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.