FAF name not in GPS approaches?

[Oldguy]

I guess I never really thought about it, but when I get VTF on an approach, it is usually heading,turn, etc. but today flying into KISM the controller asked if I was RNAV capable (yes) and said my approach would be the RNAV 6. Then he gave me direct TONTY. I dialed up the approach, but when I went to select TONTY, there was nothing. ForeFlight to the rescue. TONTY is the name of the FAF and once I realized it was, I asked for a heading to it. 

Not having years of instrument flying under my belt, I had never encountered this and wanted to see if it is fairly normal or not. He never told me TONTY was the FAF - that came from ForeFlight. And my 430W did not have it named. Is it normal to be given direct to the FAF by name, and if so, do the 650/750's have the name associated in the approach?

Or is this what charts are for? 

 

[ArtVandelay]

When you now select VTF on 650-750 it keeps all the waypoints in the flightplan, so now you can just select it, before it used to remove them.

[Piloto]

8 minutes ago, Oldguy said:

I guess I never really thought about it, but when I get VTF on an approach, it is usually heading,turn, etc. but today flying into KISM the controller asked if I was RNAV capable (yes) and said my approach would be the RNAV 6. Then he gave me direct TONTY. I dialed up the approach, but when I went to select TONTY, there was nothing. ForeFlight to the rescue. TONTY is the name of the FAF and once I realized it was, I asked for a heading to it. 

Not having years of instrument flying under my belt, I had never encountered this and wanted to see if it is fairly normal or not. He never told me TONTY was the FAF - that came from ForeFlight. And my 430W did not have it named. Is it normal to be given direct to the FAF by name, and if so, do the 650/750's have the name associated in the approach?

Or is this what charts are for? 

 

The actual name of the FAF is TOTNY not TONTY. Select the approach and then look in the map for TOTNY.

José

[chrisk]

With T approaches, I'm usually expecting one of the transitions.  It has thrown me off before when I get direct to a fix on the final approach.  Load the approach and look at the fixes.

[Mooneymite]

Hmmmm.  Regardless of your equipment, it's hard for me to understand what the controller was doing with you.

Was ISM IMC?  If so, I can't believe the controller would send you direct to TOTNY since there's a requirement for you to be "established" on course outside of the FAF.

If ISM was VMC, then sending you to TOTNY for the visual would work fine, but why would he give you the RNAV approach?

Something here I'm not understanding.

[carusoam]

One piece of advice, or just a thought...

When you can't find a waypoint, you can start with checking that you have the right and current chart, and ask ATC to spell the waypoint...

Having them give a heading is good too.  It will get you pointed in the right direction while following up on the waypoint issues...

Check my details, my IR experience is minimal and old...

Best regards,

-a-

[Marauder]

When you now select VTF on 650-750 it keeps all the waypoints in the flightplan, so now you can just select it, before it used to remove them.

I'm guessing you are on 6+ for firmware. I'm on 5 still and you lose the waypoints if you select VTF.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hank]

Instead of selecting "Vectors," won't it work just as well to select the FAF waypoint and fly the vector you're given? That way you'll still have the FAF showing, and know how to get there as ATC turns you in. That nice pink line will also alert you if you've been forgotten, before you fly through it.

[ArtVandelay]

Instead of selecting "Vectors," won't it work just as well to select the FAF waypoint and fly the vector you're given? That way you'll still have the FAF showing, and know how to get there as ATC turns you in. That nice pink line will also alert you if you've been forgotten, before you fly through it.

That's fine unless he was flying the approach, then you need to load the approach and select IAF, which isn't the FAF, but I think he was told to expect a visual approach and then given direct to, it's the only thing that makes sense.
In my little experience if they want you to do something out of the ordinary they will ask.

[Oldguy]

15 hours ago, Piloto said:

The actual name of the FAF is TOTNY not TONTY. Select the approach and then look in the map for TOTNY.

José

Jose, they got it right, i quoted it wrong. I went the route of selecting the approach and did not see any named point except those before the FAF (TOTNY). Had I just loaded the full approach, it would have shown up on the flight plan.

15 hours ago, Mooneymite said:

Hmmmm.  Regardless of your equipment, it's hard for me to understand what the controller was doing with you.

Was ISM IMC?  If so, I can't believe the controller would send you direct to TOTNY since there's a requirement for you to be "established" on course outside of the FAF.

If ISM was VMC, then sending you to TOTNY for the visual would work fine, but why would he give you the RNAV approach?

Something here I'm not understanding.

It was a normal early afternoon day with thunderstorms and the like. Watched a wide one roll towards KISM as I approached. Started raining as I opened my door and was pouring before I got into the golf cart after covering my plane. Kept it up for 30 minutes. Started out as expect visual into 6. I wasn't sure why he gave me the RNAV either, but there were lots of folks in the air and I heard them shuffling planes around because one of the airports had a disabled plane on the runway. And you have hit on (one of) the things confusing me. And trying to figure it out while heading towards the ground did not fall under the "stress reducing" category.

10 hours ago, carusoam said:

One piece of advice, or just a thought...

When you can't find a waypoint, you can start with checking that you have the right and current chart, and ask ATC to spell the waypoint...

Having them give a heading is good too.  It will get you pointed in the right direction while following up on the waypoint issues...

Check my details, my IR experience is minimal and old...

Best regards,

-a-

Anthony, I ended up doing just that after the way point showed up on my FF chart. I figured I could get close on my own guesstimate, but don't like flying "guesstimated" headings toward an approach I've been given. Once I realized it was the name of the FAF, things sort of worked themselves out.

7 hours ago, Hank said:

Instead of selecting "Vectors," won't it work just as well to select the FAF waypoint and fly the vector you're given? That way you'll still have the FAF showing, and know how to get there as ATC turns you in. That nice pink line will also alert you if you've been forgotten, before you fly through it.

Yeah, if I had just loaded the full approach, it would have popped out at me in the flight plan.But I didn't have the heading since he cleared me direct TOTNY and my mind was expecting it to be outside the FAF.

1 hour ago, teejayevans said:

That's fine unless he was flying the approach, then you need to load the approach and select IAF, which isn't the FAF, but I think he was told to expect a visual approach and then given direct to, it's the only thing that makes sense.
In my little experience if they want you to do something out of the ordinary they will ask.

Exactly. It started out visual to 6 and then the whole RNAV process began. Like I wrote above, I can look back and see it was likely a result of a sudden airport runway closure, pop-up storms, busy skies and busy controllers. But since everyone came away intact, looks like they were successful.

 

Thanks for all the info and perspectives. Learn a bit more every time I read something on the site.

[Ratherbflying]

This happened to a buddy and I when we went up to Oshkosh. We were flying in to West Bend (ETB) from the southeast in his Deb in IMC. Male controller gave us the RNAV 31 and cleared us direct to the HUMBI, which is the FAF. We struggled with the 430 for a bit, realized what was going on, and got settled on a course. A while later, female controller comes on and says "I show you 5 miles left of course to COVNI" which is an IAF. We told her we weren't cleared to COVNI, we were cleared to HUMBI. At that point I think she changed us to a vectors-to-final clearance because she kept us on our current course. Nobody got excited, and the smooth way she handled it told me "Yeah, this has happened more than once." I believe she gave us a right turn when we got closer in to keep us outside the gate and lined up for final.

I don't know if it's a training issue on the assigning controllers part, or if we were supposed to come back with "Unable" and get a clearance we could accept. Thinking about it now, that's exactly what we should have done, but flying in the soup that Sunday morning neither one of us was sharp enough to think of that.

[Robert C.]

This is a great topic. Thanks for raising it!

The problem with the "direct to FAF" clearance is that you are not on a "published segment" of the approach. Hence, you cannot descend to the FAF altitude unless the controller specifically included a lower (preferably the FAF altitude) in the clearance.

If it ever happens to me I hope I'll have the presence of mind to ask for the altitude I can descend to, or ask for the full approach. No fun arriving at the FAF 1000ft above the published altitude!

[kris_adams]

I'd expect to load and activate the gps 6 approach.  Then I'd click on TOTNY and hit direct to-I've flown the GPS 6 to KISM but I don't remember the transition I got.  I'm pretty sure I wasn't cleared to the FAF.

I don't really like the thought of flying directly to the FAF unless my inbound heading would have been fairly close to 063 and the weather was easy.  While I wasn't in the seat so admittedly this isn't a game-time decision, I think I'd ask for vectors to final or direct to VACTE/ZOVLU (depending on where I was).

Good question.  You have us thinking!

[Bob - S50]

Here is a quote from the AIM, paragraph 5-4-6 e.7

RNAV aircraft may be issued a clearance direct to the FAF that is also charted as an IAF, in which case the pilot is expected to execute the depicted procedure turn or hold-in-lieu of procedure turn. ATC will not issue a straight-in approach clearance. If the pilot desires a straight-in approach, they must request vectors to the final approach course outside of the FAF or fly a published “NoPT” route. When visual approaches are in use, ATC may clear an aircraft direct to the FAF.

Your approach does not have a procedure turn or hold depicted.

And from 5-4-3 b.1.c

The pilot is not expected to turn inbound on the final approach course unless an approach clearance has been issued. This clearance will normally be issued with the final vector for
interception of the final approach course, and the vector will be such as to enable the pilot to establish the aircraft on the final approach course prior to reaching the final approach fix.

So if you were "cleared for the visual" then that was OK.  However, if you were truly flying the RNAV 6, the controller screwed up.

[MHemperly]

This is what charts are for. ATC is assuming you have briefed the approach and understand the whole thing. I've received a VTF just like this on a gps approach. 

If ATC has given you an intersection to begin the approach at that doesn't exist in the list in the 430w, then they have given you an intersection that is inside one that is in the list. So select the one that is outside the direct to instruction. Load it. Then go into the flt plan page and highlight the interesction they gave you and then direct to.  

Hope this helps. 

Mike

[glafaille]

Don't you just live it when all the new stuff is supposed to make it easier and it doesn't.  Sometimes I think a fixed card ADF approach is simpler than a GPS.  A VOR approach surely is.

[PTK]

On 10/16/2016 at 3:53 PM, Oldguy said:

I guess I never really thought about it, but when I get VTF on an approach, it is usually heading,turn, etc. but today flying into KISM the controller asked if I was RNAV capable (yes) and said my approach would be the RNAV 6. Then he gave me direct TONTY. I dialed up the approach, but when I went to select TONTY, there was nothing. ForeFlight to the rescue. TONTY is the name of the FAF and once I realized it was, I asked for a heading to it. 

Not having years of instrument flying under my belt, I had never encountered this and wanted to see if it is fairly normal or not. He never told me TONTY was the FAF - that came from ForeFlight. And my 430W did not have it named. Is it normal to be given direct to the FAF by name, and if so, do the 650/750's have the name associated in the approach?

Or is this what charts are for? 

 

Having briefed the approach you noticed there are two IAFs and one intermediate fix. Since he told you your approach would be RNAV (GPS) 6 you load the approach to the IAF appropriate to your present position, i.e. VACTE if approaching from the south, ZOVLU from the north or the IF FOJSO from the west. TOTNY is FAF and will be there. When he tells you direct TOTNY simply activate the approach and select direct TOTNY. It's all there in the GPS. Just have to understand how to load and activate the approach. 

He asked you and understands you're RNAV capable. So he assumes you can properly load and activate the approach. Should he have given you direct to FAF or not is an academic discussion and of no consequence since he is working you on the approach and knows you can comply.

[golfpilot]

When I was doing my IR training El Paso would give me "vectors to final" followed by direct to a way point. The 430 wouldn't have the waypoint if I clicked vectors to final but if I plugged in a full version of the approach that waypoint would pop up.
650/750 may not show the intermediate points if doing a vector to final.
Because of that experience in training I have gotten into the habit of loading an entire approach and not pressing vector to final until I am told to intercept. That way when they give you direct to a fix that isn't on the vectors to final game, you can just hit direct to and join from there. (I use a 750)

[Marauder]

When I was doing my IR training El Paso would give me "vectors to final" followed by direct to a way point. The 430 wouldn't have the waypoint if I clicked vectors to final but if I plugged in a full version of the approach that waypoint would pop up.
650/750 may not show the intermediate points if doing a vector to final.
Because of that experience in training I have gotten into the habit of loading an entire approach and not pressing vector to final until I am told to intercept. That way when they give you direct to a fix that isn't on the vectors to final game, you can just hit direct to and join from there. (I use a 750)

This is the gotcha with these navigators if you aren't prepared for it. I know on the new firmware for the GTN series they corrected this issue. I got snagged on this for an approach to KDMW. I was being worked by a lady controller who told me to expect vectors to final. I loaded the RNAV to runway 34 expecting vectors to the FAF (KATHH).

What I got instead was a controller who went through a sex change and started speaking in a male voice. He told me to proceed direct to FOUST, which conveniently was no longer in the list of waypoints. Fortunately the reloading of an approach on the GTN is easy and I reloaded the approach with the nearest IAF and picked FOUST on the list of now available waypoints. It's the little surprises like these that keeps aviation exciting!



The new firmware:






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[PTK]

10 hours ago, Marauder said:

...I was being worked by a lady controller who told me to expect vectors to final.

What I got instead was a controller who went through a sex change and started speaking in a male voice...

You couldn't help yourself...you had to ask what her weight was didn't you?! 

You couldn't just tell her she has a sexy voice and leave it at that...could you?

Did you at least get her weight before she dumped you and ran off?!! 

[Marauder]

You couldn't help yourself...you had to ask what her weight was didn't you?! 
You couldn't just tell her she has a sexy voice could you?
Did you at least get her weight before she dumped you and ran off?!! 

Ain't technology great?!






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Andy95W]

I no longer want an Apple Watch.

[xcrmckenna]

I no longer want an Apple Watch.

I can't believe the fit four of them on that watch..... :/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[midlifeflyer]

12 hours ago, glafaille said:

Don't you just live it when all the new stuff is supposed to make it easier and it doesn't.  Sometimes I think a fixed card ADF approach is simpler than a GPS.  A VOR approach surely is.

A tool that makes things easier usually requires understanding how the tool works. Personally, I find a GPS approach much easier to navigate than a VOR and definitely more likely to put me within striking distance of a runway than an off-field ADF. 

[midlifeflyer]

8 hours ago, Marauder said:

 

This is the gotcha with these navigators if you aren't prepared for it. I know on the new firmware for the GTN series they corrected this issue. I got snagged on this for an approach to KDMW. I was being worked by a lady controller who told me to expect vectors to final. I loaded the RNAV to runway 34 expecting vectors to the FAF (KATHH).
 

 

The problem with VTF making waypoints disappear is so prevalent that the AIM specifically recommends against using it. Even with the new firmware I prefer to load an approach using a IAF that makes sense based on my direction of flight, most especially with a T approach like the one in your post.

Speaking of the new firmware, have you checked out the new ad hoc hold capability? Basically you punch in the clearance as given.

(sorry that the clicks are louder than my voice. New screen recording software)