Procedure Turn

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?

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?

"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".

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.

"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
.. .

One in which the IAF and the FAF were the same waypoint.


What approach at what airport?

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?

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
news

"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?

"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?

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?

[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)