The cleared route of flight was KWANG direct CMA. I don't know where V27 got into this discussion but V27 was not part of the flight plan. Note that KWANG direct CMA is not V27.
Now what ended up happening is that Todd requested the RNAV 8 approach, and I cleared him direct DEANO for that approach. He was near KWANG when that happened but wasn't cleared direct DEANO after KWANG. By happenstance he ended up near a direct path from KWANG to DEANO.
My measurement had the turn at 90 degrees and therefore legal by ATC rules. Based on PE aware he arrived on a track of around 85 which would be a 82 degree intercept (if he had arrived from KWANG we would see a track of 70 which would be a 97 degree intercept). It's worth noting that with KWANG only 5 NM from DEANO small cross track differences make large angular differences. I will mention that the pilot does not need to worry about these rules, they are quite complex and relate to very specific circumstances. However in this case per ATC rules the max intercept is 90 degrees.
To answer the specific questions brought up:
No deviation here, and even if it was an illegal clearance (it wasn't), it's not a rule a pilot can be busted on (show me the reg that you would be violating).I planned my route to go direct to DEANO (that's amore?). Since I was given DIRECT Deano I wasn't technically on the V27 Airway so I got to disregard the "Procedure NA for V27 Eastbound" note. First peculiarity (deviation?).
Nope you flew the track correctly, NoPT means NoPT, you don't fly the course reversal. This is standard fare on RNAV approaches.Anyway, 90 degree right turn south out of DEANO to HATLI ensues. When I briefed the approach I Read "No PT" from this FEEDER Fix and interpreted that to mean no PT/ HOLD to turn to Final approach course 073. Another 90 degree turn left to 073 and FAC.
Having hand flown those somewhat ugly turns, I'm thinking that maybe that's not what the FAA really wants you to be doing...
KWANG CMA is the TEC route.Oh, as an aside I filed KWANG DEANO and that was modified into KWANG CMA...I'm pretty sure I don't have to file to a VOR, any ideas why my intersection got axed on the routing?
This is where that small lateral distance = large angular distance matters. He was very close to the KWANG to DEANO path, but that difference = 15 degrees making it a legal clearance.I assume "Procedure NA for arrivals at DEANO via V27 eastbound" is because that would require a 96 degree turn. I'm still not clear if Todd was on V27. I understand that he was given "direct DEANO", but PEaware seems to indicate that he was given that instruction after reaching KWANG. Isn't he still arriving at DEANO on V27?
Todd was not this pilot. Todd was affected by this pilot but the end result was that Todd did get cleared direct KWANG and properly navigated there.I was monitoring PE last night and heard some of the radio exchanges between a pilot who was unable to navigate direct to KWANG. Apparently there was another plane in the area also needing to go through KWANG and this was creating a "traffic jam". Same pilot? Not sure but it seems likely. Perhaps the navigation error was so "gross" that it was only happen stance the flight path was near KWANG.
This isn't legal as the max intercept on a vector to final is 30 degrees."N123AB, you are 8 miles from HALTI, turn right heading 130, cleared RNAV GPS runway 8 approach"
Ryan has the correct details on other ways to do this approach, however the way that was done was legal.