RNAV vectors

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

"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.

"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

"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 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.

"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.

"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.

"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/Fa.../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/Fa...s/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.

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

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.