Reasoning behind course reversal

"Michael 182" wrote...
What is the reasoning behind the required course reversal in many
approaches? It's hard to believe that I will be safer flying the racetrack
and then the approach to the runway than simply flying to the IAF and
proceeding inbound - especially with GPS guidance. I have no problem flying
the full published course, done it many times, I'm just curious why they are
designed that way.

Many are for altitude loss. Terrain outside the IAF may prohibit lower altitude
until established on the Approach, and min IAF altitude is too high for a
reasonable descent.

Unless it's a GPS approach, the procedure was not designed for GPS guidance, and
must be designed with all the TERPS constraints in mind.

OK, this makes sense, especially since most of the ones I fly are along the
Colorado Front Range. Assuming you were coming in from the west I can see
how the course reversal would give you a protected space to descend in.

Thanks,

Michael


"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:bcQYb.7844$4o.29910@attbi_s52...
"Michael 182" wrote...
What is the reasoning behind the required course reversal in many
approaches? It's hard to believe that I will be safer flying the
racetrack
and then the approach to the runway than simply flying to the IAF and
proceeding inbound - especially with GPS guidance. I have no problem
flying
the full published course, done it many times, I'm just curious why they
are
designed that way.

Many are for altitude loss. Terrain outside the IAF may prohibit lower
altitude
until established on the Approach, and min IAF altitude is too high for a
reasonable descent.

Unless it's a GPS approach, the procedure was not designed for GPS
guidance, and
must be designed with all the TERPS constraints in mind.