procedure turns revisited

[[email protected]]

I remember reading a lot of articles and opinions about procedure turns
being absolutely required except for the three conditions in FAR
91.175(j).

The newest online AIM, seems to have changed. Paragraph 5-4-9.a. now
reads:

The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required
maneuver when it is necessary to perform a course reversal.

The "when it is necessary..." portion is new. Is this a change in FAA
policy, or did people misinterpret the regs in the past, or is my
memory bad?

Peter

[Jim Macklin]

The procedure turn was never required when drawn as the
standard dog-leg turn. But when drawn as a holding pattern,
then the course reversal must be flown as charted. In any
case, the protected airspace is established to allow the
aircraft room to safely make the required turns.

Now that GPS or RADAR allow navigation and position fixing
to the IAF/FAF a course reversal is not required.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


> wrote in message
ups.com...
|I remember reading a lot of articles and opinions about
procedure turns
| being absolutely required except for the three conditions
in FAR
| 91.175(j).
|
| The newest online AIM, seems to have changed. Paragraph
5-4-9.a. now
| reads:
|
| The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a
required
| maneuver when it is necessary to perform a course
reversal.
|
| The "when it is necessary..." portion is new. Is this a
change in FAA
| policy, or did people misinterpret the regs in the past,
or is my
| memory bad?
|
| Peter
|

[Sam Spade]

wrote:

> I remember reading a lot of articles and opinions about procedure turns
> being absolutely required except for the three conditions in FAR
> 91.175(j).
>
> The newest online AIM, seems to have changed. Paragraph 5-4-9.a. now
> reads:
>
> The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required
> maneuver when it is necessary to perform a course reversal.
>
> The "when it is necessary..." portion is new. Is this a change in FAA
> policy, or did people misinterpret the regs in the past, or is my
> memory bad?
>
> Peter
>

The AIM is incorrect and will be changed next cycle. In the meantime
the following GENOT supercedes that AIM language:

Change to the Procedure Turn Text in the AIM

The August 4, 2005, Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) revision to
paragraph 5−4−9a, Procedure Turn, has generated pilot comments that
indicate the text may be misleading and could possibly cause deviation
from the requirements of 14 CFR Part 91.175(j). This concern was brought
to the government/industry Aeronautical Charting Forum, Instrument
Procedures Group, as an issue to be resolved as soon as possible.
The group agreed that the paragraph as currently written could be
misinterpreted and cause misunderstanding on when a Procedure Turn is to
be flown. The consensus of the group was that a revision was necessary.
The text was revised as stated below and will be published in the August
2006, Change 1, to the AIM.

5−4−9. Procedure Turn
a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate
or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold−in−lieu−of−PT is
a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart. However,
the procedure turn or hold−in−lieu−of−PT is not permitted when the
symbol “No PT” is depicted on the initial segment being used,
when a RADAR VECTOR to the final approach course is provided, or when
conducting a timed approach from a holding fix. 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.

Note

The pilot may elect to use the procedure turn or hold−in−lieu−of−PT when
it is not required by the procedure, but must first receive an amended
clearance from ATC. When ATC is Radar vectoring to the final approach
course or to the Intermediate Fix, ATC may specify in the approach
clearance “CLEARED STRAIGHT−IN (type) APPROACH” to ensure the procedure
turn or hold−in−lieu−of−PT is not to be flown. If the pilot is
uncertain whether the ATC clearance intends for a procedure turn to be
conducted or to allow for a straight−inapproach, the pilot shall
immediately request clarification from ATC (14 CFR Part 91.123).

The rest of the paragraph is unchanged.
(AFS−420 12/22/05)

4-GEN-35 (June 8, 2006 Published NOTAMS)

[Sam Spade]

Jim Macklin wrote:


>
> Now that GPS or RADAR allow navigation and position fixing
> to the IAF/FAF a course reversal is not required.
>
>
Not so.

1. Radar vectors, provided they are provided in accordance with 7110.65,
5-9-1, have always (well, since the early 1950s) preempted the procedure
turn. This is one of the exceptions set forth in FAR 91.175(j).

2. GPS is in no way authorized to trump or preempt an otherwise required
course reversal (be it procedure turn, teardrop procedure turn, or
hold-in-lieu-of procedure turn).

[[email protected]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> The procedure turn was never required when drawn as the
> standard dog-leg turn.

Really? I never read it that way. Regardless of the shape of the
procedure turn, the rules on whether you fly it or not are always the
same.

> But when drawn as a holding pattern,
> then the course reversal must be flown as charted

The requirement here is the course to be flown (an acceptable hold
entry rather than a generic course reversal) not whether a course
reversal has to be flown or not. In other words the requirement is
"flown as charted" not "must be flown."

[[email protected]]

Sam Spade wrote:

> The August 4, 2005, Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) revision to
> paragraph 5-4-9a, Procedure Turn, has generated pilot comments that
> indicate the text may be misleading and could possibly cause deviation
> from the requirements of 14 CFR Part 91.175(j).

I'm still missing something here. 91.175 doesn't say when you have to
do a procedure turn, just when you can't. The erroneous AIM doesn't
conflict with 91.175 as far as I can tell.

[rps]

wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
> > The August 4, 2005, Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) revision to
> > paragraph 5-4-9a, Procedure Turn, has generated pilot comments that
> > indicate the text may be misleading and could possibly cause deviation
> > from the requirements of 14 CFR Part 91.175(j).
>
> I'm still missing something here. 91.175 doesn't say when you have to
> do a procedure turn, just when you can't. The erroneous AIM doesn't
> conflict with 91.175 as far as I can tell.

You appear to have missed the first part of 91.175.

According to FAR 91.175(a):
"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 of this chapter."

AIM Interpretation: if the approach procedure indicates a procedure
turn, you must use it.

Exceptions according to FAR 91.175(j):
"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
procedure specifies 'No PT,' no pilot may make a procedure turn unless
cleared to do so by ATC."

[[email protected]]

rps wrote:
>
> You appear to have missed the first part of 91.175.
>
> According to FAR 91.175(a):
> "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 of this chapter."
>

But following a SIAP doesn't necessarily mean having to do the
procedure turn. There's a lot of interpretation there. For instance
you can have multiple IAFs and therefore you won't fly all the initial
segments published, only the one pertinent to the direction from which
you are arriving. How does the 91.175(a) paragraph above imply a
different rule for the procedure turn?

What about FAR 97.3(p):
Procedure turn means the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final
approach course.

Doesn't that say that its not always necesary?

Peter

[Gary Drescher]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> What about FAR 97.3(p):
> Procedure turn means the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
> reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final
> approach course.
>
> Doesn't that say that its not always necesary?

No, it's ambiguous. It could mean either:
A. We prescribe a procedure turn when we think it is necessary for you to
reverse direction... (You are required to comply with this prescription,
except where 91.175a provides otherwise.); or
B. When we prescribe a procedure turn, you are required to comply, provided
that you think it is necessary to reverse direction.

The forthcoming new AIM passage resolves the ambiguity in favor of
interpretation A.

--Gary

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> But following a SIAP doesn't necessarily mean having to do the
> procedure turn. There's a lot of interpretation there. For instance
> you can have multiple IAFs and therefore you won't fly all the initial
> segments published, only the one pertinent to the direction from which
> you are arriving. How does the 91.175(a) paragraph above imply a
> different rule for the procedure turn?
>
> What about FAR 97.3(p):
> Procedure turn means the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
> reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final
> approach course.
>
> Doesn't that say that its not always necesary?
>

I don't know why this issue is continually raised here. I fail to see it as
a real world problem. The issue is whether or not a PT is required when
approaching the destination and you're already aligned or nearly aligned
with the FAC. But how did you come to be in that position? If you're on a
direct route you should be in radar contact as radar monitoring is required
to operate off airways beyond usable navaid limits. If you're in radar
contact then radar vectors to the approach should be available and a PT
wouldn't be required. If you're not in radar contact you should be on an
appropriate route either via airways or within usable navaid limits. But
routes like that tend to appear of the IAP plate marked NoPT.

[Sam Spade]

wrote:

> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>
>>The August 4, 2005, Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) revision to
>>paragraph 5-4-9a, Procedure Turn, has generated pilot comments that
>>indicate the text may be misleading and could possibly cause deviation
>>from the requirements of 14 CFR Part 91.175(j).
>
>
> I'm still missing something here. 91.175 doesn't say when you have to
> do a procedure turn, just when you can't. The erroneous AIM doesn't
> conflict with 91.175 as far as I can tell.
>
Read it as you choose.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> I fail to see it as a real world problem.

Let me give you an example.

Take the VOR/DME-31 approach to PAO.
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0606/09216VD31.PDF Its got a holding
pattern-shaped procedure turn at the SJC VOR and the final approach fix
5 miles past the VOR. And no feeder routes or other IAFs.

ATC (Northern California TRACON) is really allergic to the procedure
turn because it conflicts with their favorite SID out of San Jose and
delays departures. But they are also not too good about vectoring
airplanes onto the final approach course. They frequently say "proceed
direct to the San Jose VOR, cross the VOR at 3000 ft, cleared for the
approach." And then they will chew you out if you try and do the
procedure turn. Sometimes they clear you for the "straight-in
approach" still without vectors.

Now you might be arriving at the SJC VOR on a radial that is nearly
aligned with the final approach course, or you might be arriving at a
90 degree or greater angle. ATC never wants the procedure turn done,
but the AIM says it should always be done. That is a real-world
problem.

Pilots have complained, and some controllers are good about providing
vectors, but some still get lazy about it and leave the pilot in a
strange situation. Sometimes the controller will instruct the pilot to
intercept the final approach course without a clearance for the
approach, then will issue the clearance after the VOR has passed. Now
is that RADAR vectoring? Not really. But you've skipping the
procedure turn anyway.

Peter

[[email protected]]

Sam Spade wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Sam Spade wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The August 4, 2005, Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) revision to
> >>paragraph 5-4-9a, Procedure Turn, has generated pilot comments that
> >>indicate the text may be misleading and could possibly cause deviation
> >>from the requirements of 14 CFR Part 91.175(j).
> >
> >
> > I'm still missing something here. 91.175 doesn't say when you have to
> > do a procedure turn, just when you can't. The erroneous AIM doesn't
> > conflict with 91.175 as far as I can tell.
> >
> Read it as you choose.

But why do you choose it one way and not the other? Is there another
regulation out there, or just 91.175?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> I fail to see it as a real world problem.
>
> Let me give you an example.
>
> Take the VOR/DME-31 approach to PAO.
> http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0606/09216VD31.PDF Its got a holding
> pattern-shaped procedure turn at the SJC VOR and the final approach fix
> 5 miles past the VOR. And no feeder routes or other IAFs.
>
> ATC (Northern California TRACON) is really allergic to the procedure
> turn because it conflicts with their favorite SID out of San Jose and
> delays departures. But they are also not too good about vectoring
> airplanes onto the final approach course. They frequently say "proceed
> direct to the San Jose VOR, cross the VOR at 3000 ft, cleared for the
> approach." And then they will chew you out if you try and do the
> procedure turn. Sometimes they clear you for the "straight-in
> approach" still without vectors.
>
> Now you might be arriving at the SJC VOR on a radial that is nearly
> aligned with the final approach course, or you might be arriving at a
> 90 degree or greater angle. ATC never wants the procedure turn done,
> but the AIM says it should always be done. That is a real-world
> problem.
>
> Pilots have complained, and some controllers are good about providing
> vectors, but some still get lazy about it and leave the pilot in a
> strange situation. Sometimes the controller will instruct the pilot to
> intercept the final approach course without a clearance for the
> approach, then will issue the clearance after the VOR has passed. Now
> is that RADAR vectoring? Not really. But you've skipping the
> procedure turn anyway.
>

It may be a real world problem, but it's not the problem I presented.

Clearance for the approach while proceeding direct to SJC VOR is clearance
for the procedure turn, there's no basis for ATC to chew anyone out.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> It may be a real world problem, but it's not the problem I presented.

But it can be. You may be approaching the VOR and be lined up, or
almost lined up with the final approach course. Sure RADAR is
available, but ATC did not provide vectors. Technically you should go
around the hold once. But that doesn't make good sense unless you have
altitude to lose. And ATC doesn't like it. Why should the controller
be forced to provide vectors in this instance?

> Clearance for the approach while proceeding direct to SJC VOR is clearance
> for the procedure turn, there's no basis for ATC to chew anyone out.

Yeah, that's why pilots have complained and at least one received a
profuse apology from a supervisor at the TRACON. But that doesn't
change the fact that ATC would rather not deal with the procedure turn
and many controllers cut corners in trying to avoid it. And, yes, they
are wrong. But they still do it (it got better for a while after the
complaints, but lately they seem to have reverted to their old tricks).

Now let me ask a question. What if ATC clears you direct to the VOR
and then clears you for the "straight-in" approach? Isn't the
controller's instruction in conflict with the AIM? Who wins,
hypothetically speaking (say you can't contact him for clarification)?

[Ron Garret]

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

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > But following a SIAP doesn't necessarily mean having to do the
> > procedure turn. There's a lot of interpretation there. For instance
> > you can have multiple IAFs and therefore you won't fly all the initial
> > segments published, only the one pertinent to the direction from which
> > you are arriving. How does the 91.175(a) paragraph above imply a
> > different rule for the procedure turn?
> >
> > What about FAR 97.3(p):
> > Procedure turn means the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
> > reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final
> > approach course.
> >
> > Doesn't that say that its not always necesary?
> >
>
> I don't know why this issue is continually raised here. I fail to see it as
> a real world problem. The issue is whether or not a PT is required when
> approaching the destination and you're already aligned or nearly aligned
> with the FAC. But how did you come to be in that position? If you're on a
> direct route you should be in radar contact as radar monitoring is required
> to operate off airways beyond usable navaid limits. If you're in radar
> contact then radar vectors to the approach should be available and a PT
> wouldn't be required.

Unless you lose comm. That's the only circumstance where this issue
really rears its ugly head.

Case in point: suppose I'm flying from Catalina to Fullerton.
(http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0606/05136VA.PDF) The clearance is V21 SLI
direct. In practice they always vector you straight in. But if you
lose comm, technically you're required to fly to SLI, turn 178 degrees
(or 182), fly outbound for the PT, turn 180 degrees again to go back to
SLI (where you just came from) and then fly the approach.

I once flew this route and asked a controller what I should actually do
in this situation. His response was that it had never happened, they
had never thought about it, and that they'd probably expect me to just
fly the approach straight in.

Welcome to the real world.

rg

[Sam Spade]

wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sam Spade wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The August 4, 2005, Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) revision to
>>>>paragraph 5-4-9a, Procedure Turn, has generated pilot comments that
>>>>indicate the text may be misleading and could possibly cause deviation
>>>
>>>>from the requirements of 14 CFR Part 91.175(j).
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm still missing something here. 91.175 doesn't say when you have to
>>>do a procedure turn, just when you can't. The erroneous AIM doesn't
>>>conflict with 91.175 as far as I can tell.
>>>
>>
>>Read it as you choose.
>
>
> But why do you choose it one way and not the other? Is there another
> regulation out there, or just 91.175?
>
I choose ro read it the same way the industry and FAA charting folks
read it over and over at the semi-annual Aeronautical Charting Forum
held in Washington, DC.

The other regulation is the fact that the IAP is issued under Part 97,
and when a course reversal is specificed on that regultory form, and the
arrival is to that course reversal segment rather than a terminal route
designated "NoPT," the course reversal is a mandatory part of the
procedure set forth by the Part 97 regulation for that IAP. 91.175(j)
is the only regulation that trumps the course reversal component of the
Part 97 regulation for any given IAP, and 91.175(j) makes its three
exceptions clear. One of those three exceptions, an NoPT intitial
approach segment, is also set forth on the Part 97 regulation for the
IAP. Your copy of the Part 97 regulation is either a NACO or Jeppesen
approach chart. The official regulation is on either an FAA Form 8260-3
or 8260-5, and inacted by reference in the Federal Register, just like
any amendment to an FAR.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> But it can be. You may be approaching the VOR and be lined up, or
> almost lined up with the final approach course. Sure RADAR is
> available, but ATC did not provide vectors. Technically you should go
> around the hold once. But that doesn't make good sense unless you have
> altitude to lose. And ATC doesn't like it. Why should the controller
> be forced to provide vectors in this instance?
>

Why doesn't ATC like it? Why wouldn't the controller provide vectors? You
make it sound like it's a burden on them. If you're almost lined with the
final approach course anyway it only takes a small heading change as you
near the IAF. "Turn ten degrees right, join the final approach course".


>
> Yeah, that's why pilots have complained and at least one received a
> profuse apology from a supervisor at the TRACON. But that doesn't
> change the fact that ATC would rather not deal with the procedure turn
> and many controllers cut corners in trying to avoid it. And, yes, they
> are wrong. But they still do it (it got better for a while after the
> complaints, but lately they seem to have reverted to their old tricks).
>

The way for them to avoid the procedure turn is to provide vectors to the
approach. The way for them to avoid providing vectors to the approach is to
accommodate the procedure turn. Those are the only options available, they
must choose one of them.


>
> Now let me ask a question. What if ATC clears you direct to the VOR
> and then clears you for the "straight-in" approach?
>

I suppose it depends on the angle of intercept. If it's 15 degree turn to
the FAC I'd go straight in, if it's a 150 degree turn to the FAC I'd fly a
procedure turn.


>
> Isn't the controller's instruction in conflict with the AIM? Who wins,
> hypothetically speaking (say you can't contact him for clarification)?
>

If a procedure turn was necessary I'd tell him "unable straight in". If he
didn't respond before I hit the VOR I'd squawk 7600 and fly the procedure
turn.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
>
> Unless you lose comm. That's the only circumstance where this issue
> really rears its ugly head.
>
> Case in point: suppose I'm flying from Catalina to Fullerton.
> (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0606/05136VA.PDF) The clearance is V21 SLI
> direct. In practice they always vector you straight in. But if you
> lose comm, technically you're required to fly to SLI, turn 178 degrees
> (or 182), fly outbound for the PT, turn 180 degrees again to go back to
> SLI (where you just came from) and then fly the approach.
>
> I once flew this route and asked a controller what I should actually do
> in this situation. His response was that it had never happened, they
> had never thought about it, and that they'd probably expect me to just
> fly the approach straight in.
>
> Welcome to the real world.
>

I'd consider real world radio failure in IMC to be an emergency and use my
emergency authority to ignore any technical requirement to fly to SLI, turn
178 degrees (or 182), fly outbound for the PT, turn 180 degrees again to go
back to SLI (where I just came from) and then fly the approach.

[Roy Smith]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> Now let me ask a question. What if ATC clears you direct to the VOR
> and then clears you for the "straight-in" approach? Isn't the
> controller's instruction in conflict with the AIM? Who wins,
> hypothetically speaking (say you can't contact him for clarification)?

I had almost exactly this same situation happen the other day with NY
Approach. We were coming into White Plains (HPN) from the north, IFR.
Controller gave us something like, "direct FARAN, cleared ILS-16". FARAN's
not an IAF, the route from FARAN inbound is not marked NoPT, we hasn't
giving us vectors. By strict interpretation of the rules, he gave us a bum
clearance. On the other hand, not only did I know that he wanted us to fly
the approach straight-in, but there was no practical reason why anything
else would make any sense, so we did it.

The bottom line is that the AIM just hasn't caught up with real life.

[Gary Drescher]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> I had almost exactly this same situation happen the other day with NY
> Approach. We were coming into White Plains (HPN) from the north, IFR.
> Controller gave us something like, "direct FARAN, cleared ILS-16".
> FARAN's
> not an IAF, the route from FARAN inbound is not marked NoPT, we hasn't
> giving us vectors. By strict interpretation of the rules, he gave us a
> bum
> clearance. On the other hand, not only did I know that he wanted us to
> fly
> the approach straight-in, but there was no practical reason why anything
> else would make any sense, so we did it.
>
> The bottom line is that the AIM just hasn't caught up with real life.

If you regard the direct clearance as an implicit vector, then it was all
kosher. And I think the vector interpretation is reasonable: ATC was telling
you to fly the (off-airway) heading that takes you to FARAN (even though it
was left to you, or your equipment, to compute the numerical value of that
heading).

--Gary

[Sam Spade]

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
>
>>Now let me ask a question. What if ATC clears you direct to the VOR
>>and then clears you for the "straight-in" approach? Isn't the
>>controller's instruction in conflict with the AIM? Who wins,
>>hypothetically speaking (say you can't contact him for clarification)?
>
>
> I had almost exactly this same situation happen the other day with NY
> Approach. We were coming into White Plains (HPN) from the north, IFR.
> Controller gave us something like, "direct FARAN, cleared ILS-16". FARAN's
> not an IAF, the route from FARAN inbound is not marked NoPT, we hasn't
> giving us vectors. By strict interpretation of the rules, he gave us a bum
> clearance. On the other hand, not only did I know that he wanted us to fly
> the approach straight-in, but there was no practical reason why anything
> else would make any sense, so we did it.
>
> The bottom line is that the AIM just hasn't caught up with real life.

Not exactly. The following was added to the AIM recently. Note that it
is limited to RNAV IAPs. There were lenghty discussions within FAA and
with industry. It was at first proposed to permit the practice for all
instrument approach procedures with an intermediate fix, and limit it to
GPS or advanced RNAV aircraft. FAA's ATC management nixed the idea
for conventional, ground-based IAPs.

So, it isn't really the AIM not staying up with the "real world," it's
the real world inventing its own rules.


5-4-7 i. ATC may clear aircraft that have filed an Advanced RNAV
equipment suffix to the intermediate fix when clearing aircraft for an
instrument approach procedure. ATC will take the following actions when
clearing Advanced RNAV aircraft to the intermediate fix:
1. Provide radar monitoring to the intermediate fix.
2. Advise the pilot to expect clearance direct to the intermediate fix
at least 5 miles from the fix.
NOTE-
This is to allow the pilot to program the RNAV equipment to allow the
aircraft to fly to the intermediate fix when cleared by ATC.
3. Assign an altitude to maintain until the intermediate fix.
4. Insure the aircraft is on a course that will intercept the
intermediate segment at an angle not greater than 90 degrees and is at
an altitude that will permit normal descent from the intermediate fix to
the final approach fix.

[Ron Garret]

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

> "Ron Garret" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Unless you lose comm. That's the only circumstance where this issue
> > really rears its ugly head.
> >
> > Case in point: suppose I'm flying from Catalina to Fullerton.
> > (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0606/05136VA.PDF) The clearance is V21 SLI
> > direct. In practice they always vector you straight in. But if you
> > lose comm, technically you're required to fly to SLI, turn 178 degrees
> > (or 182), fly outbound for the PT, turn 180 degrees again to go back to
> > SLI (where you just came from) and then fly the approach.
> >
> > I once flew this route and asked a controller what I should actually do
> > in this situation. His response was that it had never happened, they
> > had never thought about it, and that they'd probably expect me to just
> > fly the approach straight in.
> >
> > Welcome to the real world.
> >
>
> I'd consider real world radio failure in IMC to be an emergency and use my
> emergency authority to ignore any technical requirement to fly to SLI, turn
> 178 degrees (or 182), fly outbound for the PT, turn 180 degrees again to go
> back to SLI (where I just came from) and then fly the approach.

Yeah, I suppose that works too :-)

rg

[Jose]

> ATC was telling
> you to fly the (off-airway) heading that takes you to FARAN (even though it
> was left to you, or your equipment, to compute the numerical value of that
> heading).

Then it's not a vector. A vector is "go in this direction". What you
got was "go to this point".

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

[Jose]

> Controller gave us something like, "direct FARAN, cleared ILS-16". FARAN's
> not an IAF, the route from FARAN inbound is not marked NoPT, we hasn't
> giving us vectors. By strict interpretation of the rules, he gave us a bum
> clearance. On the other hand, not only did I know that he wanted us to fly
> the approach straight-in, but there was no practical reason why anything
> else would make any sense, so we did it.

I'd reply "understand cleared direct FARAN, direct FOOBAR, cleared
straight in ILS-16, please confirm." (where FOOBAR is the FAF).

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

[Roy Smith]

Jose > wrote:
>> ATC was telling you to fly the (off-airway) heading that takes you
>> to FARAN (even though it was left to you, or your equipment, to
>> compute the numerical value of that heading).
>
>Then it's not a vector.

Correct. A vector is defined in the PCG as, "a heading issued to an
aircraft to provide navigational guidance by radar". Unfortunately,
there is no PCG defintion of "heading", so we need to fall back on the
conventional definition of "put this number at the top of your DG and
keep it there".

The problem is, it's obvious to everybody (i.e. to both ATC and to
pilots) that "direct FARAN, cleared approach" is a completely
reasonable, flyable, safe, and convenient clearance to issue to a /G
aircraft under radar surveillance. The fact that it's also against
the rules just points out how silly the rules are.

[Sam Spade]

Michael wrote:

> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>
>
> I don't know what you mean by recently, but I suspect it's less than 4
> years. The practice that has now been made official has been used in
> the Houston area for at least that long, on at least two approaches I
> know of (both GPS RNAV). Both of these approaches serve small airports
> where nothing bigger than a King Air 90 is ever seen (and nothing
> bigger than a Baron is ever based) so it works fine.

As to recently, I believe it became effective this past February. And,
these things have to work for everyone, from Approach Category A to D.
>
>
>>So, it isn't really the AIM not staying up with the "real world," it's
>>the real world inventing its own rules.
>
>
> That's right, the real world invents its own rules, and eventually the
> FAA rules catch up to practice, as has happened here.

Sometimes that works, sometimes it results in airplanes flying into
mountains.

[[email protected]]

Sam Spade wrote:
> wrote:
> > Sam Spade wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Sam Spade wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The August 4, 2005, Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) revision to
> >>>>paragraph 5-4-9a, Procedure Turn, has generated pilot comments that
> >>>>indicate the text may be misleading and could possibly cause deviation
> >>>
> >>>>from the requirements of 14 CFR Part 91.175(j).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I'm still missing something here. 91.175 doesn't say when you have to
> >>>do a procedure turn, just when you can't. The erroneous AIM doesn't
> >>>conflict with 91.175 as far as I can tell.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Read it as you choose.
> >
> >
> > But why do you choose it one way and not the other? Is there another
> > regulation out there, or just 91.175?
> >
> I choose ro read it the same way the industry and FAA charting folks
> read it over and over at the semi-annual Aeronautical Charting Forum
> held in Washington, DC.
>
> The other regulation is the fact that the IAP is issued under Part 97,
> and when a course reversal is specificed on that regultory form, and the
> arrival is to that course reversal segment rather than a terminal route
> designated "NoPT," the course reversal is a mandatory part of the
> procedure set forth by the Part 97 regulation for that IAP. 91.175(j)
> is the only regulation that trumps the course reversal component of the
> Part 97 regulation for any given IAP, and 91.175(j) makes its three
> exceptions clear. One of those three exceptions, an NoPT intitial
> approach segment, is also set forth on the Part 97 regulation for the
> IAP. Your copy of the Part 97 regulation is either a NACO or Jeppesen
> approach chart. The official regulation is on either an FAA Form 8260-3
> or 8260-5, and inacted by reference in the Federal Register, just like
> any amendment to an FAR.

Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> Why doesn't ATC like it?

Because it conflicts with San Jose's LOUPE ONE departure. The extra
three to four minutes hanging over the airport really ****es them off.
Especially since they're not expecting it.

> Why wouldn't the controller provide vectors?

I don't know. Some of them are good about it and do provide vectors.
I suspect that the others aren't as familiar with the procedure turn
requirements as you are, so they don't see the need to do it.

> You make it sound like it's a burden on them.

That's the impression I get. Its probably easier to give a one-time
instruction and then concentrate on talking to the airliners that are
getting vectors, than to make sure that the little single-engine
airplane doesn't get pushed around by the wind and correct the vectors,
then issue the turn to intercept at just the right time.

> The way for them to avoid the procedure turn is to provide vectors to the
> approach. The way for them to avoid providing vectors to the approach is to
> accommodate the procedure turn. Those are the only options available, they
> must choose one of them.

I agree with you, but in practice it doesn't always go that way.

[[email protected]]

Sam Spade wrote:

> 5-4-7 i. ATC may clear aircraft that have filed an Advanced RNAV
> equipment suffix to the intermediate fix when clearing aircraft for an
> instrument approach procedure.

Wouldn't a cleaner and more permanent change be to mark those
intermediate fixes as IAF or IF/IAF on the GPS/RNAV approach plates?
Or is there a reason that isn't practical? I guess that means the
initial segment would have a length of zero. (perhaps that's not
allowed in the TERPS?)

[Michael]

Sam Spade wrote:
> As to recently, I believe it became effective this past February. And,
> these things have to work for everyone, from Approach Category A to D.

Why? There's no reason you can't limit the applicability to Cat A&B
airplanes - that's really most of the GA fleet, and 100% of what shoots
many of the approaches where this is done. There are even entire
approaches that are not approved for anything but Cat A&B.

Michael

[Sam Spade]

Michael wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>As to recently, I believe it became effective this past February. And,
>>these things have to work for everyone, from Approach Category A to D.
>
>
> Why? There's no reason you can't limit the applicability to Cat A&B
> airplanes - that's really most of the GA fleet, and 100% of what shoots
> many of the approaches where this is done. There are even entire
> approaches that are not approved for anything but Cat A&B.
>
> Michael
>

The FAA doesn't see it that way, excpept for the special CAT A only
procedure turn, the final approach segment, and turning missed approach
criteria.

More tailoring has been discussed many times over the years and
discarded as impractical.

I ain't the FAA, though, so write them a letter!

[Sam Spade]

wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote:
>
>
>>5-4-7 i. ATC may clear aircraft that have filed an Advanced RNAV
>>equipment suffix to the intermediate fix when clearing aircraft for an
>>instrument approach procedure.
>
>
> Wouldn't a cleaner and more permanent change be to mark those
> intermediate fixes as IAF or IF/IAF on the GPS/RNAV approach plates?
> Or is there a reason that isn't practical? I guess that means the
> initial segment would have a length of zero. (perhaps that's not
> allowed in the TERPS?)
>
There was a charting change a few years back to do just that. It takes
a long time for the results to factor through the system.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Because it conflicts with San Jose's LOUPE ONE departure. The extra
> three to four minutes hanging over the airport really ****es them off.
> Especially since they're not expecting it.
>

Then they need to find other employment. Conflict resolution is the reason
we have ATC.

[Greg Esres]

<<ATC may clear aircraft that have filed an Advanced RNAV
equipment suffix to the intermediate fix when clearing aircraft for an
instrument approach procedure. >>

How does this jibe with the letter of interp requiring an a/c to use
an IAF or be vectored to final. Will this language be added to the
..65 so it can be said to be approved by the Administrator?

[Sam Spade]

Greg Esres wrote:
> <<ATC may clear aircraft that have filed an Advanced RNAV
> equipment suffix to the intermediate fix when clearing aircraft for an
> instrument approach procedure. >>
>
> How does this jibe with the letter of interp requiring an a/c to use
> an IAF or be vectored to final. Will this language be added to the
> .65 so it can be said to be approved by the Administrator?

It was added to 7110.65R this past February.

Here is the new portion of 7110.65R, 4-8-1:

"Area Navigation (RNAV)
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures may
begin at an Intermediate Approach Fix for aircraft
that have filed an Advanced RNAV equipment suffix
when the conditions of subpara b4 are met."

And, here is the background material for the change in the back of 7110.65R:

BACKGROUND: Currently, paragraph 4−8−1 provides two methods for clearing
aircraft for a Standard Instrument
Approach: 1) clear the aircraft to the Initial Approach Fix (IAF) (or
Intermediate Fix (IF) when no IAF is depicted), or 2)
vector the aircraft to the final approach course. These procedures
create undue delay to pilots and air traffic control under
certain conditions. When an aircraft utilizing Area Navigation (RNAV) is
aligned with the final approach course and at an
altitude not requiring abnormal descent to the final approach fix, air
traffic must either clear the aircraft to an IAF or vector the
aircraft to the final approach course.
RNAV aircraft are capable of flying direct to a fix or waypoint with
more precision than a radar vector. A direct−to clearance
eliminates variables of aircraft drift when changing altitudes and/or
airspace when a strong wind shear is present. A radar
vector to a typical RNAV approach would place the aircraft within 2
miles of the IF. This requires the controller to monitor the
aircraft in variable wind conditions to ensure it does not intercept the
final approach course prior to the IF. The final approach
course does not extend beyond the IF as a radial on a conventional approach.
There are several supporting examples permitting RNAV aircraft to be
cleared direct to an IF to execute an instrument
approach procedure. FAA Order 8260.3B, United States Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS),
paragraph 230, provides for an initial approach to be made along an arc,
radial, course, heading, radar vector, or combination
thereof when the IF is part of the en route structure. In this case, the
approach commences at the IF and a direct−to clearance
provides a course for the aircraft to fly. Aircraft may be cleared to
the IAF/IF for RNAV approaches. When a Terminal Arrival
Area (TAA) is depicted, most TAAs specify NoPT (No Procedure Turn) for
the straight−in segment. This permits aircraft to
fly the same segment of the instrument procedure as any RNAV approach
from the IF. 14 CFR Section 91.175(i) contains the
following statement: “When operating on an unpublished route or while
being radar vectored, the pilot, when an approach
clearance is received, shall, in addition to complying with Sec. 91.177,
maintain the last altitude assigned to that pilot until the
aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument
approach procedure unless a different altitude is
assigned by ATC.” Aircraft are on an unpublished route when cleared
direct−to a fix or waypoint and the intermediate
segment defines the segment the aircraft must be established on for the
approach.
Issuing aircraft a direct−to clearance to the IF will enhance the
movement of aircraft in the terminal environment. Requiring
the controller to advise the pilot in advance of the clearance, limiting
the turn angle to intercept the intermediate segment,
accounting for descent along the approach and providing radar
monitoring, the procedure will ensure the pilot is able to
safely maneuver the aircraft for the approach.
3

[Stan Gosnell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
nk.net:

> Then they need to find other employment. Conflict resolution is the
> reason we have ATC.

But they aren't going to resign over this. That's easy for you to say, but
it solves nothing, and will never solve anything. Ain't gonna happen, GI.
The way to solve it is to do away with the idiotic requirement to do a
precedure turn, but that ain't gonna happen, either.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

[Greg Esres]

<<It was added to 7110.65R this past February.>>

Ah, thank you. Mine is outdated.