Commencing a GPS approach from a fix other than the FAF

[Chris Quaintance]

Hi Folks-

Please forgive what is probably a simple question regarding GPS
approaches. I am new the the /G world. I was out flying my 182P today
to do some practice approaches. The airplane is equipped with a GNS480
and I have a Garmin 296 on the yolk. I was buzzing around NW of the
Salinas airport on vectors and was told to expect the GPS13 approach as
I requested. So far, so good. Fight plan entered into the 480 and the
296, approach loaded on both.

Here's the approach:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0701/00363G13.PDF

NorCal cleared me direct EWTOF at 3200, cleared for the approach. When
looking at the approach on both the 480 and the 296, it seemed to
commence at UBBEP rather than EWTOF. No way for me to go direct EWTOF
then on to the rest of the procedure. So, I fiddled around a bit and
was unable to come up with a graceful solution. Selecting Direct To, I
was hoping to easily find EWTOF - no joy. I had to dig up EWTOF from
the nearest list, and then the rest of the approach "disappeared." I
ended up arming VTF on the 480, then used the 296 to navigate direct to
EWTOF. By then, the VTF mode on the 480 picked me up properly and I
was in good shape. Ugly, but it worked (fortunately, it was clear and a
million). And how about that synthetic glidescope! Very cool!

So, at first I figured that there was a problem with the database
versus my Jepp chart. However, the problem repeated itself on the
GPS31 approach to KRHV:
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0701/05591R31R.PDF
I was cleared direct ECYON, then for the approach. Both Garmins
"wanted" me to head for OZNUM.

What is the best way to handle this situation? Clearly I am doing
something wrong, because this has to easier than I made it! Is it as
simple as amending the current flight plan and inserting a waypoint
before the destination? That is, in the first case, inserting EWTOF
before KSNS on the flight plan and then choosing Direct To? I would
think that EWTOF should be part of the procedure as it is charted on
the approach plate. It sucks to have to enter it in by hand to the
flight plan. Do all of the GPS approaches in the 480/296 database
commence only with the FAF?

Thanks for your insight.

Cheers,
--Chris Q.

[Sam Spade]

I don't know how an approach is selected in the 480 (I am a 530 user)
but the TSO specs require that all IAFs, feeder fixes and vectors be
offered when you select an approach (this is not so with the 296,
though, because it is not an IFR device).

So, in this case I would select MOVER, which would yield an approach
"flight plan" I would not activate the approach or that would yield a
course direct to MOVER.

Then I would highlight EWTOF with the cursor and go direct-to. EWTOF
would now be the active waypoint with the FAF and subsequent fixes still
in line to sequence once I pass EWTOF, etc.

MOVER
EWTOF
UBBEB
GUHWO
MARNA

Then I would highlight EWTOF with the cursor and go direct-to. EWTOF
would now be the active waypoint with the FAF and subsequent fixes still
in line to sequence once I pass EWTOF, etc.

Chris Quaintance wrote:

> Hi Folks-
>
> Please forgive what is probably a simple question regarding GPS
> approaches. I am new the the /G world. I was out flying my 182P today
> to do some practice approaches. The airplane is equipped with a GNS480
> and I have a Garmin 296 on the yolk. I was buzzing around NW of the
> Salinas airport on vectors and was told to expect the GPS13 approach as
> I requested. So far, so good. Fight plan entered into the 480 and the
> 296, approach loaded on both.
>
> Here's the approach:
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0701/00363G13.PDF
>
> NorCal cleared me direct EWTOF at 3200, cleared for the approach. When
> looking at the approach on both the 480 and the 296, it seemed to
> commence at UBBEP rather than EWTOF. No way for me to go direct EWTOF
> then on to the rest of the procedure. So, I fiddled around a bit and
> was unable to come up with a graceful solution. Selecting Direct To, I
> was hoping to easily find EWTOF - no joy. I had to dig up EWTOF from
> the nearest list, and then the rest of the approach "disappeared." I
> ended up arming VTF on the 480, then used the 296 to navigate direct to
> EWTOF. By then, the VTF mode on the 480 picked me up properly and I
> was in good shape. Ugly, but it worked (fortunately, it was clear and a
> million). And how about that synthetic glidescope! Very cool!
>
> So, at first I figured that there was a problem with the database
> versus my Jepp chart. However, the problem repeated itself on the
> GPS31 approach to KRHV:
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0701/05591R31R.PDF
> I was cleared direct ECYON, then for the approach. Both Garmins
> "wanted" me to head for OZNUM.
>
> What is the best way to handle this situation? Clearly I am doing
> something wrong, because this has to easier than I made it! Is it as
> simple as amending the current flight plan and inserting a waypoint
> before the destination? That is, in the first case, inserting EWTOF
> before KSNS on the flight plan and then choosing Direct To? I would
> think that EWTOF should be part of the procedure as it is charted on
> the approach plate. It sucks to have to enter it in by hand to the
> flight plan. Do all of the GPS approaches in the 480/296 database
> commence only with the FAF?
>
> Thanks for your insight.
>
> Cheers,
> --Chris Q.
>

[Dave Butler]

Chris Quaintance wrote:
> Hi Folks-
>
> Please forgive what is probably a simple question regarding GPS
> approaches. I am new the the /G world. I was out flying my 182P today
> to do some practice approaches. The airplane is equipped with a GNS480
> and I have a Garmin 296 on the yolk. I was buzzing around NW of the
> Salinas airport on vectors and was told to expect the GPS13 approach as
> I requested. So far, so good. Fight plan entered into the 480 and the
> 296, approach loaded on both.
>
> Here's the approach:
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0701/00363G13.PDF
>
> NorCal cleared me direct EWTOF at 3200, cleared for the approach. When

This is a bum clearance from the get-go. You should be cleared either to
an IAF or given vectors to the final approach course. EWTOF is not an
IAF. So one solution would be to say 'unable' and ask for direct to an
IAF or vectors. I think there is some kind of exception, though, for /G
equipped aircraft to be cleared direct to a fix that is on the final
approach course, as EWTOF is.

> looking at the approach on both the 480 and the 296, it seemed to
> commence at UBBEP rather than EWTOF. No way for me to go direct EWTOF
> then on to the rest of the procedure. So, I fiddled around a bit and
> was unable to come up with a graceful solution. Selecting Direct To, I
> was hoping to easily find EWTOF - no joy. I had to dig up EWTOF from
> the nearest list, and then the rest of the approach "disappeared." I

When you selected the procedure from the database, it looks like the
only IAF is MOVER, so you must have selected the approach starting from
MOVER. So EWTOF should have been added to the flight plan (no?) and you
should be able to select DIRECT EWTOF from the flight plan(?), rather
from the NRST list. Then I think the 480 would have auto-sequenced you
through the rest of the approach.

> ended up arming VTF on the 480, then used the 296 to navigate direct to
> EWTOF. By then, the VTF mode on the 480 picked me up properly and I
> was in good shape. Ugly, but it worked (fortunately, it was clear and a
> million). And how about that synthetic glidescope! Very cool!
>
> So, at first I figured that there was a problem with the database
> versus my Jepp chart. However, the problem repeated itself on the
> GPS31 approach to KRHV:
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0701/05591R31R.PDF
> I was cleared direct ECYON, then for the approach. Both Garmins
> "wanted" me to head for OZNUM.

Bum clearance again. ECYON is not an IAF, but as above, is on the final
approach course.

>
> What is the best way to handle this situation? Clearly I am doing
> something wrong, because this has to easier than I made it! Is it as
> simple as amending the current flight plan and inserting a waypoint
> before the destination? That is, in the first case, inserting EWTOF
> before KSNS on the flight plan and then choosing Direct To? I would

You shouldn't have to "insert" it. It should have been added to the
flight plan when you selected the approach starting from MOVER. Did you
remember to EXECUTE the flight plan change? Did you EXPAND the flight
plan to see all the waypoints? I think EWTOF/ECYON should have been there.

> think that EWTOF should be part of the procedure as it is charted on
> the approach plate. It sucks to have to enter it in by hand to the
> flight plan. Do all of the GPS approaches in the 480/296 database
> commence only with the FAF?

In the 480, they all commence with an IAF (not FAF). In the 296, I think
only the FAF is shown on approaches. The 296 is only for
situational-awareness, after all. You can have an output from the 480
that automatically copies the flight plan from the 480 to the 296. I do
that with my 396. Then the 296/396 knows about all the same waypoints
as the 480.

You might want to join the GNS480 users group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gns480-users/

Dave

[Roy N5804F]

If it works anything like the 530 you would select EWTOF in the flight plan
and hit the Direct To
No ?
--
Roy
Piper Archer N5804F



"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
> Chris Quaintance wrote:
>> Hi Folks-
>>
>> Please forgive what is probably a simple question regarding GPS
>> approaches. I am new the the /G world. I was out flying my 182P today
>> to do some practice approaches. The airplane is equipped with a GNS480
>> and I have a Garmin 296 on the yolk. I was buzzing around NW of the
>> Salinas airport on vectors and was told to expect the GPS13 approach as
>> I requested. So far, so good. Fight plan entered into the 480 and the
>> 296, approach loaded on both.
>>
>> Here's the approach:
>> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0701/00363G13.PDF
>>
>> NorCal cleared me direct EWTOF at 3200, cleared for the approach. When
>
> This is a bum clearance from the get-go. You should be cleared either to
> an IAF or given vectors to the final approach course. EWTOF is not an
> IAF. So one solution would be to say 'unable' and ask for direct to an IAF
> or vectors. I think there is some kind of exception, though, for /G
> equipped aircraft to be cleared direct to a fix that is on the final
> approach course, as EWTOF is.
>
>> looking at the approach on both the 480 and the 296, it seemed to
>> commence at UBBEP rather than EWTOF. No way for me to go direct EWTOF
>> then on to the rest of the procedure. So, I fiddled around a bit and
>> was unable to come up with a graceful solution. Selecting Direct To, I
>> was hoping to easily find EWTOF - no joy. I had to dig up EWTOF from
>> the nearest list, and then the rest of the approach "disappeared." I
>
> When you selected the procedure from the database, it looks like the only
> IAF is MOVER, so you must have selected the approach starting from MOVER.
> So EWTOF should have been added to the flight plan (no?) and you should be
> able to select DIRECT EWTOF from the flight plan(?), rather from the NRST
> list. Then I think the 480 would have auto-sequenced you through the rest
> of the approach.
>
>> ended up arming VTF on the 480, then used the 296 to navigate direct to
>> EWTOF. By then, the VTF mode on the 480 picked me up properly and I
>> was in good shape. Ugly, but it worked (fortunately, it was clear and a
>> million). And how about that synthetic glidescope! Very cool!
>>
>> So, at first I figured that there was a problem with the database
>> versus my Jepp chart. However, the problem repeated itself on the
>> GPS31 approach to KRHV:
>> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0701/05591R31R.PDF
>> I was cleared direct ECYON, then for the approach. Both Garmins
>> "wanted" me to head for OZNUM.
>
> Bum clearance again. ECYON is not an IAF, but as above, is on the final
> approach course.
>
>>
>> What is the best way to handle this situation? Clearly I am doing
>> something wrong, because this has to easier than I made it! Is it as
>> simple as amending the current flight plan and inserting a waypoint
>> before the destination? That is, in the first case, inserting EWTOF
>> before KSNS on the flight plan and then choosing Direct To? I would
>
> You shouldn't have to "insert" it. It should have been added to the flight
> plan when you selected the approach starting from MOVER. Did you remember
> to EXECUTE the flight plan change? Did you EXPAND the flight plan to see
> all the waypoints? I think EWTOF/ECYON should have been there.
>
>> think that EWTOF should be part of the procedure as it is charted on
>> the approach plate. It sucks to have to enter it in by hand to the
>> flight plan. Do all of the GPS approaches in the 480/296 database
>> commence only with the FAF?
>
> In the 480, they all commence with an IAF (not FAF). In the 296, I think
> only the FAF is shown on approaches. The 296 is only for
> situational-awareness, after all. You can have an output from the 480 that
> automatically copies the flight plan from the 480 to the 296. I do that
> with my 396. Then the 296/396 knows about all the same waypoints as the
> 480.
>
> You might want to join the GNS480 users group at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gns480-users/
>
> Dave
>

[Sam Spade]

Dave Butler wrote:


>
> Bum clearance again. ECYON is not an IAF, but as above, is on the final
> approach course.
>
>
ECYON is the intermediate fix. A change in ATC policy went into effect
almost one year ago to permit direct clearances to the IF on RNAV IAPs
only. It is covered in the AIM and was the subject of a thread here a
few months ago.

[[email protected]]

Chris Quaintance wrote:
.... I have a Garmin 296 on the yolk.

So, I guess you ended up with egg on your face?

[Roy Smith]

"Chris Quaintance" > wrote:

> Hi Folks-
>
> Please forgive what is probably a simple question regarding GPS
> approaches. I am new the the /G world. I was out flying my 182P today
> to do some practice approaches. The airplane is equipped with a GNS480
> and I have a Garmin 296 on the yolk. I was buzzing around NW of the
> Salinas airport on vectors and was told to expect the GPS13 approach as
> I requested. So far, so good. Fight plan entered into the 480 and the
> 296, approach loaded on both.
>
> Here's the approach:
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0701/00363G13.PDF
>
> NorCal cleared me direct EWTOF at 3200, cleared for the approach. When
> looking at the approach on both the 480 and the 296, it seemed to
> commence at UBBEP rather than EWTOF.

Yeah, right, you got a bum clearance. I had a similar experience not long
ago and wrote about it here (http://tinyurl.com/yt8vkn). It's pretty
common.

The problem is that while from the point of view of somebody sitting in a
dark room watching blips move around a screen, it's a perfectly reasonable
thing to have you do, the software in the GPS wants you to either start the
approach from an IAF, or get vectors to final. It would be nice if
controllers gave clearances that were flyable, but the often don't, and
then you're struggling to figure out how to tell the GPS to do something it
doesn't want to do.

[Sam Spade]

Roy Smith wrote:
> "Chris Quaintance" > wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Folks-
>>
>>Please forgive what is probably a simple question regarding GPS
>>approaches. I am new the the /G world. I was out flying my 182P today
>>to do some practice approaches. The airplane is equipped with a GNS480
>>and I have a Garmin 296 on the yolk. I was buzzing around NW of the
>>Salinas airport on vectors and was told to expect the GPS13 approach as
>>I requested. So far, so good. Fight plan entered into the 480 and the
>>296, approach loaded on both.
>>
>>Here's the approach:
>>http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0701/00363G13.PDF
>>
>>NorCal cleared me direct EWTOF at 3200, cleared for the approach. When
>>looking at the approach on both the 480 and the 296, it seemed to
>>commence at UBBEP rather than EWTOF.
>
>
> Yeah, right, you got a bum clearance. I had a similar experience not long
> ago and wrote about it here (http://tinyurl.com/yt8vkn). It's pretty
> common.
>
> The problem is that while from the point of view of somebody sitting in a
> dark room watching blips move around a screen, it's a perfectly reasonable
> thing to have you do, the software in the GPS wants you to either start the
> approach from an IAF, or get vectors to final. It would be nice if
> controllers gave clearances that were flyable, but the often don't, and
> then you're struggling to figure out how to tell the GPS to do something it
> doesn't want to do.

Roy,

This handling is now approved and is no problem whatsoever with a Garmin
400 or 500.

Is it with the 480?

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

Sam Spade > wrote:

> This handling is now approved and is no problem whatsoever with a Garmin
> 400 or 500.
>
> Is it with the 480?
>

It works much the same on the 480. You have to put in the approach transition from the applicable IAF,
MOVER in this case, Execute it, and then do a Direct-to EWTOF as a separate action. The only
problem, mentally, is that you have to look on the chart to find the applicable transition that contains the
waypoint you're looking for, rather than being able to select it directly on the approach menu.

Mike

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Sam Spade > wrote:

> Roy Smith wrote:
> > "Chris Quaintance" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hi Folks-
> >>
> >>Please forgive what is probably a simple question regarding GPS
> >>approaches. I am new the the /G world. I was out flying my 182P today
> >>to do some practice approaches. The airplane is equipped with a GNS480
> >>and I have a Garmin 296 on the yolk. I was buzzing around NW of the
> >>Salinas airport on vectors and was told to expect the GPS13 approach as
> >>I requested. So far, so good. Fight plan entered into the 480 and the
> >>296, approach loaded on both.
> >>
> >>Here's the approach:
> >>http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0701/00363G13.PDF
> >>
> >>NorCal cleared me direct EWTOF at 3200, cleared for the approach. When
> >>looking at the approach on both the 480 and the 296, it seemed to
> >>commence at UBBEP rather than EWTOF.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, right, you got a bum clearance. I had a similar experience not long
> > ago and wrote about it here (http://tinyurl.com/yt8vkn). It's pretty
> > common.
> >
> > The problem is that while from the point of view of somebody sitting in a
> > dark room watching blips move around a screen, it's a perfectly reasonable
> > thing to have you do, the software in the GPS wants you to either start the
> > approach from an IAF, or get vectors to final. It would be nice if
> > controllers gave clearances that were flyable, but the often don't, and
> > then you're struggling to figure out how to tell the GPS to do something it
> > doesn't want to do.
>
> Roy,
>
> This handling is now approved and is no problem whatsoever with a Garmin
> 400 or 500.
>
> Is it with the 480?

At least with the software rev we've got, it is. When you select an
approach, the only things that come up in the menu are Vectors and all the
IAFs. I believe you can fake it out by looking on the approach plate,
figuring out which IAF you can select that gives you a route including the
specified IF, load that up, then go into FPL mode, scroll down to the IF,
and do -D-> to that. That's a lot of fumbling, looking, and button-pushing
to do at a busy time of the flight.

It ATC is allowed to send you direct to an IF, then the distinction between
IF and IAF has, for all practical matters, been eliminated. If that's the
case, then the databases and/or software needs to be updated to have the
IFs show up in the menu.

[Matt Whiting]

Roy Smith wrote:

> In article >,
> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>
>>Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>>>"Chris Quaintance" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi Folks-
>>>>
>>>>Please forgive what is probably a simple question regarding GPS
>>>>approaches. I am new the the /G world. I was out flying my 182P today
>>>>to do some practice approaches. The airplane is equipped with a GNS480
>>>>and I have a Garmin 296 on the yolk. I was buzzing around NW of the
>>>>Salinas airport on vectors and was told to expect the GPS13 approach as
>>>>I requested. So far, so good. Fight plan entered into the 480 and the
>>>>296, approach loaded on both.
>>>>
>>>>Here's the approach:
>>>>http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0701/00363G13.PDF
>>>>
>>>>NorCal cleared me direct EWTOF at 3200, cleared for the approach. When
>>>>looking at the approach on both the 480 and the 296, it seemed to
>>>>commence at UBBEP rather than EWTOF.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah, right, you got a bum clearance. I had a similar experience not long
>>>ago and wrote about it here (http://tinyurl.com/yt8vkn). It's pretty
>>>common.
>>>
>>>The problem is that while from the point of view of somebody sitting in a
>>>dark room watching blips move around a screen, it's a perfectly reasonable
>>>thing to have you do, the software in the GPS wants you to either start the
>>>approach from an IAF, or get vectors to final. It would be nice if
>>>controllers gave clearances that were flyable, but the often don't, and
>>>then you're struggling to figure out how to tell the GPS to do something it
>>>doesn't want to do.
>>
>>Roy,
>>
>>This handling is now approved and is no problem whatsoever with a Garmin
>>400 or 500.
>>
>>Is it with the 480?
>
>
> At least with the software rev we've got, it is. When you select an
> approach, the only things that come up in the menu are Vectors and all the
> IAFs. I believe you can fake it out by looking on the approach plate,
> figuring out which IAF you can select that gives you a route including the
> specified IF, load that up, then go into FPL mode, scroll down to the IF,
> and do -D-> to that. That's a lot of fumbling, looking, and button-pushing
> to do at a busy time of the flight.

Yes, but once you select one of the IAFs and it loads the approach into
the active flight plan, aren't all of the waypoints then available for a
direct-to operation?


Matt

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Yes, but once you select one of the IAFs and it loads the approach into
> the active flight plan, aren't all of the waypoints then available for a
> direct-to operation?

Yes, but it would still be a lot simplier if the IF just showed up in the
initial menu.

[Chris Quaintance]

I think this is the problem. I'd expect MOVER to be the first fix once
the approach is loaded and I expand the approach in the flight plan
view. I could then go Direct-to EWTOF quite easily and still be in
proper sequence. However, the first fix is UBBEP. I replicated this
behavior on the 480 sim, as well.

How do I load the approach such that at least all of the fixes from the
IAF (in this case MOVER) are there and ready to go? I can't seem to
find a way to make this happen. I'd like it to either magically be
there when the approach is loaded or at least allow me to select the
applicable transition. No dice.

Thanks,
--Chris


Mike Adams wrote:
> Sam Spade > wrote:
> > This handling is now approved and is no problem whatsoever with a Garmin
> > 400 or 500.
> > Is it with the 480?
> >
> It works much the same on the 480. You have to put in the approach transition from the applicable IAF,
> MOVER in this case, Execute it, and then do a Direct-to EWTOF as a separate action. The only
> problem, mentally, is that you have to look on the chart to find the applicable transition that contains the
> waypoint you're looking for, rather than being able to select it directly on the approach menu.
>
> Mike

[Chris Quaintance]

Dave Butler wrote:
> When you selected the procedure from the database, it looks like the
> only IAF is MOVER, so you must have selected the approach starting from
> MOVER. So EWTOF should have been added to the flight plan (no?) and you
> should be able to select DIRECT EWTOF from the flight plan(?), rather
> from the NRST list. Then I think the 480 would have auto-sequenced you
> through the rest of the approach.
<snip>

EWTOF was nowhere to be found.

> You shouldn't have to "insert" it. It should have been added to the
> flight plan when you selected the approach starting from MOVER. Did you
> remember to EXECUTE the flight plan change? Did you EXPAND the flight
> plan to see all the waypoints? I think EWTOF/ECYON should have been there.
>
Yes, I did execute the flight plan change and expand the plan to see
the waypoints. Again, UBBEP was the first waypoint of the approach. I
verified this behavior with the 480 sim.

> In the 480, they all commence with an IAF (not FAF). In the 296, I think
> only the FAF is shown on approaches. The 296 is only for
> situational-awareness, after all. You can have an output from the 480
> that automatically copies the flight plan from the 480 to the 296. I do
> that with my 396. Then the 296/396 knows about all the same waypoints
> as the 480.

Well, in my experience, the two approaches I referenced in my initial
post commence with the FAF on the 480. We'll leave the 296 on the yoke
out of it (even if there's yolk on my face!).

So, either I'm doing something incorrectly whilst loading the approach,
or there is some inconsistency or problem with these approaches and my
setup.

Interestingly enough, I was able to spend a very brief time behind a
530 today and it seemed to have "better" behavior in this regard. I
easily was able to commence the approach (to a different airport) from
a variety of fixes that were available on the plate.

>
> You might want to join the GNS480 users group at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gns480-users/

I have already done so. Thanks for the lead.

Appreciate your time!
--Chris

[Ron Natalie]

Chris Quaintance wrote:
> I think this is the problem. I'd expect MOVER to be the first fix once
> the approach is loaded and I expand the approach in the flight plan
> view. I could then go Direct-to EWTOF quite easily and still be in
> proper sequence. However, the first fix is UBBEP. I replicated this
> behavior on the 480 sim, as well.
>
> How do I load the approach such that at least all of the fixes from the
> IAF (in this case MOVER) are there and ready to go? I can't seem to
> find a way to make this happen. I'd like it to either magically be
> there when the approach is loaded or at least allow me to select the
> applicable transition. No dice.

Huh, I get the choice of Vectors, MOVER, ISIFU, and SHOEY. Picking
any other than VECTORS gives me the the EWTOF waypoint. Are you
sure you selected something OTHER than vectors (and you did remember
to EXEC it!)

[Ron Natalie]

Mike Adams wrote:
> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>> This handling is now approved and is no problem whatsoever with a Garmin
>> 400 or 500.
>>
>> Is it with the 480?
>>
>
> It works much the same on the 480. You have to put in the approach transition from the applicable IAF,
> MOVER in this case, Execute it, and then do a Direct-to EWTOF as a separate action. The only
> problem, mentally, is that you have to look on the chart to find the applicable transition that contains the
> waypoint you're looking for, rather than being able to select it directly on the approach menu.
>
Well in this case, they all have it except for Vectors. There is only
one IAF (which there are two additional transitions leading to).

[Chris Quaintance]

On Jan 17, 6:08 am, Ron Natalie > wrote:
> Huh, I get the choice of Vectors, MOVER, ISIFU, and SHOEY. Picking
> any other than VECTORS gives me the the EWTOF waypoint. Are you
> sure you selected something OTHER than vectors (and you did remember
> to EXEC it!)

Aha! I spent some more time with the 480 simulator and seemed to have
figured it out. I see now when you load the approach, the "Vectors"
(top right) field can be changed at that point to (in this case) MOVER,
ISIFU, and SHOEY. Just as you said! I thought that the VTF mode was
selected after the approach was loaded. I didn't realize you can
change that before it's loaded. Thanks for the clues, Ron!

Now, a follow on question has surfaced. My flight plan in the 480 was
merely KRHV to KSNS with no other waypoints. This was actually my
clearance (radar vectors, direct). Now, in the sim, when I properly
load the approach with MOVER as a starting point, I get a
discontinuity. The flight plan, in it's XPND form, is KRHV,
discontinuity, (MOVER), and then the GPS13 approach commencing with
EWTOF. So, as a solution, I can select the discontinuity and clear it.
Then, EXEC the flight plan and things magically work and I am headed
Direct MOVER. Select Direct EWTOF and I am in business. It seems a
little ugly to me, though. Is there a more elegant solution?
Especially bearing in mind that I am briefly headed Direct MOVER even
though that's not my clearance.

Thanks for the help!

--Chris

[Ron Natalie]

Chris Quaintance wrote:

> Now, a follow on question has surfaced. My flight plan in the 480 was
> merely KRHV to KSNS with no other waypoints. This was actually my
> clearance (radar vectors, direct).

I'm confused if you weren't cleared to EWTOF I'd just start out
going direct KSNS and not load an approach until I was cleared
for it (how do you know what you are going to get?).

[Dave Butler]

Chris Quaintance wrote:

> Now, a follow on question has surfaced. My flight plan in the 480 was
> merely KRHV to KSNS with no other waypoints. This was actually my
> clearance (radar vectors, direct). Now, in the sim, when I properly
> load the approach with MOVER as a starting point, I get a
> discontinuity. The flight plan, in it's XPND form, is KRHV,
> discontinuity, (MOVER), and then the GPS13 approach commencing with
> EWTOF. So, as a solution, I can select the discontinuity and clear it.

There's no need to clear the discontinuity. Just select EWTOF from the
flight plan and go direct.

> Then, EXEC the flight plan and things magically work and I am headed
> Direct MOVER. Select Direct EWTOF and I am in business. It seems a
> little ugly to me, though. Is there a more elegant solution?
> Especially bearing in mind that I am briefly headed Direct MOVER even
> though that's not my clearance.

There's no need to ever be direct MOVER.

[Dave J]

<rant mode>
Having earned my instrument rating and done all my flying behind panels
that do NOT include an IFR GPS, I frequently find myself a little
queasy when I read these posts about GPS approaches.

I'm a young man (33) and am a professional in the computer industry (or
was, until I decided to go back to grad school) and yet, I find the
complexity of operating a GPS just plain outrageous. I've rented
aircraft with panel GPS and fiddled with the simulators on my PC and I
always come away with this feeling of "argggh!" this is way too hard.

I think the people who invented these panel units (or set up the IFR
certification for them) seriously screwed up by not fully appreciating
what was good about the old nav radios. To me, the nice thing is that
using a nav radio is NOT A NEGOTIATION. You set it and that's that. You
can do it ahead of time. You can change it at any time, without
updating a plan, etc. You can put a frequency in there long before what
appears on the nav head will make sense -- and that's okay. You as the
pilot get to decide when to look at the needle. With these GPS systems
it seems like you are constantly dealing with the after-effects of some
engineer/programmer who is not in the air with you.

Oh, and here's another nice thing about nav radios. They look and work
the same in a 737 and a 152. But god forbid you jump into an aircraft
with a different GPS unit than the one you're familiar with. You're
gonna be in trouble!

I dunno. I get what's great about GPS. I have a handheld (196) and like
it. (And it's flightplan logic is substantially easier than a 430/530,
btw).

Aviation used to represent the cutting edge in human factors research.
What happened?

</rant mode>

-- dave j

[Chris Quaintance]

Dave Butler wrote:
> There's no need to clear the discontinuity. Just select EWTOF from the
> flight plan and go direct.
<snip>

Ok, again after more fiddling, you are correct. I was able to do that
just now, although I swear I couldn't make it happen a couple of hours
ago. It doesn't get rid of the discontinuity that is automatically
inserted, but it does bypass it! Interestingly enough, I checked out
the 530 behavior and it doesn't add the discontinuity.

Problem solved. I guess.

To echo comments that Dave J. made, I think the interfaces to these
things suck! I'm also in my early 30's, used to make my living in high
tech, and am fairly computer savvy. I am amazed at how poor the
interface design is. I'm just happy that I grew up (not matured!) with
exposure to computers. Trying to help my sexagenarian uncle wrap his
brain around the 530/STEC/GPSS system in his Twin Commanche seems like
a large task! He's back to flying from taking a 20 year layoff and the
flying is the easy part. The automation/avionics are more difficult by
a long shot, but he's doing pretty good thus far.

Cheers,
--Chris

[Ray Andraka]

Peter wrote:

> "Dave J" > wrote
>
>
>>Aviation used to represent the cutting edge in human factors research.
>>What happened?
>
>
> I think that anybody with more than half a brain departed the GA
> avionics business at least 20 years ago.
>
> If you were seriously smart, would you work for a company that makes
> stuff using 1980s technology (colour LCDs aside) and brings out a new
> product once every 10 years? No company that does that will retain
> good people. To top it, they blame it on certification; it doesn't
> take 10 years to certify a product... especially if the company is
> already loaded with competent paper-pushers.
>
> The manner in which a GPS approach is flown with an IFR GPS should be
> far simpler.


Avionics for GA is a tough business to begin with. You've got a very
limited market to begin with: only a few thousand new planes per year on
a good year, with only a chance that the manufacturer will select your
gear, and a retrofit market that isn't all that much bigger. What is it
about 200,000 aircraft total. Of those, a few percent will upgrade
their avionics in a given year. Say by some miracle, you catch 20% of
the market, that's still only 40000 units and once you sell those units,
those aircraft won't be upgrading again for probably at least 10 years.
that means, only a couple thousand units per year sales. It is hard
to spread out the production and design costs enough to make the unit
affordable enough for folks to buy it and yet profitable enough for the
business to break even or (gasp) make a profit. That, folks is the real
problem. Fixing it requires either a lot more people buying airplanes
(don't hold your breath for that), or having the avionics boxes have
some other higher volume market that can share much of the development
(eg. boating and automotive GPS supports our aviation GPS by using a
common platform).

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Andraka ]
> Posted At: Saturday, January 20, 2007 10:47 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
> Conversation: Commencing a GPS approach from a fix other than the FAF
> Subject: Re: Commencing a GPS approach from a fix other than the FAF
>
....
>
> Avionics for GA is a tough business to begin with. You've got a very
> limited market to begin with: only a few thousand new planes per year
on
> a good year, with only a chance that the manufacturer will select your
> gear, and a retrofit market that isn't all that much bigger. What is
it
> about 200,000 aircraft total. Of those, a few percent will upgrade
> their avionics in a given year. Say by some miracle, you catch 20% of
> the market, that's still only 40000 units and once you sell those
units,
> those aircraft won't be upgrading again for probably at least 10
years.
> that means, only a couple thousand units per year sales. It is hard
> to spread out the production and design costs enough to make the unit
> affordable enough for folks to buy it and yet profitable enough for
the
> business to break even or (gasp) make a profit. That, folks is the
real
> problem. Fixing it requires either a lot more people buying airplanes
> (don't hold your breath for that), or having the avionics boxes have
> some other higher volume market that can share much of the development
> (eg. boating and automotive GPS supports our aviation GPS by using a
> common platform).

Maybe the solution would be to design a system that meets not only GA
purposes but also 121 needs. I'm willing to be the increase in volume
could more than offset the delta in engineering costs. After all, we
work in the same system with usually the same minimums. If the
supporting infrastructure (electric bus, rack space, etc) could be made
similar there should be an economy of scale.

Even if Garmin was to make remote control/display an option so the
equipment could be mounted in an avionics bay, that additional
engineering would probably be justified by the increased volume for a
single design.

[Dave J]

I hear all this about how avionics is a tough business, and I get it --
and yet that explanation is not completely satisfying. As others have
pointed out, there are business with lower margins and smaller markets
that seem to get by.

The reason I think about certification is that the non-certified area
of avionics seems to be quite healthy (or is at least not completely
moribund.) Look at the handheld GPS market, the for-kit primary nav
stuff (blue mountain, dynan, etc), EFBs, TCAS-like devices, headsets,
etc.) There is some real competition going on here and some of these
markets are way smaller than that for panel-mount GPS units.

-- dave j

[Sam Spade]

Roy Smith wrote:

>
> It ATC is allowed to send you direct to an IF, then the distinction between
> IF and IAF has, for all practical matters, been eliminated. If that's the
> case, then the databases and/or software needs to be updated to have the
> IFs show up in the menu.

It will take quite a few years for the FAA to identify all the IFs.
Direct-to-the IF is not an "if" for RNAV IAPs. ;-)

It's been in the AIM and 7110.65 for about a year now.

[Sam Spade]

Peter wrote:

> If you were seriously smart, would you work for a company that makes
> stuff using 1980s technology (colour LCDs aside) and brings out a new
> product once every 10 years? No company that does that will retain
> good people. To top it, they blame it on certification; it doesn't
> take 10 years to certify a product... especially if the company is
> already loaded with competent paper-pushers.
>

In this case certification standards and obstacle clearance protected
airspace are pretty much married to each other.

[Stan Prevost[_1_]]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Roy Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> It ATC is allowed to send you direct to an IF, then the distinction
>> between IF and IAF has, for all practical matters, been eliminated. If
>> that's the case, then the databases and/or software needs to be updated
>> to have the IFs show up in the menu.
>
> It will take quite a few years for the FAA to identify all the IFs.
> Direct-to-the IF is not an "if" for RNAV IAPs. ;-)
>
> It's been in the AIM and 7110.65 for about a year now.

What's to identify? If it is not an IAF, and not the FAF, and is on an
intermediate segment, it is an IF. Why does it need to be "identified"?

PCG:

INTERMEDIATE FIX- The fix that identifies the beginning of the intermediate
approach segment of an instrument approach procedure. The fix is not
normally identified on the instrument approach chart as an intermediate fix
(IF).

Intermediate Approach- The segment between the intermediate fix or point and
the final approach fix.

(Is that circular, or what?)

[Sam Spade]

Stan Prevost wrote:
> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It ATC is allowed to send you direct to an IF, then the distinction
>>>between IF and IAF has, for all practical matters, been eliminated. If
>>>that's the case, then the databases and/or software needs to be updated
>>>to have the IFs show up in the menu.
>>
>>It will take quite a few years for the FAA to identify all the IFs.
>>Direct-to-the IF is not an "if" for RNAV IAPs. ;-)
>>
>>It's been in the AIM and 7110.65 for about a year now.
>
>
> What's to identify? If it is not an IAF, and not the FAF, and is on an
> intermediate segment, it is an IF. Why does it need to be "identified"?

Because sometimes there is a stepdown fix, or two, in the initial
segment, and sometimes there is a stepdown fix, or two, in the
intermediate segment. In that event you do not know which fix is the
intermediate fix (well, we're really speaking of waypoints since this is
an RNAV-only procedure).

If there is only one fix between the IAF and the FAF that, indeed, is
the IF. You are free to determine that on a ad hoc basis as are
controllers.

Jeppesen and NACO, are not. They will not designate the IF until it
appears on the official source. The database vendors, if they chose to
designate IFs in the database, would also not do it on an ad hoc basis.

That's the way the procedures and charting systems work.

[Stan Prevost[_1_]]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> Stan Prevost wrote:
>> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> What's to identify? If it is not an IAF, and not the FAF, and is on an
>> intermediate segment, it is an IF. Why does it need to be "identified"?
>
> Because sometimes there is a stepdown fix, or two, in the initial segment,
> and sometimes there is a stepdown fix, or two, in the intermediate
> segment. In that event you do not know which fix is the intermediate fix
> (well, we're really speaking of waypoints since this is an RNAV-only
> procedure).
>

OK, that helps. Although, as Roy said, it doesn't seem to matter much, the
distinction has become blurred. The controller is supposed to issue an
altitude restriction for the vector that is consistent with the MVA/MIA,
thus insuring obstacle clearance, so it is not obvious why IAF vs IF vs
stepdown fix really matters. But, the rule ought to be clear.

I had thought that all the fixes between an IAF (or the beginning of the
procedure) and the FAF are IFs (disregarding fix vs waypoint). Apparently
that is not true, given stepdown fixes on the initial segment. Don't think
I have seen one of those, but they seem to be allowed by TERPS. But I also
thought that all fixes on the intermediate segment were IFs. But that does
not seem to meet the definition of IF in the P/CG.

The altitude issue is a big problem with this business of vectoring to the
IF on RNAV approaches. If the IF altitude is not at or above MVA/MIA, the
approach may not be flyable with vectors to IF. 7110.65 does not give
guidance to controllers on that issue, that I can find.

[Sam Spade]

Stan Prevost wrote:

> "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Stan Prevost wrote:
>>
>>>"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>What's to identify? If it is not an IAF, and not the FAF, and is on an
>>>intermediate segment, it is an IF. Why does it need to be "identified"?
>>
>>Because sometimes there is a stepdown fix, or two, in the initial segment,
>>and sometimes there is a stepdown fix, or two, in the intermediate
>>segment. In that event you do not know which fix is the intermediate fix
>>(well, we're really speaking of waypoints since this is an RNAV-only
>>procedure).
>>
>
>
> OK, that helps. Although, as Roy said, it doesn't seem to matter much, the
> distinction has become blurred. The controller is supposed to issue an
> altitude restriction for the vector that is consistent with the MVA/MIA,
> thus insuring obstacle clearance, so it is not obvious why IAF vs IF vs
> stepdown fix really matters. But, the rule ought to be clear.

Look at KSEA RNAV 16L. That was recently revised to designate the IF.
Prior to January 18 you had several fixes between the IF and the FAF and
you didn't know which one was the IF. I could search all night and find
some like this without IF designated. It was decided that sending an
aircraft to a fix within the IF is into a narrow area that is more
properly handled with vectors to final. But, where there are multiple
stepdown fixes in the intermediate odds are the MVA would be too high to
be compatible with descent requirements.
>
> I had thought that all the fixes between an IAF (or the beginning of the
> procedure) and the FAF are IFs (disregarding fix vs waypoint). Apparently
> that is not true, given stepdown fixes on the initial segment. Don't think
> I have seen one of those, but they seem to be allowed by TERPS. But I also
> thought that all fixes on the intermediate segment were IFs. But that does
> not seem to meet the definition of IF in the P/CG.

No, The IF is where the rampdown from initial widths to final segment
width begins and were 500 feet of obstacle clearance comes into play.
The fixes between the IF and FAF are just step-down fixes.
>
> The altitude issue is a big problem with this business of vectoring to the
> IF on RNAV approaches. If the IF altitude is not at or above MVA/MIA, the
> approach may not be flyable with vectors to IF. 7110.65 does not give
> guidance to controllers on that issue, that I can find.
>
Yes, it is there and clearly stated. In 4 (f) of 4-8-1 it states "at an
altitude that will permit normal descent..." Then the note defines that
as 300 feet per mile

(f)The aircraft is on a course that will intercept the intermediate
segment at an angle not greater than 90 degrees and is at an altitude
that will permit normal descent from the Intermediate Fix to the Final
Approach Fix.

NOTE−Controllers should expect aircraft to descend atapproximately 300
feet per NM when applying guidance insubpara 4(f) above
>
>
>
>

[Stan Prevost[_1_]]

"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
...
> It was decided that sending an aircraft to a fix within the IF is into a
> narrow area that is more properly handled with vectors to final. But,
> where there are multiple stepdown fixes in the intermediate odds are the
> MVA would be too high to be compatible with descent requirements.

OK, those are clear reasons for not going direct to a fix on the
intermediate segment other than the first one, the IF.

>>
>> The altitude issue is a big problem with this business of vectoring to
>> the IF on RNAV approaches. If the IF altitude is not at or above
>> MVA/MIA, the approach may not be flyable with vectors to IF. 7110.65
>> does not give guidance to controllers on that issue, that I can find.
>>
> Yes, it is there and clearly stated.

It sure is. That's what I get for going from memory. Don't know how I
missed that the last time I looked at it, or if I just forgot it. Won't
forget it again.