Commencing a GPS approach from a fix other than the FAF

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

"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 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?

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

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.