Procedure Turn

"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/publis...s/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

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."

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.

"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.

"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

"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.

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.

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)

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/publis...s/06555G35.PDF

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/publis...s/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)