Airline Pilot Forums

Hey all,

I have a quick question about the legality of a procedure turn on a certain approach. You can find the approach here:


http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1112/05484VGA.PDF

The question is, if you are flying direct to LFD from JXN and will begin the apprch at LFD... must you enter the hold, make one revolution and then start the appch? The published plate says NoPT from 246 CW 009, which in my understanding just means that NoPT is allowed from those radials. However, if you can begin the approach without a course reversal than no PT is necessary? Thoughts?

The answer is in the AIM discussion of procedure turns - when depicted they are mandatory unless there is NoPT routing or you are cleared straight in by ATC. The problem is that sometimes ATC assumes you will go straight in and doesn't include the language in the clearance, so it's best to clarify.

I'm no procedure design expert but I think the reason that the NoPT routing doesn't include V221 is because there is a limitation on the number of degrees of turn permitted for a NoPT routing.

Hm, so most likely... if given that clearance ATC would assume that you would head straight in, but it would be best to clarify? That area would be in the direct entry zone and it would make no sense to go all the way around the hold and would only cause traffic problems in my opinion.

I don't think it's safe to make assumptions about what ATC wants, especially since going straight in without the straight in clearance is technically a regulatory violation.

Besides, the only time there is ever a traffic problem is if you and ATC are not on the same page. Assuming traffic in the area, you're assuming that spacing for the airplane behind you requires a straight in. Isn't it just as likely that your turn in the hold is needed for spacing for the airplane ahead of you?

Training in this area and flying this approach a couple of times; even from what i remember from my training. Flying from jxn and going to lfd, you need to make a course reversal. Tear drop this and head inbound. You can make more circuits around the hold for altitude loss. And dont worry about this area being busy. Correct me if i am wrong.

It's definitely not busy.. i was just saying that for other airport that may be busier and with approaches such as this one.

Traffic is ATC's problem. Complying with the rules applicable to your flight is yours. You want to go straight in and ATC doesn't mention it? Ask.

From my USAF reg (AFMAN 11-217 v1).

There are 2 kinds of course reversals, the PT....and this one, the HILO.

DO NOT execute a PT or HILO in the following situations.

SNERT

1. Cleared for a Straight-in
2. No-PT routing
3. Established in holding, then cleared appch...AND holding crs and PT crs are the same
4. Radar vectors
5. Timed appch

11.3.1.6.1. Note: Historically these restrictions have created a lot of confusion between pilots and controllers. If ever in doubt about what ATC expects you to do, query the controller.

Unless I was within those NoPT radials, I would fly the bold HILO...or ask the controller for vectors to final.

I think this one is black and white, no gray area. Do the PT (hold in lieu of). If you don't want to, just ask ATC and get approval for a straight in.

Not following the procedure is a FAR 97 violation and ATC cannot approve you to violate an IAP. ALL IAPs begin at the Initial Approach Fix (LFD, in this case). Assuming no radar vectors and not being in the NoPT sector, you must cross the IAF and fly the HILO before starting the approach. The IAF begins the initial approach segment, which is the course reversal.

GF

I think this one is black and white, no gray area. Do the PT (hold in lieu of). If you don't want to, just ask ATC and get approval for a straight in.

The second part is really bad advice. And, from a CFI......

What one "wants to do" and what one is required to do are two different things.

Unless you are within the 249 to 009 clockwise (CW) radials as the note right on the plate specifies, be it from radar vectors or some other fix, the responsibility is yours to execute the procedure as required. Period.

One should never ask for a clearance that deviates from the published procedural requirements.

I think this one is black and white, no gray area. Do the PT (hold in lieu of). If you don't want to, just ask ATC and get approval for a straight in.

The second part is really bad advice. And, from a CFI......

What one "wants to do" and what one is required to do are two different things.

Unless you are within the 249 to 009 clockwise (CW) radials as the note right on the plate specifies, be it from radar vectors or some other fix, the responsibility is yours to execute the procedure as required. Period.

One should never ask for a clearance that deviates from the published procedural requirements.

This is bad advice.

It would be perfectly legal to request a straight in approach and with that clearance proceed straight in from the IAF. I can think of many instances where it's operationally safer to do that as opposed to a lap in a hold when you can safely proceed straight in, particularly on an NDB approach.

This is bad advice.

It would be perfectly legal to request a straight in approach and with that clearance proceed straight in from the IAF. I can think of many instances where it's operationally safer to do that as opposed to a lap in a hold when you can safely proceed straight in, particularly on an NDB approach.

One should only make it a practice to request deviations from approach requirements when they are not deviations.

Mccube

I beg to differ, the fact that there is a charted NoPT zone, means ALL entries outside those radials requires a HILO holding entry into the course reversal. There are FAA general counsel decisions and TERPS that amply state that an approach must be flown as depicted beginning at the IAF except for ATC radar vectors, NoPT routings, timed holding at the FAF.

Now, ATC could use radar to give an intercept to the intermediate segment outside the FAF; I am considering non-radar procedures. The term "straight-in" meant ATC did not want you to take a vector then fly the course reversal. It is not authorization to shortcut the Standard IAP.

Allow me to ask, if you crossed LFD at 4000 feet, what would the required descent gradient to the FAF be? What is the descent gradient design requirement between the IAF and the FAF, that is on the intermediate segment? When would it be operationally safer to shortcut a procedure in violation of FAR 97?

Refer to FAAO 8260 TERPS para 232 and para 244 and AGC letter to ALPA CHIPS Committee Nov 24, 1994.

GF

[QUOTE=mccube5;1107720]This is bad advice.

I can think of many instances where it's operationally safer to do that as opposed to a lap in a hold when you can safely proceed straight in, particularly on an NDB approach.[/


McCube,

How does abiding by approach requirements increase ones danger?

Refer to FAAO 8260 TERPS para 232 and para 244 and AGC letter to ALPA CHIPS Committee Nov 24, 1994.

GFOTOH, one can also refer to the letter to 1977 letter to Robert Little that includes

==============================
However, ATC may "authorize" a deviation from the prescribed procedure when it determines that a different approach procedure is appropriate
==============================

as well as the current (2010, after repeated revision) AIM

==============================
The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart, unless cleared by ATC for a straight-in approach.
==============================

The controversy about whether one may go straight in - with ATC clearance to do so - has a long history and, as one can see in this thread, may never end.

From my USAF reg (AFMAN 11-217 v1).

There are 2 kinds of course reversals, the PT....and this one, the HILO.

DO NOT execute a PT or HILO in the following situations.

SNERT

1. Cleared for a Straight-in
2. No-PT routing
3. Established in holding, then cleared appch...AND holding crs and PT crs are the same
4. Radar vectors
5. Timed appch

11.3.1.6.1. Note: Historically these restrictions have created a lot of confusion between pilots and controllers. If ever in doubt about what ATC expects you to do, query the controller.

Unless I was within those NoPT radials, I would fly the bold HILO...or ask the controller for vectors to final.

While I agree your answer, I would be very careful answering civil aviation questions using military aviation documents. Military flying is specific to military aircraft and take into account possible military waivers, exemptions, and military regulatory guidance. Therefore, you could be giving someone bad information.

When I transitioned to Part 121 flying, I found some differences in procedures listed in our OpsSpecs as opposed to what I grew up on in 11-217. And so, I learned when flying civilian I will use the FAA approved guidance and when flying military I use the USAF's.

From my USAF reg (AFMAN 11-217 v1).

There are 2 kinds of course reversals, the PT....and this one, the HILO.

DO NOT execute a PT or HILO in the following situations.

SNERT

1. Cleared for a Straight-in
2. No-PT routing
3. Established in holding, then cleared appch...AND holding crs and PT crs are the same
4. Radar vectors
5. Timed appch

11.3.1.6.1. Note: Historically these restrictions have created a lot of confusion between pilots and controllers. If ever in doubt about what ATC expects you to do, query the controller.

Unless I was within those NoPT radials, I would fly the bold HILO...or ask the controller for vectors to final.

While I agree your answer, I would be very careful answering civil aviation questions using military aviation documents. Military flying is specific to military aircraft and take into account possible military waivers, exemptions, and military regulatory guidance. Therefore, you could be giving someone bad information.

When I transitioned to Part 121 flying, I found some differences in procedures listed in our OpsSpecs as opposed to what I grew up on in 11-217. And so, I learned when flying civilian I will use the FAA approved guidance and when flying military I use the USAF's.

Yeah, that's a good pt!

In this particular instance, I didn't see how this was one of those issues though. Civ or Mil rules or aircraft shouldn't matter because what we all essentially want to know is...can I fly this thing in the wx and not have CFIT based on entry direction? I don't thk any waivers are going to prevent that.

Granted, I don't think I would be telling guys it's ok to exceed 250 kts below 10k if you have a waiver...because I don't know what their regs say.

I don't think it's a bad idea to offer up the info...simply as a learning pt. Also, was why I provided the source...then they can choose to research more if interested.

What a pain having to know both though!!! Great opportunity for neg xfer too.

Again, I agreed with you. However I will say this, my company's proceduress for Procedure Turns are different than 11-217. Who is right? Who is wrong? IDK. Bottom line, I will do it like whoever owns the jet wants me to.

This is bad advice.

It would be perfectly legal to request a straight in approach and with that clearance proceed straight in from the IAF. I can think of many instances where it's operationally safer to do that as opposed to a lap in a hold when you can safely proceed straight in, particularly on an NDB approach.

+1. Nothing wrong with asking for the straight in. The will be times where you are PERFECTLY lines up with the FAC (requiring a direct entry) at the appropriate altitude and lo and behold, there is a HILO between you and the runway. Option 1 is to spend 4 minutes of your day and x amount of fuel doing a lap around the ABC vor. Option 2 (assuming ATC is up) is to ask for the straight in. All they can say is no. I've been in this situation before & when I asked if they wanted us to do the hold over the vor, ATC responded with, "not unless you want to." In the end, we were cleared for the straight in.

There are actually 3 types of course reversals. HILO of a PT, PT and a procedural track sometimes called a teardrop (not to be confused with a teardrop entry).

Civ or Mil rules or aircraft shouldn't matter because what we all essentially want to know is...can I fly this thing in the wx and not have CFIT based on entry direction? I think you're correct on the likelihood that military and civilian rules for flying approaches would be identical (since both will fly both). But it's not merely a matter of CFIT (which is of course, the most important piece). It's also a matter of both the pilot and ATC anticipating the same thing taking place.

The best part of the advisory you quotes if the final part:

==============================
11.3.1.6.1. Note: Historically these restrictions have created a lot of confusion between pilots and controllers. If ever in doubt about what ATC expects you to do, query the controller.
==============================

ATC: "Cessna 12345, upon reaching Jackson proceed direct Litchfield. You are cleared for the VOR-A approach, contact tower ROWCH inbound"

You are not receiving RADAR vectors.
On the JXN to LFD leg, check your HSI.
Needle centered, are you within the 246-CW-009 radial range from LFD? If so, then you DO NOT perform a procedure turn.
If you are outside of the 246-009 radial range, which I speculate you would be just from looking at the chart, you must fly the HILO, during which you may begin your descent to 2600.
Nothing wrong with requesting vectors tho...ATC is there to help out.

Not following the procedure is a FAR 97 violation and ATC cannot approve you to violate an IAP. ALL IAPs begin at the Initial Approach Fix (LFD, in this case). Assuming no radar vectors and not being in the NoPT sector, you must cross the IAF and fly the HILO before starting the approach. The IAF begins the initial approach segment, which is the course reversal.

GF

This is not correct. Back in the days before RNAV this would be true. But nowadays, RNAV equipment is perfectly capable of navigating to any fix on an approach and proceeding straight-in without a course reversal (in many circumstances, obviously not all). ATC and the FAA know this, and in fact, the RNAV equipment is always going to be more accurate than a radar vector. Because of this, the FAA allows approaches to begin from the IF (intermediate fix) for appropriately equipped aircraft. Reference AIM 5-4-7-i.

i. ATC may clear aircraft that have filed an Advanced RNAV equipment suffix to the intermediate fix when clearing aircraft for an instrument approach procedure. ATC will take the following actions when clearing Advanced RNAV aircraft to the intermediate fix:

1. Provide radar monitoring to the intermediate fix.

2. Advise the pilot to expect clearance direct to the intermediate fix at least 5 miles from the fix.

NOTE-
This is to allow the pilot to program the RNAV equipment to allow the aircraft to fly to the intermediate fix when cleared by ATC.

3. Assign an altitude to maintain until the intermediate fix.

4. Insure the aircraft is on a course that will intercept the intermediate segment at an angle not greater than 90 degrees and is at an altitude that will permit normal descent from the intermediate fix to the final approach fix.


If the fix you are cleared to is labeled IF, or IAF/IF, it is perfectly fine to fly straight-in on the approach once you reach the fix, even if a course reversal maneuver is indicated on the chart (having met the requirements in sub-paragraph 4, of course). The intermediate segment of an approach always comes after a course reversal, and is intended to allow the aircraft the necessary time to configure for the final approach segment.

This is not correct. Back in the days before RNAV Strictly a WAG based mostly on what has been happening the bast 10 or so years.

When the system was primarily based on on airways (whether victor or otherwise) in a non-radar environment, and TERPS and procedure design coordinated to make sure that the airport could be reached starting fron an en route point, strict rules about procedure turns and when they were required were necessary. The exceptions were limited coming down to four:


noPT when there was no PT on the chart;
noPT when a used route segment said noPT
noPT when already in the holding pattern
noPT in those few busy locations where you would be radar vectored to the FAC.


As technological advances - wider Radar coverage, RNAV and GPS equipment - came along some (not all; that's the catch) of the restrictions lost some meaning.

Taks as an example, the ILS into Goodland, KS: http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1113/00684IL30.PDF

Consider the enroute environment in which this approach is located

SkyVector: Flight Planning / Aeronautical Charts (http://skyvector.com/?ll=39.38792056721728,-101.69230255044133&chart=410&zoom=2&plan=A.K2.KAPA:V.K2.BJC:F.K2.NIWOT:F.K2.WELDS:A.K2 .KGXY)

Before widespread radar and RNAV systems, you would be coming into GLD VOR on an airway; none of them particularly well suited to a avoiding the procedure turn. Perhaps IQUQA could be reached from the southeast with a turn directly off V132 or V17, but there was no official routing to do that and without radar, you wouldn't get it. Without radar or RNAV, you wouldn't have the equipment to get there anyway.

Comes along radar MVAs, direct RNAV and GPS Navigation and the picture changes quire a bit.

It's something the FAA has been struggling with. "Struggling" is my guess based on the number of times the section of the AIM that deals specifically with the requirement for PTs to change in just the past 4-5 years.

My personal rule is the when the chart has a PT applicable to my inbound routing and there is not a written reception (like a noPT segment or area) and I don't hear the words and I am not specifically to to expect a PT or, alternatively, to go straight in, I'll ask.

Even if it turns out that even the current version of the AIM doesn't say this is ok, at least ATC and I are in agreement on what I should be doing and (assuming I've done my homework) the likeli hood of a safety ior traffic problem or some other reason for a controller to write me up for obeying an instruction is, small enough to me to be inconsequential. OTOH, ATC and me not expecting the same thing can lead to, at the very least, a pretty significant headache.

fatmike69

I don't disagree with you regarding RNAV clearances to the IF/IAF (Intermediate Fix) that aligns the plane according to AIM 5-4-7i. But, that is not the question here--the question is can one ignore the NoPT restriction that applies to those specified radials when arriving OUTSIDE those radials. The answer is no; if cleared via RNAV equipment to an IF/IAF and you can meet those requirements (radar monitoring, at a compatible altitude, and intercept at 90 degrees or less), yes you can. Can you just head over to the IAF on any inbound course and ignore the course reversal? No.

Please read: http://www.terps.com/ifrr/sep95.pdf

There are other IFRR articles on the subject by Wally Roberts.

GF

fatmike69

I don't disagree with you regarding RNAV clearances to the IF/IAF (Intermediate Fix) that aligns the plane according to AIM 5-4-7i. But, that is not the question here--the question is can one ignore the NoPT restriction that applies to those specified radials when arriving OUTSIDE those radials. The answer is no; if cleared via RNAV equipment to an IF/IAF and you can meet those requirements (radar monitoring, at a compatible altitude, and intercept at 90 degrees or less), yes you can. Can you just head over to the IAF on any inbound course and ignore the course reversal? No.

Please read: http://www.terps.com/ifrr/sep95.pdf

There are other IFRR articles on the subject by Wally Roberts.

GF

Fair enough. The original poster's link to the approach in question appears to be invalid, and I could never see it. If someone can tell me which approach is in question (or provide a good link to it), I'd like to have a look at it. I was just assuming we were talking about a co-located IF/IAF that involved a course reversal maneuver, and cleared direct to.

26 posts to figure out how to do a Procedure Turn ?

uhhh....

26 posts to figure out how to do a Procedure Turn ?

uhhh....

Ha!

...all the more reason to just report a 2 mile initial for an overhead. ;)

Fair enough. The original poster's link to the approach in question appears to be invalid, and I could never see it. If someone can tell me which approach is in question (or provide a good link to it).This should be it. I'm guessing the earlier link expired.

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1113/05484VGA.PDF

It really is a straightforward chart with a straightforward answer. It's funny. I hang out in a variety of aviation forums and from professional pilots to new instrument students, the ultra-simple concept that one must fly a charted PT unless the FAA in some way tells you not to (vectors to final, a NoPT route, clearance straight in, one of the other factors in the regs that preclude using one) seems to be a widespread cause for confusion. In some of them, there also a bit of Chart Reading 101 being a class that bears repeating.

Arrive at LFD on one of the airways west of V233 from the southwest and V233 from the north and there is no requirement for the PT. From anywhere else, unless cleared straight in, one must use the PT.

It's simple and it's uniform. However much merit there is to the statement "I really non't need the PT fromother locations," a rule that comes down to, "The PT is required when depicted on the instrument approach chart unless the PIC doesn't feel like it. If the PIC doesn't feel like it, he can do whatever he feels like, telling no one" is subject to the twin evils of lack of uniformity in a system that thrives on pilots doing what is expected and lack of communication of one's unanticipated intentions.

26 posts to figure out how to do a Procedure Turn ?

uhhh....Life with too many vetcors.

Life with too many vetcors.

apparently so. I understand the point of "healthy discussion" but sometimes we over-lawyer stuff. This isn't that hard. I mean, if I can do it, I know anybody can.

This isn't that hard folks.....