Course Reversal Question

C

centralhome

Well-Known Member
If an Instrument approach has a holding pattern depicted over the IAF, do you have to do a holding pattern for course reversal if you are doing the full approach, or can you do a procedure turn on the same side as the holding pattern?

Thanks,
Joey
 
centralhome said:
do you have to do a holding pattern for course reversal if you are doing the full approach, or can you do a procedure turn on the same side as the holding pattern?
Click to expand...

Holding pattern only. You generally don't have the protected airspace for a procedure turn.
 
centralhome said:
If an Instrument approach has a holding pattern depicted over the IAF, do you have to do a holding pattern for course reversal if you are doing the full approach, or can you do a procedure turn on the same side as the holding pattern?
Click to expand...
tgrayson is right. You may be thinking of the opposite rule - that when a "normal" procedure turn is depicted, you can do any kind of course reversal maneuver so long as you are on the barb side, including a holding pattern or teardrop.

Compare AIM 5-4-9.a.1 with 5-4-9.b.2 and 3.
 
and of course if approaching from the other side, at appropriate altitude, a turn holding is not only not required but must be requested, otherwise the controller is expecting you to continue inbound. controllers only expect the holding pattern course reversal if approaching from the opposite direction and is necessary to lose altitude. further, if doing a course reversal and at appropriate altitude, if you feel you need another turn in holding to get setup you need to let the controller know before re-intercepting the inbound course that you 'require an additional turn in hold..'
 
exleardriver said:
and of course if approaching from the other side, at appropriate altitude, a turn holding is not only not required but must be requested, otherwise the controller is expecting you to continue inbound. controllers only expect the holding pattern course reversal if approaching from the opposite direction and is necessary to lose altitude. further, if doing a course reversal and at appropriate altitude, if you feel you need another turn in holding to get setup you need to let the controller know before re-intercepting the inbound course that you 'require an additional turn in hold..'
Click to expand...

Define "approaching from the other side." I believe that is an urban myth. In fact, the FAA issued a modification to the AIM around the middle of 2007 to help clarify when ATC expects you to execute the course reversal and when they don't. If they don't want you executing the course reversal, they are supposed to add the words "straight-in" to the approach clearance. From the AIM:

"The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart. However, 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. The altitude prescribed for the procedure turn is a minimum altitude until the aircraft is established on the inbound course. The maneuver must be completed within the distance specified in the profile view.
NOTE-
The pilot may elect to use the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT when it is not required by the procedure, but must first receive an amended clearance from ATC. When ATC is radar vectoring to the final approach course or to the intermediate fix, ATC may specify in the approach clearance "CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN (type) APPROACH" to ensure the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is not to be flown. If the pilot is uncertain whether the ATC clearance intends for a procedure turn to be conducted or to allow for a straight-in approach, the pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC (14 CFR Section 91.123)."​
 
I used to fly into an uncontrolled airport every night with a hold in lieu of on the ILS. I would make a straight in, almost always (unless ATC kept me at 8,000). I never questioned it and neither did they, but this was last year.

That is interesting to read though, you said that came out in the middle of this year?
 
OldComputerGuy said:
Define "approaching from the other side."
Click to expand...

yeah, my meaning was actually when radar vectors to final are used to the intermediate segment of the approach, as opposed to being cleared for a full procedure where the holding pattern course reversal is necessary to become aligned on the inbound course. at any rate, thank you for pointing out the new aim reference. it's time has come..i've heard this procedure argued among pilots for years. :bandit:
 
OldComputerGuy said:
"The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart. However, 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. The altitude prescribed for the procedure turn is a minimum altitude until the aircraft is established on the inbound course. The maneuver must be completed within the distance specified in the profile view.
NOTE-
The pilot may elect to use the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT when it is not required by the procedure, but must first receive an amended clearance from ATC. When ATC is radar vectoring to the final approach course or to the intermediate fix, ATC may specify in the approach clearance "CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN (type) APPROACH" to ensure the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is not to be flown. If the pilot is uncertain whether the ATC clearance intends for a procedure turn to be conducted or to allow for a straight-in approach, the pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC (14 CFR Section 91.123)."​
Click to expand...

Hmm, a few days ago I was doing a GPS approach and something like this came up. After some vectoring for traffic, he vectored me to CHRLE on about a 240 heading and cleared me for the approach. I'm pretty sure in this situation, I'm supposed to do the procedure turn hold, but I wasn't sure, so I asked. He kind of snapped back with a "NO!!!" which made me wonder what the policy was for situations like this. Now it seems like the controller should have said "cleared straight in", which he didn't.
 
When being radar vectored for an approach, the PT / Hold is not expected of you by ATC unless you ask for and ATC approves the hold for loss of altitude, etc.

Now if you were "cleared direct CHRLE, cleared for the GPS 28L approach" then you would execute the hold entry / course reversal.

However you would not execute the hold entry if you started the approach at WIGGL (noted by the NoPT note for that segment).
 
ClearedToThe said:
"cleared direct CHRLE, cleared for the GPS 28L approach"
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what he said. I've been vectored to final tons of times and this was definitely not one of them. He had me going direct CHRLE until a bunch of jets came in. He had me turning all over the place while he shuffled the jets on. After it was all over he basically said to me "turn back towards CHRLE and you are cleared for the approach".
 
butt said:
Thats exactly what he said. I've been vectored to final tons of times and this was definitely not one of them.
Click to expand...

You said originally "he vectored me to CHRLE on about a 240 heading". If he cleared you direct, the PT was required and he had no authority to waive it.

Now, there are new criteria for ATC to clear RNAV aircraft direct to an intermediate fix, as long as certain criteria are met, and he can then clear you for a straight-in. However, it doesn't appear that those criteria were met in this instance.
 
My question is, do you have to actually do a circuit in the hold, or is a standard hold entry sufficient?

Edit: Okay, I found it in the same section of the AIM. 5-4-9 a.4 where it says "The holding pattern maneuver is completed when the aircraft is established on the inbound course after executing the appropriate entry."
 
I have always understood it as:

The hold ENTRY counts as one turn in the hold. ATC expects you to do at least one and if more are needed, it must be requested by the pilot, or ATC may assign more circuits.
 
can't think of a time when i've been cleared for one of these type approaches when i was at a published altitude, established inbound on the approach from a fix on the initial segment and had to perform a pictured holding pattern course reversal except on occasion when it was helpful to atc for sequencing. otherwise, i've been been expected to and flown straight in on the approach. have some you been required to do a turn in holding even when properly established prior to reaching it for a straight in approach?
 
exleardriver said:
have some you been required to do a turn in holding even when properly established prior to reaching it for a straight in approach?
Click to expand...

It's not ATC who "requires" a turn in hold, it's the regulations. If a course reversal is depicted, it's a required maneuver unless being vectored to final, on a NoPT route, or timed approaches from a holding fix. And now a new one, cleared to an IF as long as your course change is 90 degrees or less and you're RNAV equipped (and a couple of other criteria).

Based on the above rules, are there times when a course reversal is technically required, but doesn't make sense? Sure, under the conditions you named. It's between you and your conscience. ;)
 
tgrayson said:
If a course reversal is depicted, it's a required maneuver unless being vectored to final, on a NoPT route, or timed approaches from a holding fix.
Click to expand...

Just a slight play on words here, but it makes a big difference.

The AIM says: 5-4-9 Procedure Turn
a. "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on an approach chart."

That's what it says.

If you only read the second sentence, then I would agree that the regs say you have to, even when you don't have to make a course reversal, but there is a first sentence that says this PT maneuver is required when you have to make a course reversal. The second sentence says how it must be done.

Of course, there are many people who disagree with me, but one of the reasons is the often mis-quote such as Tgray has done here.

And I'm not saying I'm right anymore than anybody else, but let's quote the manual correctly with all the words and meanings of the whole, not a particular part that fits your own interpretation.
 
nosehair said:
but there is a first sentence that says this PT maneuver is required when you have to make a course reversal.
Click to expand...

That language refers to approach designers who "prescribe" a procedure turn. If it's on the chart, then it's prescribed for you.

easons is the often mis-quote such as Tgray has done here.
Click to expand...

It's not misquoted, it's expressed the way that the people who actually write the regulations and the AIM guidance understand the requirement. Only those who don't understand the background of the issue attribute a permissiveness to the meaning of the "necessary to reverse course". The designers determine the necessity of reversing course, not the pilot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top