One turn on to Final
- Thread starter MusicMan81
- Start date
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.
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.
MusicMan,
There isn't any rule against the one turn to final and in your case the key is telling the pilot that you were verctoring him through final to join on the other side. Just try to catch those downwinds sooner where the wind aloft starts blowing the arrival to close to the finals.
There isn't any rule against the one turn to final and in your case the key is telling the pilot that you were verctoring him through final to join on the other side. Just try to catch those downwinds sooner where the wind aloft starts blowing the arrival to close to the finals.
I suggest giving the pilot a heads up to expect one turn to final a few miles beforehand. I never taught one turn to final to OJT controllers because it is not "Best Practice". Using the standard 30 or 20 degrees depending on the a/c position relative to the FAF is acceptable then reducing the intercept angle gradually. Bottom line, whatever you do; you don't want to blow the the FAC unless absolutely necessary.
I'm a former CPC with over 5 years at an atc10 TRACON.
Its absolutely legal if your intercept heading meets the 20 30 45 rule. Its not how many degrees the turn is, it is how many degrees the intercept heading is.
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.
Its a technique that has a time and place. I don't like it without prepping the pilot first, and still then only under limited circumstances.
I found it worked best not for filling holes but when there is alot of frequencey congestion and I don't want to spend alot of time talking. Most pilots like a moment to set up for the approach, and are expecting a base turn and then a dogleg, being the "normal".
Again, not a technique to use frequently or in lieu of good vector technique. Just another tool for the toolbox, if you know how to apply it right.
2 miles or more from the approach gate, for Helos.
Shit, I think I miss working radar....
A
atcpookie
Guest
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.
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.
A
atcpookie
Guest
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.
... 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.
Yes, an 80 heading would work, depending on the wind. It is the track, not the heading, that matters.
I was thinking that. I'm assuming this is a tailwind situation then? Maybe winds aloft being drastically different than surface winds, or someone running an opposite direction approach.
But yeah, it's the track that's important. Dunno how you're supposed to eyeball a 30 degree track though, especially without history trails. I just do the best I can given known wind conditions. I hadn't considered that "ODs" would be filed as a result of a slightly improper intercept.
But yeah, it's the track that's important. Dunno how you're supposed to eyeball a 30 degree track though, especially without history trails. I just do the best I can given known wind conditions. I hadn't considered that "ODs" would be filed as a result of a slightly improper intercept.
A
atcpookie
Guest
LOL... I agree with your related note. However, you are over thinking it and it is chapter 5.
BTW... it doesn't have to be a GPS/RNAV approach to send the aircraft to a fix to join it.