Mike, and that's exactly what happened. My downwind ended up being too tight, and I gave the aircraft one turn to final, which took them through and then back to join on the opposite side during a skills check. It was a perfectly legal intercept, but my Sup. didn't like it. It's not something I try and use on a regular basis, but that particular situation called for either that or widening the downwind out a little. I was just curious about other peoples thoughts on it.Technically yes, because it usually means you got yourself into a situation that required the one turn to final, or what I often saw, the downwind was too close so the one turn would take the acft through final then back to join on the opposite side.
I'm a former CPC with over 5 years at an atc10 TRACON.Nor is it legal. 20, 30, 45. Are you guys CTI's?
I've even vectored someone across final, given them a one turn back around to join. Thunderstorms + terrain = high as Charlie Sheen and out of airspace to vector in.
2 miles or more from the approach gate, for Helos.so are you saying 45 is legal??? for an approach clearance?
OK here’s a fun one to see the answers…..
Since the rule has already been posted you will not even have to read much.
If an ILS36 approach is in use with an aircraft on a heading for the left base…. The question is;
Is there any scenario where a 080 heading would be a legal turn on for the approach?
(BTW- I do know the answer; I’ve had several OD’s come across my desk where a sup, manager, or even other controllers thought a rule was broken)
…… have fun.
LOL... I agree with your related note. However, you are over thinking it and it is chapter 5.In the manner you asked, I'm guessing you are referring to 4-8-1.b.4. This would be sending an aircraft to an intermediate fix when an initial fix is published. Among other requirements, it should be a GPS/RNAV (optionally ILS combined) procedure, with an Advanced RNAV equipment suffix, and an intercept angle not greater than 90 degrees.
... or am I over guessing your question?
On a related note, I think the way the GPS/RNAV portion was added to the traditional approach clearance procedure in 4-8-1.b.3 makes it nearly unreadable and confusing.