Procedure turn required?

[Yossarian]

I was using a Frasca 141 sim today with an instructor when this question
came up. Fullerton CA (KFUL) VOR-A approach. At WILMA on V64, flying the
full approach. Do you need to turn outbound at the VOR for the procedure
turn?

Instructor says no because a Victor airway leads to the IAF. I say yes
because even though that's true, "No PT" is not listed on that feeder
route.

[Jose]

> I was using a Frasca 141 sim today with an instructor when this question
> came up. Fullerton CA (KFUL) VOR-A approach. At WILMA on V64, flying the
> full approach. Do you need to turn outbound at the VOR for the procedure
> turn?
>
> Instructor says no because a Victor airway leads to the IAF. I say yes
> because even though that's true, "No PT" is not listed on that feeder
> route.

I agree with you (but am willing to learn if your instructor's right).
The purpose of going around the PT is to establish you on the inbound
course before passing the FAF. The Seal Beach VOR is the FAF even
though it's also an IAF. So, if you come to the FAF from some
cockamamie angle, you'll be hard put to be established before the FAF.
This is true whether there's an airway there or not (and whether or not
the airway goes to the FAF - it might just graze that 10NM circle going
North, for example).

The other purpose of the procedure turn is to allow you to descend in a
protected area if the enroute altitude is higher than the approach
altitude.

Granted that from WILMA you are already at the approach altitue, and the
angle isn't all that cockamamie, but that's (presumably) why they say
NoPT for certain IAFs. They don't want pilots and controllers
disagreeing on just how cockamamie the angle is.

I'd say that the approach designers figured that the angle at the FAF
coming from WILMA and going to the MAP was "too cockamamie" (it's 51
degrees) and put the PT in to give you a shot at getting established.
The angle from ALBAS is only 29 degrees, so is an easier turn to final.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Yossarian" > wrote in message
. 97.142...
> I was using a Frasca 141 sim today with an instructor when this question
> came up. Fullerton CA (KFUL) VOR-A approach. At WILMA on V64, flying the
> full approach. Do you need to turn outbound at the VOR for the procedure
> turn?
>
> Instructor says no because a Victor airway leads to the IAF. I say yes
> because even though that's true, "No PT" is not listed on that feeder
> route.

You'll need a true expert to answer the question with certainty. However...

I agree with your instructor. AFAIK, there is NEVER a requirement to make a
procedure turn. The "NoPT" exists to prohibit a procedure turn, not to tell
you when you are required to make one. Obviously, if you're going the wrong
way, you need a course reversal at some point. But that's a practical
requirement, not a regulatory one.

In the case of the approach from ALBAS, not only is there clearly no need
for a procedure turn, they've even gone so far as to put the IAF way out
there. While I'm not an expert in the TERPS, I suspect that there's
something in there that stipulates when "NoPT" is used; probably any arrival
30 degrees or less from the final approach course gets a "NoPT" (the arrival
from ALBAS just barely squeaks by). If the approach designer had been given
the latitude to put "NoPT" on any arrival where he thinks a procedure turn
is unnecessary, we'd probably see that on the arrival from WILMA too.

I would agree that in general, it would be nice to be established on the
final approach course at the FAF. But again, I'm not aware of any
requirement for this. Assuming you can cross the FAF at the FAF (which
should never be in question), and then immediately establish yourself on the
final approach course (which should be no problem in this case), I don't see
any problem.

As far as I can tell, the procedure turn on that approach is for pilots who
are coming at the VOR from the opposite direction. For example, someone who
flew the missed approach.

Of course, lacking the "NoPT", you are of course welcome to fly the whole
procedure turn. But you're looking at 45 seconds or so just to get
established outbound parallel to the final approach course, and that's not
counting the time spent flying back to it (and then, of course, the time for
the procedure turn itself). I'm betting not many people fly the procedure
turn coming in from WILMA.

I'm a little curious as to how this question is on r.a.piloting, but not on
r.a.ifr. I've cross-posted for your benefit (and quoted your entire post
for theirs). :)

Pete

[Yossarian]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

>
> I agree with your instructor. AFAIK, there is NEVER a requirement to
> make a procedure turn. The "NoPT" exists to prohibit a procedure
> turn, not to tell you when you are required to make one. Obviously,
> if you're going the wrong way, you need a course reversal at some
> point. But that's a practical requirement, not a regulatory one.
>

AIM 5-4-9 a. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a
required maneuver.

>
> Of course, lacking the "NoPT", you are of course welcome to fly the
> whole procedure turn. But you're looking at 45 seconds or so just to
> get established outbound parallel to the final approach course, and
> that's not counting the time spent flying back to it (and then, of
> course, the time for the procedure turn itself). I'm betting not many
> people fly the procedure turn coming in from WILMA.
>

true on that last sentence, but it's because you always get vectors.

[Peter Duniho]

"Yossarian" > wrote in message
7.142...
> AIM 5-4-9 a. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a
> required maneuver.

I'm going to have to equivocate on the phrase "is a required maneuver".
You'll note that the very first sentence reads (in part) "A procedure turn
is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course
reversal..."

The AIM is, of course, not regulatory. So if it claims that the procedure
turn is a required maneuver, it must be referring to some other regulation
somewhere. Of course, the AIM doesn't actually provide a cross-reference,
so we don't know what regulation they have in mind.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the "is a required
maneuver" phrase applies only when "it is necessary to perform a course
reversal". IMHO, any other interpretation is absurd. They are specifically
telling you the procedure turn exists for the sole purpose of reversing
course; why would it be required to fly the procedure turn when you don't
need to reverse course?

Executing a procedure turn in the example you give requires more
maneuvering, more time, and provides no real safety improvement (and in
fact, could lead to a pilot inadvertently leaving the protected airspace,
and/or flying below minimum safe altitudes for the approach and surrounding
area).

Now, all that said, I think I've already implied I'm not an expert in this
area. I certainly don't KNOW that I'm right. But I'm definitely not
convinced I'm wrong either.

>> [...] I'm betting not many
>> people fly the procedure turn coming in from WILMA.
>
> true on that last sentence, but it's because you always get vectors.

I will further bet that's not the ENTIRE reason.

Where's Wally when you need him? :)

Actually, he might not be as helpful (at least, to me) as I might have
thought. Here's an interesting article that supports your interpretation of
the rules:
http://cf.alpa.org/internet/alp/2000/jansafety.htm
However, IMHO it's an obviously absurd way to interpret the rules. It
doesn't address your example directly, since the inbound course is nearly
aligned with the final approach course. But it seems patently obvious to me
that flying the entire procedure turn in this case is just plain wrong; it
achieves nothing except to waste time and put the airplane farther away from
a proper approach course.

Roberts is, as the article shows, a firm believer that without radar vectors
and/or other criteria mentioned in the AIM, the procedure turn is mandatory.
The justification appears to be that no matter how closely aligned with the
final approach course you are, if you're not EXACTLY aligned with it, you
have to turn around and "try again".

My understanding is that, if ever there was an expert, Roberts is it. But
it's still unclear to me where his interpretation comes from. It also still
seems to fly in the face of sensibility.

Another well-respected aviation educator and writer, Gene Whitt, suggests
that it is the pilot's discretion to fly the procedure turn or not (though,
he also has no references). From his web page:
http://www.whittsflying.com/Page7.38IFRStill%20More%20Procedures.htm

If ATC does not specifically state that you will be given
radar vectors, you as PIC can decide if a procedure turn
is required.

Note that I am not suggesting that straight-in always implies no need to fly
the procedure turn. As Jose noted, there may also be an altitude issue.
I'm simply talking about the example you provided, in which the transition
altitude is already low enough to allow for entry over the FAF at a normal
approach inbound altitude, and where the maneuvering required in order to
complete the procedure turn is at least as complex (and thus potentially
dangerous) as that required to simply proceed inbound on the approach from
the transition route.

Pete

[[email protected]]

The AIM is not regulatory, but it is directive.

The regulatory source is the Part 97 document for any particular IAP. If there
is a course reversal initial approach segment and NoPT is not on a segment
leading to the course reversal segment then by inference the course reversal is
required.

In cases where alignment seems to make it unnecessary it may be an issue of
descent gradient. It other cases, it may be poor procedure design and pilots
have a duty to provide feedback to the FAA in such cases.

If you check through the minutes of previous FAA Aeronautical Charting Forums
you can find that the AIM language cited was done in a couple of steps to try to
make clear what is implied by the individual amendment to Part 97 for any
particular SIAP.

The reason the course reversal is required in the cited case at KFUL is because
going straight in from V-64 requires a course change entering the final approach
segment that well exceeds the maximum course change at the FAF of 30 degrees
permitted for VOR IAPs.

Like it or not that is the criteria. Keep in mind that TERPs is simplistic
criteria in the sense that it tries to make one size fit all in most aspects of
IAP construction.

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Yossarian" > wrote in message
> 7.142...
> > AIM 5-4-9 a. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a
> > required maneuver.
>
> I'm going to have to equivocate on the phrase "is a required maneuver".
> You'll note that the very first sentence reads (in part) "A procedure turn
> is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course
> reversal..."
>
> The AIM is, of course, not regulatory. So if it claims that the procedure
> turn is a required maneuver, it must be referring to some other regulation
> somewhere. Of course, the AIM doesn't actually provide a cross-reference,
> so we don't know what regulation they have in mind.
>
> I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the "is a required
> maneuver" phrase applies only when "it is necessary to perform a course
> reversal". IMHO, any other interpretation is absurd. They are specifically
> telling you the procedure turn exists for the sole purpose of reversing
> course; why would it be required to fly the procedure turn when you don't
> need to reverse course?
>
> Executing a procedure turn in the example you give requires more
> maneuvering, more time, and provides no real safety improvement (and in
> fact, could lead to a pilot inadvertently leaving the protected airspace,
> and/or flying below minimum safe altitudes for the approach and surrounding
> area).
>
> Now, all that said, I think I've already implied I'm not an expert in this
> area. I certainly don't KNOW that I'm right. But I'm definitely not
> convinced I'm wrong either.
>
> >> [...] I'm betting not many
> >> people fly the procedure turn coming in from WILMA.
> >
> > true on that last sentence, but it's because you always get vectors.
>
> I will further bet that's not the ENTIRE reason.
>
> Where's Wally when you need him? :)
>
> Actually, he might not be as helpful (at least, to me) as I might have
> thought. Here's an interesting article that supports your interpretation of
> the rules:
> http://cf.alpa.org/internet/alp/2000/jansafety.htm
> However, IMHO it's an obviously absurd way to interpret the rules. It
> doesn't address your example directly, since the inbound course is nearly
> aligned with the final approach course. But it seems patently obvious to me
> that flying the entire procedure turn in this case is just plain wrong; it
> achieves nothing except to waste time and put the airplane farther away from
> a proper approach course.
>
> Roberts is, as the article shows, a firm believer that without radar vectors
> and/or other criteria mentioned in the AIM, the procedure turn is mandatory.
> The justification appears to be that no matter how closely aligned with the
> final approach course you are, if you're not EXACTLY aligned with it, you
> have to turn around and "try again".
>
> My understanding is that, if ever there was an expert, Roberts is it. But
> it's still unclear to me where his interpretation comes from. It also still
> seems to fly in the face of sensibility.
>
> Another well-respected aviation educator and writer, Gene Whitt, suggests
> that it is the pilot's discretion to fly the procedure turn or not (though,
> he also has no references). From his web page:
> http://www.whittsflying.com/Page7.38IFRStill%20More%20Procedures.htm
>
> If ATC does not specifically state that you will be given
> radar vectors, you as PIC can decide if a procedure turn
> is required.
>
> Note that I am not suggesting that straight-in always implies no need to fly
> the procedure turn. As Jose noted, there may also be an altitude issue.
> I'm simply talking about the example you provided, in which the transition
> altitude is already low enough to allow for entry over the FAF at a normal
> approach inbound altitude, and where the maneuvering required in order to
> complete the procedure turn is at least as complex (and thus potentially
> dangerous) as that required to simply proceed inbound on the approach from
> the transition route.
>
> Pete

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 22:06:48 -0500, Yossarian >
wrote:

>I was using a Frasca 141 sim today with an instructor when this question
>came up. Fullerton CA (KFUL) VOR-A approach. At WILMA on V64, flying the
>full approach. Do you need to turn outbound at the VOR for the procedure
>turn?
>
>Instructor says no because a Victor airway leads to the IAF. I say yes
>because even though that's true, "No PT" is not listed on that feeder
>route.

You are correct. Your instructor is wrong.

In this particular instance, I believe the PT is needed (as well as being
required by regulation) because the turn required to proceed without a PT
along that route would exceed the allowable per TERPs.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Gary Drescher]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Yossarian" > wrote in message
> 7.142...
>> AIM 5-4-9 a. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a
>> required maneuver.
>
> I'm going to have to equivocate on the phrase "is a required maneuver".
> You'll note that the very first sentence reads (in part) "A procedure turn
> is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course
> reversal..."
> [...]
> I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the "is a required
> maneuver" phrase applies only when "it is necessary to perform a course
> reversal".

That's certainly a clever interpretation. :) But I think the two sentences
are more plausibly paraphrased "When we think it is necessary for you to
perform a course reversal..., we prescribe a procedure turn; when we
prescribe it, it's a required maneuver". If they'd intended it the other
way, they'd more appropriately have said "When it is necessary to perform a
course reversal.., a prescribed procedure turn is a required maneuver".

> IMHO, any other interpretation is absurd. They are specifically telling
> you the procedure turn exists for the sole purpose of reversing course;

They don't actually say that's the *sole* purpose; they say "when", not
"when and only when".

> why would it be required to fly the procedure turn when you don't need to
> reverse course?

They may have decided, for reasons unobvious to us (or perhaps for reasons
that are simply mistaken), that the turn is needed. In the vast majority of
cases where there is no evident need for a procedure turn, none is
prescribed.

> The AIM is, of course, not regulatory. So if it claims that the procedure
> turn is a required maneuver, it must be referring to some other regulation
> somewhere. Of course, the AIM doesn't actually provide a cross-reference,
> so we don't know what regulation they have in mind.


Presumably 97.10, which incorporates the SIAPs into the FARs. The AIM, in
turn, frequently elaborates aspects of the interpretation of the charts (or
their interaction with ATC clearances) that are otherwise unspecified.

--Gary

[Doug]

In general, here is what I do. If I am being vectored, there is almost
never a procedure turn. If the controller wants you to make a course
reversal, he vectors me around. So procedure turns are only for flying
the full approach without vectors. If I am not aligned within 30
degrees of the final approach course outside of the FAF, then I need to
do SOMETHING to get straightened out. If a procedure turn is allowed, I
do that, otherwise a hold. If I am aligned with the FAF, then there is
no sense in making a procudure turn or hold, so I go on in. It makes
sense, it is safe and it works. So that is what I do.

[Jose]

> I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the "is a required
> maneuver" phrase applies only when "it is necessary to perform a course
> reversal". IMHO, any other interpretation is absurd.

Well, required in the sense of geometry or what? If you have to turn
around, you have to turn around. And since the procedure turn =shape=
is not usually prescribed (except that it happens on one side of the
course) it's just a sexy u-turn.

> They are specifically
> telling you the procedure turn exists for the sole purpose of reversing
> course;

Not quite. As you quoted:

> "A procedure turn
> is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course
> reversal..."

It doesn't say "only when it is necessary", and the quote does not imply
it's the =sole= purpose of the PT.

> the maneuvering required in order to
> complete the procedure turn is at least as complex (and thus potentially
> dangerous) as that required to simply proceed inbound on the approach from
> the transition route.

The PT is actually more complex in this case, but it occurs at a higher
altitude (the same altitude really, but not commencing a descent) than
the maneuvering to proceed inbound. It's also further from the MAP (the
same distance really, but you will be flying away from the airport, not
towards it, so you are further away in time).

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gary Drescher]

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> In general, here is what I do. If I am being vectored, there is almost
> never a procedure turn.

Yup, AIM 5-4-9a explicitly exempts vectoring situations from the PT
requirement.

> If I am aligned with the FAF, then there is
> no sense in making a procudure turn or hold, so I go on in. It makes
> sense, it is safe and it works. So that is what I do.

That does sound sensible (if you're at the prescribed altitude, as well as
being aligned with the course); but I'm not sure if it's technically legal
to skip the PT if the chart has a PT, unless you're being vectored or
there's a NoPT designation for your IAF or feeder route.

--Gary

[Darrell S]

Yossarian wrote:
> I was using a Frasca 141 sim today with an instructor when this
> question came up. Fullerton CA (KFUL) VOR-A approach. At WILMA on
> V64, flying the full approach. Do you need to turn outbound at the
> VOR for the procedure turn?
>
> Instructor says no because a Victor airway leads to the IAF. I say
> yes because even though that's true, "No PT" is not listed on that
> feeder route.

If, after evaluating that the altitude/heading that your arrival ends up at
the IAF/FAF will not require a procedure turn for alignment or altitude
considerations, the best solution would be to advise ATC that you wish to
make a straight in approach rather than fly the published procedure turn.
If that is not practical you should advise ATC that you plan to make the
published procedure turn. Either decision should be passed on to ATC for
traffic separation and aircraft control. (it also has the benefit of helping
insure ATC won't file some procedural violation against you).

--

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

[Gary Drescher]

"Darrell S" > wrote in message
news:ytloe.568$qr.464@fed1read06...
> If, after evaluating that the altitude/heading that your arrival ends up
> at the IAF/FAF will not require a procedure turn for alignment or altitude
> considerations, the best solution would be to advise ATC that you wish to
> make a straight in approach rather than fly the published procedure turn.
> If that is not practical you should advise ATC that you plan to make the
> published procedure turn. Either decision should be passed on to ATC for
> traffic separation and aircraft control. (it also has the benefit of
> helping insure ATC won't file some procedural violation against you).

Not necessarily. According to the FARs and the AIM, the only way ATC can
exempt you from an otherwise required PT is if they vector you to final.
Otherwise, the regs apparently call for you to execute the PT; and (as
discussed in another thread here recently) you must comply with the regs
even if ATC gives you a clearance that is contrary to the regs.

--Gary

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message ...
> [...]
> The reason the course reversal is required in the cited case at KFUL is
> because
> going straight in from V-64 requires a course change entering the final
> approach
> segment that well exceeds the maximum course change at the FAF of 30
> degrees
> permitted for VOR IAPs.

A procedure turn requires a course change of over 130 degrees (including
getting back onto the outbound course). And then of 180 degrees. You can
fly the transition at the same altitude allowed for the procedure turn.

How is the procedure turn better?

> Like it or not that is the criteria. Keep in mind that TERPs is
> simplistic
> criteria in the sense that it tries to make one size fit all in most
> aspects of
> IAP construction.

Well, I can agree with that.

From a practical point of view, however...

It seems likely that when radar coverage is available, vectors will be
given. This allows no procedure turn to be flown. If radar coverage is not
available, how is anyone going to know if you've flown the procedure turn?

I would think that from an enforcement point of view, the cases where a
procedure turn is theoretically required, but where the pilot could ever be
cited for not flying one, are pretty far and few between. From a safety
point of view, not flying the procedure turn appears to be the superior
approach, at least in this case.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> Well, required in the sense of geometry or what?

Yes, in the sense of geometry.

> If you have to turn around, you have to turn around. And since the
> procedure turn =shape= is not usually prescribed (except that it happens
> on one side of the course) it's just a sexy u-turn.

The *inbound* turn is usually not prescribed. The outbound leg is required
to be flown along the depicted route. In the case of the example here, that
requires a greater than 130 degree right-hand turn from the transition
route.

You only get to make up your turn on the way back in.

If the procedure allowed one to simply fly a standard-rate right-hand turn
after crossing the VOR, to return to the inbound leg, I might not have as
big an issue with the idea that the procedure turn is required. That's
still more complex, but it's reasonably efficient, does result in one being
established on the inbound course earlier, and is much less likely to wind
up with the airplane outside protected airspace (because there's a lot less
maneuvering going on).

But it doesn't. It requires that one first turns outbound, gets established
on the outbound course, and only then reverses course (again) to come back
inbound.

> Not quite. As you quoted:
>
>> "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
>> perform a course reversal..."
>
> It doesn't say "only when it is necessary", and the quote does not imply
> it's the =sole= purpose of the PT.

It's the introductory sentence to the entire section on procedure turns. I
don't think it's a stretch *at all* (as opposed to some of my other
interpretations) to believe that they are describing *exactly* why a
procedure turn exists.

Pete

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 11:13:47 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>It seems likely that when radar coverage is available, vectors will be
>given. This allows no procedure turn to be flown. If radar coverage is not
>available, how is anyone going to know if you've flown the procedure turn?

Anyone who listens to the tapes, assuming radio coverage? At least
around here whenever I'm flying a full procedure ATC always requests
"report procedure turn inbound".

[Bob Gardner]

Since it's such a nice day, I'm going to quibble. Where is it written that
you have to track the inbound course when outbound? IOW (I sense that you
fly in the Northwest, specifically western Washington), if I am coming from
the west to shoot the ILS into Paine, and my outbound turn over RITTS takes
me east of the extended runway/localizer, I am perfectly justified in flying
parallel to the localizer if I want to....the protected airspace is plenty
wide. I have seen dozens of instrument students work themselves into a
frenzy trying to get established outbound on the inbound, if you catch my
drift (no-wind conditions <g>).

Bob Gardner

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Well, required in the sense of geometry or what?
>
> Yes, in the sense of geometry.
>
>> If you have to turn around, you have to turn around. And since the
>> procedure turn =shape= is not usually prescribed (except that it happens
>> on one side of the course) it's just a sexy u-turn.
>
> The *inbound* turn is usually not prescribed. The outbound leg is
> required to be flown along the depicted route. In the case of the example
> here, that requires a greater than 130 degree right-hand turn from the
> transition route.
>
> You only get to make up your turn on the way back in.
>
> If the procedure allowed one to simply fly a standard-rate right-hand turn
> after crossing the VOR, to return to the inbound leg, I might not have as
> big an issue with the idea that the procedure turn is required. That's
> still more complex, but it's reasonably efficient, does result in one
> being established on the inbound course earlier, and is much less likely
> to wind up with the airplane outside protected airspace (because there's a
> lot less maneuvering going on).
>
> But it doesn't. It requires that one first turns outbound, gets
> established on the outbound course, and only then reverses course (again)
> to come back inbound.
>
>> Not quite. As you quoted:
>>
>>> "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
>>> perform a course reversal..."
>>
>> It doesn't say "only when it is necessary", and the quote does not imply
>> it's the =sole= purpose of the PT.
>
> It's the introductory sentence to the entire section on procedure turns.
> I don't think it's a stretch *at all* (as opposed to some of my other
> interpretations) to believe that they are describing *exactly* why a
> procedure turn exists.
>
> Pete
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> Since it's such a nice day, I'm going to quibble. Where is it written that
> you have to track the inbound course when outbound?

IMHO, that's in the definition of "procedure turn" (97.3(p)). "The outbound
course, direction of turn, distance within which the turn must be completed,
and minimum altitude are specified in the procedure". Note that they say
"outbound course", not "outbound heading". To me, this means you are
required to fly exactly that course (inasmuch as you are required to fly the
procedure turn at all).

I don't disagree that there are situations in which it's perfectly safe to
parallel the outbound course. Your example at KPAE is a fine one.

But if someone believes that the regulations require the full procedure to
be flown even when no course reversal is actually necessary for the
approach, they darn well better believe that the regulations require flying
the outbound *course* as depicted, rather than just the outbound heading.
That seems much more explicitly stated than the presumed requirement to fly
the full procedure.

Pete

[Paul Lynch]

Lots of posters are spouting ideas, regs, AIM citations, etc. but have not
looked at the approach plate. So lets do that.

1st... What is your flight plan route? Wilma is NOT part of the approach.
It is a feeder for the airport.

2nd... If you filed to Wilma, then the airport and went lost communications
and were IFR you would have to fly to an IAF and then commence the approach.
ATC would expect you to fly to Seal Beach and fly the procedure turn.

3rd... If you are under ATC control, they would likley either vector you to
final or tell you to fly to Seal Beach and then intercept final and probably
tell you to to that at 1500 feet so you would be in the proper postion to
descend to MDA for the circle to land.



"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Yossarian" > wrote in message
> . 97.142...
>> I was using a Frasca 141 sim today with an instructor when this question
>> came up. Fullerton CA (KFUL) VOR-A approach. At WILMA on V64, flying
>> the
>> full approach. Do you need to turn outbound at the VOR for the procedure
>> turn?
>>
>> Instructor says no because a Victor airway leads to the IAF. I say yes
>> because even though that's true, "No PT" is not listed on that feeder
>> route.
>
> You'll need a true expert to answer the question with certainty.
> However...
>
> I agree with your instructor. AFAIK, there is NEVER a requirement to make
> a procedure turn. The "NoPT" exists to prohibit a procedure turn, not to
> tell you when you are required to make one. Obviously, if you're going
> the wrong way, you need a course reversal at some point. But that's a
> practical requirement, not a regulatory one.
>
> In the case of the approach from ALBAS, not only is there clearly no need
> for a procedure turn, they've even gone so far as to put the IAF way out
> there. While I'm not an expert in the TERPS, I suspect that there's
> something in there that stipulates when "NoPT" is used; probably any
> arrival 30 degrees or less from the final approach course gets a "NoPT"
> (the arrival from ALBAS just barely squeaks by). If the approach designer
> had been given the latitude to put "NoPT" on any arrival where he thinks a
> procedure turn is unnecessary, we'd probably see that on the arrival from
> WILMA too.
>
> I would agree that in general, it would be nice to be established on the
> final approach course at the FAF. But again, I'm not aware of any
> requirement for this. Assuming you can cross the FAF at the FAF (which
> should never be in question), and then immediately establish yourself on
> the final approach course (which should be no problem in this case), I
> don't see any problem.
>
> As far as I can tell, the procedure turn on that approach is for pilots
> who are coming at the VOR from the opposite direction. For example,
> someone who flew the missed approach.
>
> Of course, lacking the "NoPT", you are of course welcome to fly the whole
> procedure turn. But you're looking at 45 seconds or so just to get
> established outbound parallel to the final approach course, and that's not
> counting the time spent flying back to it (and then, of course, the time
> for the procedure turn itself). I'm betting not many people fly the
> procedure turn coming in from WILMA.
>
> I'm a little curious as to how this question is on r.a.piloting, but not
> on r.a.ifr. I've cross-posted for your benefit (and quoted your entire
> post for theirs). :)
>
> Pete
>

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 22:50:57 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

> To me, this means you are
>required to fly exactly that course

Yes, but "course" only refers to "The intended *direction* of flight in the
horizontal plane measured in degrees from north." It does not refer to a
particular ground track.

On the other hand, there are "Some procedure turns are specified by
procedural track. These turns must be flown exactly as depicted."


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[[email protected]]

Paul Lynch wrote:

> Lots of posters are spouting ideas, regs, AIM citations, etc. but have not
> looked at the approach plate. So lets do that.

Gee, I did that when I identified that segment as a feeder route.

>
>
> 1st... What is your flight plan route? Wilma is NOT part of the approach.
> It is a feeder for the airport.

A feeder route is part of an IAP, and issued under Part 97 along with the other
segments of the IAP.

>
>
> 2nd... If you filed to Wilma, then the airport and went lost communications
> and were IFR you would have to fly to an IAF and then commence the approach.
> ATC would expect you to fly to Seal Beach and fly the procedure turn.

True enough.

>
>
> 3rd... If you are under ATC control, they would likley either vector you to
> final or tell you to fly to Seal Beach and then intercept final and probably
> tell you to to that at 1500 feet so you would be in the proper postion to
> descend to MDA for the circle to land.
>

They can certainly vector you to "final" in accordance with the ATC Handbook
7110.65, Paragraph 5-9-1. That also requires that they have you at an altitude
compatable with the procedure, outside the FAF unless you accept a turn on at
the FAF, and at a vector angle not to exceed 30 degrees (20 degrees closer to
the FAF).

ATC cannot simply "tell you to fly to Seal Beach and then intercept final and
probably tell you to do that at 1,500 feet...." Where do you come up with this
procedure?

[Paul Lynch]

Sounds like you are a controller or approach designer! Your comments have always been germane and on point, unlike many others. So maybe you can set me straight...

Wilma may be a feeder, but it is not an Intial Approach Point (IAP). That means if you filed to Wilma as the final point on your route, your next point is your destination. Thinking in terms of lost communication, which is a driver for many procedural practices... If you went from Wilma to one of the 2 initials (SLI or ALBAS) you have some predictability. If you go from Wilma to some place on the approach because you believe you can hack the intercept (which some proposed), you have less predictability. If you were shooting an approach at some airports that have several more feeders, then what is ATC supposed to do? Clear the airspace for a 25 NM radius?

Although I have never flown the approaches at FUL, I have been vectored with the instructions similar to what I mentioned at several places in the easter half of the country. WRT to the VOR-A at FUL, when arriving at WILMA, I would not be surprised to hear "descend to 2600 feet, turn to 090 and intercept the SLI 200 radial inbound, you are cleared for the VOR-A approach." 1500 feet came from the ALBAS IAP. I didn't see the asterisk before. My screwup.

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Paul Lynch wrote:
>
>> Lots of posters are spouting ideas, regs, AIM citations, etc. but have not
>> looked at the approach plate. So lets do that.
>
> Gee, I did that when I identified that segment as a feeder route.
>
>>
>>
>> 1st... What is your flight plan route? Wilma is NOT part of the approach.
>> It is a feeder for the airport.
>
> A feeder route is part of an IAP, and issued under Part 97 along with the other
> segments of the IAP.
>
>>
>>
>> 2nd... If you filed to Wilma, then the airport and went lost communications
>> and were IFR you would have to fly to an IAF and then commence the approach.
>> ATC would expect you to fly to Seal Beach and fly the procedure turn.
>
> True enough.
>
>>
>>
>> 3rd... If you are under ATC control, they would likley either vector you to
>> final or tell you to fly to Seal Beach and then intercept final and probably
>> tell you to to that at 1500 feet so you would be in the proper postion to
>> descend to MDA for the circle to land.
>>
>
> They can certainly vector you to "final" in accordance with the ATC Handbook
> 7110.65, Paragraph 5-9-1. That also requires that they have you at an altitude
> compatable with the procedure, outside the FAF unless you accept a turn on at
> the FAF, and at a vector angle not to exceed 30 degrees (20 degrees closer to
> the FAF).
>
> ATC cannot simply "tell you to fly to Seal Beach and then intercept final and
> probably tell you to do that at 1,500 feet...." Where do you come up with this
> procedure?
>

[Bob Gardner]

Gotta wonder why the protected airspace on the non-PT side is 1.4 miles wide
all the way out to the maximum distance. If flying on the black line is a
regulatory requirement, why not just protect the turn area alone?

Bob Gardner


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Since it's such a nice day, I'm going to quibble. Where is it written
>> that you have to track the inbound course when outbound?
>
> IMHO, that's in the definition of "procedure turn" (97.3(p)). "The
> outbound course, direction of turn, distance within which the turn must be
> completed, and minimum altitude are specified in the procedure". Note
> that they say "outbound course", not "outbound heading". To me, this
> means you are required to fly exactly that course (inasmuch as you are
> required to fly the procedure turn at all).
>
> I don't disagree that there are situations in which it's perfectly safe to
> parallel the outbound course. Your example at KPAE is a fine one.
>
> But if someone believes that the regulations require the full procedure to
> be flown even when no course reversal is actually necessary for the
> approach, they darn well better believe that the regulations require
> flying the outbound *course* as depicted, rather than just the outbound
> heading. That seems much more explicitly stated than the presumed
> requirement to fly the full procedure.
>
> Pete
>

[[email protected]]

Tough to reply because you message is in a text box this time for some
reason.

Filing to WILMA would not be appropriate because, although it's a feeder
fix for this approach, it is short of destination. If you were coming
from the north it would be typical to file the prefered airway to SLI
then direct. You don't have the option to proceed to ALBAS unless it's
on your clearance route.

As to the heading you suggest of 090 at 2600 that would not be a vector
permitted by 7110.65, 5-9-1.

Paul Lynch wrote:

> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> Encoding: quoted-printable

[[email protected]]

Bob Gardner wrote:

> Gotta wonder why the protected airspace on the non-PT side is 1.4 miles wide
> all the way out to the maximum distance. If flying on the black line is a
> regulatory requirement, why not just protect the turn area alone?
>

Where did you get that number?

[Peter Clark]

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 10:53:40 -0700, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote:

>Gotta wonder why the protected airspace on the non-PT side is 1.4 miles wide
>all the way out to the maximum distance. If flying on the black line is a
>regulatory requirement, why not just protect the turn area alone?

Maybe to take into account and give some protection for VOR, onboard
equipment, and operator error? At the far end of the maximum 10NM
circle for a standard procedure turn distance, if the VOR itself was
drifted say 4 degrees and then your aircraft was off 4 degrees and
then you didn't have the exact number dialed in and so were off 1
degree to begin with... So say there is a combined error of 9 degrees
off, you're already 1.1NM off the 'desired' track at about 7nm, right,
but still would have a centered needle. Even with a perfect needle
(say glass cockpit for the VOR OBS setting and autopilot handling
accuracy) the VOR approach to 6B6 puts you at/over (I forget the exact
number right now) around 1NM to the right of the airport at the MAP.
It was quite interesting doing it under the hood, having the needle
centered the whole time, and then playing 'find the airport' when I
pulled up the hood.

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Gardner wrote:
> Gotta wonder why the protected airspace on the non-PT side is 1.4 miles wide
> all the way out to the maximum distance. If flying on the black line is a
> regulatory requirement, why not just protect the turn area alone?

Probably because neither pilots, their nav radios more the ground VOR
stations are that accurate. :-)


Matt

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, but "course" only refers to "The intended *direction* of flight in
> the
> horizontal plane measured in degrees from north." It does not refer to a
> particular ground track.

Where does it say that?

> On the other hand, there are "Some procedure turns are specified by
> procedural track. These turns must be flown exactly as depicted."

As far as I know, that's to distinguish from those procedure turns that
require a particular kind of turn, versus those that simply require the
pilot to remain on the "protected" side of the turn. It has nothing at all
to do with whether one is supposed to fly the depicted outbound course.

Pete

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 16:47:49 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>> Yes, but "course" only refers to "The intended *direction* of flight in
>> the
>> horizontal plane measured in degrees from north." It does not refer to a
>> particular ground track.
>
>Where does it say that?

Pilot/Controller Glossary under the C's for Course


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> Pilot/Controller Glossary under the C's for Course

I'm not aware of any reason that glossary is legally applied to words found
in FAR 97.3. The glossary exists to describe communications between pilots
and controllers, nothing more.

Pete

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 16:47:49 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>As far as I know, that's to distinguish from those procedure turns that
>require a particular kind of turn, versus those that simply require the
>pilot to remain on the "protected" side of the turn. It has nothing at all
>to do with whether one is supposed to fly the depicted outbound course.

I don't know where you find a requirement that one must fly for any
distance at all outbound along the "depicted outbound course" in executing
a procedure turn that does not have a required track.

You cite 97.3 but that paragraph also states that "the point at which the
turn may be commenced, and the type and rate of turn, is left to the
discretion of the pilot". Some of the types of turns that would not
require flying along the charted outbound track include teardrop, racetrack
and 80-260. Even the 45° turn would not require flying along the "depicted
outbound course" if the pilot elected to start that turn immediately.

At the approach under discussion (KFUL VOR-A via the WILMA transition), I
would probably elect to fly a racetrack turn after Seal Beach and,
depending on the winds, I might never even be parallel to the charted
inbound course of 020 until I turned inbound. All perfectly legal
according to both 97.3 and the AIM.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> I don't know where you find a requirement that one must fly for any
> distance at all outbound along the "depicted outbound course" in executing
> a procedure turn that does not have a required track.

Asked and answered.

> You cite 97.3 but that paragraph also states that "the point at which the
> turn may be commenced, and the type and rate of turn, is left to the
> discretion of the pilot".

Unless by "turn" they are referring to the final course reversal, that
sentence IMHO basically makes this entire thread moot. That is, it answers
the question, and leaves the entire procedure up to the discretion of the
pilot.

Now, that's a fine interpretation by me. :) But I take it as granted that
those arguing that the entire procedure is required to be flown (absent the
explicitly stated exceptions, of course) feel that the sentence you quote is
referring only to the final course reversal, not the entire procedure turn.

> Some of the types of turns that would not
> require flying along the charted outbound track include teardrop,
> racetrack
> and 80-260. Even the 45° turn would not require flying along the
> "depicted
> outbound course" if the pilot elected to start that turn immediately.

All of your examples are ways to complete the course reversal *after flying
the outbound leg*. That is, if those are all valid methods for executing
the entire procedure turn itself, then surely so too is simply turning onto
the final approach course. So, either you are simply supporting my point,
or your examples are in no way a counter-example to what I've written.

> At the approach under discussion (KFUL VOR-A via the WILMA transition), I
> would probably elect to fly a racetrack turn after Seal Beach and,
> depending on the winds, I might never even be parallel to the charted
> inbound course of 020 until I turned inbound. All perfectly legal
> according to both 97.3 and the AIM.

If you have the discretion to choose your outbound track, why bother flying
outbound at all?

Pete

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 21:54:12 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>If you have the discretion to choose your outbound track, why bother flying
>outbound at all?


You are skipping over the part of the regulation which states that the
"point at which the turn may be commenced" is up to the pilot. There is no
MINIMUM length of an outbound leg. There is only a maximum length. You
can begin your turn (or course reversal if you will), immediately.

But if you do not see that, then further discussion here is pointless.

There is certainly nothing wrong with returning to the outbound course
after Seal Beach, flying outbound for some length that you determine you
want to; and then executing a 45° turn on the charted side, so long as you
remain within the mileage limit. But it is not the only valid, legal
method of executing the procedure.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Bob Gardner wrote:
> > Gotta wonder why the protected airspace on the non-PT side is 1.4 miles wide
> > all the way out to the maximum distance. If flying on the black line is a
> > regulatory requirement, why not just protect the turn area alone?
>
> Probably because neither pilots, their nav radios more the ground VOR
> stations are that accurate. :-)
>
> Matt

Especially at a VOR intersection.

[[email protected]]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Pilot/Controller Glossary under the C's for Course
>
> I'm not aware of any reason that glossary is legally applied to words found
> in FAR 97.3. The glossary exists to describe communications between pilots
> and controllers, nothing more.
>
> Pete

Then again, an IAP is issued under a subset of 97.20 on a form 8260-3 or -5,
and on that form (which is regulatory as to courses, altitudes, and distances,
as it says at the top of the form) specifies the outbound course for the
procedure turn. Line 1 of the form. If, instead, the course reversal is a
holding pattern, then Line 2 specifies the inbound course of the holding
pattern.

Would you deem the inbound course for the holding pattern to be regulatory? I
would.

So, following that reasoning, where the outbound course for a standard
procedure turn is set forth on Line 1 of the 8260-3 or -5, it seems that it
would be regulatory.

Because the procedure turn is treated with sufficient detail under 97.2X (the
8260 form) there is no need for a definition under 97.3

[Doug]

It makes no sense to me whatsoever, to do a course reversal or a
procedure turn if one is already inbound and aligned with Final
Approach Course. Just why are pilots supposed to go around in a hold or
execute a procedure turn under these circumstances? Flying good
approaches in IMC means MINIMIZING manuevering and MINIMIZING the time
spent in the clouds. Also it could disorient the pilot and make the
passengers sick. I don't believe any controller, who has turned an
airplane loose doing the full approach with no radar, would COUNT on an
aircraft doing or not doing a once around hold or procedure turn,
timing wise regarding seperation. Usually these non-radar approaches
are one in at a time, and no one gets to go in next until the previous
cancels.

You can read all the FARS and AIMS and TERPS in the world, but unless
you can give me a direct quote that CLEARLY states that a pilot MUST do
this, I don't think there is any reason to do so. Even then, I would
argue that for the SAFTETY of the flight, a pilot could deviate from
such a requirement, just as a pilot can deviate from other requirements
if the safety of the flight demands it.

I don't want to be cynical, but somehow I tend to think this whole
thing has been cooked up by some instructors with too much time on
their hands. Instructors seem to think that a good approach means the
MAXIMUM manuevering allowed by the approach. Fine for practice, but not
for real IMC. Straight as possible is the way to go.

I know I'm probably guilty of applying common sense to this problem,
but I insist on doing that now and then. Think about it.

[Peter Clark]

On 6 Jun 2005 08:48:06 -0700, "Doug" >
wrote:

>You can read all the FARS and AIMS and TERPS in the world, but unless
>you can give me a direct quote that CLEARLY states that a pilot MUST do
>this, I don't think there is any reason to do so.

AIM 5-4-7(e)?

"e. Except when being radar vectored to the final approach course,
when cleared for a specifically prescribed IAP; i.e., "cleared ILS
runway one niner approach" or when "cleared approach" i.e., execution
of any procedure prescribed for the airport, pilots shall execute the
entire procedure commencing at an IAF or an associated feeder route as
described on the IAP chart unless an appropriate new or revised ATC
clearance is received, or the IFR flight plan is canceled."

AIM 5-4-9(a)?

"A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in
lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver. The procedure turn is
not required when the symbol "No PT" is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to
the final approach course is provided, when conducting a timed
approach, or when the procedure turn is not authorized."

Seems to be relatively clear that if the entire procedure includes a
PT, unless you're being radar vectored or on a labeled NoPT segment,
you are required to fly it.

[Gary Drescher]

"Doug" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> It makes no sense to me whatsoever, to do a course reversal or a
> procedure turn if one is already inbound and aligned with Final
> Approach Course.

As I said earlier, I agree that skipping the PT is the sensible thing to do
in that case. I just question whether it's technically legal. Such a PT may
well have been prescribed in error, but an erroneous requirement is still a
requirement.

> You can read all the FARS and AIMS and TERPS in the world, but unless
> you can give me a direct quote that CLEARLY states that a pilot MUST do
> this, I don't think there is any reason to do so.

AIM 5-4-9a: "The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a
required maneuver." It doesn't get much clearer than that. Section 5-4-9
enumerates some exceptions to the requirement, but already being aligned is
not one of them.

> Even then, I would
> argue that for the SAFTETY of the flight, a pilot could deviate from
> such a requirement, just as a pilot can deviate from other requirements
> if the safety of the flight demands it.

No, a pilot only has authority (under FAR 91.3b) to deviate from the
regulations when an *in-flight emergency* demands such a deviation. A
gratuitous PT is not (under ordinary circumstances) so unsafe as to
constitute an emergency. If ATC explicitly told you to hold there, you
wouldn't respond by declaring an emergency, would you?

> I know I'm probably guilty of applying common sense to this problem,
> but I insist on doing that now and then. Think about it.

Uh, ok.

--Gary

[Lakeview Bill]

I have to take issue with your statement:

"Seems to be relatively clear that if the entire procedure includes a PT,
unless you're being radar vectored or on a labeled NoPT segment, you are
required to fly it."

But take another look at what the AIM actually says:

"A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
perform a course reversal..."

As I read this, it is saying:

If a course reversal IS required, it must be done via a procedure turn.

If a course reversal IS NOT required, a procedure turn IS NOT required.

..It appears that the intention is to specify the METHOD THAT MUST BE USED if
a course reversal is required, not to require a procedure turn under all
circumstances...




"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On 6 Jun 2005 08:48:06 -0700, "Doug" >
> wrote:
>
> >You can read all the FARS and AIMS and TERPS in the world, but unless
> >you can give me a direct quote that CLEARLY states that a pilot MUST do
> >this, I don't think there is any reason to do so.
>
> AIM 5-4-7(e)?
>
> "e. Except when being radar vectored to the final approach course,
> when cleared for a specifically prescribed IAP; i.e., "cleared ILS
> runway one niner approach" or when "cleared approach" i.e., execution
> of any procedure prescribed for the airport, pilots shall execute the
> entire procedure commencing at an IAF or an associated feeder route as
> described on the IAP chart unless an appropriate new or revised ATC
> clearance is received, or the IFR flight plan is canceled."
>
> AIM 5-4-9(a)?
>
> "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
> perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
> intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in
> lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver. The procedure turn is
> not required when the symbol "No PT" is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to
> the final approach course is provided, when conducting a timed
> approach, or when the procedure turn is not authorized."
>
> Seems to be relatively clear that if the entire procedure includes a
> PT, unless you're being radar vectored or on a labeled NoPT segment,
> you are required to fly it.
>

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message ...
> [...]
> So, following that reasoning, where the outbound course for a standard
> procedure turn is set forth on Line 1 of the 8260-3 or -5, it seems that
> it
> would be regulatory.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. You seem to be reinforcing
my point.

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> You are skipping over the part of the regulation which states that the
> "point at which the turn may be commenced" is up to the pilot.

No, I'm not skipping that at all. I'm simply pointing out that if the pilot
is permitted to degenerate the entire thing down to just the reversal
itself, how is it that logic doesn't also show that the pilot can degenerate
the entire thing down to the final turn to the final approach course?

After all, ALL of the elements of the "reversal" are at the pilot's
discretion. A 90 degree left turn is "the same" as a 270 degree right turn.
If a 270 degree right turn is allowed, then a 90 degree left turn is too.

> There is no MINIMUM length of an outbound leg.

And no specific direction of the turn.

> There is only a maximum length.

Depending on where you start the turn, correct.

> You can begin your turn (or course reversal if you will), immediately.

And the type of turn is entirely at the pilot's discretion. So rather than
flying a 270 degree right turn, the pilot can choose a 90 degree left turn.

> But if you do not see that, then further discussion here is pointless.

Ahh, yes...the old "terminate the thread with an ad hominem" tactic.

> There is certainly nothing wrong with returning to the outbound course
> after Seal Beach, flying outbound for some length that you determine you
> want to; and then executing a 45° turn on the charted side, so long as you
> remain within the mileage limit. But it is not the only valid, legal
> method of executing the procedure.

I never said it was.

Pete

[Gary Drescher]

"Lakeview Bill" > wrote in message
. ..
>I have to take issue with your statement:
>
> "Seems to be relatively clear that if the entire procedure includes a PT,
> unless you're being radar vectored or on a labeled NoPT segment, you are
> required to fly it."
>
> But take another look at what the AIM actually says:
>
> "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
> perform a course reversal..."
>
> As I read this, it is saying:
>
> If a course reversal IS required, it must be done via a procedure turn.
>
> If a course reversal IS NOT required, a procedure turn IS NOT required.
>
> .It appears that the intention is to specify the METHOD THAT MUST BE USED
> if
> a course reversal is required, not to require a procedure turn under all
> circumstances...

You're right to want to look at the requirement in the context of the
preceding sentence (Pete made that point too earlier in the thread). But
let's look at the succeeding sentence as well. Here are all three:

AIM 5-4-9a: "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is
necessary to perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on
an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in lieu
of procedure turn is a required maneuver. The procedure turn is not required
when the symbol 'No PT' is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to the final approach
course is provided, when conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure
turn is not authorized."

When the third sentence lists conditions under which the PT is "not
required", it obviously means that you are not required to perform the
course reversal at all; it does *not* mean that you may perform the course
reversal, but need not use the PT method. And the requirement spoken of in
the third sentence is clearly the same one as the requirement spoken of in
the second sentence; that is, the second sentence asserts the requirement,
and the third sentence gives exceptions to the requirement. Therefore, the
second sentence, like the third sentence, is referring to a requirement to
perform a course reversal (and to do so via a PT), rather than just
referring to a requirement to execute a PT *if* you reverse course. (And
therefore the first sentence is just explaining a rationale for prescribing
a procedure turn, without yet addressing the mandatory nature of the
prescription, which is not asserted until the second sentence.)

--Gary

[Kris Kortokrax]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> I agree with your instructor. AFAIK, there is NEVER a requirement to make
> a procedure turn.

Legal Counsel has issued an opinion, see below.

Kris


Nov. 28, 1994
Mr. Tom Young, Chairman
Charting and Instrument Procedures Committee
Air Line Pilots Association
535 Herndon Parkway
Herndon, VA 22070

Dear Mr. Young

This is a clarification of our response to your letter of August 23,
1993. In that letter you requested an interpretation of Section 91.175 of
the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) (14 CFR Section 91.175). You address
the necessity of executing a complete Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP) in a non-radar environment while operating under Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR). Our response assumes that each of the specific scenarios you
pose speaks to a flight conducted under IFR in a non-radar environment.
Section 91.175(a) provides that unless otherwise authorized by the
Administrator, when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary,
each person operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United
States, shall use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed for
the airport in Part 97.
First you ask whether an arriving aircraft must begin the SIAP at a
published Initial Approach Fix (IAF). A pilot must begin a SIAP at the IAF
as defined in Part 97. Descent gradients, communication, and obstruction
clearance, as set forth in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument
Approach Procedures (TERPs), cannot be assured if the entire procedure is
not flown.
You also ask whether a Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) arc initial
approach segment can be substituted for a published IAF along any portion of
the published arc. A DME arc cannot be substituted for a published IAF along
a portion of the published arc. If a feeder route to an IAF is part of the
published approach procedure, it is considered a mandatory part of the
approach.
Finally, you ask whether a course reversal segment is optional "when one
of the conditions of FAR section 91.175(j) is not present." Section
91.175(j) states that in the case of a radar vector to a final approach
course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach for which
the procedures specifies "no procedure turn," no pilot may make a procedure
turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.
Section 97.3(p) defines a procedure turn, in part, as a maneuver
prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the
aircraft on a intermediate or final approach course. A SIAP may or may not
prescribe a procedure turn based on the application of certain criteria
contained in the TERPs. However, if a SIAP does contain a procedure turn and
ATC has cleared a pilot to execute the SIAP, the pilot must make the
procedure turn when one of the conditions of Section 91.175(j) is not
present.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Patricia
R. Lane, Manager, Airspace and Air Traffic Law Branch, at (202) 267-3491.

Sincerely,

/s/
Patricia R. Lane
for Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations Division

[John Clonts]

>> You are skipping over the part of the regulation which states that the
>> "point at which the turn may be commenced" is up to the pilot.
>
>
>No, I'm not skipping that at all. I'm simply pointing out that if the pilot
>is permitted to degenerate the entire thing down to just the reversal
>itself, how is it that logic doesn't also show that the pilot can degenerate
>the entire thing down to the final turn to the final approach course?
>
>After all, ALL of the elements of the "reversal" are at the pilot's
>discretion. A 90 degree left turn is "the same" as a 270 degree right turn.
>If a 270 degree right turn is allowed, then a 90 degree left turn is too.
>


The difference between the 90 degree left turn and all of the
variations of the procedure turn (even with a zero-length outbound leg)
is that all those variations have you *established* on the final
approach course *prior* to reaching the FAF. In this sense the 90
degree left turn is not equal to the 270 right turn.

To me this seems the conceptual basis for the fact that the regs
require the procedure turn when it often doesn't "seem" that it should
be necessary.

Now if you happen to be coming from a direction where you *are* already
aligned on the final approach course and at the proper altitude prior
to reaching the FAF, I would agree that it doesn't make sense to do the
PT (though it may still be technically required by the regs). The
basis *I* use for skipping the turn in this case is: 1) I am flying a
hold-in-lieu-of-procedure turn, plus 2) I am established in the hold by
virtue of being established (+/- 10 degrees) on the inbound course
prior to reaching the holding point (the FAF). Ok, its a stretch, but
that's how I look at it!


Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:53:15 GMT, "Lakeview Bill"
> wrote:

>I have to take issue with your statement:

Fair enough, I'm willing to learn - education is always ongoing.

>But take another look at what the AIM actually says:
>
>"A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
>perform a course reversal..."
>
>As I read this, it is saying:
>
>If a course reversal IS required, it must be done via a procedure turn.
>
>If a course reversal IS NOT required, a procedure turn IS NOT required.
>
>.It appears that the intention is to specify the METHOD THAT MUST BE USED if
>a course reversal is required, not to require a procedure turn under all
>circumstances...

But they specifically enumerate the conditions when procedure turns
are not required, the list being vectors to final, NoPT segment, timed
approaches, or when not authorized.

So, "pilots shall execute the entire procedure commencing at an IAF".
If the entire procedure, which therefore only starts when crossing the
IAF, requires a procedure turn because you're not covered under the
exceptions, it seems that by not executing a procedure turn (in the
case of a straight-in crossing a racetrack to the barb side would
suffice), you're not in fact flying the entire procedure as required,
you're flying it as if you got vectors to final just because you were
generally lined up on the inbound course while crossing the collocated
IAF/FAF and have elected not to fly the intermediate segment of the
approach, going right to just flying the FAF->MAP segment, right?

[Lakeview Bill]

And now I have to take issue with myself...

This has nothing to do with nothing, but just for grins, I cranked up the
Garmin trainer and flew the KPWK (Chicago/Palwaukee) ILS 16 approach from
several different directions.

Coming from the south, the Garmin, as expected, flew the teardrop procedure
turn.

Coming from the north, flying the 160 radial toward the OBK VOR (the IAF),
when the Garmin reached the VOR, it reversed course and flew 340 outbound,
flew the teardrop procedure turn, and flew back toward OBK.

So, it would appear that, at least as far as Garmin is concerned, that the
procedure turn must be flown no matter what.

Live and learn...


"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:53:15 GMT, "Lakeview Bill"
> > wrote:
>
> >I have to take issue with your statement:
>
> Fair enough, I'm willing to learn - education is always ongoing.
>
> >But take another look at what the AIM actually says:
> >
> >"A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
> >perform a course reversal..."
> >
> >As I read this, it is saying:
> >
> >If a course reversal IS required, it must be done via a procedure turn.
> >
> >If a course reversal IS NOT required, a procedure turn IS NOT required.
> >
> >.It appears that the intention is to specify the METHOD THAT MUST BE USED
if
> >a course reversal is required, not to require a procedure turn under all
> >circumstances...
>
> But they specifically enumerate the conditions when procedure turns
> are not required, the list being vectors to final, NoPT segment, timed
> approaches, or when not authorized.
>
> So, "pilots shall execute the entire procedure commencing at an IAF".
> If the entire procedure, which therefore only starts when crossing the
> IAF, requires a procedure turn because you're not covered under the
> exceptions, it seems that by not executing a procedure turn (in the
> case of a straight-in crossing a racetrack to the barb side would
> suffice), you're not in fact flying the entire procedure as required,
> you're flying it as if you got vectors to final just because you were
> generally lined up on the inbound course while crossing the collocated
> IAF/FAF and have elected not to fly the intermediate segment of the
> approach, going right to just flying the FAF->MAP segment, right?
>

[[email protected]]

Lakeview Bill wrote:

> And now I have to take issue with myself...
>
> This has nothing to do with nothing, but just for grins, I cranked up the
> Garmin trainer and flew the KPWK (Chicago/Palwaukee) ILS 16 approach from
> several different directions.
>
> Coming from the south, the Garmin, as expected, flew the teardrop procedure
> turn.
>
> Coming from the north, flying the 160 radial toward the OBK VOR (the IAF),
> when the Garmin reached the VOR, it reversed course and flew 340 outbound,
> flew the teardrop procedure turn, and flew back toward OBK.
>
> So, it would appear that, at least as far as Garmin is concerned, that the
> procedure turn must be flown no matter what.
>
> Live and learn...

As someone who was involved in a previous life with the FAA's groping with
course reversal issues, and now a user of Garmin's fine panel mount products, my
hat is off to Garmin's implementations with a lot of this RNAV stuff...far
beyond when a course reversal is required.

[Doug]

I'd like to know what some of the freight dogs do. They fly into
smaller airports without radar coverage, so they are flying full
approaches. Dollars to doughnuts they aren't going to be wasting any
time going around in useless circles.

The rules have to make sense. Pattern entries, intercepting tracks,
entering holds all call for the smoothest, least amount of manuevering
that works. There HAS to be a rhyme and reason in the regs, and, in
spite of all the moaning and groaning, there usually is. When there
isn't you get a rule that isn't being followed. Sometime later that
rule is changed to adopt the sensible procedures. I don't even think
the regs require useless procedure turns and holds when you are already
on course. But some of you seem to be fixated on it for some inane
reason (instructor superiority/student confusion complex?).

It is a required manuever for a COURSE REVERSAL. It's not a required
manuever if you are already on course.

Ditch the rhetoric and useless redundancy. Fly the plane like it's
supposed to be flown, safely and efficiently. Don't make up your own
procedures, follow the charted approach. But use some common sense. If
YOUR instructor told you it was necessary, don't just blindly pass that
misinformation along to the next generation of pilots. Get rid of the
obsolete and useless, latch onto the efficient and reasonable. Fly the
airplane, not the regs.

[John Clonts]

I agree completely with the sense of your post. In your own flying,
for this purpose how do you define "on course"? +/- 10 degrees? 30?
45? 90?
--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Chris]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>I agree completely with the sense of your post. In your own flying,
> for this purpose how do you define "on course"? +/- 10 degrees? 30?
> 45? 90?

Don't forget altitude too!

[Gary Drescher]

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I don't even think
> the regs require useless procedure turns and holds when you are already
> on course. But some of you seem to be fixated on it for some inane
> reason (instructor superiority/student confusion complex?).

Several of us have cited the regs (or AIM directives) that do require a PT
even when on course, and have defended our interpretation. You reiterate
your disagreement, but you make no effort to say which part of our analysis
is supposedly flawed. Instead, you just keep repeating what we already agree
on (namely, that a PT makes no sense in the situation in question). And you
defend your position in part by a dangerous misinterpretation of FAR 91.3b
(you said you think it exempts you from the rules whenever you believe your
alternative to the rules is safer; in reality, it exempts you from the rules
only during an *in-flight emergency*).

> If
> YOUR instructor told you it was necessary, don't just blindly pass that
> misinformation along to the next generation of pilots.

No one here cited their instructor's authority in defense of their
interpretation of the regs; you're just making that up. We cited the FAA's
actual regs and directives, and gave detailed analyses of them. You're
choosing to ignore what we actually said, pretending instead that we said
something that would be easier for you to rebut.

--Gary

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 10:40:11 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>> You are skipping over the part of the regulation which states that the
>> "point at which the turn may be commenced" is up to the pilot.
>
>No, I'm not skipping that at all. I'm simply pointing out that if the pilot
>is permitted to degenerate the entire thing down to just the reversal
>itself, how is it that logic doesn't also show that the pilot can degenerate
>the entire thing down to the final turn to the final approach course?

I don't understand what you are trying to say. I don't see it as
degeneration to be following the clearly stated rule that it is pilots
choice for the type of turn and where to start it.

>
>After all, ALL of the elements of the "reversal" are at the pilot's
>discretion. A 90 degree left turn is "the same" as a 270 degree right turn.
>If a 270 degree right turn is allowed, then a 90 degree left turn is too.

Again, I don't see any similarity (assuming we are talking about the same
approach as started this thread) between a 90° left turn at Seal Beach and
a 270° right turn. So I would disagree with your conclusion that they are
the same.

>
>> There is no MINIMUM length of an outbound leg.
>
>And no specific direction of the turn.

That's right; after turning outbound, you can go clockwise or counter
clockwise.


>
>> There is only a maximum length.
>
>Depending on where you start the turn, correct.
>
>> You can begin your turn (or course reversal if you will), immediately.
>
>And the type of turn is entirely at the pilot's discretion. So rather than
>flying a 270 degree right turn, the pilot can choose a 90 degree left turn.
>
>> But if you do not see that, then further discussion here is pointless.
>
>Ahh, yes...the old "terminate the thread with an ad hominem" tactic.

Sorry, I did not mean a personal attack. My statement stems from a
realization that nothing I write here is going to convince you that there
is no requirement to return to and fly over the depicted outbound track of
a procedure turn (unless it's one of those fly as charted types); and
nothing you write will convince me that there is such a requirement.



>
>> There is certainly nothing wrong with returning to the outbound course
>> after Seal Beach, flying outbound for some length that you determine you
>> want to; and then executing a 45° turn on the charted side, so long as you
>> remain within the mileage limit. But it is not the only valid, legal
>> method of executing the procedure.
>
>I never said it was.

Well, you seem to be insisting that it is required to fly along the charted
outbound course for some length of time.



Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Bob Gardner]

Followed the instructions in TERPS 234 and plotted it out.

Bob Gardner

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
>> Gotta wonder why the protected airspace on the non-PT side is 1.4 miles
>> wide
>> all the way out to the maximum distance. If flying on the black line is a
>> regulatory requirement, why not just protect the turn area alone?
>>
>
> Where did you get that number?
>

[Jose]

> It makes no sense to me whatsoever, to do a course reversal or a
> procedure turn if one is already inbound and aligned with Final
> Approach Course.

I agree, assuming that one is also at the appropriate initial altitude.
However, if one is =not= aligned ith the FAC (which is the case under
discussion - there is a 50 degree difference) then this doesn't apply.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> A procedure turn requires a course change of over 130 degrees (including
> getting back onto the outbound course). And then of 180 degrees. You can
> fly the transition at the same altitude allowed for the procedure turn.
>
> How is the procedure turn better?

All the maneuvering is done prior to the FAF, and prior to descent.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> On the other hand, there are "Some procedure turns are specified by
> procedural track. These turns must be flown exactly as depicted."

This refers to things like charted teardrop reversals, where one goes
(for example) outbound on the 155 radial for five miles, turns right and
comes inbound on the 183 radial, all charted on the plate.

I would not infer from this that the outbound course of an ordinary PT
is not specified. What is in fact up to the pilot in a normal PT is the
method of reversing course once one is tracking the (given) outbound course.

One is required to fly the PT (exceptions discussed upthread). =Since=
this is true, one must turn to the outbound course in order to do so,
and cannot simply turn inbound. Since one is therefore flying outbound,
a course reversal is necessary at some point. Therefore, the type of
course reversal to be performed must be a procedure turn (of some sort).

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
>> How is the procedure turn better?
>
> All the maneuvering is done prior to the FAF, and prior to descent.

Offset by the significant increase in the amount and difficulty of
maneuvering required. I agree you've shown it to be different. I don't see
how it's better.

Pete

[Jose]

>>>How is the procedure turn better?
>> All the maneuvering is done prior to the FAF, and prior to descent.
> Offset by the significant increase in the amount and difficulty of
> maneuvering required. I agree you've shown it to be different. I don't see
> how it's better.

It's better because it's safer. There is no real increased difficulty -
one standard rate turn is like another, and making a longer turn is no
harder (unless you fall asleep during the turn, then the landing is much
harder!).

When you make the turns used for the full procedure, you end up right
where you are supposed to be. But if you make a turn to final that
takes fifty degrees, you will =not= be on the FAC. You'll have lagged,
and have to squirrel yourself back to be on course. You're also
approaching the MAP and descending.

This is harder.

Or you can anticipate the turn. How much? Well, (fudge fudge fudge)...
This is harder.

Maybe not harder enough to be =unsafe=, but harder enough that, combined
with proximity (to the ground and the airport) it is less safe.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
> It's better because it's safer.

You have not demonstrated that. To demonstrate an improvement in safety,
you need to compare a statistically significant number of samples using both
methods, and then look at the resulting accident rates for each method.

You certainly can't claim that it's "obviously safer". That is, it's not
true that "one standard rate turn is like another". Any maneuvering runs
the risk of causing an accident, and the more time spent maneuvering, the
greater the exposure to that risk (this is no different from saying "any
flight runs the risk of causing an accident, and the more time spent flying,
the greater the exposure to that risk").

As far as the difference in difficulty, one can debate that as well.
Inasmuch as a pilot ought to be maintaining a mental picture of his position
while flying by instruments, an extended turn away from one's destination
certainly could be more difficult than a prompt turn toward one's
destination. Furthermore, the right-310 turn is just one option of many,
and several of the other options involve multiple turns in multiple
directions. Increased complexity implies increased difficulty IMHO.

Whether this increase in complexity offsets the potential increase in
complexity of turning directly 50 degrees onto the final approach course,
has not been established. I suggest it does, you suggest it doesn't, and
neither of us has any justification for making such statements, other than
our own intuition.

> [...]
> When you make the turns used for the full procedure, you end up right
> where you are supposed to be.

You might be, if you do it right. There's no guarantee though. Even if
done properly, you are still "allowed" a significant margin of error.

> But if you make a turn to final that takes fifty degrees, you will =not=
> be on the FAC.

If you simply intercept the approach course, how would you not wind up on
the approach course?

> You'll have lagged, and have to squirrel yourself back to be on course.
> You're also approaching the MAP and descending.
>
> This is harder.

It is different. I see it as being FAR from a foregone conclusion that it
is harder.

> Or you can anticipate the turn. How much? Well, (fudge fudge fudge)...
> This is harder.
>
> Maybe not harder enough to be =unsafe=, but harder enough that, combined
> with proximity (to the ground and the airport) it is less safe.

Well, we're back to that. You haven't demonstrated "less safe". You simply
asserted it. There's a difference.

Pete

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 22:57:11 GMT, Jose > wrote:

>What is in fact up to the pilot in a normal PT is the
>method of reversing course once one is tracking the (given) outbound course.

Although I agree there is a requirement to turn outbound, I see no
requirement that one must, at any time, "track" the outbound course.

(By that I mean flying over the earth on the line indicated by the outbound
course).

For example, at the procedure which started this thread, one could overhead
the facility and execute a racetrack turn. In that case, one would never
be tracking the outbound course.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Jose]

> You have not demonstrated that . To demonstrate an improvement in safety,[i]
> you need to compare a statistically significant number of samples using both
> methods, and then look at the resulting accident rates for each method.

I'm not going to do that. Neither are you going to do the same for your
contention that it's best to simply turn final, irrespective of what the
regulations (including the opinion of FAA legal council) state.

So we are back to using reasoning to infer safety from (personal and
shared) experience.

> Any maneuvering runs
> the risk of causing an accident, and the more time spent maneuvering, the
> greater the exposure to that risk

True. However, turns happen all the time. I'm not convinced that a
standard rate turn is so risky that an extra hundred degrees or two
makes a significant difference, all other things being equal.

That said, all other things are =not= equal. "My" turns are done at
altitude, flying towards protected airspace, in an area that has been
certified for such turns. "Your" turns are done flying towards the
final approach fix, at the commencement of a descent, off from the final
approach course, and in an area that has been proscribed by the FAA for
such turns (which means in this case that the terrain and airspace has
not been checked and approved for these turns).

It is those conditions that I contend make "your" turns less safe.

> an extended turn away from one's destination
> certainly could be more difficult than a prompt turn toward one's
> destination.

I'm not sure I follow this reasoning, and I don't agree with what I
think you mean. A pilot who's on top of things should have no problem
with either turn (in terms of situational awareness) and one that's a
little behind could use the extra time flying away and then back,
establishing themselves on the FAC long before the FAF.

> I suggest it does, you suggest it doesn't, and
> neither of us has any justification for making such statements, other than
> our own intuition.

Well, we have our own flight experience, and I assume that much of it is
similar.

> If you simply intercept the approach course, how would you not wind up on
> the approach course?

This paraphrases as "if you succeed, how could you have failed"? A
course interception involves some S-turning or anticipation, iow some
slop. The shallower the intercept, the less slop. Intercepting the FAC
at low altitude is a critical enough maneuver that slop should be
minimized. You need to be dead on. (fsvo "dead" :) However, turning
away from the FAC and =not= descending would allow slop to be safer.
The FAA has chosen 30 degrees as the amount of turn which balances slop
one way with slop the other way. I don't know whether the number
"should" be 30 degrees, 50 degrees, or 10 degrees, but I suspect the
TERPS designers have some data to back themselves up, and I'll trust
their design.

> You haven't demonstrated "less safe". You simply
> asserted it. There's a difference.

I have asserted it and given my reasoning. Reasoning isn't proof, and
isn't intended to be.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[JPH]

I don't see how you came up with 1.4NM.
If you look at the example again, R1 distance for a standard 10 mile PT
starting at or below 6000 ft is 5 miles. Since the R1 pivot point is 1
mile offset from a point abeam the PT fix, that means there are 4 miles
of primary protection (5NM -1NM) on the non-PT side (not 1.4 miles) and
6 miles of primary protection on the turn side (5NM + 1NM) extending to
8 NM on the turn side (R3 6NM value plus 2 mile offset). There is an
additional 2 miles of secondary protection (R2 7NM value less 1 mile
offset = 6 NM)

JPH

Bob Gardner wrote:
> Followed the instructions in TERPS 234 and plotted it out.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> > wrote in message ...
>
>>
>>Bob Gardner wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gotta wonder why the protected airspace on the non-PT side is 1.4 miles
>>>wide
>>>all the way out to the maximum distance. If flying on the black line is a
>>>regulatory requirement, why not just protect the turn area alone?
>>>
>>
>>Where did you get that number?
>>
>
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> A feeder route is part of an IAP, and issued under Part 97 along with the
> other segments of the IAP.
>

Not according to the Pilot/Controller Glossary. That defines the four
segments of an instrument approach procedure as initial, intermediate,
final, and missed. I can't find "feeder route" anywhere in Part 97.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul Lynch" > wrote in message
news:cmFoe.34289$Fv.22813@lakeread01...
>
> Wilma may be a feeder, but it is not an Intial Approach Point (IAP). That
> means if you filed to Wilma as the final point on your route, your next
> point is your destination. Thinking in terms of lost communication, which
> is
> a driver for many procedural practices... If you went from Wilma to one of
> the 2 initials (SLI or ALBAS) you have some predictability. If you go from
> Wilma to some place on the approach because you believe you can hack the
> intercept (which some proposed), you have less predictability. If you were
> shooting an approach at some airports that have several more feeders, then
> what is ATC supposed to do? Clear the airspace for a 25 NM radius?
>

There is no predictability in these situations. ATC is going to do whatever
is necessary to ensure separation. If you still present a radar target they
can work with then they'll keep other IFR aircraft away from you and
continue with other operations as best they can. If it means clearing the
airspace for 25 miles then that's what they'll do.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > A feeder route is part of an IAP, and issued under Part 97 along with the
> > other segments of the IAP.
> >
>
> Not according to the Pilot/Controller Glossary. That defines the four
> segments of an instrument approach procedure as initial, intermediate,
> final, and missed. I can't find "feeder route" anywhere in Part 97.

As a matter of definition a feeder route is not a segment of an IAP (but if it
looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...). As a matter
of regulation, it is a component of an IAP, which is by procedure design an
evaluated and designed segment, just like the four set forth in the definition.
Further, you can find it on any Part 97-issued Form 8260 -3 or -5 that has a
feeder route and you can find it in TERPs Paragraph 220:

220. FEEDER ROUTES. When the IAF is part of the enroute structure there may be
no need to designate additional routes for aircraft to proceed to the IAF. In
some cases, however, it is necessary to designate feeder routes from the
enroute structure to the IAF. Only those feeder routes which provide an
operational advantage shall be established and published. These should coincide
with the local air traffic flow. The length of the feeder route shall not
exceed the operational service volume of the facilities which provide
navigational guidance unless additional frequency protection is provided.
Enroute airway obstacle clearance criteria shall apply to feeder routes. The
minimum altitude established on feeder routes shall not be less than the
altitude established at the IAF.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> Filing to WILMA would not be appropriate because, although it's a feeder
> fix for this approach, it is short of destination.
>

He didn't suggest filing to WILMA, he suggested filing WILMA as the last fix
on the route.

[Roy Smith]

> wrote:
>As a matter of definition a feeder route is not a segment of an IAP (but if it
>looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...).

I think the looks like a duck comment is exactly right. If I were a
terpster, I would worry about that stuff. As a pilot, all I need to
worry about is where I'm going next and how low I can be while I'm
going there. If somebody else wants to split hairs about what to call
the segment I'm on, it's no skin off my teeth.

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith wrote:

> > wrote:
> >As a matter of definition a feeder route is not a segment of an IAP (but if it
> >looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...).
>
> I think the looks like a duck comment is exactly right. If I were a
> terpster, I would worry about that stuff. As a pilot, all I need to
> worry about is where I'm going next and how low I can be while I'm
> going there. If somebody else wants to split hairs about what to call
> the segment I'm on, it's no skin off my teeth.

In 1967 when TERPs replaced the former IAP criteria from 1956 (and before) one of
the principles was that the procedures would be simple to understand and fly so
that pilots could safety and with "simplicity" remain within the airspace designed
by the procedures folks.

When you look at some of the missed approach procedures, though, you have to
wonder.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > Filing to WILMA would not be appropriate because, although it's a feeder
> > fix for this approach, it is short of destination.
> >
>
> He didn't suggest filing to WILMA, he suggested filing WILMA as the last fix
> on the route.

That doesn't make sense in that airspace since the SLI VOR is the fix/facility
closest to the airport from that direction.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> That doesn't make sense in that airspace since the SLI VOR is the
> fix/facility
> closest to the airport from that direction.
>

Pilots file lots of routes that don't make sense.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > That doesn't make sense in that airspace since the SLI VOR is the
> > fix/facility
> > closest to the airport from that direction.
> >
>
> Pilots file lots of routes that don't make sense.

And, in the context of this thread, your point is?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> As a matter of definition a feeder route is not a segment of an IAP (but
> if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...).
> As a
> matter of regulation, it is a component of an IAP, which is by procedure
> design
> an evaluated and designed segment, just like the four set forth in the
> definition.
>

What regulation?


>
> Further, you can find it on any Part 97-issued Form 8260 -3 or -5 that has
> a feeder route and you can find it in TERPs Paragraph 220:
>
> 220. FEEDER ROUTES. When the IAF is part of the enroute structure there
> may be no need to designate additional routes for aircraft to proceed to
> the IAF.
> In some cases, however, it is necessary to designate feeder routes from
> the
> enroute structure to the IAF. Only those feeder routes which provide an
> operational advantage shall be established and published. These should
> coincide with the local air traffic flow. The length of the feeder route
> shall not
> exceed the operational service volume of the facilities which provide
> navigational guidance unless additional frequency protection is provided.
> Enroute airway obstacle clearance criteria shall apply to feeder routes.
> The minimum altitude established on feeder routes shall not be less than
> the
> altitude established at the IAF.
>

Based on that it appears to be more closely related to enroute airways than
IAPs.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> And, in the context of this thread, your point is?
>

That pilots file lots of routes that don't make sense. In the context of
this thread, what point were you trying to make?

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > And, in the context of this thread, your point is?
> >
>
> That pilots file lots of routes that don't make sense. In the context of
> this thread, what point were you trying to make?

That the clearance would be to SLI VOR, so either of the feeder fixes would
have limited, if any, application in a lost comm situation.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > As a matter of definition a feeder route is not a segment of an IAP (but
> > if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...).
> > As a
> > matter of regulation, it is a component of an IAP, which is by procedure
> > design
> > an evaluated and designed segment, just like the four set forth in the
> > definition.
> >
>
> What regulation?
>

FAR 97.2X, the "X" varying with the type of IAP that is issued under Part 97.

>
> >
> > Further, you can find it on any Part 97-issued Form 8260 -3 or -5 that has
> > a feeder route and you can find it in TERPs Paragraph 220:
> >
> > 220. FEEDER ROUTES. When the IAF is part of the enroute structure there
> > may be no need to designate additional routes for aircraft to proceed to
> > the IAF.
> > In some cases, however, it is necessary to designate feeder routes from
> > the
> > enroute structure to the IAF. Only those feeder routes which provide an
> > operational advantage shall be established and published. These should
> > coincide with the local air traffic flow. The length of the feeder route
> > shall not
> > exceed the operational service volume of the facilities which provide
> > navigational guidance unless additional frequency protection is provided.
> > Enroute airway obstacle clearance criteria shall apply to feeder routes.
> > The minimum altitude established on feeder routes shall not be less than
> > the
> > altitude established at the IAF.
> >
>
> Based on that it appears to be more closely related to enroute airways than
> IAPs.

A feeder route is, indeed, constructed to airway criteria, except the descent
gradient limitations have to be calculated in accordance with initial approach
segment criteria. Further, in non-DMAs there is absolutely no difference in any
aspect of a feeder route or initial approach segment for ground-based IAPs.

Also, airways are issued under Part 95 and feeder routes are issued under Part
97.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> That the clearance would be to SLI VOR, so either of the feeder fixes
> would have limited, if any, application in a lost comm situation.
>

No, the clearance would be to the filed destination.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > That the clearance would be to SLI VOR, so either of the feeder fixes
> > would have limited, if any, application in a lost comm situation.
> >
>
> No, the clearance would be to the filed destination.

No, that would be the clearance limit. The last clearance fix coming to KFUL
from the west or northwest would be SLI. In the context of this thread: the
last airway fix would be SLI, not WILMA.

It's all academic anyway because routing over WILMA conflicts the SoCAL TEC
routes.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> No, that would be the clearance limit.
>

The clearance limit will be the filed destination.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > No, that would be the clearance limit.
> >
>
> The clearance limit will be the filed destination.

That is what I said.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> That is what I said.
>

No, you said the clearance would be to SLI VOR.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > That is what I said.
> >
>
> No, you said the clearance would be to SLI VOR.

Here is the context of the thread, what I said to another person who is not
playing your semantic games:

Filing to WILMA would not be appropriate because, although it's a feeder
fix for this approach, it is short of destination. If you were coming
from the north it would be typical to file the prefered airway to SLI
then direct. You don't have the option to proceed to ALBAS unless it's
on your clearance route.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message ...
>
> Here is the context of the thread, what I said to another person who is
> not
> playing your semantic games:
>
> Filing to WILMA would not be appropriate because, although it's a feeder
> fix for this approach, it is short of destination. If you were coming
> from the north it would be typical to file the prefered airway to SLI
> then direct. You don't have the option to proceed to ALBAS unless it's
> on your clearance route.
>

And here is a verbatim quote of your message:

"That the clearance would be to SLI VOR, so either of the feeder fixes would
have limited, if any, application in a lost comm situation."

What you wrote is incorrect. The clearance would not be to SLI VOR, it
would be to the destination airport.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > Here is the context of the thread, what I said to another person who is
> > not
> > playing your semantic games:
> >
> > Filing to WILMA would not be appropriate because, although it's a feeder
> > fix for this approach, it is short of destination. If you were coming
> > from the north it would be typical to file the prefered airway to SLI
> > then direct. You don't have the option to proceed to ALBAS unless it's
> > on your clearance route.
> >
>
> And here is a verbatim quote of your message:
>
> "That the clearance would be to SLI VOR, so either of the feeder fixes would
> have limited, if any, application in a lost comm situation."
>
> What you wrote is incorrect. The clearance would not be to SLI VOR, it
> would be to the destination airport.

The context of that was WILMA or ALBAS vis-a-vis SLI. In that context the
clearance would be to SLI, the last airway fix before the clearance limit of
KFUL.

That was the context and is the context.

I can't help it if I don't meet your "special" view of precision. But, in the
context I have always stated the the airport was the clearance *limit.*

Sigh, there is no placating you in any case, for you love being combative and
obtuse, except when you're just plain wrong, then you simply remain silent
rather than conceding and, in the process, perhaps adding something meaninful to
the discussion.

[Chris]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
> Sigh, there is no placating you in any case, for you love being combative
> and
> obtuse, except when you're just plain wrong, then you simply remain silent
> rather than conceding and, in the process, perhaps adding something
> meaninful to
> the discussion.
>
>

[Scott D]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 22:06:48 -0500, Yossarian >
wrote:

>I was using a Frasca 141 sim today with an instructor when this question
>came up. Fullerton CA (KFUL) VOR-A approach. At WILMA on V64, flying the
>full approach. Do you need to turn outbound at the VOR for the procedure
>turn?
>
>Instructor says no because a Victor airway leads to the IAF. I say yes
>because even though that's true, "No PT" is not listed on that feeder
>route.


Well, for what it is worth. I just got back from SIMCOM where my
instructor there actually lived and flew out of KFUL for over 20
years. I brought this up to him and he said that if you do use WILMA,
then the procedure turn is required. He also made the comment about
how busy seal beach VOR is and that it is used for a variety of other
approaches for other airports.


Scott D.


Scott D.

[[email protected]]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> > [...]
> > So, following that reasoning, where the outbound course for a standard
> > procedure turn is set forth on Line 1 of the 8260-3 or -5, it seems that
> > it
> > would be regulatory.
>
> I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. You seem to be reinforcing
> my point.

My point was that there is a specific regulatory description of the outbound
track of a standard procedure turn. I took it that you felt there was none,
since it was not set forth in 97.3.