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
|
|||
|
|||
"Jose" wrote in message
... Well, required in the sense of geometry or what? Yes, in the sense of geometry. If you have to turn around, you have to turn around. And since the procedure turn =shape= is not usually prescribed (except that it happens on one side of the course) it's just a sexy u-turn. The *inbound* turn is usually not prescribed. The outbound leg is required to be flown along the depicted route. In the case of the example here, that requires a greater than 130 degree right-hand turn from the transition route. You only get to make up your turn on the way back in. If the procedure allowed one to simply fly a standard-rate right-hand turn after crossing the VOR, to return to the inbound leg, I might not have as big an issue with the idea that the procedure turn is required. That's still more complex, but it's reasonably efficient, does result in one being established on the inbound course earlier, and is much less likely to wind up with the airplane outside protected airspace (because there's a lot less maneuvering going on). But it doesn't. It requires that one first turns outbound, gets established on the outbound course, and only then reverses course (again) to come back inbound. Not quite. As you quoted: "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course reversal..." It doesn't say "only when it is necessary", and the quote does not imply it's the =sole= purpose of the PT. It's the introductory sentence to the entire section on procedure turns. I don't think it's a stretch *at all* (as opposed to some of my other interpretations) to believe that they are describing *exactly* why a procedure turn exists. Pete |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 11:13:47 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote: It seems likely that when radar coverage is available, vectors will be given. This allows no procedure turn to be flown. If radar coverage is not available, how is anyone going to know if you've flown the procedure turn? Anyone who listens to the tapes, assuming radio coverage? At least around here whenever I'm flying a full procedure ATC always requests "report procedure turn inbound". |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Since it's such a nice day, I'm going to quibble. Where is it written that
you have to track the inbound course when outbound? IOW (I sense that you fly in the Northwest, specifically western Washington), if I am coming from the west to shoot the ILS into Paine, and my outbound turn over RITTS takes me east of the extended runway/localizer, I am perfectly justified in flying parallel to the localizer if I want to....the protected airspace is plenty wide. I have seen dozens of instrument students work themselves into a frenzy trying to get established outbound on the inbound, if you catch my drift (no-wind conditions g). Bob Gardner "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Jose" wrote in message ... Well, required in the sense of geometry or what? Yes, in the sense of geometry. If you have to turn around, you have to turn around. And since the procedure turn =shape= is not usually prescribed (except that it happens on one side of the course) it's just a sexy u-turn. The *inbound* turn is usually not prescribed. The outbound leg is required to be flown along the depicted route. In the case of the example here, that requires a greater than 130 degree right-hand turn from the transition route. You only get to make up your turn on the way back in. If the procedure allowed one to simply fly a standard-rate right-hand turn after crossing the VOR, to return to the inbound leg, I might not have as big an issue with the idea that the procedure turn is required. That's still more complex, but it's reasonably efficient, does result in one being established on the inbound course earlier, and is much less likely to wind up with the airplane outside protected airspace (because there's a lot less maneuvering going on). But it doesn't. It requires that one first turns outbound, gets established on the outbound course, and only then reverses course (again) to come back inbound. Not quite. As you quoted: "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course reversal..." It doesn't say "only when it is necessary", and the quote does not imply it's the =sole= purpose of the PT. It's the introductory sentence to the entire section on procedure turns. I don't think it's a stretch *at all* (as opposed to some of my other interpretations) to believe that they are describing *exactly* why a procedure turn exists. Pete |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
... Since it's such a nice day, I'm going to quibble. Where is it written that you have to track the inbound course when outbound? IMHO, that's in the definition of "procedure turn" (97.3(p)). "The outbound course, direction of turn, distance within which the turn must be completed, and minimum altitude are specified in the procedure". Note that they say "outbound course", not "outbound heading". To me, this means you are required to fly exactly that course (inasmuch as you are required to fly the procedure turn at all). I don't disagree that there are situations in which it's perfectly safe to parallel the outbound course. Your example at KPAE is a fine one. But if someone believes that the regulations require the full procedure to be flown even when no course reversal is actually necessary for the approach, they darn well better believe that the regulations require flying the outbound *course* as depicted, rather than just the outbound heading. That seems much more explicitly stated than the presumed requirement to fly the full procedure. Pete |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Lots of posters are spouting ideas, regs, AIM citations, etc. but have not
looked at the approach plate. So lets do that. 1st... What is your flight plan route? Wilma is NOT part of the approach. It is a feeder for the airport. 2nd... If you filed to Wilma, then the airport and went lost communications and were IFR you would have to fly to an IAF and then commence the approach. ATC would expect you to fly to Seal Beach and fly the procedure turn. 3rd... If you are under ATC control, they would likley either vector you to final or tell you to fly to Seal Beach and then intercept final and probably tell you to to that at 1500 feet so you would be in the proper postion to descend to MDA for the circle to land. "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Yossarian" wrote in message . 97.142... I was using a Frasca 141 sim today with an instructor when this question came up. Fullerton CA (KFUL) VOR-A approach. At WILMA on V64, flying the full approach. Do you need to turn outbound at the VOR for the procedure turn? Instructor says no because a Victor airway leads to the IAF. I say yes because even though that's true, "No PT" is not listed on that feeder route. You'll need a true expert to answer the question with certainty. However... I agree with your instructor. AFAIK, there is NEVER a requirement to make a procedure turn. The "NoPT" exists to prohibit a procedure turn, not to tell you when you are required to make one. Obviously, if you're going the wrong way, you need a course reversal at some point. But that's a practical requirement, not a regulatory one. In the case of the approach from ALBAS, not only is there clearly no need for a procedure turn, they've even gone so far as to put the IAF way out there. While I'm not an expert in the TERPS, I suspect that there's something in there that stipulates when "NoPT" is used; probably any arrival 30 degrees or less from the final approach course gets a "NoPT" (the arrival from ALBAS just barely squeaks by). If the approach designer had been given the latitude to put "NoPT" on any arrival where he thinks a procedure turn is unnecessary, we'd probably see that on the arrival from WILMA too. I would agree that in general, it would be nice to be established on the final approach course at the FAF. But again, I'm not aware of any requirement for this. Assuming you can cross the FAF at the FAF (which should never be in question), and then immediately establish yourself on the final approach course (which should be no problem in this case), I don't see any problem. As far as I can tell, the procedure turn on that approach is for pilots who are coming at the VOR from the opposite direction. For example, someone who flew the missed approach. Of course, lacking the "NoPT", you are of course welcome to fly the whole procedure turn. But you're looking at 45 seconds or so just to get established outbound parallel to the final approach course, and that's not counting the time spent flying back to it (and then, of course, the time for the procedure turn itself). I'm betting not many people fly the procedure turn coming in from WILMA. I'm a little curious as to how this question is on r.a.piloting, but not on r.a.ifr. I've cross-posted for your benefit (and quoted your entire post for theirs). Pete |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 22:50:57 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote: To me, this means you are required to fly exactly that course Yes, but "course" only refers to "The intended *direction* of flight in the horizontal plane measured in degrees from north." It does not refer to a particular ground track. On the other hand, there are "Some procedure turns are specified by procedural track. These turns must be flown exactly as depicted." Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Paul Lynch wrote: Lots of posters are spouting ideas, regs, AIM citations, etc. but have not looked at the approach plate. So lets do that. Gee, I did that when I identified that segment as a feeder route. 1st... What is your flight plan route? Wilma is NOT part of the approach. It is a feeder for the airport. A feeder route is part of an IAP, and issued under Part 97 along with the other segments of the IAP. 2nd... If you filed to Wilma, then the airport and went lost communications and were IFR you would have to fly to an IAF and then commence the approach. ATC would expect you to fly to Seal Beach and fly the procedure turn. True enough. 3rd... If you are under ATC control, they would likley either vector you to final or tell you to fly to Seal Beach and then intercept final and probably tell you to to that at 1500 feet so you would be in the proper postion to descend to MDA for the circle to land. They can certainly vector you to "final" in accordance with the ATC Handbook 7110.65, Paragraph 5-9-1. That also requires that they have you at an altitude compatable with the procedure, outside the FAF unless you accept a turn on at the FAF, and at a vector angle not to exceed 30 degrees (20 degrees closer to the FAF). ATC cannot simply "tell you to fly to Seal Beach and then intercept final and probably tell you to do that at 1,500 feet...." Where do you come up with this procedure? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Sounds like you are a controller or approach designer! Your comments have always been germane and on point, unlike many others. So maybe you can set me straight...
Wilma may be a feeder, but it is not an Intial Approach Point (IAP). That means if you filed to Wilma as the final point on your route, your next point is your destination. Thinking in terms of lost communication, which is a driver for many procedural practices... If you went from Wilma to one of the 2 initials (SLI or ALBAS) you have some predictability. If you go from Wilma to some place on the approach because you believe you can hack the intercept (which some proposed), you have less predictability. If you were shooting an approach at some airports that have several more feeders, then what is ATC supposed to do? Clear the airspace for a 25 NM radius? Although I have never flown the approaches at FUL, I have been vectored with the instructions similar to what I mentioned at several places in the easter half of the country. WRT to the VOR-A at FUL, when arriving at WILMA, I would not be surprised to hear "descend to 2600 feet, turn to 090 and intercept the SLI 200 radial inbound, you are cleared for the VOR-A approach." 1500 feet came from the ALBAS IAP. I didn't see the asterisk before. My screwup. wrote in message ... Paul Lynch wrote: Lots of posters are spouting ideas, regs, AIM citations, etc. but have not looked at the approach plate. So lets do that. Gee, I did that when I identified that segment as a feeder route. 1st... What is your flight plan route? Wilma is NOT part of the approach. It is a feeder for the airport. A feeder route is part of an IAP, and issued under Part 97 along with the other segments of the IAP. 2nd... If you filed to Wilma, then the airport and went lost communications and were IFR you would have to fly to an IAF and then commence the approach. ATC would expect you to fly to Seal Beach and fly the procedure turn. True enough. 3rd... If you are under ATC control, they would likley either vector you to final or tell you to fly to Seal Beach and then intercept final and probably tell you to to that at 1500 feet so you would be in the proper postion to descend to MDA for the circle to land. They can certainly vector you to "final" in accordance with the ATC Handbook 7110.65, Paragraph 5-9-1. That also requires that they have you at an altitude compatable with the procedure, outside the FAF unless you accept a turn on at the FAF, and at a vector angle not to exceed 30 degrees (20 degrees closer to the FAF). ATC cannot simply "tell you to fly to Seal Beach and then intercept final and probably tell you to do that at 1,500 feet...." Where do you come up with this procedure? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Gotta wonder why the protected airspace on the non-PT side is 1.4 miles wide
all the way out to the maximum distance. If flying on the black line is a regulatory requirement, why not just protect the turn area alone? Bob Gardner "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Bob Gardner" wrote in message ... Since it's such a nice day, I'm going to quibble. Where is it written that you have to track the inbound course when outbound? IMHO, that's in the definition of "procedure turn" (97.3(p)). "The outbound course, direction of turn, distance within which the turn must be completed, and minimum altitude are specified in the procedure". Note that they say "outbound course", not "outbound heading". To me, this means you are required to fly exactly that course (inasmuch as you are required to fly the procedure turn at all). I don't disagree that there are situations in which it's perfectly safe to parallel the outbound course. Your example at KPAE is a fine one. But if someone believes that the regulations require the full procedure to be flown even when no course reversal is actually necessary for the approach, they darn well better believe that the regulations require flying the outbound *course* as depicted, rather than just the outbound heading. That seems much more explicitly stated than the presumed requirement to fly the full procedure. Pete |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Tough to reply because you message is in a text box this time for some
reason. Filing to WILMA would not be appropriate because, although it's a feeder fix for this approach, it is short of destination. If you were coming from the north it would be typical to file the prefered airway to SLI then direct. You don't have the option to proceed to ALBAS unless it's on your clearance route. As to the heading you suggest of 090 at 2600 that would not be a vector permitted by 7110.65, 5-9-1. Paul Lynch wrote: Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain) Encoding: quoted-printable |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Procedure turn required? | Yossarian | Piloting | 85 | July 6th 05 08:12 PM |
Sports class tasking | [email protected] | Soaring | 12 | April 25th 05 01:32 PM |
Agent86's List of Misconceptions of FAA Procedures Zero for 15 Putz!!! | copertopkiller | Military Aviation | 11 | April 20th 04 02:17 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |