VTF
Printed From: Avidyne
Category: Avidyne General
Forum Name: IFD 5 Series & IFD 4 Series Touch Screen GPS/NAV/COM
Forum Description: Topics on Avidyne's IFD 5 Series and IFD 4 Series Touch Screen GPS/NAV/COM
URL: http://forums.avidyne.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=2307
Printed Date: 13 Jun 2024 at 11:31pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: VTF
Posted By: frankbell
Subject: VTF
Date Posted: 11 Jan 2022 at 1:42pm
|
On my old Garmin 530, I was used to setting up an approach to fly to a fix on the approach, then being able to hit PROC, and select VTF "on the fly". So far as I can see, there's not a way to do that on the 540? You can set up the approach as a VTF when you initially select it, but not afterwards. Of course, the alternative is to activate the next leg, though that takes a few more button pushes. Am I missing something?
|
Replies:
Posted By: Ibraham
Date Posted: 12 Jan 2022 at 2:35pm
|
The only way to do that is to push PROC, select same approach but chose Vectors, which will replace the active approach with VECTORS. I have tried to avoid selecting VTF as it deletes all the fixes prior to the FAF. Last week we were flying a VFR practice approach RNAV 28R into KHWO. We were East of CUDES which is the intermediate fix, we were instructed to intercept the final approach course. At that point we replaced the approach with the VTF one, the IFD drew a course line from the MAP (JUMUV) to the FAF (CIBIB) and beyond. We intercepted that course and ATC then advised that we were north of the final approach course, which is very close to the KFLL final approach. The segment from IF to FAF is 275 degrees, but the VTF segment from FAF to MAP is 269 degrees, which is also not lined up with the runway (276 degrees). The best option would have been to activate the leg between IF and FAF or go direct to the IF (CUDES). Lesson learned, will not select VTF again, as you lose all the waypoint before the FAF and all the intermediary segments and can end up off the expected/cleared course.   |
Posted By: frankbell
Date Posted: 12 Jan 2022 at 9:55pm
|
Thanks, and agreed, I don't like to select VTF initially for the reasons you gave. Usually handy though, when you're told "heading ***, intercept the final, cleared for the approach". |
Posted By: frankbell
Date Posted: 12 Jan 2022 at 10:02pm
|
Didn't mean for the above to post like that... it's unusual for the VTF to not be lined up with the initial segment. So in the case you described, not a good solution. |
Posted By: jhbehrens
Date Posted: 13 Jan 2022 at 4:51am
| However, given you were told to intercept the final approach course, you did as they asked and I find it objectionable that ATC called you for being too far North. |
Posted By: chflyer
Date Posted: 13 Jan 2022 at 12:37pm
|
I agree with jhbehrens. On the KHWO approach, did ATC give you a heading before or with the clearance? A clearance to intercept the final approach course is a clearance to intercept 269 course, not 275. According to the IFD screenshot, heading was 134 and in this case one should never pass south of the 269 magenta course line shown on the IFD. When being vectored, ATC should only clear to intercept the final approach course when they have you on an intercept heading, which is not the case here. Sounds like ATC wasn't on their A-game that day. ------------- Vince |
Posted By: Ibraham
Date Posted: 13 Jan 2022 at 3:28pm
|
Sorry for the confusion, the IFD screenshot is from the simulator to depict the VTF leg provided on the IFD, we were actually East Southeast of CUDES, we did get a heading to intercept the final approach course (I guess ATC expected the extended segment from CUDES to CIBIB with heading of 275). The heading we were given would have intercepted that leg East of CUDES, which would make impossible to activate the leg, and selecting VTF deleted CUDES and provided a different leg to intercept. That was what was confusing. In the future, we will request to proceed direct to the IF (CUDES in this case) to stay on the published approach. We have flown this approach several times in the past. We were always vectored to intercept the segment between CUDES and CIBIB, we activated leg to CIBIB and intercepted that leg. In retrospect, VTF is a bad idea unless it is an ILS approach or all the segments line up. |
Posted By: dmtidler
Date Posted: 13 Jan 2022 at 6:15pm
Two additional
techinques for being vectored to intercept the extended approach course east of CUDES:
|
Ibraham wrote:
Posted By: chflyer
Date Posted: 13 Jan 2022 at 6:36pm
|
An extension of the CUDES-CIBIB leg east of CUDES is not part of the approach nor is it the final approach course. That would be the VTF leg shown on the IFD that you actually flew to intercept. I would maintain that you correctly flew the clearance given to you by ATC. If ATC expected you to intercept the CUDES-CIBIB leg, then they should have given you a heading to intercept that leg. I agree with your conclusion that next time you should request direct to CUDES or a heading to intercept the CUDES-CIBIB leg. The suggestion to use OBS to CUDES is a good alternative, but I personally would want ATC confirmation as that is not the clearance they gave. If you flew that without clarification they would be justified asking why you turned inbound before intersecting the final approach course. ------------- Vince |
Posted By: dmtidler
Date Posted: 13 Jan 2022 at 7:39pm
|
My post was simply an offer of a couple of techniques to set the IFD up to intercept an extended approach course beyond the actual start of a published approach. The post just prior to mine indicated a possible lack of known techniques to accomplish that. I totally agree that if an ATC clearance is at all ambiguous or confusing, ATC clarification is absolutely necessary.
|