[t0mas88]

In the airline world it would at the very least be encouraged and in many cases mandatory to have the underlying approach programmed for this anyway. Even more so if told not to fly through final you would have the localizer up and monitor it.

In a Cirrus with what is probably a GFC 700 with flight director capabilities I would expect any competent instrument rated pilot to have the FD on and approach mode armed (the 1 missing button I meant) exactly to avoid this mistake.

Great to hand fly, but in a capable airplane just plain stupid not to use all the tools. And even mandatory on the professional side of things in many cases.

[sokoloff]

NB: There is no instrument approach to 17R @ KAPA.

I agree I'd have an extended centerline up (it's up by default if I zoom the MFD in close enough in my lesser-equipped A36), but this is a fully visual maneuver.

Almost no one is going to define a user waypoint near the touchdown zone for 17R and pull an OBS line off that just so they can use the FD/AP to make an entirely routine turn to final.

[t0mas88]

That makes things a lot harder for the Cirrus pilot. Easy to get the lineup slightly wrong with for example some wind correction in from far away. Crazy that ATC had them do this at the same altitude as conflicting traffic with no underlying approach as a safety net. You can ask someone not to go through final, but that's very easy to miss judge from a couple of miles away.

[sokoloff]

Slightly harder? I'd agree with that. A lot harder? 20 hour student pilots make visual turns from base to final from 3 miles out every day. This is not Top Gun material.

[t0mas88]

I have an instructor rating, and in teaching GA I've seen this hundreds of times also from experienced pilots. It's all easy in theory until in practice there is some sun in your eyes, the nose is pointing away from the runway due to wind and something inside needs attention (even more likely in a Cirrus, lots of tools = lots of distractions). Takes all of 10 seconds to be completely through the centerline and if reallt unlucky into the path of another aircraft.

Can't really blame this on the Cirrus pilot alone. They probably made the mistake here, but they were not set up for succes (no navigation available as backup) and ATC had zero safety net (both at the same altitude). So my prediction is that the final report will include recommended changes and not just "pilot error shouldn't fly through final, any student pilot could do that"

[ddoolin]

If the sight picture is the usual one for the pilot, sure. I think if you throw a 20-hour pilot at an unfamiliar airport with a different pattern configuration than they're used to (right or left, direct to base, etc), your chances of overshooting can go up a lot. Throw in tight parallels and it's not great.

I train at an airport with parallels with a tight-enough runway separation gap to necessitate a 15-degree offset in both T/O & L on the GA runway. > 100-hour me overshot into the adjacent approach when being cleared direct to base for the "commercial runway" which I've probably only been given once before. Shameful, yes, and a learning experience, but I never overshoot on the adjacent (we also have different TPAs for the parallels, probably for this reason though).

[azalemeth]

My gut feeling is that a deconfliction policy will appear on the charts and in the airport's procedures. Just because something can be done correctly, if the momentary-cockup-consequence is potentially the death of a large number of people, it's a good idea to make sure that there's some sort of defence in depth.