.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> From the P/CG:
>
> ==================
>
> 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.
>
> COURSE-
>
> a. The intended direction of flight in the horizontal plane measured in
> degrees from north.
>
> b. The ILS localizer signal pattern usually specified as the front course
> or the back course.
>
> c. The intended track along a straight, curved, or segmented MLS path.
>
> ==================
>
> Final Approach Course is not the same as Final Approach Segment.
>

You've missed the point.

Let's look at a couple of approaches at Titletown to illustrate. First, the
ILS RWY 36:

http://map.aeroplanner.com/plates/FaaPlates_pdfs/00873IL36.PDF

An aircraft is inbound from O'Hare, on initial contact it's instructed to
turn ten degrees left and join the runway 36 localizer. It intercepts about
thirty miles from the field and tracks inbound. No problem.

Now look at the RNAV RWY 36 approach:

http://map.aeroplanner.com/plates/FaaPlates_pdfs/00873R36.PDF

Same situation, an aircraft is inbound from O'Hare, on initial contact it's
instructed to turn ten degrees left and join the final approach course for
the RNAV RWY 36. It crosses the extended final about thirty miles south of
the field and continues on it's heading. There's nothing for it to
intercept, nothing similar to a localizer that it can join.

[Stan Prevost]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> From the P/CG:
>>
>> ==================
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> COURSE-
>>
>> a. The intended direction of flight in the horizontal plane measured in
>> degrees from north.
>>
>> b. The ILS localizer signal pattern usually specified as the front course
>> or the back course.
>>
>> c. The intended track along a straight, curved, or segmented MLS path.
>>
>> ==================
>>
>> Final Approach Course is not the same as Final Approach Segment.
>>
>
> You've missed the point.
>
> Let's look at a couple of approaches at Titletown to illustrate. First,
> the ILS RWY 36:
>
> http://map.aeroplanner.com/plates/FaaPlates_pdfs/00873IL36.PDF
>
> An aircraft is inbound from O'Hare, on initial contact it's instructed to
> turn ten degrees left and join the runway 36 localizer. It intercepts
> about thirty miles from the field and tracks inbound. No problem.
>
> Now look at the RNAV RWY 36 approach:
>
> http://map.aeroplanner.com/plates/FaaPlates_pdfs/00873R36.PDF
>
> Same situation, an aircraft is inbound from O'Hare, on initial contact
> it's instructed to turn ten degrees left and join the final approach
> course for the RNAV RWY 36. It crosses the extended final about thirty
> miles south of the field and continues on it's heading. There's nothing
> for it to intercept, nothing similar to a localizer that it can join.
>

Of course there is something to intercept. There is the final approach
course. By definition, it extends southward from the runway on a course of
182 degrees forever, to SENNA and beyond.

RNAV/GPS equipment does not need a navaid signal overlying the FAC to allow
me to navigate it. I can intercept and track that FAC with my GNS430 GPS,
and it will even draw a magenta line for me on the map.

However, I don't see any advantage to such vectors over a clearance direct
SENNA. And if the MVA is higher than 2500, there can be a disadvantage.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> http://map.aeroplanner.com/plates/FaaPlates_pdfs/00873R36.PDF
>
> Same situation, an aircraft is inbound from O'Hare, on initial contact it's
> instructed to turn ten degrees left and join the final approach course for
> the RNAV RWY 36. It crosses the extended final about thirty miles south of
> the field and continues on it's heading. There's nothing for it to
> intercept, nothing similar to a localizer that it can join.
>
>

The pilot can go to OBS mode and select FRZZN as the active waypoint,
then select bearing 002 mag to FRZZN.

The controller would have to issue a crossing altitude at SNENNA
consistent with the IAP. 7110.65P 5-9-4 and, specifically, Example #4.

[Stan Prevost]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
> The pilot can go to OBS mode and select FRZZN as the active waypoint, then
> select bearing 002 mag to FRZZN.
>

You don't have to use OBS mode, at least on the GNS430. Use DIRECT TO, then
set the course. This way draws a line on the map, OBS doesn't.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> Of course there is something to intercept. There is the final approach
> course. By definition, it extends southward from the runway on a course
> of 182 degrees forever, to SENNA and beyond.
>
> RNAV/GPS equipment does not need a navaid signal overlying the FAC to
> allow me to navigate it. I can intercept and track that FAC with my
> GNS430 GPS, and it will even draw a magenta line for me on the map.
>

You're mistaken.

[Sam Spade]

Stan Prevost wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The pilot can go to OBS mode and select FRZZN as the active waypoint, then
>>select bearing 002 mag to FRZZN.
>>
>
>
> You don't have to use OBS mode, at least on the GNS430. Use DIRECT TO, then
> set the course. This way draws a line on the map, OBS doesn't.
>
>
>
That won't work with the GNS400/500 series. Doing it the way I describe
will provide a course line. I don't have a clue about the 480. ;-)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> You don't have to use OBS mode, at least on the GNS430.

That would imply that there are variations in the way different model GPS
receivers perform.


>
> Use DIRECT TO, then set the course. This way draws a line on the map, OBS
> doesn't.
>

DIRECT TO where? The clearance was to turn ten degrees and join the final
approach course.

[Stan Prevost]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Stan Prevost wrote:
>
>> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>The pilot can go to OBS mode and select FRZZN as the active waypoint,
>>>then select bearing 002 mag to FRZZN.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You don't have to use OBS mode, at least on the GNS430. Use DIRECT TO,
>> then set the course. This way draws a line on the map, OBS doesn't.
>>
>>
>>
> That won't work with the GNS400/500 series. Doing it the way I describe
> will provide a course line. I don't have a clue about the 480. ;-)

Works on my 430s, and works on the 430 simulator/trainer. But on the sim, I
also got the magenta line using OBS mode, didn't think I could. Don't
remember what caused me to believe that.

[Stan Prevost]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Of course there is something to intercept. There is the final approach
>> course. By definition, it extends southward from the runway on a course
>> of 182 degrees forever, to SENNA and beyond.
>>
>> RNAV/GPS equipment does not need a navaid signal overlying the FAC to
>> allow me to navigate it. I can intercept and track that FAC with my
>> GNS430 GPS, and it will even draw a magenta line for me on the map.
>>
>
> You're mistaken.
>

About what?

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Sam Spade > wrote:

> Stan Prevost wrote:
>
> > "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>The pilot can go to OBS mode and select FRZZN as the active waypoint, then
> >>select bearing 002 mag to FRZZN.
> >>
> >
> >
> > You don't have to use OBS mode, at least on the GNS430. Use DIRECT TO,
> > then
> > set the course. This way draws a line on the map, OBS doesn't.
> >
> >
> >
> That won't work with the GNS400/500 series. Doing it the way I describe
> will provide a course line. I don't have a clue about the 480. ;-)

On the 480, I would hit the VTF soft key (assuming I've already got the
approach loaded with some arbitrary IAF selected). At that point, the box
would create a segment from [a point 50(*) miles 182 degrees from FRZZN] to
FRZZN, make that the active leg (i.e. draw it in magenta on the map), and
go into suspend mode. Assuming I was given a good vector, flew it
correctly, and had sufficient fuel, I would eventually intercept that
segment. At that time the box would automagically come out of suspend
mode. When I reached FRZZN, it would sequence to FRZZN-MAP36 being the
active leg.

(*) I think it's 50 miles. Could be something else, but it's long enough
that it's never been an issue for me.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> That won't work with the GNS400/500 series.

Direct-To with any type of fix will put a magenta route line on the
map (and potentially other instruments that pull information from the
GPS).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Stan Prevost]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>> That won't work with the GNS400/500 series.
>
> Direct-To with any type of fix will put a magenta route line on the
> map (and potentially other instruments that pull information from the
> GPS).
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

The point, though, was to have the magenta line along the final approach
course, not on the direct path between the present position and the fix.

[Stan Prevost]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> You don't have to use OBS mode, at least on the GNS430.
>
> That would imply that there are variations in the way different model GPS
> receivers perform.
>
>
>>
>> Use DIRECT TO, then set the course. This way draws a line on the map,
>> OBS doesn't.
>>
>
> DIRECT TO where? The clearance was to turn ten degrees and join the final
> approach course.
>

Set the GPS for Direct To SENNA course 002. Then turn ten degrees and join
the final approach course. Complies with the clearance.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Stan Prevost" > wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> You don't have to use OBS mode, at least on the GNS430.
> >
> > That would imply that there are variations in the way different model GPS
> > receivers perform.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Use DIRECT TO, then set the course. This way draws a line on the map,
> >> OBS doesn't.
> >>
> >
> > DIRECT TO where? The clearance was to turn ten degrees and join the final
> > approach course.
> >
>
> Set the GPS for Direct To SENNA course 002. Then turn ten degrees and join
> the final approach course. Complies with the clearance.

Stan,

Just curious why you picked SENNA and not FRZZN as the waypoint. From
"Turn left 10 degrees to intercept the final approach course", I'd assume
I'd intercept outside of FRZZN, but perhaps not outside of SENNA. I would
think -D-> FRZZN with a course of 002 would make more sense.

[Stan Prevost]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>> Set the GPS for Direct To SENNA course 002. Then turn ten degrees and
>> join
>> the final approach course. Complies with the clearance.
>
> Stan,
>
> Just curious why you picked SENNA and not FRZZN as the waypoint. From
> "Turn left 10 degrees to intercept the final approach course", I'd assume
> I'd intercept outside of FRZZN, but perhaps not outside of SENNA. I would
> think -D-> FRZZN with a course of 002 would make more sense.

In Steven's original scenario, the intercept was way south, so I didn't
worry about it too much and didn't give it too much thought, as it wasn't
important to the point under discussion. I don't see any reason that FRZZN
wouldn't work, although having SENNA as a waypoint provides a definite point
where you are established on a published segment of the approach and can
begin descent in accordance with the published procedure. Your clearance
will also contain an altitude to maintain until becoming established on a
published segment. If you are close enough that you might intercept inside
SENNA, the TO waypoint will switch to FRZZN when you pass by SENNA, serving
the same purpose.

[Mark Manes]

Isn't this an RNAV approach?

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0612/09092R35.PDF

Mark


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Sure. And what's so cool about the internet today is that not only can I
>> show you the chart for the approach
>> (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0612/00286VDG24.PDF), I can also show you how
>> we
>> flew it
>> (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N275BM/history/20061215/1953Z/KHPN/KPOU)
>> . Now all we need are the ATC tapes and a webcam sitting on the pilot's
>> shoulder :-)
>>
>> On the other hand, I'm not sure if a "... or GPS ..." approach is quite
>> the
>> same thing as a "RNAV GPS ..." approach.
>>
>
> No, RNAV approaches have RNAV in the name.
>

[Mxsmanic]

Stan Prevost writes:

> The point, though, was to have the magenta line along the final approach
> course, not on the direct path between the present position and the fix.

On the GNS530, you can insert a waypoint into your currently active
flight plan. If you put it after the current fix, it will be inserted
in your current route from your last waypoint. I don't have it in
front of me so I don't recall the exact sequence, but you can put
stuff in and take it out on the fly.

Approaches are different, though, since changing them seems to mutate
them into regular routes. I don't use approaches and the like too
much on the GPS, since it's harder to get it working than to fly it by
hand (or by autopilot).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Ron Natalie]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>> Use DIRECT TO, then set the course. This way draws a line on the map, OBS
>> doesn't.
>>
>
> DIRECT TO where? The clearance was to turn ten degrees and join the final
> approach course.
>
>
Any point on the final approach course. One of the 480 "DIRECT" modes
is to set a course to/from an the thing you are going "DIRECT" to.
It's one of the options along with "enter a holding pattern at that
point". You're prompted for the course.

The VTF button is a much cleaner way of doing this.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>That won't work with the GNS400/500 series.
>
>
> Direct-To with any type of fix will put a magenta route line on the
> map (and potentially other instruments that pull information from the
> GPS).
>

That is not the point. Direct-to on a GNS400/500 will not yield the
unpublished extension of the final approach course unless you happen to
be in the correct position when you activate direct-to. Sure, you will
have a magenta line but it probably won't have a magnetic course of 002,
as per the example IAP.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Sam Spade writes:
>
>
>>That won't work with the GNS400/500 series.
>
>
> Direct-To with any type of fix will put a magenta route line on the
> map (and potentially other instruments that pull information from the
> GPS).
>
That is not the point. Direct-to on a GNS400/500 will not yield the
unpublished extension of the final approach course unless you happen to
be in the correct position when you activate direct-to. Sure, you will
have a magenta line but it probably won't have a magnetic course of 002,
as per the example IAP.

[Sam Spade]

Roy Smith wrote:


>
> Stan,
>
> Just curious why you picked SENNA and not FRZZN as the waypoint. From
> "Turn left 10 degrees to intercept the final approach course", I'd assume
> I'd intercept outside of FRZZN, but perhaps not outside of SENNA. I would
> think -D-> FRZZN with a course of 002 would make more sense.

It makes more sense to set up the first published fix in this case,
where the course remains the same. If the clearance were issued
correctly (off route extension of published segment) the clearance would
be to cross SENNA, not FRZZN.

[Sam Spade]

Mark Manes wrote:

> Isn't this an RNAV approach?
>
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0612/09092R35.PDF
>
> Mark
>

Sure it is. So is this:

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0612/00569G12.PDF

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
..
>
> Approaches are different, though, since changing them seems to mutate
> them into regular routes. I don't use approaches and the like too
> much on the GPS, since it's harder to get it working than to fly it by
> hand (or by autopilot).
>

You can do changes to the IAP flight plan sequence prior to the FAF and
the approach mode will still activate as well as the missed approach.

The limiting factor is an unacceptably large angle of intercept to the
FAF as established by Garmin.

[Stan Prevost]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> That is not the point. Direct-to on a GNS400/500 will not yield the
> unpublished extension of the final approach course unless you happen to be
> in the correct position when you activate direct-to. Sure, you will have
> a magenta line but it probably won't have a magnetic course of 002, as per
> the example IAP.

On the GNS430, Direct-To provides an opportunity to set the course to/from
the waypoint. Press Direct To, enter the waypoint, press Enter, move the
cursor to the course field, set the course, then press Enter again.

[Stan Prevost]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> On the 480, I would hit the VTF soft key (assuming I've already got the
> approach loaded with some arbitrary IAF selected). At that point, the box
> would create a segment from [a point 50(*) miles 182 degrees from FRZZN]
> to
> FRZZN, make that the active leg (i.e. draw it in magenta on the map), and
> go into suspend mode. Assuming I was given a good vector, flew it
> correctly, and had sufficient fuel, I would eventually intercept that
> segment. At that time the box would automagically come out of suspend
> mode. When I reached FRZZN, it would sequence to FRZZN-MAP36 being the
> active leg.
>
> (*) I think it's 50 miles. Could be something else, but it's long enough
> that it's never been an issue for me.

Roy, apparently VTF works much differently on the 480 than the 430 and
sounds correctly implemented. On the 430, VTF doesn't work properly on a
dogleg approach. It sets up for the dogleg intermediate segment rather than
the extended final course. Have you checked the 480 for a dogleg, such as

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0612/05924VDB.PDF
or
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0612/06712R23.PDF ?

[Sam Spade]

Stan Prevost wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>That is not the point. Direct-to on a GNS400/500 will not yield the
>>unpublished extension of the final approach course unless you happen to be
>>in the correct position when you activate direct-to. Sure, you will have
>>a magenta line but it probably won't have a magnetic course of 002, as per
>>the example IAP.
>
>
> On the GNS430, Direct-To provides an opportunity to set the course to/from
> the waypoint. Press Direct To, enter the waypoint, press Enter, move the
> cursor to the course field, set the course, then press Enter again.
>
>
>
I'll take your word for it. That seems more complicated, though, than
using OBS mode.

[Sam Spade]

Stan Prevost wrote:

>
>
> On the GNS430, Direct-To provides an opportunity to set the course to/from
> the waypoint. Press Direct To, enter the waypoint, press Enter, move the
> cursor to the course field, set the course, then press Enter again.
>
>
>
I just tried that on the 530 trainer and it works the same way. On
relection that might be a better way to go in this hypothetical than
using OBS mode.

[Sam Spade]

Stan Prevost wrote:

>
> Roy, apparently VTF works much differently on the 480 than the 430 and
> sounds correctly implemented. On the 430, VTF doesn't work properly on a
> dogleg approach. It sets up for the dogleg intermediate segment rather than
> the extended final course. Have you checked the 480 for a dogleg, such as

It seems to me to work correctly. Using your example of KEKX RNAV 23,
if I select VTF, as you say, I get a track line of 270 magnetic to
JEXUD. That would be the correct course to intercept for vectors to
"final."

The issue is FAA terminology that is predicated on the ILS case.

[Ron Natalie]

Stan Prevost wrote:

>
> Roy, apparently VTF works much differently on the 480 than the 430 and
> sounds correctly implemented. On the 430, VTF doesn't work properly on a
> dogleg approach. It sets up for the dogleg intermediate segment rather than
> the extended final course. Have you checked the 480 for a dogleg, such as
>
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0612/05924VDB.PDF
> or
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0612/06712R23.PDF ?
>
>
>

The VTF on the 480 seems to work the same way. it extends the
dogleg (the R-250 off RQZ).

[Stan Prevost]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Stan Prevost wrote:
>
>>
On the 430, VTF doesn't work properly on a
>> dogleg approach. It sets up for the dogleg intermediate segment rather
>> than the extended final course.

>
> It seems to me to work correctly. Using your example of KEKX RNAV 23, if
> I select VTF, as you say, I get a track line of 270 magnetic to JEXUD.
> That would be the correct course to intercept for vectors to "final."
>
> The issue is FAA terminology that is predicated on the ILS case.

It works the way that we pilots would usually prefer that it work, but the
problem is that the 7110.65 used in conjunction with the definitions in the
P/CG, doesn't allow for controllers issuing vectors to an approach other
than to the final approach course as defined in the P/CG, and this results
in some controllers doing it one way and others doing it another way, and
pilots never know (except through local experience) what a controller
intends if s/he says Vectors To Final. The manual should be revised to
allow vectors to an intermediate dogleg segment. Maybe an ASRS report will
get the concern into the system.

[Stan Prevost]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
> Stan Prevost wrote:
>
>>
>> Roy, apparently VTF works much differently on the 480 than the 430 and
>> sounds correctly implemented. On the 430, VTF doesn't work properly on a
>> dogleg approach. It sets up for the dogleg intermediate segment rather
>> than the extended final course. Have you checked the 480 for a dogleg,
>> such as
>>
>> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0612/05924VDB.PDF
>> or
>> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0612/06712R23.PDF ?
>>
>>
>>
>
> The VTF on the 480 seems to work the same way. it extends the
> dogleg (the R-250 off RQZ).

Thanks, Ron. I have been wondering how that worked in the 480.

[Sam Spade]

Stan Prevost wrote:

> It works the way that we pilots would usually prefer that it work, but the
> problem is that the 7110.65 used in conjunction with the definitions in the
> P/CG, doesn't allow for controllers issuing vectors to an approach other
> than to the final approach course as defined in the P/CG, and this results
> in some controllers doing it one way and others doing it another way, and
> pilots never know (except through local experience) what a controller
> intends if s/he says Vectors To Final. The manual should be revised to
> allow vectors to an intermediate dogleg segment. Maybe an ASRS report will
> get the concern into the system.
>
>
The only effective way to get it addressed is for a user group (such as
AOPA) to submit it to ATPAC (Air Traffic Control Advisory Committee).

But, according to the FAA ATO chiefs, vectors can be given to final only
where the final approach course is on the video map. And, they claim
that is done only with ILS approaches that are in an area with adequate
radar coverage. So, I presume those chiefs would say it is a non--issue
if submitted to ATPAC.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> That is not the point. Direct-to on a GNS400/500 will not yield the
> unpublished extension of the final approach course unless you happen to
> be in the correct position when you activate direct-to.

Maybe that's why they call it Direct-To, and not
Reveal-Final-Approach-Course. It's a mode you use when you just want
a line pointing you to a specific spot.

I'm surprised by the amount of time people are willing to spend
twirling knobs and pressing buttons on the GPS, when they could just
look at the display and fly towards the fix that interests them. How
did people survive before GPS?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Sam Spade writes:
>

> I'm surprised by the amount of time people are willing to spend
> twirling knobs and pressing buttons on the GPS, when they could just
> look at the display and fly towards the fix that interests them.

If you're flying VFR no problem with that. If you're IFR that is not
very well provided for unless ATC is providing an off-route altitude.


How> did people survive before GPS?
>

They didn't do direct very often except for radar vectors.

[Mxsmanic]

Sam Spade writes:

> If you're flying VFR no problem with that. If you're IFR that is not
> very well provided for unless ATC is providing an off-route altitude.

You can zoom a moving map display and carefully fly towards a
displayed fix. I don't see how it would be any less accurate than
flying towards needles or bars on a more traditional instrument. You
don't have to have a complicated system for steering the aircraft. As
long as you can determine where you are and where you are going
without external visibility, you can fly IFR.

Of course, if there are regulatory barriers that require you to use
some automated GPS function, that could be an issue, but it's a
political and administrative one rather than an operational one.

I worry that sometimes pilots may become so wrapped up in twiddling
with their GPS units that they forget where they are going and end up
half buried in a mountainside.

> They didn't do direct very often except for radar vectors.

There are times when GPS seems like overkill. The solution should not
be more complex than the problem.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Stan Prevost]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> Stan Prevost wrote:
>
>> It works the way that we pilots would usually prefer that it work, but
>> the problem is that the 7110.65 used in conjunction with the definitions
>> in the P/CG, doesn't allow for controllers issuing vectors to an approach
>> other than to the final approach course as defined in the P/CG, and this
>> results in some controllers doing it one way and others doing it another
>> way, and pilots never know (except through local experience) what a
>> controller intends if s/he says Vectors To Final. The manual should be
>> revised to allow vectors to an intermediate dogleg segment. Maybe an
>> ASRS report will get the concern into the system.
>>
> The only effective way to get it addressed is for a user group (such as
> AOPA) to submit it to ATPAC (Air Traffic Control Advisory Committee).
>
> But, according to the FAA ATO chiefs, vectors can be given to final only
> where the final approach course is on the video map. And, they claim that
> is done only with ILS approaches that are in an area with adequate radar
> coverage. So, I presume those chiefs would say it is a non--issue if
> submitted to ATPAC.


The full rule (almost) is given in 7110.65R, excerpted below. As to policy
for what goes on the scope, I have no idea. I have been told that it is
decided locally for each facility.

They can hide their heads in the sand and pretend that vectors are given
only to ILS approaches, but it is everyday practice for vectors to be given
to NPAs also.


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.

EXCEPTION. Conditions 1 and 2 above do not apply to RNAV aircraft
being vectored for a GPS or RNAV approach.

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.

[Dan Luke]

"Roy Smith" wrote:

>> Anybody ever get vectors to final for RNAV approaches?
>
> Sure. And what's so cool about the internet today is that not only can I
> show you the chart for the approach
> (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0612/00286VDG24.PDF),

That's not exaactly what I was talking about. I wouldn't be surprised to get
vectors to that one, since it's a VOR/DME approach with GPS overlay. I'm
talking about RNAV approaches only.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Sam Spade]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> Of course, if there are regulatory barriers that require you to use
> some automated GPS function, that could be an issue, but it's a
> political and administrative one rather than an operational one.

As the system moves to RNP, tracking the on-course becomes an absolute
requirement.

Also, the newer breed of autopilots for light aircraft are really good.
Having the autopilot track the course and fly the bird under IFR
unloads the pilot a whole lot so he/she can more effectively manage the
task at hand.

>
> I worry that sometimes pilots may become so wrapped up in twiddling
> with their GPS units that they forget where they are going and end up
> half buried in a mountainside.
>

Not if you have a terrain database. ;-)

[Sam Spade]

Stan Prevost wrote:

>
>
> The full rule (almost) is given in 7110.65R, excerpted below. As to policy
> for what goes on the scope, I have no idea. I have been told that it is
> decided locally for each facility.
>
> They can hide their heads in the sand and pretend that vectors are given
> only to ILS approaches, but it is everyday practice for vectors to be given
> to NPAs also.
>

I used to be vectored onto the VOR approach at my local G/A airport a
whole lot. But, that has all changed. Now, it is direct-to the VOR and
kicked loose.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
...
>
> Any point on the final approach course. One of the 480 "DIRECT" modes
> is to set a course to/from an the thing you are going "DIRECT" to.
> It's one of the options along with "enter a holding pattern at that
> point". You're prompted for the course.
>

Is that a universal feature on IFR approach GPS?

[Stan Prevost]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Any point on the final approach course. One of the 480 "DIRECT" modes
>> is to set a course to/from an the thing you are going "DIRECT" to.
>> It's one of the options along with "enter a holding pattern at that
>> point". You're prompted for the course.
>>
>
> Is that a universal feature on IFR approach GPS?
>

It is a feature of the Garmin GNS 430/530/480. Don't know about Kings, am
pretty sure the Northstar M3 could do it. I don't think it is a requirement
of the TSOs, but I can't say for sure since I don't have a copy of the TSOs
with the referenced documents.

But any competent IFR pilot can track to any waypoint on any specified
course using bearing information, just like tracking a NDB bearing with an
ADF.

[Stan Prevost]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Stan Prevost wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On the GNS430, Direct-To provides an opportunity to set the course
>> to/from the waypoint. Press Direct To, enter the waypoint, press Enter,
>> move the cursor to the course field, set the course, then press Enter
>> again.
>>
>>
>>
> I just tried that on the 530 trainer and it works the same way. On
> relection that might be a better way to go in this hypothetical than using
> OBS mode.

Now I remember why I thought OBS was not the best mode. It isn't because it
won't paint the magenta line, because it does; I was off-track on that. It
is because it doesn't autosequence waypoints in OBS mode. Setting the
course in Direct-To does continue autosequencing.

[Sam Spade]

Stan Prevost wrote:

>
> Now I remember why I thought OBS was not the best mode. It isn't because it
> won't paint the magenta line, because it does; I was off-track on that. It
> is because it doesn't autosequence waypoints in OBS mode. Setting the
> course in Direct-To does continue autosequencing.
>
Exactly, and it is easy to forget.

[Dan Luke]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

>> Any point on the final approach course. One of the 480 "DIRECT" modes
>> is to set a course to/from an the thing you are going "DIRECT" to.
>> It's one of the options along with "enter a holding pattern at that
>> point". You're prompted for the course.
>>
>
> Is that a universal feature on IFR approach GPS?

You cannot do anything like that on my KLN-90B without suspending waypoint
sequencing. That would seem to me to be a barrier to RNAV vectoring to
final for ATC, since the variability of equipment in this respect cannot be
accounted for.

Perhaps that answers my second question.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Stan Prevost]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
>>> Any point on the final approach course. One of the 480 "DIRECT" modes
>>> is to set a course to/from an the thing you are going "DIRECT" to.
>>> It's one of the options along with "enter a holding pattern at that
>>> point". You're prompted for the course.
>>>
>>
>> Is that a universal feature on IFR approach GPS?
>
> You cannot do anything like that on my KLN-90B without suspending waypoint
> sequencing. That would seem to me to be a barrier to RNAV vectoring to
> final for ATC, since the variability of equipment in this respect cannot
> be accounted for.
>

Can you not use your GPS to navigate to intercept a specified course to a
fix, and track that course, without a line on a moving map? Or without a
CDI? Have you ever flown an NDB approach with an ADF?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> You cannot do anything like that on my KLN-90B without suspending waypoint
> sequencing. That would seem to me to be a barrier to RNAV vectoring to
> final for ATC, since the variability of equipment in this respect cannot
> be accounted for.
>

That would seem to suggest there IS something special about vectoring to
final on GPS approaches.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> Can you not use your GPS to navigate to intercept a specified course to a
> fix, and track that course, without a line on a moving map? Or without a
> CDI? Have you ever flown an NDB approach with an ADF?
>

Did you ever actually read the question? What experience do you have
vectoring aircraft for approaches?

[Stan Prevost]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Can you not use your GPS to navigate to intercept a specified course to a
>> fix, and track that course, without a line on a moving map? Or without a
>> CDI? Have you ever flown an NDB approach with an ADF?
>>
>
> Did you ever actually read the question?

Did you ever actually read the post I responded to? I responded to a
statement, not a question.

Do you understand my response? Do you understand that all these nice design
features of specific GPS boxes that we have been discussing are not
necessary to nagivate to a fix along a specified course? What experience do
you have flying vectors for approaches?

>What experience do you have vectoring aircraft for approaches?

None, but I have experience flying them. And I can read.

What does experience have to do with what the rules say about vectors to
approaches?

[Stan Prevost]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> You cannot do anything like that on my KLN-90B without suspending
>> waypoint sequencing. That would seem to me to be a barrier to RNAV
>> vectoring to final for ATC, since the variability of equipment in this
>> respect cannot be accounted for.
>>
>
> That would seem to suggest there IS something special about vectoring to
> final on GPS approaches.
>

It would seem to suggest no such thing. You seem to think that FAAO 7110.65
is only advisory and that the design approach taken by some equipment
manufacturer actually defines the rules you should use for vectoring
aircraft to approaches.

Perhaps you should become familiar with FAAO 7110.65 and the P/CG if you
want to know about vectoring to final on GPS approaches.

[Sam Spade]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>You cannot do anything like that on my KLN-90B without suspending waypoint
>>sequencing. That would seem to me to be a barrier to RNAV vectoring to
>>final for ATC, since the variability of equipment in this respect cannot
>>be accounted for.
>>
>
>
> That would seem to suggest there IS something special about vectoring to
> final on GPS approaches.
>
>
Yes, it is sufficiently special that a lot of controllers can't do it in
accordance with 5-9-1.

[Dan Luke]

"Stan Prevost" wrote:

>>>> Any point on the final approach course. One of the 480 "DIRECT" modes
>>>> is to set a course to/from an the thing you are going "DIRECT" to.
>>>> It's one of the options along with "enter a holding pattern at that
>>>> point". You're prompted for the course.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is that a universal feature on IFR approach GPS?
>>
>> You cannot do anything like that on my KLN-90B without suspending
>> waypoint sequencing. That would seem to me to be a barrier to RNAV
>> vectoring to final for ATC, since the variability of equipment in this
>> respect cannot be accounted for.
>>
>
> Can you not use your GPS to navigate to intercept a specified course to a
> fix, and track that course, without a line on a moving map?

Yes, but it would require a bit of a home-made procedure to do it and
complete the approach. Here's how I could do it:

o Load the approach in the Flight Plan page
o Select direct to the FAF
o Put the GPS in OBS mode
o Set the OBS on the GPS CDI to the final approach course
o Use the CDI to intercept off the vector
o Just before the FAF, switch the GPS back to Leg mode to enable
sequencing

> Or without a CDI?

Not sure what you mean here. I'd have to have something to indicate when I
was intercepting the course.

> Have you ever flown an NDB approach with an ADF?

Eh?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Stan Prevost]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
>>>
>>> You cannot do anything like that on my KLN-90B without suspending
>>> waypoint sequencing. That would seem to me to be a barrier to RNAV
>>> vectoring to final for ATC, since the variability of equipment in this
>>> respect cannot be accounted for.
>>>
>>
>> Can you not use your GPS to navigate to intercept a specified course to a
>> fix, and track that course, without a line on a moving map?
>
> Yes, but it would require a bit of a home-made procedure to do it and
> complete the approach. Here's how I could do it:
>
> o Load the approach in the Flight Plan page
> o Select direct to the FAF
> o Put the GPS in OBS mode
> o Set the OBS on the GPS CDI to the final approach course
> o Use the CDI to intercept off the vector
> o Just before the FAF, switch the GPS back to Leg mode to enable
> sequencing
>

That is a good procedure. I wouldn't call it home-made, in the usual sense
of that term, it is a proper way to do it if your GPS doesn't allow setting
a course to/from a fix on a Direct-To in an approach procedure. It was
discussed earlier in this thread as one way, perhaps the most common way, to
do it with the Garmin 430/530 units. These units just provide another way
that doesn't disable autoseqencing.

>> Or without a CDI?
>
> Not sure what you mean here. I'd have to have something to indicate when
> I was intercepting the course.
>
>> Have you ever flown an NDB approach with an ADF?
>
> Eh?

My point in both of those last comments is that a course can be intercepted
and tracked with just the Bearing To Fix information provided by the GPS.
That is how it is done with an ADF, except there we have a needle pointer
instead of a numeric readout. It is easier with GPS because you have actual
Track information also, making wind correction trivial. Just intercept the
course, then fly headings to keep TRK=BRG=DTK (DTK=Desired Track on some GPS
units). Bearing will tell you when you are intercepting the course and when
you are tracking it. I find that pilots who learned GPS with moving map
displays have trouble with this, those who learned to fly NDB/ADF don't.
Try flying with just the numbers screen, cover the map and CDI.

By the way, Dan, when looking back at my response to your earlier post, I
was unhappy with the apparent tone of my response. It didn't sound like I
wanted it to. My apologies.

[Dan Luke]

"Stan Prevost" wrote:

>>>> You cannot do anything like that on my KLN-90B without suspending
>>>> waypoint sequencing. That would seem to me to be a barrier to RNAV
>>>> vectoring to final for ATC, since the variability of equipment in this
>>>> respect cannot be accounted for.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can you not use your GPS to navigate to intercept a specified course to
>>> a fix, and track that course, without a line on a moving map?
>>
>> Yes, but it would require a bit of a home-made procedure to do it and
>> complete the approach. Here's how I could do it:
>>
>> o Load the approach in the Flight Plan page
>> o Select direct to the FAF
>> o Put the GPS in OBS mode
>> o Set the OBS on the GPS CDI to the final approach course
>> o Use the CDI to intercept off the vector
>> o Just before the FAF, switch the GPS back to Leg mode to enable
>> sequencing
>>
>
> That is a good procedure. I wouldn't call it home-made, in the usual
> sense of that term, it is a proper way to do it if your GPS doesn't allow
> setting a course to/from a fix on a Direct-To in an approach procedure.
> It was discussed earlier in this thread as one way, perhaps the most
> common way, to do it with the Garmin 430/530 units. These units just
> provide another way that doesn't disable autoseqencing.

Now that I think about it more, this is really not much different from the
procedure for doing a full RNAV approach with a course reversal.

[snip]

> By the way, Dan, when looking back at my response to your earlier post, I
> was unhappy with the apparent tone of my response. It didn't sound like I
> wanted it to. My apologies.
>

No offense taken. Thanks for your responses.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:33:04 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Anybody ever get vectors to final for RNAV approaches?
>>
>> Around here (Mobile. AL), I never hear it, although there are plenty of
>> ARNAVs with lower minimums than the VOR approaches at both airports. If
>> you ask ATC for one of the ARNAVs, they'll clear you to an IAF every time.
>>
>> Is there something special about vectoring for ARNAVs?
>>
>
>What kind of RNAV approaches are you referring to? Stand alone GPS
>approaches tend to be made so that vectoring doesn't provide an advantage.
>
And here I always though they were VOR offsets. Although I have to
admit it's been well over 10 years since I actually heard any one give
an RNAV off set. <:-))
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Sam Spade]

Roger wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:33:04 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Anybody ever get vectors to final for RNAV approaches?
>>>
>>>Around here (Mobile. AL), I never hear it, although there are plenty of
>>>ARNAVs with lower minimums than the VOR approaches at both airports. If
>>>you ask ATC for one of the ARNAVs, they'll clear you to an IAF every time.
>>>
>>>Is there something special about vectoring for ARNAVs?
>>>
>>
>>What kind of RNAV approaches are you referring to? Stand alone GPS
>>approaches tend to be made so that vectoring doesn't provide an advantage.
>>
>
> And here I always though they were VOR offsets. Although I have to
> admit it's been well over 10 years since I actually heard any one give
> an RNAV off set. <:-))
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Offsets are a feature in TSO 145/146 (WAAS capable) sets. The smart
money will use a slight offset to fly a Victor Airway to greatly reduce
the opposite direction mid-air potential. Minor offsets are already
approved on the North Atlantic.

Offsets should not be used for instrument approach or departure procedures.

[Stan Prevost]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Roger wrote:
>>>
>>
>> And here I always though they were VOR offsets. Although I have to
>> admit it's been well over 10 years since I actually heard any one give
>> an RNAV off set. <:-))
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> Offsets are a feature in TSO 145/146 (WAAS capable) sets. The smart money
> will use a slight offset to fly a Victor Airway to greatly reduce the
> opposite direction mid-air potential. Minor offsets are already approved
> on the North Atlantic.
>
> Offsets should not be used for instrument approach or departure
> procedures.

I thought Roger was talking about radial/DME offsets like used in KNS80 and
other RNAV boxes to define RNAV waypoints.

But course offsets were a feature of my old Northstar M3 IFR GPS. Not
mandated by TSO back then, though. I noticed the course offsets in the
GNS430W while reading the manual and wondered why they appeared.

Hard to imagine the FAA mandating course offsets to avoid center-of-airway
conflicts, given the following:

§ 91.181 Course to be flown.
Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft within
controlled airspace under IFR except as follows:

(a) On a Federal airway, along the centerline of that airway.

(b) On any other route, along the direct course between the navigational
aids or fixes defining that route. However, this section does not prohibit
maneuvering the aircraft to pass well clear of other air traffic or the
maneuvering of the aircraft in VFR conditions to clear the intended flight
path both before and during climb or descent.

[Roy Smith]

Sam Spade > wrote:
> Offsets are a feature in TSO 145/146 (WAAS capable) sets. The smart
> money will use a slight offset to fly a Victor Airway to greatly reduce
> the opposite direction mid-air potential. Minor offsets are already
> approved on the North Atlantic.

The CNX-80 has offsets. I didn't realize they were required by the TSO.
The story I had heard was the CAP wanted offsets so they could fly box
search patterns, and Apollo put the feature in to close a big sale to them.

[Sam Spade]

Stan Prevost wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Roger wrote:
>>
>>>And here I always though they were VOR offsets. Although I have to
>>>admit it's been well over 10 years since I actually heard any one give
>>>an RNAV off set. <:-))
>>>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>>www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>>Offsets are a feature in TSO 145/146 (WAAS capable) sets. The smart money
>>will use a slight offset to fly a Victor Airway to greatly reduce the
>>opposite direction mid-air potential. Minor offsets are already approved
>>on the North Atlantic.
>>
>>Offsets should not be used for instrument approach or departure
>>procedures.
>
>
> I thought Roger was talking about radial/DME offsets like used in KNS80 and
> other RNAV boxes to define RNAV waypoints.
>
> But course offsets were a feature of my old Northstar M3 IFR GPS. Not
> mandated by TSO back then, though. I noticed the course offsets in the
> GNS430W while reading the manual and wondered why they appeared.
>
> Hard to imagine the FAA mandating course offsets to avoid center-of-airway
> conflicts, given the following:
>
> § 91.181 Course to be flown.
> Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft within
> controlled airspace under IFR except as follows:
>
> (a) On a Federal airway, along the centerline of that airway.
>
> (b) On any other route, along the direct course between the navigational
> aids or fixes defining that route. However, this section does not prohibit
> maneuvering the aircraft to pass well clear of other air traffic or the
> maneuvering of the aircraft in VFR conditions to clear the intended flight
> path both before and during climb or descent.
>
>
The essence of that regulation was written in the 1950s. Anyone flying
..10 n.m off centerline would not even be noticed. (608 feet).

[Sam Spade]

Roy Smith wrote:

> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>Offsets are a feature in TSO 145/146 (WAAS capable) sets. The smart
>>money will use a slight offset to fly a Victor Airway to greatly reduce
>>the opposite direction mid-air potential. Minor offsets are already
>>approved on the North Atlantic.
>
>
> The CNX-80 has offsets. I didn't realize they were required by the TSO.
> The story I had heard was the CAP wanted offsets so they could fly box
> search patterns, and Apollo put the feature in to close a big sale to them.

More than you ever wanted to know:

2.2.1.3.16 Parallel Offsets

The parallel offset is defined as a route parallel to, but offset from,
the original active route. The basis of the offset path is the original
flight plan leg(s) and one or more offset reference points as computed
by the navigation system. The computed offset reference point is located
so that it lies on the intersection of lines drawn parallel to the host
route at the desired offset distance and the line that bisects the track
change angle. An exception to this occurs if there is a route
iscontinuity (or end of route). In this case, the offset reference
point is located abeam of the original flight plan waypoint at the
offset distance.

The offset path and associated waypoint must be created to the same
standards as the host route. The earth model must be WGS-84 and the
offset reference point must have the same or better resolution than the
host route waypoint. The parallel offset function shall be available for
enroute TF and the geodesic portion of DF leg types at a minimum.
Note: The parallel offset function enables an aircraft to be flown on a
flight path offset from the center line of a route while maintaining all
characteristics of that flightpath, as if it were being flown centrally
on the route. Examples for the use of offsets are weather avoidance, air
traffic conflict avoidance, etc.The system shall have the capability to
fly parallel tracks at a selected offset distance.

When executing a parallel offset, the navigation mode and all erformance
requirements of the original route in the active flight plan shall be
applicable to the offset route. The system shall provide for entry of
offset distance in increments of 1 nm, left or right of course. The
system shall be capable of offsets of at least 20 nm. The fact that the
system is operating in offset mode shall be clearly indicated to the
flight crew. When in offset mode, the system shall provide reference
parameters (e.g., cross-track deviation, distance-to-go, time-to-go)
relative to the offset path and offset reference points.

An offset shall not be propagated through route discontinuities,
unreasonable path geometries, or beyond the initial approach fix.
Annunciation shall be given to the flight crew prior to the end of the
offset path, with sufficient time to return to the original path. Once a
parallel offset is activated, the offset shall remain active for all
flight plan route segments until removed automatically, until the flight
crew enters a Direct-To routing, or until flight crew (manual) cancellation.

Note: RTCA/DO-236A provides additional information on parallel offsets.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:41:10 -0600, "Stan Prevost"
> wrote:

>
>"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>> Roger wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> And here I always though they were VOR offsets. Although I have to
>>> admit it's been well over 10 years since I actually heard any one give
>>> an RNAV off set. <:-))
>>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>> Offsets are a feature in TSO 145/146 (WAAS capable) sets. The smart money
>> will use a slight offset to fly a Victor Airway to greatly reduce the
>> opposite direction mid-air potential. Minor offsets are already approved
>> on the North Atlantic.
>>
>> Offsets should not be used for instrument approach or departure
>> procedures.
>
>I thought Roger was talking about radial/DME offsets like used in KNS80 and
>other RNAV boxes to define RNAV waypoints.

He were<:-)) As in LAN 27015 (I think that was the way they were
worded) Actually I filed an RNAV offset coming out of OSH a few years
ago when MTW VOR was out of service. I used an offset from GRB that
was very close to MTW. The clearance sounded something like OSH
direct GRB17025 Direct LDM, Direct 3BS(I don't remember the numbers
now but that conveys the general idea)


>
>But course offsets were a feature of my old Northstar M3 IFR GPS. Not
>mandated by TSO back then, though. I noticed the course offsets in the
>GNS430W while reading the manual and wondered why they appeared.
>
>Hard to imagine the FAA mandating course offsets to avoid center-of-airway
>conflicts, given the following:
>
>§ 91.181 Course to be flown.
>Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft within
>controlled airspace under IFR except as follows:
>
>(a) On a Federal airway, along the centerline of that airway.
>
>(b) On any other route, along the direct course between the navigational
>aids or fixes defining that route. However, this section does not prohibit
>maneuvering the aircraft to pass well clear of other air traffic or the
>maneuvering of the aircraft in VFR conditions to clear the intended flight
>path both before and during climb or descent.
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> Did you ever actually read the post I responded to? I responded to a
> statement, not a question.
>

I believe I wrote the post you responded to. Actually reading the question
may have allowed you to understand the statement.


>
> Do you understand my response?
>

Your response indicated you did not understand the previous message.


>
> Do you understand that all these nice
> design features of specific GPS boxes that we have been discussing are not
> necessary to nagivate to a fix along a specified course?
>

Of course.


>
> What experience do you have flying vectors for approaches?
>

I've held an instrument rating since 1983.


>
> None, but I have experience flying them. And I can read.
>

Your messages in these forums suggest you cannot read very well.


>
> What does experience have to do with what the rules say about vectors to
> approaches?
>

What rule are you having trouble with?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> It would seem to suggest no such thing.
>

It does, actually.


>
> You seem to think that FAAO
> 7110.65 is only advisory and that the design approach taken by some
> equipment manufacturer actually defines the rules you should use for
> vectoring aircraft to approaches.
>

What led you to that incorrect conclusion?


>
> Perhaps you should become familiar with FAAO 7110.65 and the P/CG if you
> want to know about vectoring to final on GPS approaches.
>

I am thoroughly familiar with both and I know everything about vectoring for
all types of approaches.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, it is sufficiently special that a lot of controllers can't do it in
> accordance with 5-9-1.
>

How so?