Course Reversal Question

[tgrayson]

Interesting article on all issues surrounding course reversals by a guy who helps guide national policy.


http://www.terps.com/ifrr/jul96.pdf

 

[awacs94]

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..'

Are you reffering to a direct entry?

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

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

nosehair prescribes his own procedure turns. He's a true believer that they are all optional. If you take the three of us, you have the different viewpoints.

As I understand from this and other posts, yours is that unless one of the conditions in 91.175 exists, you must do a PT and ATC can't clear you straight in unless you are being vectored.

Nosehair's is that the decision to perform the PT is always at pilot's discretion. If the pilot doesn't think a PT is necessary, it doesn't have to be done.

Mine was the same as yours for a while but, based in small part on my reading of some earlier Legal opinions and mostly on the history of the 2 AIM rewrites on the subject, I'm satisfied that the conditions in 91.175 must usually exist but that (at least in a radar environment) ATC may clear you straight in.

 

[tgrayson]

I'm satisfied that the conditions in 91.175 must usually exist but that (at least in a radar environment) ATC may clear you straight in.

Had that actually been true, it would not have been necessary for the new direct to the IF capability that ATC now has.

It is completely unreasonable that ATC would be granted unlimited power to waive the PT when they do not have the TERPS knowledge required to do so safely.

My interpretation is pure regurgitation of the opinion of the General Counsel's office and that of Wally Roberts and others of his ilk, the people who actually make the rules. The AIM has no power to regulate the execution of PT's, but can only describe the law.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

It is completely unreasonable that ATC would be granted unlimited power to waive the PT when they do not have the TERPS knowledge required to do so safely.

I'm curious.

1. How does ATC grant a direct clearance enroute. Airways are set up to avoid obstacles, aren't they?

2. How does ATC vector an aircraft for an approach without that TERPS knowledge you spoke of?

3. What is the TERPS difference between being over XYZ VOR at 8,000' with a 20° inbound turn to final after a PT differ from being over XYZ VOR at 8,000' with a 20° inbound turn to final without a PT?

Yep. I've read the exact same series of opinions as you, just come to a different conclusion.

 

[tgrayson]

1. How does ATC grant a direct clearance enroute. Airways are set up to avoid obstacles, aren't they?

MVA/MIA.

2. How does ATC vector an aircraft for an approach without that TERPS knowledge you spoke of?

Specific criteria in the 7110.65, thus "authorized by the administrator".

3. What is the TERPS difference between being over XYZ VOR at 8,000' with a 20° inbound turn to final after a PT differ from being over XYZ VOR at 8,000' with a 20° inbound turn to final without a PT?

Depends on the geometry you have in mind. If your course is identical to where your PT inbound would be, no difference. If your 20 degree turn is from a different direction, then there is a difference, because courses "bulge" on the outside of the turn to accommodate a wide turn. The bulges only work if you approach the turn from the direction anticipated.

But the important point is that ATC isn't qualfied to determine when it would work and when it wouldn't. They know nothing about protected area, primary vs secondary, or turning radii, or descent gradients. The FAA would never grant them that power without specific criteria as to how it should be done, and you won't find that in the 7110.65.

 

[nosehair]

Interesting article on all issues surrounding course reversals

Thanks, tgray, now I can stop worrying about it.

I see the words "prescribed" is by the approach designer, and if he does his job, when the feeder route alignment is within 30 degrees, he should put NoPT on it, and does not always do it. That explains why, to me, why some approaches should obviously have NoPT, and they don't. In these situations, I have always been under the impression that I, the pilot, could make the determination, according to the words in the AIM reference, that I did not need a course reversal.

But, I now see that is a determination made by the course designer.

I have been told that in previous debates, but this is the first official reference to that fact.

Thank you.

~The Nose.

 

[exleardriver]

kork, vor rwy 35 is an example of a 'hold-in-lieu', which includes a notation in the plan view that states a 'no-pt' when approaching the iaf from what pilots would describe as a 'direct entry'..a 140-degree sector. krog, vor rwy 2 is a similar approach, yet lacks the 'no-pt' notation.

 

[tgrayson]

kork, vor rwy 35 is an example of a 'hold-in-lieu', which includes a notation in the plan view that states a 'no-pt' when approaching the iaf from what pilots would describe as a 'direct entry'..a 140-degree sector. krog, vor rwy 2 is a similar approach, yet lacks the 'no-pt' notation.

Note that the Rwy 35 approach says that arrivals via airway between R-089 and R-230 are NoPT. If you are arriving between those radials but aren't on an airway, the PT is a required maneuver. Silly? Yes.

Prior to the TAA concept, this was the only means that TERPS provided for sectorized NoPT arrivals. Rogers may not have an appropriate airway to provide the feature.

 

[exleardriver]

Note that the Rwy 35 approach says that arrivals via airway between R-089 and R-230 are NoPT. If you are arriving between those radials but aren't on an airway, the PT is a required maneuver. Silly? Yes.

Prior to the TAA concept, this was the only means that TERPS provided for sectorized NoPT arrivals. Rogers may not have an appropriate airway to provide the feature.

yeah, rogers is actually in a rather hilly area. and agreed that it seems silly on the face..there are only four airways that match that criteria: 089, 149, 193 and 230..if i'm reading them correctly without my reading glasses.

interesting is that not all the approach controllers who work klit (no pun intended) understand the subtlety themselves. half the time you will be asked why you began a turn in hold rather than to have proceeded straight in if at an appropriate altitude from any 'direct entry' when cleared for the full procedure. of course we go straight if radar vectored. truly amazing all the subtle details for which instrument pilots, controllers, examiners and faa safety inspectors cannot agree. kinda scary, too.

 

[tgrayson]

half the time you will be asked why you began a turn in hold rather than to have proceeded straight in if at an appropriate altitude from any 'direct entry' when cleared for the full procedure. of course we go straight if radar vectored. truly amazing all the subtle details for which instrument pilots, controllers, examiners and faa safety inspectors cannot agree. kinda scary, too.

Agreed. Controllers are often baffled when we do a PT. During training, I try to emphasize to the controller when we're going to do the PT, so that there are no surprises.

The controller/pilot relationship is difficult; neither fully understands the responsibilities or needs of the other, and that's sometimes led to wrecked airplanes.

Controllers will often let or even encourage the pilot to do things that are either illegal or unsafe and I consider it a victory when I'm able to teach an instrument student to recognize those situations and be assertive. (One of the most common is to be vectored to final at altitudes below what's published on the intermediate segment.)

 

[exleardriver]

Agreed. Controllers are often baffled when we do a PT. During training, I try to emphasize to the controller when we're going to do the PT, so that there are no surprises.

The controller/pilot relationship is difficult; neither fully understands the responsibilities or needs of the other, and that's sometimes led to wrecked airplanes.

Controllers will often let or even encourage the pilot to do things that are either illegal or unsafe and I consider it a victory when I'm able to teach an instrument student to recognize those situations and be assertive. (One of the most common is to be vectored to final at altitudes below what's published on the intermediate segment.)

true enough. sometimes clarification has demanded that i request a controller's ident for a phone call back on the ground when it's apparent we've 'worked something out', but clearly still some confusion. i find them much nicer about things on the phone. just last friday while practicing multiple vfr practice ndb approaches (personal fave), a controller instructed us to 'maintain 2,000 to the ndb, cleared for the approach'. the initial segment altitude is 2,300. my student asked, 'must i climb after passing the ndb??' have to grin on that one! he also advised that 'once inbound, i'll change you to the local advisory'. the next two approaches, once inbound and down at mda, no word yet, i had to prompt for a frequency change. on the third, he wasn't going to forget and gave it as soon as we crossed the ndb to intercept outbound..lol.

it can be frustrating at times. you wish to simulate as closely as possible the communications that students may expect in actual conditions, but not every controller handles vfr-conducted approaches the same way. some will assign altitudes/headings, give more detailed instructions when clearing for the approach, to include changing to local advisory, report missed back with me, say intentions when reporting back, etc. with your missed. others will just say, 'maintain vfr, cleared for the ndb approach' and you must prompt them to do their part. in those cases, i often simulate controller instructions through the intercom..funny is always when they reply, keying the mike.. :laff:

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Agreed. Controllers are often baffled when we do a PT. During training, I try to emphasize to the controller when we're going to do the PT, so that there are no surprises.

That's the key, no matter how one views the course reveral "controversy."

Heck, communication can even make "illegal" into "legal." Take tgrayson's and my different views on whether ATC can clear you straight in when there is a mandatory PT:

XYZ is the FAF/GSI fix for the ILS approach to runway 14. Aircraft is coming in toward XYZ from the northwest. There's a PT at XYZ. Aircraft is "on airspeed and on altitude."

ATC: Cessna 1234X proceed direct XYZ. Cleared straight in for the Runway 14 ILS approach.

So far, I would say it's okay; tgrayson would say it's not So let's continue the conversation.

Pilot: Can you give me an intercept heading?

ATC: Fly heading 110.

Bingo! Vector!

 

[exleardriver]

That's the key, no matter how one views the course reveral "controversy."

Heck, communication can even make "illegal" into "legal." Take tgrayson's and my different views on whether ATC can clear you straight in when there is a mandatory PT:

XYZ is the FAF/GSI fix for the ILS approach to runway 14. Aircraft is coming in toward XYZ from the northwest. There's a PT at XYZ. Aircraft is "on airspeed and on altitude."

ATC: Cessna 1234X proceed direct XYZ. Cleared straight in for the Runway 14 ILS approach.

So far, I would say it's okay; tgrayson would say it's not So let's continue the conversation.

Pilot: Can you give me an intercept heading?

ATC: Fly heading 110.

Bingo! Vector!

lol...midlife. that rv clears it up, huh! have to agree on communication between pilots/controllers frequently making the 'illegal into legal'. obviously as the depth of some of the finer points of these discussions travel, confusion, ambiguity and misinterpretation abound ifr flight. i flew part 135 about seven years..and it truly earns its moniker 'part one dirty-five' honestly. no telling how many of these hold-in-lieu's i've performed straight in when cleared for the approach from a 'direct sector' and at altitude and i don't recall being questioned by a controller. that's not to say it might not have happened, i just don't recall. but from what tgrayson has written, linked to and my further reading of the aim, i'm inclined to agree his is true legal interpretation. it's true - controllers, pilots and even faa inspectors can't give the final word..seems it's left to the approach authors and legal counsel. in the end..the lawyers always win..

 

[tgrayson]

a controller instructed us to 'maintain 2,000 to the ndb, cleared for the approach'. the initial segment altitude is 2,300. my student asked, 'must i climb after passing the ndb??'

Good catch for the student. Controllers will often give MVA without looking at the plate. I have them say "Cessna 1234X requests 2,300 to comply with the procedure", which has always been granted so far.

i had to prompt for a frequency change

I do think that's very important. A guy I know nearly botched the ILS on his checkride because he didn't receive a switch to tower and on his next transmission, approach thought he was missed approach and immediately issued a vector that took him off the localizer. Had he been proactive, the situation would never have occurred.

funny is always when they reply, keying the mike..

Yep, I see that too.

 

[exleardriver]

Good catch for the student. Controllers will often give MVA without looking at the plate. I have them say "Cessna 1234X requests 2,300 to comply with the procedure", which has always been granted so far.

good move. if nothing else, implies you know what's supposed to happen even if they're too busy or perhaps lazy to check on an obscure approach (this ndb doesn't see much practice). actually, i..ahem..prompted the student about the inappropriate altitude for his thoughts first..

:bandit: