Approach Clearance?

Flying the HILPT didn't even occur to me. The red arrow is basically a straight in. If I was cleared for the approach at the arrow, I'm going to straight in. I don't think any controller would expect me to do the hold then proceed inbound
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Not the first attack on me being a 250 hr pilot. Oh well, just rubs right off my back.


You are free to fly that approach whichever way you want.

Cassss me ousssside, how bow dahhh
Click to expand...

I wasn't attacking you at all. I was pointing out that because you have almost no experience operating in the NAS outside of a 121 cockpit, where absolutely EVERYTHING is handed to us, including straight in approach clearances, you are advocating illegally flying an approach.

Sometimes one doesn't know what they don't know.
 
BobDDuck said:
I wasn't attacking you at all. I was pointing out that because you have almost no experience operating in the NAS outside of a 121 cockpit, where absolutely EVERYTHING is handed to us, including straight in approach clearances, you are advocating illegally flying an approach.

Sometimes one doesn't know what they don't know.
Click to expand...


Reference previous post above, in regards to not doing the PT if on radar vectors to approach final by ATC (AIM from that 2-page PDF file).


Even if that's a GA aircraft, on approach with vectors to final approach, are you advocating a PT for this scenario? It seems note #2 for the AIM is clear:

"However, the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu of-PT is not permitted in three instances:

1) When the symbol “no PT” is depicted on the initial segment being used

2) When ATC provides a radar vector to the final approach course

3) When conducting a timed approach from a holding x. "
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
And it says it right there, you're not expected to do a PT if one of 3 conditions, one of which is:

"When ATC provides a radar vector to the Final approach course "
Click to expand...

That's cool. But it's not even remotely what @mshunter posted.
mshunter said:
I'm posting this in general, because I want the traffic.

"N123AB, cleared direct to MEGPE, cross MEGPE at 3000, cleared RNAV 11 approach."
Click to expand...


Jordan93 said:
Flying the HILPT didn't even occur to me. The red arrow is basically a straight in. If I was cleared for the approach at the arrow, I'm going to straight in. I don't think any controller would expect me to do the hold then proceed inbound
Click to expand...

The controller probably would't care, but the supervisor reviewing the tape later on might. You've got to follow the rules and if they aren't logical, THEN you ask for relief. You don't just assume.
 
What's the setup? I assume the aircraft was positioned towards the red arrow area, no? Turn left heading xx, turn left heading yy, now you're within 30 degrees of final intercept. Cleared direct "fix" right there in front of you. I guess I took the situation to be radar vectors to final.
 
gotWXdagain said:
Clarify with ATC.
Click to expand...

I mean, you can and all. But 99.999% of the time, if you in radar coverage, they meant straight in. Enough that I've stopped asking.

Anyway, the clearance was to cross MEGPE, not to do a course reversal there. So cross at 3000 and then descend (and blow out your eardrums).

For the controllers reading this, I think "N123AB, cleared direct to MEGPE, cross MEGPE at 3000, cleared straight in RNAV 11 approach" is what pilots are more comfortable hearing, right or wrong.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Reference previous post above, in regards to not doing the PT if on radar vectors to approach final by ATC (AIM from that 2-page PDF file).


Even if that's a GA aircraft, on approach with vectors to final approach, are you advocating a PT for this scenario? It seems note #2 for the AIM is clear:

"However, the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu of-PT is not permitted in three instances:

1) When the symbol “no PT” is depicted on the initial segment being used

2) When ATC provides a radar vector to the final approach course

3) When conducting a timed approach from a holding x. "
Click to expand...


Once you are cleared direct to a fix, it is no longer a radar vector... So it is your own navigation.

Around here at least, they are expecting straight in. May not be true everywhere - hence, you should ask.
 
BobDDuck, are there differences for Hawaii versus mainland? Any unique approach stuff that is 'something new' for a non-Hawaiian person? I don't mean this PT thing, I mean approaches in general out there.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
BobDDuck, are there differences for Hawaii versus mainland? Any unique approach stuff that is 'something new' for a non-Hawaiian person? I don't mean this PT thing, I mean approaches in general out there.
Click to expand...

Not really. Other than the controllers are pretty weak in general (although there are some good ones) and get overwhelmed at very low volumes of traffic. I think the biggest "difference" is the informality in a lot of the phraseology and procedure. We often get cleared to an unamed fix that is at the Honolulu VOR 160 radial at 10 DME. Because in the 717 FMS (and many others) you load fixes like that using Place/Bearing/Distance it's considered a "PBD". There are a few controllers that will clear you "direct the PBD". Also, almost every descent clearance is at pilot's desecration so you end up doing a lot of dividing by 3.
 
BobDDuck said:
That's cool. But it's not even remotely what @mshunter posted.





The controller probably would't care, but the supervisor reviewing the tape later on might. You've got to follow the rules and if they aren't logical, THEN you ask for relief. You don't just assume.
Click to expand...

True. But I also get clearances like this sometimes half a mile from the fix, and it is busy, and I know it will be a problem turning outbound. I usually read back the "straight in" part anyway, and if that wasn't what they wanted, they could say so.

Asking about the course reversal around here has always been "not authorized, proceed straight in." And I ask a lot.
 
I was teaching this very thing just last week, and gave a demonstration of it in the radar lab Wednesday. Unless the controller specifies straight-in, the pilot is expected to make the hold-in-lieu of procedure turn.

FAA 7110.65W, paragraph 4-8-1e.:

e. For both RNAV and conventional approaches, intercept angles greater than 90 degrees may be used when a procedure turn, a hold-in-lieu of procedure turn pattern, or arrival holding is depicted and the pilot will execute the procedure. If a procedure turn, hold-in-lieu of procedure turn, or arrival holding pattern is depicted and the angle of intercept is 90
degrees or less, the aircraft must be instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn or hold-in-lieu of procedure turn. (See FIG 4−8−3)​
 
Last edited:
Oh, and to answer the second part of your question as to when to begin descent out of 3,000, that would occur on the outbound leg of the hold-in-lieu of procedure turn, since by then you had passed MEGPE (the first time) and now need to descend to 2,300 (for the second pass over MEGPE).
 
RDoug said:
Oh, and to answer the second part of your question as to when to begin descent out of 3,000, that would occur on the outbound leg of the hold-in-lieu of procedure turn, since by then you had passed MEGPE (the first time) and now need to descend to 2,300 (for the second pass over MEGPE).
Click to expand...

Well, that would be true straight in or doing the course reversal though, either way. Don't think there would be any debate about that.

The only real question about this procedure was whether ATC wanted a course reversal or not. Which is a problem of phraseology here - it is hard for any of us to say without hearing the instruction exactly. There might have been a "we're going to vector you around for the straight in" before that clearance for all we know.

The original question though was where to descend - either way it was at MEGPE.
 
As the .65 reference states if we don't want you to do a PT then "straight in" needs to be stated. I try to ask the pilot if he wants the full or not. Especially in the enroute environment it may not be possible to get you low enough to make it straight in comfortably. Now most enroute controllers don't know or don't care what you do as everything is 1 in 1 out anyways so they just block for everything.
 
Seems a little odd to have higher visibility minimums with vertical guidance than without.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bp
AIM 5-4-9 a:
"The procedure turn or hold−in−lieu−of−PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart, unless cleared by ATC for a straight−in approach. Additionally, the procedure turn or hold−in−lieu−of−PT is not permitted when the symbol “No PT” is depicted on the initial segment being used, when a RADAR VECTOR to the final approach course is provided, or when conducting a timed approach from a holding fix."
Click to expand...
So you have to do the hold-in-lieu-of-PT. Later on in subsection 5, however, the aim states:

A holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn may be specified for course reversal in some procedures. In such cases, the holding pattern is established over an intermediate fix or a final approach fix. The holding pattern distance or time specified in the profile view must be observed. For a hold−in−lieu−of−PT, the holding pattern direction must be flown as depicted and the specified leg length/timing must not be exceeded. Maximum holding airspeed limitations as set forth for all holding patterns apply. The holding pattern maneuver is completed when the aircraft is established on the inbound course after executing the appropriate entry. If cleared for the approach prior to returning to the holding fix, and the aircraft is at the prescribed altitude, additional circuits of the holding pattern are not necessary nor expected by ATC.
Click to expand...

A direct entry accomplishes the HILPT per the AIM. Doesn't mean you wouldn't get a number, because procedure turns are constantly misunderstood by both pilots and controllers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top