If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I think I said " I just think the procedure turn, in IMC, may cause more
danger than it allieves". I don't think the turn is dangerous per se, but an approach directly to the FF and inbound, with no dramatic changes in altitude and direction, seems less dangerous than the same approach with the addition of a run around the racetrack. Michael "Bob Gardner" wrote in message news:jK6Zb.359414$na.536935@attbi_s04... Why would a maneuver in protected airspace, sterilized against other IFR (and VFR talking to ATC) airplanes be dangerous? Bob Gardner |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"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. They are designed that way for the least proficient pilot (the one who just squeaked through his instrument rating ride) with the minimum equipment (no GPS, certainly). In most (maybe all) cases, a proficient pilot with GPS guidance can safely proceed to the FAF, lead his turn onto the FAC using the GPS, and sort out the exact course alignment while descending on the GS or to MDA. In fact, many freight dogs do it all the time when not in RADAR contact, to save time. The only time a course reversal is ever really necessary is when the transition segment has a very high minimum altitude (due to terrain) and you just can't get down in time without shock cooling your engine(s). On the other hand, if you must fly a crappy non-precision approach to mins when you haven't flown IFR in weeks, especially partial panel and without GPS guidance, you will want to be solidly established on the FAC, with crosswind correction in place, because otherwise the approach will eat your lunch as you attempt to turn onto final, get the descent going, blow through the final, correct the other way... well, just try it sometime and you will see what I mean. Of course the course reversal ought to be optional - a pilot ought to know what his limitations are and if he feels that he doesn't need the procedure turn, then he shouldn't have to make one. However, in practice it's already that way. If you are in RADAR contact, you will generally get vectors to final anyway. If you don't, controllers are generally all too happy to clear you for the approach without course reversal. Requested it a couple of times myself, always got it. Is it legal? Who knows. One thing is for sure, nobody is going to report it so nobody is getting busted. And of course if you're not in RADAR contact, you can do whatever you want, nobody is watching. Michael |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Good answer - thanks.
Michael "Michael" wrote in message om... "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. They are designed that way for the least proficient pilot (the one who just squeaked through his instrument rating ride) with the minimum equipment (no GPS, certainly). In most (maybe all) cases, a proficient pilot with GPS guidance can safely proceed to the FAF, lead his turn onto the FAC using the GPS, and sort out the exact course alignment while descending on the GS or to MDA. In fact, many freight dogs do it all the time when not in RADAR contact, to save time. The only time a course reversal is ever really necessary is when the transition segment has a very high minimum altitude (due to terrain) and you just can't get down in time without shock cooling your engine(s). On the other hand, if you must fly a crappy non-precision approach to mins when you haven't flown IFR in weeks, especially partial panel and without GPS guidance, you will want to be solidly established on the FAC, with crosswind correction in place, because otherwise the approach will eat your lunch as you attempt to turn onto final, get the descent going, blow through the final, correct the other way... well, just try it sometime and you will see what I mean. Of course the course reversal ought to be optional - a pilot ought to know what his limitations are and if he feels that he doesn't need the procedure turn, then he shouldn't have to make one. However, in practice it's already that way. If you are in RADAR contact, you will generally get vectors to final anyway. If you don't, controllers are generally all too happy to clear you for the approach without course reversal. Requested it a couple of times myself, always got it. Is it legal? Who knows. One thing is for sure, nobody is going to report it so nobody is getting busted. And of course if you're not in RADAR contact, you can do whatever you want, nobody is watching. Michael |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:38:24 GMT, "Michael 182"
wrote: Well, as an example, the BJC ILS 29R. In this case ALIKE is both the IAF and the FF. Clearly if you are coming in from the west or southeast quadrants, the course reversal is needed to lose altitude, as John pointed out. Also, as Andrew pointed out, even if the approach was in Kansas, you migt be approaching on a 090 heading to a final approach course of 293, and hence the course reversal makes sense. I guess my question is why not have a conditional, say if approaching with heading 270 - 330 at altitude of 7300, no PT required. Now you have to ask yourself how you would navigate to an area South or East of ALIKE at an altitude of 7300'? I'm having to look at a NACO chart, and I'm used to Jepps. But it seems that there is no airway leading to ALIKE. And the MSA for that area is 10500'. If ATC can give you "vectors to final" in that area, then you would not have to do the course reversal (and can't do it without permission). But absent radar vectors, I don't see a charted way to get to ALIKE at an altitude low enough to avoid the course reversal. I'm not trying to be arugmentative - I just think the procedure turn, in IMC, may cause more danger than it allieves. On the other hand the conditional may complicate the instruction - conditionals always provide more opportunity for error. If you feel that procedure turns cause danger, you probably need to practice them. They should be second nature. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Michael 182 wrote: Good answer - thanks. Good answer, or the answer you wanted to hear? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:38:24 GMT, "Michael 182" wrote: Now you have to ask yourself how you would navigate to an area South or East of ALIKE at an altitude of 7300'? I'm having to look at a NACO chart, and I'm used to Jepps. But it seems that there is no airway leading to ALIKE. And the MSA for that area is 10500'. MSA to the NE is 7300. Navigation by GPS. If ATC can give you "vectors to final" in that area, then you would not have to do the course reversal (and can't do it without permission). But absent radar vectors, I don't see a charted way to get to ALIKE at an altitude low enough to avoid the course reversal. If you feel that procedure turns cause danger, you probably need to practice them. They should be second nature. Hard to argue I need more practice since I live in Colorado where we get very little actual and I only fly 100-150 hours or so a year. In fact, I just hired a CFII for some practice (and an IPC) the other day. No argument that more practice and currency would make me a better pilot. Regardless, my point was not that the PT was dangerous, but relative to an almost straight in approach just added some incremental danger, since there is more time spent maneuvering in IMC at a reasonable low altitude. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
A good answer, with information that was interesting to me. The regs are
clear, and I'm not looking to circumvent them. My first post on this topic made it clear I was interested in reasoning, not just regulatory fact. MIchael wrote in message ... Michael 182 wrote: Good answer - thanks. Good answer, or the answer you wanted to hear? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 03:04:53 GMT, "Michael 182"
wrote: MSA to the NE is 7300. Navigation by GPS. Hmmm. According to the NACO chart I downloaded from AOPA, it looks as if the MSA is centered on BJC (VORTAC). So if you are NE of ALIKE, and south of the BJC 090° radial, you would be in the 10500 segment. If you have a Jepp chart that shows the MSA centered on ALIKE, we need to report the discrepancy. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
You're right. My mistake.
Michael "Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 03:04:53 GMT, "Michael 182" wrote: MSA to the NE is 7300. Navigation by GPS. Hmmm. According to the NACO chart I downloaded from AOPA, it looks as if the MSA is centered on BJC (VORTAC). So if you are NE of ALIKE, and south of the BJC 090° radial, you would be in the 10500 segment. If you have a Jepp chart that shows the MSA centered on ALIKE, we need to report the discrepancy. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
MSA is not an operational altitude...it is for emergency use only. Read
5-4-5 AIM. Bob Gardner "Michael 182" wrote in message newsPeZb.82854$uV3.542041@attbi_s51... "Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message ... On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:38:24 GMT, "Michael 182" wrote: Now you have to ask yourself how you would navigate to an area South or East of ALIKE at an altitude of 7300'? I'm having to look at a NACO chart, and I'm used to Jepps. But it seems that there is no airway leading to ALIKE. And the MSA for that area is 10500'. MSA to the NE is 7300. Navigation by GPS. If ATC can give you "vectors to final" in that area, then you would not have to do the course reversal (and can't do it without permission). But absent radar vectors, I don't see a charted way to get to ALIKE at an altitude low enough to avoid the course reversal. If you feel that procedure turns cause danger, you probably need to practice them. They should be second nature. Hard to argue I need more practice since I live in Colorado where we get very little actual and I only fly 100-150 hours or so a year. In fact, I just hired a CFII for some practice (and an IPC) the other day. No argument that more practice and currency would make me a better pilot. Regardless, my point was not that the PT was dangerous, but relative to an almost straight in approach just added some incremental danger, since there is more time spent maneuvering in IMC at a reasonable low altitude. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Complete Reversal or Not? | Greg Esres | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | February 12th 04 10:05 AM |