Fly-by waypoints on non-overlay NDB approaches.

[AuxBatOn]

Do you have a CARs reference for this? So long as you're above the sector altitudes, it really doesn't matter where you go. It is in fact completely legal, though probably ill-advised, seeing as you will be much higher going direct to the waypoint, then descending to minimums, than doing the full approach, where you will be allowed to descend to procedure turn altitude on the outbound leg.

So far as I can tell, the only things you need to conduct a straight in approach are a means of ascertaining wind direction and confirmation that the runway is clear

Agreed, however, again I refer you to sector altitudes. You could do your procedure turn at 17 miles if you wish, so long as you are at your 25 mile safe altitude. Which would defeat the purpose in most cases.

Ref

For your 1st and last point, see CAR 602.127 (1)

Unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit, the pilot-in-command of an IFR aircraft shall, when conducting an approach to an aerodrome or a runway, ensure that the approach is made in accordance with the instrument approach procedure.

In that case, the approach procedure does not allow for a straight in approach. You can argue that you can do the "procedure turn" any way you want, as long as you stay within the protected airspace, however you do that on a ride and I can guarantee you that you will fail that item.

For your second point, see post above.

[Ref Plus 10]

For your 1st and last point, see CAR 602.127 (1)

Unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit, the pilot-in-command of an IFR aircraft shall, when conducting an approach to an aerodrome or a runway, ensure that the approach is made in accordance with the instrument approach procedure.

In that case, the approach procedure does not allow for a straight in approach. You can argue that you can do the "procedure turn" any way you want, as long as you stay within the protected airspace, however you do that on a ride and I can guarantee you that you will fail that item.

For your second point, see post above.

I agree with that, thank you for the citation, however, I still maintain that there is nothing illegal about proceeding to the waypoint and commencing the approach. So long as you are at your altitudes, on track, there is no possible argument that you did not fly the approach in accordance with the IAP. Nowhere does it state that you must fly a procedure turn. Even at 120kts, you'll have to descend somewhere in the vicinity of 1000 ft/min to make the runway straight in.

Say you were approaching Arviat from the south, you deviate to intercept the inbound track at 15 miles, descend to your 25 mile safe altitude, and at 10 miles you descend further, have you not completed the approach as dictated? Or would you instead proceed along the inbound to the NDB, 180, outbound, procedure turn, THEN complete the approach? The procedure simply states that the procedure turn is to be completed within 10 miles of the NDB, not that it must be completed before commencing the approach.

*edited, I missed the bottom of the 1st page*

Ref

[AuxBatOn]

I agree with that, thank you for the citation, however, I still maintain that there is nothing illegal about proceeding to the waypoint and commencing the approach. So long as you are at your altitudes, on track, there is no possible argument that you did not fly the approach in accordance with the IAP. Nowhere does it state that you must fly a procedure turn.

Actually, yes. It does say that you need to do a procedure turn. In fact, it also says you cannot do a Straight-In approach, since there is no IF (Procedure Turn and Straight In Approach are the only 2 types of "transition" for an approach I know, other than Vectors. There is no ATC to authorize you to deviate from the IAP, therefore you need to do a PT.

Straight-In approach vs Straight-In Landing...

Straight-In Approach is the opposite of Procedure Turn
Straight-In Landing is the opposite of Circling Landing

[55+]

As a qualified IAP designer and with turbojet/prop background what you see here is the old FACF or Final Approach Centerline Fix that was introduced may moons ago when GPS and subsequent database/FMS started to come on stream. It was added as a method for those equipped ac to get established on the final inboubd track without having to complete an initial portion, in this case a procedure turn. On the particular procedure in question the FACF appears to be closer than it should be, optimum is 10NM back from the facility. You will see then a note on the PLAN View with the arrow no P/T. From that point the aircraft can descend to the next segment altitude..............

[Stan Darsh]

I have to agree with AuxBatOn. I was aware that unless there is an IF, a PT or vectors are required to fly a straight in approach. Unless EBDAX is an IF, which from I can tell it isn't then a PT is required. It looks like EBDAX isn't part of the approach - maybe it's just a handy enroute fix for descent planning in VMC? Does anybody have a definitive answer, I'm curious now.

[bezerker]

55+, are you sure?

I see lots of fixes like the one you mention (FACF's). Here is an example:



The fix ULILO is a FACF according to your definition, along with the "NO PT". These fixes are characterized by being placed at seemingly random distances from the field. Closer inspection shows that they are not placed randomly at all, and are typically located at the exact distance the sector altitude intercepts a 3 degree path to the runway. In this case, the runway is at approx 2,200', the sector safe is 6,000', so 3,800' feet on the glideslope happens to be at about 11 miles from the field, which is where ULILO is conveniently located.

The other example is a fix like the one mentioned in this thread. Here is another example:



The fix AVRAS is not based at all like the fix ULILO. It is almost usless in my opinion.

I believe captainginyu is on to something. Where there is a GNSS overlay to an on field beacon, the most common GPS unit out there (Garmin) will only allow a radar vectored transition to the approach, including the crappy fix a few miles back from the on field beacon. When the approach is armed on the Garmin unit, as it is unable to do a procedure turn (it has a limited number of the 19 ARINC 424 maneuvers that it can do) it plots a course from the crappy fix to the NDB, and you must "radar vector" yourself around the procedure turn. I suspect many other GPS units out there are limited in the same way. Other FMS units that have the full gambit of ARINC maneuvers have little use for these fixes as they are able to complete the PT themselves.

As far as going straight in without doing a procedure turn, some of you guys have to get with the times. From the AIM:

...to accommodate aircraft with modern avionics equipment and to improve fuel economy, transitions at some locations direct the pilot to an intermediate fix (IF) on the final approach course. Subject to ATC requirements and local traffic conditions, a straight-in approach may be made from this fix.

Pilots may begin a straight-in approach from any depicted transition that intersects the final approach track inside the designated IF provided that ATC is aware of their intentions and subsequent manoeuvring is within the capabilities of the aircraft.

Almost every flight I have done in the past few years has ended by being cleared to an IF, or to a fix slightly inside the IF for a straight in approach (in a non radar environment).

[55+]

Yes, the example you give is designated as an IF(Intermediate Fix) which is the start of the intermediate segment which is different that a FACF. The procedure in question(the origional poster) is a TP-308 Chapter 6 On Airport Facility no FAF. This type of design has no intermediate section. I don't know your knowledge with TP308 Criteria for the design of instrument approach procedures but i do have knowledge of the criteria. Having said that, TP308 can be a confusing document to those who are not trained in design criteria.

[bezerker]

55+, thanks for your reply. I have a copy of TP308 and reference when needed (or when I can't sleep). It is a shame that it is not a readily available document for other pilots to reference. Unfortunately it is not always easy to interpret.

Just to clarify, are you saying that in my second example (an on airport facility with no FAF that has no intermediate section), the fix AVRAS is considered an IF? I don't come away with that interpretation but trust your opinion.

[x-wind]

Thanks for some insights....

On second look, in Arviat (original posted approach plate) it looks to be a 3 degree slope from MSA or the PT altitude, too close to tell.. but it's not random in my mind now.

bezeker confirm you looked to see if the PT or the MSA altitude at the AVRAS point equate to a 3 degree slope? Maybe its not so crappy?

Perhaps a semantic argument but, you can't do procedure turn 17 miles out because that wouldn't be part of the "procedure" in the traditional sense.

"procedure- an established or official way of doing something"

[bezerker]

On the CYEK NDB 33 True, the distance from the fix EBDAX to the YEK NDB is 4.0 nm (checked on FMS). 4 nm x 333' = 1,332' above field elevation, or about 1,400' ASL in this case. This altitude relates to nothing (as far as I can tell) on this approach (1,200' PT and 540' minimums).



On the other approach I showed, the fix AVRAS is also 4.0 nm from the NDB (pattern?), so also 1,332 above field elevation, or 3,683' ASL. PT is 6,200' and minimums are 4,700' so again, I can see no relation as far as glide path with that fix and any other altitudes on the approach.



The 4.0 nm are common to both approaches. I will have to look at the distances on some other approaches when I have the time.

[55+]

55+, thanks for your reply. I have a copy of TP308 and reference when needed (or when I can't sleep). It is a shame that it is not a readily available document for other pilots to reference. Unfortunately it is not always easy to interpret.

Just to clarify, are you saying that in my second example (an on airport facility with no FAF that has no intermediate section), the fix AVRAS is considered an IF? I don't come away with that interpretation but trust your opinion.

I go back to my origional statement in that FACFs were put there as a result of an old Transport Canada Air Navigation ANSROD back in the early 90's as GPs/ RNAV(DME-DME) came on stream. It did cause some debate on the value of publishing them as it relates to conventional IAPs, you gotta remember in those early days of GPS, RNAV and shortly after"overlay" which was a Jeppesen database initiative, this was relatively new with different concepts and considerations aka should FACFs be considered as an IF for those IAPs done under TP308 CH6. Interesting debate and I must commend all poster on the subject with their various contributions. Nice to see on this board/site instead of the usual bitching/moaning one witnesses over on some of the other categories.

As for NDB IAPs, probably a moot point as RNAV(GNSS) designs are the happening especially with coded vertical guidance and WAAS(LPV) instead of early 1950's steam driven technology(NDB). All ac now, I bet have RNAV capability

[Raptor256]

As far as going straight in without doing a procedure turn, some of you guys have to get with the times. From the AIM:

...to accommodate aircraft with modern avionics equipment and to improve fuel economy, transitions at some locations direct the pilot to an intermediate fix (IF) on the final approach course. Subject to ATC requirements and local traffic conditions, a straight-in approach may be made from this fix.

Just to get back to my original example and to reference berzerker's above comment, I am under the impression that his statement is incorrect. EBDAX at Arviat is not designated as an IF. It seems to me that all IF's are designated so on the approach plate. This may very well be an FACF as 55+ has stated, and I'll have to take your word for it since thats not an area of my expertise. But the main thing I am taking away from this is that legally EBDAX is not designed as an IF to be used in conjunction with a straight-in approach. It is essentially a throwback waypoint to the earlier days of GPS/RNAV equipment and approach design, and for this NDB approach has limited operational usefulness, and certainly doesn't remove the requirement for a procedure turn.

Is that statement agreeable or is there more debate to go?

[Stan Darsh]

I would agree with Raptor, I don't interpret EBDAX as an IF so treating it as such would technically be illegal.

[Ref Plus 10]

I can certainly see the case being made here. I will agree that the waypoint on the Arviat plate is NOT an Intermediate Fix; it would seem that it is simply there to simplify GPS operation on approach, to avoid switching to OBS and selecting an inbound course (a Final Approach Course Fix). However, I would still not agree that initiating the procedure from a point other than the NDB should be considered illegal.

However, I am limited in my resources at the moment, and can't access an Instrument Procedures Manual. The CARs clearly state that the approach should be flown in accordance with the Instrument Approach Procedure, unless otherwise authorized by ATC, but it says nothing about how the approach should be commenced in lieu of an Intermediate Fix, therefore there can be no contravention of the CARs.

As for venturing outside of 10 miles for the procedure turn, if for whatever reason you find yourself outside of the 10 miles, for whatever reason (assume you have no GPS, can you be sure you are remaining within 10 miles anyway?) would you commence a missed approach or climb to sector altitude, perform your procedure turn, and continue inbound? Not to detract from the original post, I am now curious of the general opinion here.

Thank you,

Ref

[AuxBatOn]

(assume you have no GPS, can you be sure you are remaining within 10 miles anyway?)

Timing. The approach design incorporates the fact that the timings may not be accurate and have a "fudge" factor. You know your IAS, therefore you can find your TAS and with a knowledge of the winds at altitude (pre-flight), you know your groundspeed. Put in a bit of fudge in your groundspeed and it's actually fairly easy to stay within 10NM. If I can do it at 250 CAS, I'm sure anyone can do it at speed slower than that.

[...] would you commence a missed approach or climb to sector altitude, perform your procedure turn, and continue inbound? Not to detract from the original post, I am now curious of the general opinion here.

Commencing a missed approach before the MAP can be dangerous and is not within the design criteria. I would climb to a safe altitude (MSA), go back direct the beacon and start over. If I screwed up that bad, there are chances the rest of the approach won't be much different, so there is no point trying to "salvage" the approach.

[Ref Plus 10]

Timing. The approach design incorporates the fact that the timings may not be accurate and have a "fudge" factor. You know your IAS, therefore you can find your TAS and with a knowledge of the winds at altitude (pre-flight), you know your groundspeed. Put in a bit of fudge in your groundspeed and it's actually fairly easy to stay within 10NM. If I can do it at 250 CAS, I'm sure anyone can do it at speed slower than that.

I was more hinting at winds. I also am able to calculate a TAS, I was not clear in my question.

Commencing a missed approach before the MAP can be dangerous and is not within the design criteria. I would climb to a safe altitude (MSA), go back direct the beacon and start over. If I screwed up that bad, there are chances the rest of the approach won't be much different, so there is no point trying to "salvage" the approach.

Assuming it wasn't because of complete incompetence that you blew the distance, would you ever consider climbing to the MSA, completing the turn, and continuing the approach?

[AuxBatOn]

Assuming it wasn't because of complete incompetence that you blew the distance, would you ever consider climbing to the MSA, completing the turn, and continuing the approach?

If I am in the clag, I'll go back to the beacon and start over again. The approach is made so you do your PT inside 10 NM (via timing) and turn back, descend to MDA and overshoot at MAP or transition to land. If you have to deviate from that, you start over. If you blew your 10 nm in the first place, that would be because of incompetence/bad procedure. If from pre-flight, you know that the winds at 1400' are 30 kts, then just add 30 kts to your TAS, regardless of the direction of wind, it should keep you safe. That will essentially give you the worst case scenario and keep you within the 10 NM.

I think you are overthinking it dude. Just fly it as accurately as possible, be precise in your flying and you'll be fine.

[SAR_YQQ]

If I can do it at 250 CAS, I'm sure anyone can do it at speed slower than that.

C'mon Aux - the Hornet doesn't have an NDB.

[AuxBatOn]

If I can do it at 250 CAS, I'm sure anyone can do it at speed slower than that.

C'mon Aux - the Hornet doesn't have an NDB.

No but we do have a VOR

[Tim]

just to add some fuel to the fire here ill go over an appch i did this morning

flying into summerside pei i was cleared for a straight ndb appch via a fly-by WP (not an IF). my capt and i discussed this en route and we knew it was not a legit way to do the appch. so my suggestion to him and the request i made with centre was 'request direct to (the WP) for a VECTORED straight in ndb appch'. we were on radar so nothing wrong with the vectors, however he never actually gave us a vector, just cleared us to the WP and when the time came cleared us for the appch via that WP. no vector was required anyways since we were already going to the right spot, however he cleared us for a straight in appch via the WP as opposed to fly hdg xxx (or even 'present hdg')to intercept final, cleared straight in ndb 06. knowing the debate on this issue is one related to legality as opposed to safety i wanted to make sure i included 'vectored appch' in my requests jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjust in case.

[Ref Plus 10]

just to add some fuel to the fire here ill go over an appch i did this morning

flying into summerside pei i was cleared for a straight ndb appch via a fly-by WP (not an IF).

"Unless otherwise authorized by ATC."

Aux, I know exactly what I would do, but I am trying to figure out precisely what the legality is, because unlike your hornet, my DC-3 doesn't climb so well on single engine

[Rowdy]

just to add some fuel to the fire here ill go over an appch i did this morning

flying into summerside pei i was cleared for a straight ndb appch via a fly-by WP (not an IF).

"Unless otherwise authorized by ATC."

Aux, I know exactly what I would do, but I am trying to figure out precisely what the legality is, because unlike your hornet, my DC-3 doesn't climb so well on single engine

She'll still climb better than a tired ol' 100!! haha what is the Engine out climb like with a decent load on?

[Ref Plus 10]

We could probably manage 100'/min on a good day.

Back to the original point, I will concede that the proper thing to do is climb to sector altitude, back to the NDB, and try again.

[Raptor256]

just to add some fuel to the fire here ill go over an appch i did this morning

flying into summerside pei i was cleared for a straight ndb appch via a fly-by WP (not an IF). my capt and i discussed this en route and we knew it was not a legit way to do the appch. so my suggestion to him and the request i made with centre was 'request direct to (the WP) for a VECTORED straight in ndb appch'. we were on radar so nothing wrong with the vectors, however he never actually gave us a vector, just cleared us to the WP and when the time came cleared us for the appch via that WP. no vector was required anyways since we were already going to the right spot, however he cleared us for a straight in appch via the WP as opposed to fly hdg xxx (or even 'present hdg')to intercept final, cleared straight in ndb 06. knowing the debate on this issue is one related to legality as opposed to safety i wanted to make sure i included 'vectored appch' in my requests jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjust in case.

A couple questions on what you were actually cleared for. Your post is a little vague and contradictory.

Were you cleared in for a straight-in NBD approach via the waypoint, or were you cleared direct that waypoint for an NDB approach? The exact verbage used by the controller is very important.

As well it should also be said that the initial post regarding Arviat is in uncontrolled airspace in the NDA. Your example appears to be in controlled airspace?

[Bushav8er]

Interesting read, and I agree with 55+ about the civility shown in this thread.

Question:
(I know this one varies from the original post as it is labelled "GNSS")

Ref: NDB A (GNSS) Elliot Lake, Ont (CYEL)

No IF or No PT is identified. Can you go straight in or does it require a PT?

I know my answer but whats the opinion here?