I just flew IFR to Rodez in France (LFCR).
When contacting Rodez Approach, the controller offered me the ILS approach, but I requested the RNAV approach so I could test the LPV behaviours of the built-in GTN 650.
I was assigned the RNAV rwy 31 approach. I then requested vectors, and the controller hesitated and requested if I really wanted vectors, which I confirmed.
Later he gave me a direct to the IAF and cleared me for the approach, following all waypoints, requesting to report on the FAF and not giving me any vector… weird…
Was I wrong to expect that vectors are possible on a RNAV approach, or was the controller insecure / stubborn?
Any insights?
Vectors are of course possible on an RNAV approach. An RNAV approach is a line in space. You can intercept it.
That’s what I thought, @JasonC
I had that too (with LNAV Approaches, because I only have LPV a week now) that ATC hestitated to shorten an RNAV approach. Most of the time I got a direct to the IAF, and only when I explicitely asked I got a DIRECT to the FAF … but never a VECTOR. I don’t think vectors to waypoints make sense.
Ok, to the final, yes. But I always got DIRECTS to the FAF or one WP earlier, never to a “line”
If you get vectors it must be to a line – the final approach track.
YES, but i never GOT a vector on an RNAV approach only “next report WPxyz” or stuff like that, never a final.
It feels like the concept of an RNAV approach, whereby the controller does not know if you are performing a precision or non-precision approach, is inserting insecurity in them interpreting the flow.
I have had it plenty of times eg in Augsburg.
