GPS approach with the GTN 650

[Jim Peace]

Flying the GPS 29 into Robbinsville NJ N87 the other day and the controller cleared me to one of the initial fixes and cleared for the approach.  From my position it looked like I should do a tear drop entry and back around to cross the fix again and continue the approach.  The GTN even displayed with a written message it was going to do a tear drop when it got to the fix.  So I cross the fix expecting a tear drop and it starts doing a parallel entry.  I let it fly out for a bit and did not trust it to do anymore.  Took the auto pilot off and cranked the plane around on my own and flew direct to the fix and hit the direct button again and all was well.

this was my first time flying a GPS approach with the GTN.  

Has this happened to anyone else?

 

[Marauder]

11 minutes ago, Jim Peace said:

Flying the GPS 29 into Robbinsville NJ N87 the other day and the controller cleared me to one of the initial fixes and cleared for the approach.  From my position it looked like I should do a tear drop entry and back around to cross the fix again and continue the approach.  The GTN even displayed with a written message it was going to do a tear drop when it got to the fix.  So I cross the fix expecting a tear drop and it starts doing a parallel entry.  I let it fly out for a bit and did not trust it to do anymore.  Took the auto pilot off and cranked the plane around on my own and flew direct to the fix and hit the direct button again and all was well.

this was my first time flying a GPS approach with the GTN.  

Has this happened to anyone else?

 

I have seen this a couple of times (and ironically at N87 once) where your heading to the IAF is in the no man's land between tear drop and parallel. The 650 should have eventually drawn the course it was going to fly on your 650 map page. Approaching from the west/southwest for the RWY29, I have seen it give both entries and I always look for what is drawn on the map page and the Aspen.

The only time the GTN concerned me was flying the VOR overlay to my home airport. It should have done a direct entry but for some reason it wanted to do a tear drop. Did that just one time.

[midlifeflyer]

Since I generally prefer teardrop to parallel when it's close, I sometimes disregard the GPS recommendation. If I am using GPSS coupled, I just let it do what it wants.

[DXB]

Were you told to join at NENNO after flying direct from RBV by any chance?  If so, that would put you on  the dividing line between teardrop and parallel - I imagine any minute perturbation in the course just prior to crossing NENNO might make the navigator switch from one entry to the other at the last moment? 

 It's good for me to know this can happen - I'm a brand new instrument pilot flying with a GTN650, and at this point any little unexpected thing happening in that box tends to throw off my game.  Ironically, some GTN650-related confusion happened to me while joining  the RNAV11 at N87 just yesterday.

 

 

[Marauder]

Were you told to join at NENNO after flying direct from RBV by any chance?  If so, that would put you on  the dividing line between teardrop and parallel - I imagine any minute perturbation in the course just prior to crossing NENNO might make the navigator switch from one entry to the other at the last moment? 
 It's good for me to know this can happen - I'm a brand new instrument pilot flying with a GTN650, and at this point any little unexpected thing happening in that box tends to throw off my game.  Ironically, some GTN650-related confusion happened to me while joining  the RNAV11 at N87 just yesterday.
 

 

Dev - the key is to stay on the protected side of the procedure turn. I always give myself an “expected” heading for the procedure turn during my approach brief so when the GPS does it thing I can recognize the surprise if it happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[flyboy0681]

Test this scenario on one of the two GTN simulator's that Garmin has recently made available. Garmin now has available for download an update of the PC version containing the latest software and just made the iPad version free of charge, both with version 6.41.  Position your ship at the same spot where you activated the approach and see what it does.

[midlifeflyer]

11 hours ago, DXB said:

 

 It's good for me to know this can happen - I'm a brand new instrument pilot flying with a GTN650, and at this point any little unexpected thing happening in that box tends to throw off my game.  Ironically, some GTN650-related confusion happened to me while joining  the RNAV11 at N87 just yesterday.

 

This is common and something to protect against. Navigators, autopilots, etc, all have their quirks and foibles. This one is arguably predictable (there has to be some point where it chooses between two entry recommendations) but others are not. 

Expanding on @Marauder's comment, the key for us as pilots, is back to instrument flying basics - know where we are going and plan what we are going to do when we get there. Then we can treat such things as the GPS recommending a different entry or even the unit or autopilot turning the "wrong" way enroute as nothing more than a handleable distraction.

[Cris]

15 hours ago, Jim Peace said:

Flying the GPS 29 into Robbinsville NJ N87 the other day and the controller cleared me to one of the initial fixes and cleared for the approach.  From my position it looked like I should do a tear drop entry and back around to cross the fix again and continue the approach.  The GTN even displayed with a written message it was going to do a tear drop when it got to the fix.  So I cross the fix expecting a tear drop and it starts doing a parallel entry.  I let it fly out for a bit and did not trust it to do anymore.  Took the auto pilot off and cranked the plane around on my own and flew direct to the fix and hit the direct button again and all was well.

this was my first time flying a GPS approach with the GTN.  

Has this happened to anyone else?

 

One of the issues I’ve noted over time with both recurrent training and new IFR Pilots is an over reliance on the technology which at times adds confusion to the task. Simply put it makes little difference which entry one chooses as long as it is done on the correct (holding) side of the pattern. Recently I flew the LPV approach from the hold in CapeMay WWD to Runway 19 with GPSS. The GTN commanded an entry on the non holding side which I ignored and disconnected the autopilot. Why did it do that? I don’t know. Maybe it was not set up correctly or maybe it was a glitch. It made no difference as I knew well before the entry what I intended to do. I refused to be distracted by something that was supposed to be helpful but was confusing and adding to the workload and stress. Once I entered the turn it decided to do what I’d expected and all was good and I reengaged the GPSS. Remember the Basics Fly the airplane, Navigate and Communicate. Don’t trust the autopilot. Simple is always best. Back in the day my favorite instrument was the ADF. Whenever I was worried about where I was or what I would do that single needle pointed to a Nav. Today we have multiple maps and presentations which at times do not agree so we spend increasing amounts of time attempting to sync these and not fly the AC. With students I often take away most of these to help them get back to.basics. Fly the AC and navigate. You are the pilot. You did well.

[PTK]

1 hour ago, Cris said:

One of the issues I’ve noted over time with both recurrent training and new IFR Pilots is an over reliance on the technology which at times adds confusion to the task. Simply put it makes little difference which entry one chooses as long as it is done on the correct (holding) side of the pattern. Recently I flew the LPV approach from the hold in CapeMay WWD to Runway 19 with GPSS. The GTN commanded an entry on the non holding side which I ignored and disconnected the autopilot. Why did it do that? I don’t know. Maybe it was not set up correctly or maybe it was a glitch. It made no difference as I knew well before the entry what I intended to do. I refused to be distracted by something that was supposed to be helpful but was confusing and adding to the workload and stress. Once I entered the turn it decided to do what I’d expected and all was good and I reengaged the GPSS. Remember the Basics Fly the airplane, Navigate and Communicate. Don’t trust the autopilot. Simple is always best. Back in the day my favorite instrument was the ADF. Whenever I was worried about where I was or what I would do that single needle pointed to a Nav. Today we have multiple maps and presentations which at times do not agree so we spend increasing amounts of time attempting to sync these and not fly the AC. With students I often take away most of these to help them get back to.basics. Fly the AC and navigate. You are the pilot. You did well.

Cris, are you referring to the hold at KAGYS? If so from which direction were you approaching KAGYS? I’m trying to reproduce it in the GTN simulator.

[Cris]

38 minutes ago, PTK said:

Cris, are you referring to the hold at KAGYS? If so from which direction were you approaching KAGYS?

Peter I was leaving the  hold at SEWELL South of KAGYS and Direct KAGYS with the RNav 19 Procedure activated. Once at KAGYS (IAF) the GTN commanded a right teardrop entry onto the non holding side of the procedure turn. At that point I disconnected the GPSS and flew the procedure turn on the left side as depicted arriving from the S. Once I turned the GTN agreeded and all was good at which point I reengaged the GPSS. I rarely fly autopilot coupled approaches IMC as I prefer to hand fly them but this was practice to monitor what it would do. Regardless the GTN was not displaying what I expected. Rather than determine why I flew the plan. Point I was making is that these things happen and we as pilots need to be aware that we brief the approach for a reason even if single pilot IFR. Stay focused on the approach not the glitch. 

[PTK]

That's weird indeed Cris. When I put it in the simulator leaving SEWEL activating approach at KAGYS the simulator does show correctly left teardrop on protected side. I wonder if it has to do something with the gpss. 

[mike_elliott]

3 minutes ago, PTK said:

That's weird indeed Cris. When I put it in the simulator leaving SEWEL activating approach at KAGYS the simulator does show correctly left teardrop on protected side. I wonder if it has to do something with the gpss. 

The GTN commands the GPSS, not the other way around. This error is in the GTN's algorithms. I cannot fathom why heading vs track might be used in the calculation, but that could account for it. Just guessing of course, its on Garmin to resolve.

[Garryowen]

1 hour ago, Cris said:

One of the issues I’ve noted over time with both recurrent training and new IFR Pilots is an over reliance on the technology which at times adds confusion to the task. Simply put it makes little difference which entry one chooses as long as it is done on the correct (holding) side of the pattern.

Cris,

The Protected airspace is not limited to just the correct (holding) side of the pattern.   BOTH the holding and non-holding sides are protected. Protection on the Non-Holding Side is necessary to protect aircraft entering a holding pattern using a parallel entry with a cross-wind that is pushing them away from the holding course into the Non-Holding side during that initial 1 minute. 

Modern gps navigators know this and are programmed accordingly to take  advantage of wind corrected headings and ground track while simultaneously staying within the basic holding area. [FWIW, I usually keep it on the depicted holding side by hand-flying because that is the way I was taught.]

As an aside, there are 28 templates currently used to define the dimensions of the holding patterns on both the holding and non-holding sides. 

Here is a graphic that shows the geometry of all 28 templates:

Here is an example of one template:

[Garryowen]

17 hours ago, Jim Peace said:

Has this happened to anyone else?

All the time. Even when I know it’s going to happen I still disconnect and hand fly. 

[DXB]

13 hours ago, DXB said:

 It's good for me to know this can happen - I'm a brand new instrument pilot flying with a GTN650, and at this point any little unexpected thing happening in that box tends to throw off my game.  Ironically, some GTN650-related confusion happened to me while joining  the RNAV11 at N87 just yesterday.

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

This is common and something to protect against. Navigators, autopilots, etc, all have their quirks and foibles. This one is arguably predictable (there has to be some point where it chooses between two entry recommendations) but others are not. 

Expanding on @Marauder's comment, the key for us as pilots, is back to instrument flying basics - know where we are going and plan what we are going to do when we get there. Then we can treat such things as the GPS recommending a different entry or even the unit or autopilot turning the "wrong" way enroute as nothing more than a handleable distraction.

 

While the OP easily compensated for unexpected hold entry guidance, other times one must make sure  the box is doing what you want because it impacts flying decisions at that moment.  For instance once established inbound on the approach course for a GPS only approach outside the FAF, I need confidence that the box will display the course and waypoint sequencing I expect - otherwise I should request vectors to break it off and delay until I'm properly set up because I have no other means to identify the waypoints. In this case, early attention to the box is essential, not poor task management on my part. It would be much worse to realize I'm not set up right further into the approach. Despite lots of effort to learn the unit, I'm finding considerable nuance  in how one loads and activates approaches that can erode my confidence that I'm properly set up. 

Let me give the specific example - I was told to expect the RNAV 11 (LNAV only) into N87 (see below) and to fly direct to the IF NUMEG where I could expect to join.  So I loaded but did not activate the approach on the GTN. I also left it set to VTF because I was not going to use either IAF, and it does not let me to choose NUMEG on the procedure loading screen as the start of the approach.  Then on the flight plan screen under the approach, I picked NUMEG and hit direct, which I understand should activate the approach.  Since NUMEG is on the final approach course, I expected the box to understand that I am not being vectored but simply joining at the intermediate fix. Accordingly the box did not display the extended centerline on the map screen and  instead showed the active direct leg to NUMEG, followed by the additional fixes, so I thought all is good. Then I switched to the default nav screen and was surprised to see the next waypoint after NUMEG  was not indicated as the FAF KLOND but rather VTF (screen shot from the ipad sim below). At this point, I'm wondering is it going to sequence me to KLOND and then UTECTU?  Is it even going to give me the course guidance I need  on my HSI once past NUMEG?  I needed to identify those fixes before coming down to the MDA.   I could calculate the distances based on the distances in the profile view assuming I get the course guidance and distance to the runway threshold I need, but at this point I'm not too confident anything is going right.  I took it off autopilot and anticipated turning to the final course upon crossing NUMEG, unsure what the hell the navigator would do.  It neglected to give me an anticipatory turn but luckily it did sequence correctly upon my crossing NUMEG, and then I broke out moments later and canceled IFR.  Working with the simulator, I now realize I should have simply loaded either of the two IAFs with the approach though I had no intention of using them, and then I hit direct NUMEG to bypass the IAF. Enroute is easy enough but approach is not so intuitive, and sometimes the box is crucial to flying the approach.   I've flown 4 times in the system since getting my ticket 10 days ago, and questions like this come up literally every single time during approach  - I ain't flying anything with a ceiling below 1500agl until I understand the navigator better.  I think some of these glitches in button pressing got glossed over during my training because 90% of the time we weren't filed or in actual IMC so the stakes were much lower.  

 

 

[Marauder]

While the OP easily compensated for unexpected hold entry guidance, other times one must make sure  the box is doing what you want because it impacts flying decisions at that moment.  For instance once established inbound on the approach course for a GPS only approach outside the FAF, I need confidence that the box will display the course and waypoint sequencing I expect - otherwise I should request vectors to break it off and delay until I'm properly set up because I have no other means to identify the waypoints. In this case, early attention to the box is essential, not poor task management on my part. It would be much worse to realize I'm not set up right further into the approach. Despite lots of effort to learn the unit, I'm finding considerable nuance  in how one loads and activates approaches that can erode my confidence that I'm properly set up. 
Let me give the specific example - I was told to expect the RNAV 11 (LNAV only) into N87 (see below) and to fly direct to the IF NUMEG where I could expect to join.  So I loaded but did not activate the approach on the GTN. I also left it set to VTF because I was not going to use either IAF, and it does not let me to choose NUMEG on the procedure loading screen as the start of the approach.  Then on the flight plan screen under the approach, I picked NUMEG and hit direct, which I understand should activate the approach.  Since NUMEG is on the final approach course, I expected the box to understand that I am not being vectored but simply joining at the intermediate fix. Accordingly the box did not display the extended centerline on the map screen and  instead showed the active direct leg to NUMEG, followed by the additional fixes, so I thought all is good. Then I switched to the default nav screen and was surprised to see the next waypoint after NUMEG  was not indicated as the FAF KLOND but rather VTF (screen shot from the ipad sim below). At this point, I'm wondering is it going to sequence me to KLOND and then UTECTU?  Is it even going to give me the course guidance I need  on my HSI once past NUMEG?  I needed to identify those fixes before coming down to the MDA.   I could calculate the distances based on the distances in the profile view assuming I get the course guidance and distance to the runway threshold I need, but at this point I'm not too confident anything is going right.  I took it off autopilot and anticipated turning to the final course upon crossing NUMEG, unsure what the hell the navigator would do.  It neglected to give me an anticipatory turn but luckily it did sequence correctly upon my crossing NUMEG, and then I broke out moments later and canceled IFR.  Working with the simulator, I now realize I should have simply loaded either of the two IAFs with the approach though I had no intention of using them, and then I hit direct NUMEG to bypass the IAF. Enroute is easy enough but approach is not so intuitive, and sometimes the box is crucial to flying the approach.   I've flown 4 times in the system since getting my ticket 10 days ago, and questions like this come up literally every single time during approach  - I ain't flying anything with a ceiling below 1500agl until I understand the navigator better.  I think some of these glitches in button pressing got glossed over during my training because 90% of the time we weren't filed or in actual IMC so the stakes were much lower.  

 
 

Dev - I will read through your summary a few times before I summarize what I think is happening.

One thing I ALWAYS do is verify the waypoints after I activate the approach. It is your only confirmation of the sequence of waypoints that your GPS intends to follow.

I also don’t like VTF as a way to activate the approach. Been caught a couple of times being instructed to fly to a waypoint when I was expecting everything to be done through vectors.

Like midlifeflyer & Cris state above, these boxes will have a mind of their at times. Your approach briefing should include a review of the waypoints.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Cris]

Cris,

The Protected airspace is not limited to just the correct (holding) side of the pattern.   BOTH the holding and non-holding sides are protected. Protection on the Non-Holding Side is necessary to protect aircraft entering a holding pattern using a parallel entry with a cross-wind that is pushing them away from the holding course into the Non-Holding side during that initial 1 minute. 

Modern gps navigators know this and are programmed accordingly to take  advantage of wind corrected headings and ground track while simultaneously staying within the basic holding area. [FWIW, I usually keep it on the depicted holding side by hand-flying because that is the way I was taught.]

Garry That is interesting information regarding the protection provided but I want to be sure that I understand your point. Are you saying that you can do a right turn to reverse course when approaching the Fix from the S with the protected airspace shown on the left? While the AIM actually states that the manner in which the standard procedure turn is accomplished is left to the pilot there are some caveats. This includes the point at which to start the turn, as well as type and rate of turn. Some of the methods include the 45° procedure turn, the racetrack pattern, the teardrop procedure turn, and the 80°-260° procedure turn. The only restriction is that it must be done within the limits specified on the profile view and “it must be done on the protected side” of the course. As this is actually a hold as depicted in the profile view as well as the procedure turn you would also want to be sure you were on the protected side of the depiction and within 4 miles of the fix  regardless of how much airspace was reserved elsewhere. I think that is what you meant. 

[Marauder]

Dev - I duplicated your approach on the simulator. If I select the RNAV 11 and do not activate it, this is what I see:



The flight plan shows the correct waypoints in the correct order. And like you, it assumed I was flying the VTF and that is the reason you got the VTF108. It is expecting that the next heading needs to be 108° and that based on the approach, heading to Klond. If you looked at the flight plan, it would show the correct sequence would be followed.




Once at Klond, the approach sequenced as normal. I think your observation was right, you saw the VTF108 and weren’t sure what it would do next. And continuing the approach, once NUMEG was reached, your Aspen should have autoslewed to 108° and displayed Klond as the next waypoint up in the upper left hand corner of the HSI.

One thing I do like about the GTN trainer is the ability to fly unfamiliar approaches before I fly them for real.

The challenge with this new technology is that it removes some of the pilot thinking that you needed to do in the past. Think about your VOR/ILS approaches that you did strictly not using the GPS (hopefully your instructor had you fly some just using the second Nav/Com). It required you to visualize what you needed to fly and how. GPS certainly automates the process but as you get more familiar with it, you will see that it can and does surprise you at times.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Marauder]

Cris,
The Protected airspace is not limited to just the correct (holding) side of the pattern.   BOTH the holding and non-holding sides are protected. Protection on the Non-Holding Side is necessary to protect aircraft entering a holding pattern using a parallel entry with a cross-wind that is pushing them away from the holding course into the Non-Holding side during that initial 1 minute. 
Modern gps navigators know this and are programmed accordingly to take  advantage of wind corrected headings and ground track while simultaneously staying within the basic holding area. [FWIW, I usually keep it on the depicted holding side by hand-flying because that is the way I was taught.]
Garry That is interesting information regarding the protection provided but I want to be sure that I understand your point. Are you saying that you can do a right turn to reverse course when approaching the Fix from the S with the protected airspace shown on the left? While the AIM actually states that the manner in which the standard procedure turn is accomplished is left to the pilot there are some caveats. This includes the point at which to start the turn, as well as type and rate of turn. Some of the methods include the 45° procedure turn, the racetrack pattern, the teardrop procedure turn, and the 80°-260° procedure turn. The only restriction is that it must be done within the limits specified on the profile view and “it must be done on the protected side” of the course. As this is actually a hold as depicted in the profile view as well as the procedure turn you would also want to be sure you were on the protected side of the depiction and within 4 miles of the fix  regardless of how much airspace was reserved elsewhere. I think that is what you meant. 

I would be interested in hearing more about Garry’s information. Those of us taught years ago, it was drilled into us that the protected side was the side to fly any procedure turn. Heck, even John and Martha King drilled that into my head




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Garryowen]

1 hour ago, Cris said:

Are you saying that you can do a right turn to reverse course when approaching the Fix from the S with the protected airspace shown on the left? 

 

53 minutes ago, Marauder said:

John and Martha King drilled that into my head 

My wife just recently talked me into letting go of my king vhs tapes. It was a sad day.

I have always done procedure turns on the depicted side and still do. It wasn’t until flying with these advanced GPS’ that I looked into, “why is it taking me into the non-protected side?” that I discovered what ‘protected’ really meant and how it was derived.

More important for all of these modern systems is understanding not only how they work but the ‘why’ behind what they are doing. This is a good example. In every case the gps navigator is doing exactly what it is supposed to do or what you’ve asked it to do. Sometimes I come across a gotcha and I’ll revert back to King primacy and hand fly the way I was taught. If only we had the vhs player still...

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, Marauder said:

 

I would be interested in hearing more about Garry’s information. Those of us taught years ago, it was drilled into us that the protected side was the side to fly any procedure turn. Heck, even John and Martha King drilled that into my head

 

 

Garry's information is and has always been correct.  Those templates are based on TERPS design standards for approaches. If you are into the technical detail, holding design is in Chapter 17.   Gary's graphic showing all 28 templates is from there. They reflect combinations of altitude and airspeed. If you want a shorter volume, the FAA's older  Holding Pattern Criteria (it was eventually incorporated into TERPS) is at  https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7130.3A.pdf

Both sides have a certain amount of protected airspace. The phrases "protected side" and "unprotected side" are relative. The "protected side" is just the side with more protected airspace. Better terms are probably the "holding side/non-holding side" or the "barbed side/non-barbed side," but protected and unprotected have been commonly used for a long time.

But what you were taught is also correct. Every FAA guidance tells us to plan and fly the holding pattern maneuver or course reversal on the "protected/holding/barbed" side. But at the same time the FAA officially contemplates procedure entry may have us flying on the "unprotected side."

Here's the AIM's description of a parallel entry in 5-3-8. 

Parallel Procedure. When approaching the holding fix from anywhere in sector (a), the parallel entry procedure would be to turn to a heading to parallel the holding course outbound on the nonholding side for one minute, turn in the direction of the holding pattern through more than 180 degrees, and return to the holding fix or intercept the holding course inbound. (my emphasis)

Notice that even though we are typically taught to track the outbound leg (better for situational awareness), the guidance actually has us paralleling it on the "unprotected" side. Same for procedure turn entries to the outbound from the barbed side.

 

Edited June 24, 2018 by midlifeflyer

[ArtVandelay]

The GTN gives annunciations of what it’s going to do about 8 seconds before it does any turns, FWIW.

[Cris]

Well If you are trying to say it is ok to enter the hold from the less protected side you are technically correct so long as you stay primarily within the protected airspace. Respectfully that is a thin argument when it comes to the AIM and does a disservice to those who might think it Ok to enter a hold or course reversal anyway they please. Specifically 5.4.9-1states “

“ Racetrack entries should be conducted on the maneuvering side where the majority of protected airspace resides. If an entry places the pilot on the non−maneuvering side of the PT, correction to intercept the outbound course ensures remaining within protected airspace”. As well as my previous AIM reference “The only restriction is that it must be done within the limits specified on the profile view and “it must be done on the protected side of the course”

My original post regarding the anomaly of the GTN indicating a teardrop entry on the non protected side promted Garry’s response. As a practicle matter pilots fly the inbound course from the fix outbound prior to course reversal so very little entry into the non holding space occurs which is shown on your diagram and is what happened in the approach I referenced. To be clear one should always fly on the protected side. One dosen’t get to “choose” wheather or not to execute the procedure turn in the less protected airspace. Hopefully you agree. 

Edited June 24, 2018 by Cris

[PTK]

7 hours ago, mike_elliott said:

The GTN commands the GPSS, not the other way around. This error is in the GTN's algorithms. I cannot fathom why heading vs track might be used in the calculation, but that could account for it. Just guessing of course, its on Garmin to resolve.

I don’t see any error. Perhaps you don’t fully comprehend the fine details and you think it’s an error. It’s not. I trust the GTN. The GTN simulator confirms as it always depicts the hold as published. Try it. I think this may have been due to the gpss.

[DXB]

3 hours ago, Marauder said:

Dev - I duplicated your approach on the simulator. If I select the RNAV 11 and do not activate it, this is what I see:

The flight plan shows the correct waypoints in the correct order. And like you, it assumed I was flying the VTF and that is the reason you got the VTF108. It is expecting that the next heading needs to be 108° and that based on the approach, heading to Klond. If you looked at the flight plan, it would show the correct sequence would be followed.

Once at Klond, the approach sequenced as normal. I think your observation was right, you saw the VTF108 and weren’t sure what it would do next. And continuing the approach, once NUMEG was reached, your Aspen should have autoslewed to 108° and displayed Klond as the next waypoint up in the upper left hand corner of the HSI.

One thing I do like about the GTN trainer is the ability to fly unfamiliar approaches before I fly them for real.

The challenge with this new technology is that it removes some of the pilot thinking that you needed to do in the past. Think about your VOR/ILS approaches that you did strictly not using the GPS (hopefully your instructor had you fly some just using the second Nav/Com). It required you to visualize what you needed to fly and how. GPS certainly automates the process but as you get more familiar with it, you will see that it can and does surprise you at times.
 

Thanks Chris - I did see the waypoints were in the flight plan so should not have worried so much.  Going forward I'm going to load approaches with one of the IAFs rather than vectors, whether I've been given a fix to join at or not.  If I get an intermediate fix, I can just select that fix and hit direct.  If I get a different IAF,  its easy to go back and swap to reload with that fix as long as I haven't activated the approach yet.  If I get vectors, its easy to hit the name of the approach in the flight plan and activate vectors even if I loaded with an IAF.  But it's clearly not wise to activate vectors unless it's abundantly clear I'm being vectored onto the course rather than sent to a fix. This stuff is not so intuitive sometimes!

I have another burning question for you regarding how I'm tripped up on VTF with the GTN 650, but I'll maybe start a new thread rather than continuing to hijack this one.