Procedure Turn

[Bravo8500]

I'm pretty sure this question has been asked, but I can't seem to find
it. My question deals with a typical approach with a procedure turn
before the FAF, could be an NDB, VOR, GPS, etc. I know what the
purposes are. 1) Provide course reversal and 2) allow altitude loss
from the arrival altitude to the procedure turn altitude. My question
is, am I expected to make the turn it if I'm already established on
the inbound course and am already at the correct altitude.

I don't think the AIM is very clear.


From the following paragraph, I read that it is ...

5-4-8. Procedure Turn
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.

However, from this entry a few lines down, I wonder ...
b. Limitations on Procedure Turns.
....
2. When a teardrop procedure turn is depicted and a course reversal is
required, this type turn must be executed.


"When a course reversal is required" ??? And even in the first
paragraph it says "when it is necessary to perform a course reversal"

I'm thinking I don't have to. I know this situation doesn't happen
that often but when it does, I don't really have the answer, I suppose
I would have to ask the controller.

I appreciate your input.

[Brad Z]

This issue comes up from time to time. The assumption here is that you are
not being provied vectors for the approach. The official rule is that
unless there is a note allowing the exception of a PT (i.e. 'NoPT'), a
procedure turn is required. So yes, that means a turn in a bold hold or
backtracking out on the approach course for a course reversal.

"Bravo8500" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm pretty sure this question has been asked, but I can't seem to find
> it. My question deals with a typical approach with a procedure turn
> before the FAF, could be an NDB, VOR, GPS, etc. I know what the
> purposes are. 1) Provide course reversal and 2) allow altitude loss
> from the arrival altitude to the procedure turn altitude. My question
> is, am I expected to make the turn it if I'm already established on
> the inbound course and am already at the correct altitude.
>
> I don't think the AIM is very clear.
>
>
> From the following paragraph, I read that it is ...
>
> 5-4-8. Procedure Turn
> 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.
>
> However, from this entry a few lines down, I wonder ...
> b. Limitations on Procedure Turns.
> ...
> 2. When a teardrop procedure turn is depicted and a course reversal is
> required, this type turn must be executed.
>
>
> "When a course reversal is required" ??? And even in the first
> paragraph it says "when it is necessary to perform a course reversal"
>
> I'm thinking I don't have to. I know this situation doesn't happen
> that often but when it does, I don't really have the answer, I suppose
> I would have to ask the controller.
>
> I appreciate your input.

[Roy Smith]

"Brad Z" > wrote:
> This issue comes up from time to time. The assumption here is that you are
> not being provied vectors for the approach. The official rule is that
> unless there is a note allowing the exception of a PT (i.e. 'NoPT'), a
> procedure turn is required. So yes, that means a turn in a bold hold or
> backtracking out on the approach course for a course reversal.

Next question. Does anybody actually do this? Assuming that you were
already established on the FAC and didn't need to lose any altitude,
does anybody actually do a PT just because a literal reading of the regs
says you're supposed to?

[Brad Z]

Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Next question. Does anybody actually do this? Assuming that you were
> already established on the FAC and didn't need to lose any altitude,
> does anybody actually do a PT just because a literal reading of the regs
> says you're supposed to?

How many people run red lights at 3:00am or break the 55mph speed limit?

Seriously though, I don't really know. Some will also suggest that it
doesn't matter if you are below radar coverage because they can't see you.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brad Z" > wrote in message
news:OWHfc.49669$rg5.131276@attbi_s52...
>
> Seriously though, I don't really know. Some will also suggest that
> it doesn't matter if you are below radar coverage because they
> can't see you.
>

What would they do if you were above radar coverage and they did see you?

[Brad Z]

I don't know. Ask them.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Brad Z" > wrote in message
> news:OWHfc.49669$rg5.131276@attbi_s52...
> >
> > Seriously though, I don't really know. Some will also suggest that
> > it doesn't matter if you are below radar coverage because they
> > can't see you.
> >
>
> What would they do if you were above radar coverage and they did see you?
>
>

[Andrew Sarangan]

Is there any hazard in failing to do a PT when one is depicted?



"Brad Z" > wrote in
news:l5Ifc.426$gL1.17908@attbi_s54:

> I don't know. Ask them.
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Brad Z" > wrote in message
>> news:OWHfc.49669$rg5.131276@attbi_s52...
>> >
>> > Seriously though, I don't really know. Some will also suggest that
>> > it doesn't matter if you are below radar coverage because they
>> > can't see you.
>> >
>>
>> What would they do if you were above radar coverage and they did see
>> you?
>>
>>
>
>

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On 15 Apr 2004 18:03:36 -0700, (Bravo8500) wrote:

>I'm pretty sure this question has been asked, but I can't seem to find
>it. My question deals with a typical approach with a procedure turn
>before the FAF, could be an NDB, VOR, GPS, etc. I know what the
>purposes are. 1) Provide course reversal and 2) allow altitude loss
>from the arrival altitude to the procedure turn altitude. My question
>is, am I expected to make the turn it if I'm already established on
>the inbound course and am already at the correct altitude.
>
>I don't think the AIM is very clear.

I have found in dealing with these kinds of questions that reference to a
specific approach and a specific situation leads to a clearer understanding
of the issues.

This question has been discussed a number of times but the answer to your
specific question is "it depends". The reason the answer is vague is
because you have not given enough information in your generic type
question.

One important item that you left out, in trying to come up with your
example, is the manner in which you became "established on the inbound
course" and "at the correct altitude".

There are a number of ways that can happen that would preclude you from
executing a charted procedure turn. There are ways you can get to that
point only by (you or ATC) violating some other regulation or procedure,
making the question essentially irrelevant. Then there are some procedures
that are improperly charted.

So, in general, if you've arrived at the FAF on course and on altitude, you
should have arrived there either via a NoPT routing or via radar vectors to
final. So in those instances you may NOT execute a procedure turn without
permission from ATC.

But if you are not on radar VTF, and not arriving via a NoPT route, (and
not doing timed approaches), then you will need to execute the procedure
turn.

> I suppose I would have to ask the controller.

So far as asking the controller, they will probably "let you do" most
anything you request, so long as it does not violate the regulations and
procedures under which *they* operate. But be aware that if what you do is
not in accord with the expectations of the approach designer, you may be
cutting your safety margin to unacceptable levels.

Do you have a specific situation and approach about which you are
concerned?


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

[Brad Z]

To generically answer your question, yes. Instrument procedures are
designed with specific considerations that we as pilots may not be privy to.
These may include terrain, navaid limitations, proximity to approaches or
DPs to/from other airports, etc.

To answer your question in context of the original poster's question,
probably not. However, nothing in part 91 or the AIM allows pilots to skip
charted PT's that are otherwise required. Basically, I don't have a problem
with it, but the Feds might, especially if there's an accident. And as
another poster mentioned, authorization from ATC in a non-vector scenario
does not grant permission to deviate from the charted procedure, even if it
makes life easier for both parties.

Is there any hazard in flying an airplane IFR with a VOR check that is 33
days old?



"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
. 158...
> Is there any hazard in failing to do a PT when one is depicted?
>
>
>
> "Brad Z" > wrote in
> news:l5Ifc.426$gL1.17908@attbi_s54:
>
> > I don't know. Ask them.
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> "Brad Z" > wrote in message
> >> news:OWHfc.49669$rg5.131276@attbi_s52...
> >> >
> >> > Seriously though, I don't really know. Some will also suggest that
> >> > it doesn't matter if you are below radar coverage because they
> >> > can't see you.
> >> >
> >>
> >> What would they do if you were above radar coverage and they did see
> >> you?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bravo8500" > wrote in message
om...
>
> I'm pretty sure this question has been asked, but I can't seem to find
> it. My question deals with a typical approach with a procedure turn
> before the FAF, could be an NDB, VOR, GPS, etc. I know what the
> purposes are. 1) Provide course reversal and 2) allow altitude loss
> from the arrival altitude to the procedure turn altitude. My question
> is, am I expected to make the turn it if I'm already established on
> the inbound course and am already at the correct altitude.
>

How did you come to be established on the inbound course at the correct
altitude?

[[email protected]]

That language isn't clear to you? It is clear to me.

The real question: How did you come about getting established inbound at
the proper altitude without busting some other requirement of the
procedure?

Bravo8500 wrote:

> I'm pretty sure this question has been asked, but I can't seem to find
> it. My question deals with a typical approach with a procedure turn
> before the FAF, could be an NDB, VOR, GPS, etc. I know what the
> purposes are. 1) Provide course reversal and 2) allow altitude loss
> from the arrival altitude to the procedure turn altitude. My question
> is, am I expected to make the turn it if I'm already established on
> the inbound course and am already at the correct altitude.
>
> I don't think the AIM is very clear.
>
> From the following paragraph, I read that it is ...
>
> 5-4-8. Procedure Turn
> 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.
>
> However, from this entry a few lines down, I wonder ...
> b. Limitations on Procedure Turns.
> ...
> 2. When a teardrop procedure turn is depicted and a course reversal is
> required, this type turn must be executed.
>
> "When a course reversal is required" ??? And even in the first
> paragraph it says "when it is necessary to perform a course reversal"
>
> I'm thinking I don't have to. I know this situation doesn't happen
> that often but when it does, I don't really have the answer, I suppose
> I would have to ask the controller.
>
> I appreciate your input.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
. 158...
>
> Is there any hazard in failing to do a PT when one is depicted?
>

This question comes up periodically from a purely theoretical viewpoint.
When someone asks it, I like to ask how they came to be established on the
inbound course at the correct altitude. If they've been cleared direct to a
fix from a distant point they must be in radar contact and a little vector
to the FAC should be available. If they're not on a direct clearance they
must be on a valid nonradar route that happens to be aligned with the FAC,
which would have the characteristics of a NoPT segment.

[Otis Winslow]

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Next question. Does anybody actually do this? Assuming that you were
> already established on the FAC and didn't need to lose any altitude,
> does anybody actually do a PT just because a literal reading of the regs
> says you're supposed to?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.
>

Could you expand on that a bit?

[Otis Winslow]

I recall making a GPS approach to an airport just outside a Class C. It had
a holding pattern in lieu of a PT. I hit the FAF and went for the runway.
The
approach controller said "Nxxxxx .. I take it you're not doing a PT" Me:
"Nope ..
just gonna go straight in". Him: "Ok" Me: (about a minute later) "Nxxxxx has
the
runway in sight .. cancel my IFR .. have a nice day" Him: "IFR Cancelled ..
you too ..
see ya".

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Brad Z" > wrote in message
> news:OWHfc.49669$rg5.131276@attbi_s52...
> >
> > Seriously though, I don't really know. Some will also suggest that
> > it doesn't matter if you are below radar coverage because they
> > can't see you.
> >
>
> What would they do if you were above radar coverage and they did see you?
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I recall making a GPS approach to an airport just outside a Class C. It
had
> a holding pattern in lieu of a PT. I hit the FAF and went for the runway.
> The
> approach controller said "Nxxxxx .. I take it you're not doing a PT" Me:
> "Nope ..
> just gonna go straight in". Him: "Ok" Me: (about a minute later) "Nxxxxx
has
> the
> runway in sight .. cancel my IFR .. have a nice day" Him: "IFR Cancelled
...
> you too ..
> see ya".
>

What approach was that?

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
>When someone asks it, I like to ask how they came to be established on the
>inbound course at the correct altitude. If they've been cleared direct to a
>fix from a distant point they must be in radar contact and a little vector
>to the FAC should be available. If they're not on a direct clearance they

Are you saying you can't be cleared direct to a navaid unless you're in
radar contact? Why not?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they can be
yours too."

[[email protected]]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
> >When someone asks it, I like to ask how they came to be established on the
> >inbound course at the correct altitude. If they've been cleared direct to a
> >fix from a distant point they must be in radar contact and a little vector
> >to the FAC should be available. If they're not on a direct clearance they
>
> Are you saying you can't be cleared direct to a navaid unless you're in
> radar contact? Why not?
>

Check the qualifier "from a distant point." You must be in radar contact to be cleared
to a VOR or NDB unless within the ground nav facility's operational service volume.

In the case of GPS waypoints, you must be in radar contact for a direct clearance
regardless of distance.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Are you saying you can't be cleared direct to a navaid unless you're in
> radar contact?
>

Pretty much, not if the navaid is beyond altitude and distance limitations.


>
> Why not?
>

The short answer is because them is the rules, see paragraphs 4-1-1 and
4-1-2 of FAA Order 7110.65 at this link:

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0401.html

A more useful answer is navaid reliability. Sure, VOR reception is
line-of-sight, and we all know they can be received at distances greater
than indicated in the table. But the further you get from any given navaid
the closer you may be getting to another navaid using the same frequency, so
limits have to be set. Those limits can be relaxed when you're in radar
contact because ATC can nudge you back on course if you stray.

[Rod Madsen]

I'm wondering. If you're already at the proper altitude and on the
localizer, why not? You can make a procedure turn any way you want to if
you stay on the protected side and inside protected airspace, so why can't
you say you've already made your procedure turn?

Rod
"Bravo8500" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm pretty sure this question has been asked, but I can't seem to find
> it. My question deals with a typical approach with a procedure turn
> before the FAF, could be an NDB, VOR, GPS, etc. I know what the
> purposes are. 1) Provide course reversal and 2) allow altitude loss
> from the arrival altitude to the procedure turn altitude. My question
> is, am I expected to make the turn it if I'm already established on
> the inbound course and am already at the correct altitude.
>
> I don't think the AIM is very clear.
>
>
> From the following paragraph, I read that it is ...
>
> 5-4-8. Procedure Turn
> 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.
>
> However, from this entry a few lines down, I wonder ...
> b. Limitations on Procedure Turns.
> ...
> 2. When a teardrop procedure turn is depicted and a course reversal is
> required, this type turn must be executed.
>
>
> "When a course reversal is required" ??? And even in the first
> paragraph it says "when it is necessary to perform a course reversal"
>
> I'm thinking I don't have to. I know this situation doesn't happen
> that often but when it does, I don't really have the answer, I suppose
> I would have to ask the controller.
>
> I appreciate your input.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Rod Madsen" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I'm wondering. If you're already at the proper altitude and on the
> localizer, why not?
>

I'm wondering how you came to be on the localizer at the proper altitude
without either a radar vector or a NoPT segment or out of a holding fix.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Are you saying you can't be cleared direct to a navaid unless you're in
>> radar contact?
>>
>
>Pretty much, not if the navaid is beyond altitude and distance limitations.

Why would you assume that the navaid is ALWAYS beyond altitude and
distance limitations? Surely there must be *some* approaches where you
could be coming in at nearly the right course and altitude if you were
cleared directly to the navaid from a nearby intersection or airway? I
was going to say the NDB 28 at PEO from PTAKI intersection, but realized
that because the navaid is on the field you wouldn't know when to descend
to the MDA without some independent way of knowing you were within 10
miles of the field.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Tech Services - We Aim To Please, We Shoot To Kill"
-- H. Wade Minter, ASR

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why would you assume that the navaid is ALWAYS beyond
> altitude and distance limitations?
>

I'm not. I'm assuming if the navaid is within altitude and distance
limitations and the course via that navaid coincides with the FAC the SIAP
would include an NoPT segment from that navaid because it is easy and useful
to do so.


>
> Surely there must be *some* approaches where you
> could be coming in at nearly the right course and altitude if you were
> cleared directly to the navaid from a nearby intersection or airway?
>

Find an example and we'll discuss it.

[Roy Smith]

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Rod Madsen" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > I'm wondering. If you're already at the proper altitude and on the
> > localizer, why not?
> >
>
> I'm wondering how you came to be on the localizer at the proper altitude
> without either a radar vector or a NoPT segment or out of a holding fix.

Let's say you're 20 miles out, bearing 162 to HPN (i.e. 5 NW of FARAN,
see http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/00651I16.pdf).
The controller says, "Cruise 3000, radar service terminated, frequency
change approved, have a nice night".

A strict interpretation of the rules says that if I wanted to fly the
ILS-16, I should either fly to IGN and fly the NoPT segment from there,
or fly to HESTR and do a PT. A more rational approach would be to just
drop down to 2000 at FARAN, then follow the published procedure from
that point. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that anything else
would be absurd.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Let's say you're 20 miles out, bearing 162 to HPN (i.e. 5 NW of
> FARAN, see
http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/00651I16.pdf).
> The controller says, "Cruise 3000, radar service terminated, frequency
> change approved, have a nice night".
>

Couldn't come up with a real-world scenario? Whatever, I'll play, but more
information is needed. What's the routing that brought you to that point 5
NW of FARAN?

[[email protected]]

>
>
> Why would you assume that the navaid is ALWAYS beyond altitude and
> distance limitations? Surely there must be *some* approaches where you
> could be coming in at nearly the right course and altitude if you were
> cleared directly to the navaid from a nearby intersection or airway? I
> was going to say the NDB 28 at PEO from PTAKI intersection, but realized
> that because the navaid is on the field you wouldn't know when to descend
> to the MDA without some independent way of knowing you were within 10
> miles of the field.

Being cleared direct-to inside an IAF is not in accordance with air traffic policy. If
they want you to go straight-in and in the process bypass a pertinent IAF, then they
must vector you to "final" in accordance with 7110.65, 5-9-1.

Otherwise you, as PIC, are required to begin an IAP at an IAF. If that IAF is followed
by NoPT routing, then you go straight-in. If not and a course reversal is charted you
do the course reversal.

References: FAA legal interpretation from November 1994 (on Summit Aviation CD) and
related AIM material.

[Roy Smith]

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Let's say you're 20 miles out, bearing 162 to HPN (i.e. 5 NW of
> > FARAN, see
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/00651I16.pdf).
> > The controller says, "Cruise 3000, radar service terminated, frequency
> > change approved, have a nice night".
> >
>
> Couldn't come up with a real-world scenario? Whatever, I'll play, but more
> information is needed. What's the routing that brought you to that point 5
> NW of FARAN?

With the exception of the cruise clearance, it's pretty real-world.
Coming from that direction, I've been asked to intercept the localizer
25-30 miles out.

But, OK, if you'll play, I'll play. Remember, though, the game we're
playing is "How should you fly this clearance", not "Let's argue about
whether NY Approach would ever issue a cruise clearance". If you don't
want to play my game, I'm picking up my airplane and my microphone and
going home :-)

How about I had just departed Minard Farms, NY (1NY7). I got my
clearance from FSS on the phone, "ATC clears N-25629 to the White Plains
Airport via direct. Maintain 3000, departure frequency is 132.75,
squawk 1234. Clearance void if not off by 0700. Time now is 0648".

Direct course from 1NY7 to HPN is 170. By the time I completed my
initial departure to the west to avoid the high towers east of the
airport, and turned on course, HPN was bearing 162.

At that time, NY Approach finally responded to my radio call and gave me
"Radar contact, 5 southwest of Minard. Proceed on course, maintain
3000". Sometime later, the controller handed me off to 126.4. The
controller on that frequency gave me the cruise clearance quoted above.

At that point, you tune in the AWOS and hear that the weather at HPN is
800 overcast and 5 miles, wind 160 at 10. What would be your course of
action?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> With the exception of the cruise clearance, it's pretty real-world.
> Coming from that direction, I've been asked to intercept the localizer
> 25-30 miles out.
>
> But, OK, if you'll play, I'll play. Remember, though, the game we're
> playing is "How should you fly this clearance", not "Let's argue about
> whether NY Approach would ever issue a cruise clearance". If you
> don't want to play my game, I'm picking up my airplane and my
> microphone and going home :-)
>

Well, if it's "pretty real-world", it means ATC isn't following FAAO
7110.65. There's no benefit to playing the game if everyone isn't playing
by the rules.


>
> How about I had just departed Minard Farms, NY (1NY7). I got my
> clearance from FSS on the phone, "ATC clears N-25629 to the White > Plains
Airport via direct. Maintain 3000, departure frequency is
> 132.75, squawk 1234. Clearance void if not off by 0700. Time
> now is 0648".
>
> Direct course from 1NY7 to HPN is 170. By the time I completed my
> initial departure to the west to avoid the high towers east of the
> airport, and turned on course, HPN was bearing 162.
>
> At that time, NY Approach finally responded to my radio call and
> gave me "Radar contact, 5 southwest of Minard. Proceed on
> course, maintain 3000". Sometime later, the controller handed me
> off to 126.4. The controller on that frequency gave me the cruise
> clearance quoted above.
>
> At that point, you tune in the AWOS and hear that the weather at
> HPN is 800 overcast and 5 miles, wind 160 at 10. What would
> be your course of action?
>

You can't get to that point if everyone is playing by the rules. At the
point ATC terminated radar service you were on a route that required radar
monitoring by ATC. Termination of radar service at that point requires
issuance of nonradar routing.

[John T]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
>
> At that point, you tune in the AWOS and hear that the weather at HPN
> is 800 overcast and 5 miles, wind 160 at 10. What would be your
> course of action?


Contact Approach and ask for an approach clearance. :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Barry]

Here's a real-world scenario that I've encountered:

VOR 22 approach to GED (Georgetown, DE):

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/published_pdfs/00935V22.PDF

Coming from the northeast, on the 057 radial inbound to ATR (Victor 308),
Dover Approach says "cross Waterloo at 3000, cleared for the VOR 22 approach".
Since my course is now 237, I'm only three degrees off the final approach
course of 234. There's no "No PT" sector shown, and the charted hold in lieu
of a PT would put me on the 033 radial, with a 23 degree turn at the FAF.
Obviously it makes no sense to do a turn in the hold, and Dover didn't expect
me to, but some people would claim it's required. Is Dover doing anything
contrary to 7110.65?

Barry

[Otis Winslow]

Depending upon the circumstances, sometimes I do one .. and sometimes I
don't.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.
> >
>
> Could you expand on that a bit?
>
>

[Otis Winslow]

One in which the IAF and the FAF were the same waypoint. With no altitude
difference
until crossing the FAF inbound. So approaching at a right angle what's the
difference (well
other than the technical legal issue) if you turn left and go around the
track .. or turn
right and start decending? If you own the airspace at an uncontrolled field
until you
cancel and there's no obstacle issues, I don't see a safety issue.

I don't think the tone of the thread is how to fly the approach exactly as
charted .. I
think it's whether people shortcut it on occasion.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> >
>
> What approach was that?
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Depending upon the circumstances, sometimes I do one ..
> and sometimes I don't.
>

I'll take that as a "No".

[[email protected]]

Otis Winslow wrote:

> One in which the IAF and the FAF were the same waypoint. With no altitude
> difference
> until crossing the FAF inbound. So approaching at a right angle what's the
> difference (well
> other than the technical legal issue) if you turn left and go around the
> track .. or turn
> right and start decending? If you own the airspace at an uncontrolled field
> until you
> cancel and there's no obstacle issues, I don't see a safety issue.
>
> I don't think the tone of the thread is how to fly the approach exactly as
> charted .. I
> think it's whether people shortcut it on occasion.

When the FAF is also an IAF, there is always a course reversal there. If you
go outbound, like you're suppose to, at the procedure turn altitude there is a
lot of protected airspace. On the other hand, if you elect to do a big course
change and go inbound while leaving the crossing altitude, there is a good
chance you will leave protected airspace, then re-enter it. So long as there
is nothing to hit out in that "black" area, you will "get" away with it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> One in which the IAF and the FAF were the same waypoint.
>

What approach at what airport?

[[email protected]]

Roy Smith wrote:

>
>
> A strict interpretation of the rules says that if I wanted to fly the
> ILS-16, I should either fly to IGN and fly the NoPT segment from there,
> or fly to HESTR and do a PT. A more rational approach would be to just
> drop down to 2000 at FARAN, then follow the published procedure from
> that point. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that anything else
> would be absurd.

I'll give you a simple hypothetical. The ABC VOR is 5 miles from Acme
Airport, due east. The 270 radial is the final approach course and is
sufficiently aligned with Runway 27 to permit straight-in minimums. ABC is in
the middle of nowhere and has no DME. The only transition is via airway to
ABC, then outbound on the 090 radial for a procedure turn. The altitude
crossing the VOR outbound is 4,000, the PT completion altitude is 3,000, and
the runway elevation is 1,400 with an MDA of 1,880 (480').

Let's say the center sets you up 30 miles east of ABC by vectoring you to the
090 radial at 5,000. He then gives you a cruise clearance. As I said there
is no DME and you don't have GPS. How do you fly this one?

Let's modify it slightly. Center sets you up the same, but tells you to
maintain 5,000 and he will call 10 miles from ABC. At 10 miles he says, "10
miles east of ABC VOR, cleared for the Acme VOR Runway 27 approach." No doubt
on this one, it's a clear and proper application of "vectors to final" and you
would not do a procedure turn. In fact, in effect, he has set you up in
position as if you had rolled out of the PT, albeit higher and a bit further
out, but at an altitude compatible with the procedure (200/foot per mile
descent gradient).

Now, let's say it's a not-so-sharp center controller and he sets you up on the
095 radial inbound, or perhaps the 080 radial inbound, then gives you a cruise
clearance 25 miles out. What do you do then?

When is it okay to descend? When is it okay to not be absurd and go
straight-in, etc, etc?

[Richard Hertz]

That is scary. No wonder people kill themselves in airplanes so often.


"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
.. .
> I recall making a GPS approach to an airport just outside a Class C. It
had
> a holding pattern in lieu of a PT. I hit the FAF and went for the runway.
> The
> approach controller said "Nxxxxx .. I take it you're not doing a PT" Me:
> "Nope ..
> just gonna go straight in". Him: "Ok" Me: (about a minute later) "Nxxxxx
has
> the
> runway in sight .. cancel my IFR .. have a nice day" Him: "IFR Cancelled
...
> you too ..
> see ya".
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Brad Z" > wrote in message
> > news:OWHfc.49669$rg5.131276@attbi_s52...
> > >
> > > Seriously though, I don't really know. Some will also suggest that
> > > it doesn't matter if you are below radar coverage because they
> > > can't see you.
> > >
> >
> > What would they do if you were above radar coverage and they did see
you?
> >
> >
>
>

[Richard Hertz]

"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
.. .
> One in which the IAF and the FAF were the same waypoint. With no altitude
> difference
> until crossing the FAF inbound. So approaching at a right angle what's the
> difference (well
> other than the technical legal issue) if you turn left and go around the
> track .. or turn
> right and start decending? If you own the airspace at an uncontrolled
field
> until you
> cancel and there's no obstacle issues, I don't see a safety issue.

When you start making up your own rules, then it gets a little dangerous.
For one, you can get established on the FACourse further out with more
protection.

>
> I don't think the tone of the thread is how to fly the approach exactly as
> charted .. I
> think it's whether people shortcut it on occasion.

Like not preflighting, or something like that? Sounds like a good plan to
me.

>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > >
> >
> > What approach was that?
> >
> >
>
>

[Richard Hertz]

yes.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> "Brad Z" > wrote:
> > This issue comes up from time to time. The assumption here is that you
are
> > not being provied vectors for the approach. The official rule is that
> > unless there is a note allowing the exception of a PT (i.e. 'NoPT'), a
> > procedure turn is required. So yes, that means a turn in a bold hold or
> > backtracking out on the approach course for a course reversal.
>
> Next question. Does anybody actually do this? Assuming that you were
> already established on the FAC and didn't need to lose any altitude,
> does anybody actually do a PT just because a literal reading of the regs
> says you're supposed to?

[Teacherjh]

>>
[consider an approach] in which the IAF and the FAF were the same waypoint.
With no altitude difference until crossing the FAF inbound. So approaching at a
right angle what's the difference (well other than the technical legal issue)
if you turn left and go around the track .. or turn right and start decending?
<<

One difference I see is the time and space to get established on the final
approach. If you turn right and start descending, you cannot be established on
the final approach course until you are past the FAF. If you turn left and go
around the hold, you can become established before the FAF.

Whether you are a good enough pilot to make a good approach becoming
established after the FAF is a different question, and one I won't address.
But there is a difference in this case making the choice to turn right not a
no-brainer.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Otis Winslow]

Keep in mind this is with a GPS approach. Not something I would
try with a VOR or NDB.


"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> [consider an approach] in which the IAF and the FAF were the same
waypoint.
> With no altitude difference until crossing the FAF inbound. So approaching
at a
> right angle what's the difference (well other than the technical legal
issue)
> if you turn left and go around the track .. or turn right and start
decending?
> <<
>
> One difference I see is the time and space to get established on the final
> approach. If you turn right and start descending, you cannot be
established on
> the final approach course until you are past the FAF. If you turn left
and go
> around the hold, you can become established before the FAF.
>
> Whether you are a good enough pilot to make a good approach becoming
> established after the FAF is a different question, and one I won't
address.
> But there is a difference in this case making the choice to turn right not
a
> no-brainer.
>
> Jose
>
>
> --
> (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Teacherjh]

>>
Keep in mind this [(turn directly onto final)] is with a GPS approach. Not
something I would
try with a VOR or NDB
<<

Matters not. GPS is not magic.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:06:29 GMT, "Otis Winslow" >
wrote:

>Keep in mind this is with a GPS approach. Not something I would
>try with a VOR or NDB.

You have a GPS approach with the FAF and the IAF are collocated, and there
is a hold in lieu at this fix?

What approach is that? Around here, I've not seen a standalone GPS
approach where the FAF and IAF are collocated.

On the GPS approaches around here, there is frequently a central IAF fix
with a hold-in-lieu. But there is also a large NoPT segment. There are a
number of published approaches which should but do not yet have the NoPT
information charted, but they are supposed to be. SFQ was recently changed
in this manner by NOTAM through the intervention of Wally Roberts.

If you've got an example like that, we really ought to try to have it
changed.


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

[Barry]

> The official rule is that unless there is a note allowing the
> exception of a PT (i.e. 'NoPT'), a procedure turn is required.

Is this official rule stated clearly anywhere? The only mention of "procedure
turn" I find in Part 91 is in 91.175(j), which says when you may NOT do a PT.
The AIM discusses procedure turns in 5-4-8 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. The
hold in lieu of procedure turn is not required when RADAR VECTORING to the
final approach course is provided or when "No PT" is shown.

But what's the definition of a "course reversal"? If you're already within a
few degrees of being established inbound, is a course reversal necessary? If
so, why?

Barry

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Barry" > wrote in message
...
>
> Here's a real-world scenario that I've encountered:
>
> VOR 22 approach to GED (Georgetown, DE):
>
> http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/published_pdfs/00935V22.PDF
>
> Coming from the northeast, on the 057 radial inbound to ATR (Victor 308),
> Dover Approach says "cross Waterloo at 3000, cleared for the VOR 22
approach".
> Since my course is now 237, I'm only three degrees off the final approach
> course of 234. There's no "No PT" sector shown, and the charted hold in
lieu
> of a PT would put me on the 033 radial, with a 23 degree turn at the FAF.
> Obviously it makes no sense to do a turn in the hold, and Dover didn't
expect
> me to, but some people would claim it's required. Is Dover doing anything
> contrary to 7110.65?
>

Nope.

[[email protected]]

Otis Winslow wrote:

> Keep in mind this is with a GPS approach. Not something I would
> try with a VOR or NDB.

What is the qualifier with GPS that, in your mind, makes cutting corners with
GPS okay, but not with VOR or NDB?

[[email protected]]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:06:29 GMT, "Otis Winslow" >
> wrote:
>
> >Keep in mind this is with a GPS approach. Not something I would
> >try with a VOR or NDB.
>
> You have a GPS approach with the FAF and the IAF are collocated, and there
> is a hold in lieu at this fix?

Apparently, the gentlemen is of limited clues. ;-) GPS approaches that have
course reversals have them at the intermediate fix, not the FAF.

[[email protected]]

Barry wrote:

> > The official rule is that unless there is a note allowing the
> > exception of a PT (i.e. 'NoPT'), a procedure turn is required.
>
> Is this official rule stated clearly anywhere? The only mention of "procedure
> turn" I find in Part 91 is in 91.175(j), which says when you may NOT do a PT.
> The AIM discusses procedure turns in 5-4-8 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. The
> hold in lieu of procedure turn is not required when RADAR VECTORING to the
> final approach course is provided or when "No PT" is shown.
>
> But what's the definition of a "course reversal"? If you're already within a
> few degrees of being established inbound, is a course reversal necessary? If
> so, why?
>
> Barry

Letter of Legal Interpretation:

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

Aeronautical Information Manual:

5-4-8. Procedure Turn
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. The
hold in lieu of procedure turn is not required when RADAR VECTORING to the final
approach course is provided or when "No PT" is shown. The altitude prescribed for
the procedure turn is a minimum altitude until the aircraft is established on the
inbound course. The maneuver must be completed within the distance specified in
the profile view.

[Teacherjh]

>> Letter of Legal Interpretation [snipped]

These things are useless. You ask the FAA a question, and they quote the rules
at you as if they were self-evident if only you knew what they were.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 06:05:28 -0700, wrote:

>Apparently, the gentlemen is of limited clues. ;-) GPS approaches that have
>course reversals have them at the intermediate fix, not the FAF.

That was why I asked for specifics regarding the SIAP. By the way, that
should more properly read "stand-alone" GPS approaches, shouldn't it?


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

[John Clonts]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Barry" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Here's a real-world scenario that I've encountered:
> >
> > VOR 22 approach to GED (Georgetown, DE):
> >
> > http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/published_pdfs/00935V22.PDF
> >
> > Coming from the northeast, on the 057 radial inbound to ATR (Victor
308),
> > Dover Approach says "cross Waterloo at 3000, cleared for the VOR 22
> approach".
> > Since my course is now 237, I'm only three degrees off the final
approach
> > course of 234. There's no "No PT" sector shown, and the charted hold in
> lieu
> > of a PT would put me on the 033 radial, with a 23 degree turn at the
FAF.
> > Obviously it makes no sense to do a turn in the hold, and Dover didn't
> expect
> > me to, but some people would claim it's required. Is Dover doing
anything
> > contrary to 7110.65?
> >
>
> Nope.
>
>

So are you saying the turn around the hold is not legally required here?
Why not?

Thanks,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[[email protected]]

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 06:05:28 -0700, wrote:
>
> >Apparently, the gentlemen is of limited clues. ;-) GPS approaches that have
> >course reversals have them at the intermediate fix, not the FAF.
>
> That was why I asked for specifics regarding the SIAP. By the way, that
> should more properly read "stand-alone" GPS approaches, shouldn't it?
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

I suppose so. How about "RNAV (GPS) approaches that have course reversals have
them at the intermediate waypoint, not the final approach waypoint."

[[email protected]]

Teacherjh wrote:

> >> Letter of Legal Interpretation [snipped]
>
> These things are useless. You ask the FAA a question, and they quote the rules
> at you as if they were self-evident if only you knew what they were.
>

Useless or not, they are used by the FAA in policy making and sometimes in
enforcement proceedings, especially where the interpretation migrates to the AIM.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...
>
> So are you saying the turn around the hold is not legally required here?
> Why not?
>

I said nothing at all like that. The question was; "Is Dover doing anything
contrary to 7110.65?" They aren't. The pilot was cleared via an airway and
the IAF was a VOR on that airway. That's a perfectly good clearance.

[John Clonts]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "John Clonts" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So are you saying the turn around the hold is not legally required here?
> > Why not?
> >
>
> I said nothing at all like that. The question was; "Is Dover doing
anything
> contrary to 7110.65?" They aren't. The pilot was cleared via an airway
and
> the IAF was a VOR on that airway. That's a perfectly good clearance.
>
>

Ok, then I'm asking you: "Is the turn around the hold legally required
here?"

Thanks,
John

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ok, then I'm asking you: "Is the turn around the hold legally required
> here?"
>

I don't think so. A procedure turn is "the maneuver prescribed when it is
necessary to reverse direction to establish an aircraft on the intermediate
approach segment or final approach course." Obviously it isn't necessary to
reverse direction in this case. Part 91 states when a procedure turn may
not be flown, it has not a word on when a procedure turn must be flown.

[[email protected]]

John Clonts wrote:

> >
>
> So are you saying the turn around the hold is not legally required here?
> Why not?
>

The reason you (the collective you ;-) are picking this one to death is because
FAA air traffic management in DC can't manage. A proposal was taken to the Air
Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee (ATPAC) 3 years ago to establish TERPs
"fences" for direct-to clearances that could bypass the IAF. In the case of
RNAV approaches the direct-to could not be to the FAF, but it could be to the
IF, with a limit of a 90-degree course change and provided the MVA (and altitude
assignment) were compatible with the procedure. In the case were a VOR or NDB
is both the IAF and FAF, the clearance could be directly to the facility
provided the course change was limited to 10-30 degrees (depending on length of
final and type aircraft).

Thus far, no action has been taken even though the proposal passed unanimously
at ATPAC.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:45:47 -0700, wrote:

>
>
>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 06:05:28 -0700, wrote:
>>
>> >Apparently, the gentlemen is of limited clues. ;-) GPS approaches that have
>> >course reversals have them at the intermediate fix, not the FAF.
>>
>> That was why I asked for specifics regarding the SIAP. By the way, that
>> should more properly read "stand-alone" GPS approaches, shouldn't it?
>>
>> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
>
>I suppose so. How about "RNAV (GPS) approaches that have course reversals have
>them at the intermediate waypoint, not the final approach waypoint."

Sounds good. I was just trying to keep overlay approaches out of the
discussion.


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

[Otis Winslow]

> wrote in message ...
> Apparently, the gentlemen is of limited clues. ;-) GPS approaches that
have
> course reversals have them at the intermediate fix, not the FAF.
>

Limited clues? I don't think so. You need to get out around the country
more. I've
seen lots of those. Here's one that comes to mind where I made a fuel stop
heading
up to Colorado a while back. Seems to me that the FAF, IAF, and course
reversal are all at the same waypoint on this one .. as I've seen on lots of
them.
And it sure isn't an overlay.

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/published_pdfs/06555G35.PDF

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:24:43 GMT, "Otis Winslow" >
wrote:

>
> wrote in message ...
>> Apparently, the gentlemen is of limited clues. ;-) GPS approaches that
>have
>> course reversals have them at the intermediate fix, not the FAF.
>>
>
>Limited clues? I don't think so. You need to get out around the country
>more. I've
>seen lots of those. Here's one that comes to mind where I made a fuel stop
>heading
>up to Colorado a while back. Seems to me that the FAF, IAF, and course
>reversal are all at the same waypoint on this one .. as I've seen on lots of
>them.
>And it sure isn't an overlay.
>
>http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/published_pdfs/06555G35.PDF
>
>

That's an interesting approach in the context of our discussion. It's not
really the TAA type GPS approach, but something else.

For standard TAA's, where there is a five mile intermediate segment prior
to the final segment, a turn at the IF is allowed up to, I think, 102°.

In the approach you reference, arriving at COTTU on a 90° intercept at
3000' and then turning towards the airport, at slow speeds you would
probably be safe. But I'd be concerned about the narrower surveyed
protected area on the final segment that might bite me during the turn.


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

[John Clonts]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "John Clonts" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Ok, then I'm asking you: "Is the turn around the hold legally required
> > here?"
> >
>
> I don't think so. A procedure turn is "the maneuver prescribed when it is
> necessary to reverse direction to establish an aircraft on the
intermediate
> approach segment or final approach course." Obviously it isn't necessary
to
> reverse direction in this case. Part 91 states when a procedure turn may
> not be flown, it has not a word on when a procedure turn must be flown.
>
>

I see what you mean, and that makes sense to me. But the sentence following
that one in AIM 5-4-8a. is "The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure
turn is a required maneuver." What do you suppose is meant by that? Or do
you invoke "the AIM is not regulatory" to dispatch it?

Thanks,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Otis Winslow]

I'm aware of the normal T type GPS approaches, having flown off
a Garmin 300XL for the last few years. But there's plenty of these
around too. With a normal 1/2 mile or so lead I use on those turns
(same as on a T type) you can come out right on top of the
final approach segment.

OW


"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:24:43 GMT, "Otis Winslow" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote in message ...
> >> Apparently, the gentlemen is of limited clues. ;-) GPS approaches that
> >have
> >> course reversals have them at the intermediate fix, not the FAF.
> >>
> >
> >Limited clues? I don't think so. You need to get out around the country
> >more. I've
> >seen lots of those. Here's one that comes to mind where I made a fuel
stop
> >heading
> >up to Colorado a while back. Seems to me that the FAF, IAF, and course
> >reversal are all at the same waypoint on this one .. as I've seen on lots
of
> >them.
> >And it sure isn't an overlay.
> >
> >http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/published_pdfs/06555G35.PDF
> >
> >
>
> That's an interesting approach in the context of our discussion. It's not
> really the TAA type GPS approach, but something else.
>
> For standard TAA's, where there is a five mile intermediate segment prior
> to the final segment, a turn at the IF is allowed up to, I think, 102°.
>
> In the approach you reference, arriving at COTTU on a 90° intercept at
> 3000' and then turning towards the airport, at slow speeds you would
> probably be safe. But I'd be concerned about the narrower surveyed
> protected area on the final segment that might bite me during the turn.
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...
>
> I see what you mean, and that makes sense to me. But the
> sentence following that one in AIM 5-4-8a. is "The procedure
> turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver."
> What do you suppose is meant by that? Or do you invoke
> "the AIM is not regulatory" to dispatch it?
>

The AIM states in the preface, "This publication, while not regulatory,
provides information which reflects examples of operating techniques and
procedures which may be requirements in other federal publications or
regulations." Who am I to argue with the AIM?

[[email protected]]

Otis Winslow wrote:

> I'm aware of the normal T type GPS approaches, having flown off
> a Garmin 300XL for the last few years. But there's plenty of these
> around too. With a normal 1/2 mile or so lead I use on those turns
> (same as on a T type) you can come out right on top of the
> final approach segment.

Actually, the intermediate segment.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 07:51:11 -0700, wrote:

>
>
>Otis Winslow wrote:
>
>> I'm aware of the normal T type GPS approaches, having flown off
>> a Garmin 300XL for the last few years. But there's plenty of these
>> around too. With a normal 1/2 mile or so lead I use on those turns
>> (same as on a T type) you can come out right on top of the
>> final approach segment.
>
>Actually, the intermediate segment.

For a 'T' type approach, but for the approach at CEK that he cited, it
seems to me he is turning onto the final segment.


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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:28:56 GMT, "Otis Winslow" >
wrote:

>I'm aware of the normal T type GPS approaches, having flown off
>a Garmin 300XL for the last few years. But there's plenty of these
>around too. With a normal 1/2 mile or so lead I use on those turns
>(same as on a T type) you can come out right on top of the
>final approach segment.

As I said, if you have a slow a/c, and everything works perfectly, you can
get away with shortcuts to TERPS, and require less tolerances than they
call for. But I would not do that.


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