Course Reversal

J

JLF

Well-Known Member
How do you guys do it? Pardon the picture, it looks pretty bad on my screen...

Someone recently described to me A, and I had never done this before. Their reasoning I believe is so they have can keep an accurate estimation of their distance from the FAF while outbound. This is /U.


In case my picture is confusing, A is maneuvering to establish them self on the outbound course prior to the FAF so they can hack the time right at the FAF.

B hits the fix and turns to intercept the outbound course "down range" of the FAF.



Thanks all!


Reversal.jpg
 
willing to bet that the AP says that when intercepting at that angle "NO PT" is printed and is not required. B/C your either coming in from a feeder route or being vectored, either way both wouldn't have you perform a course reversal.

UNLESS you were cleared to do the FULL approach but still the above would still apply.

For purposes of answering the question I would choose whichever you prefer
 
AP2B said:
Someone recently described to me A, and I had never done this before.
Click to expand...

I find "A" an unnecessary amount of maneuvering. You'll get established on the outbound course more quickly with "B". I understand the attraction of "perfect timing" when you cross the fix headed directly outbound, but I don't think that perfect timing is really required. Going outbound for around 2 minutes keeps you well within the protected area, so it's pretty forgiving about when you start the clock.
 
Hit the fix. Turn 90. Turn back 270. Descend as appropriate to cross the FAF at the minimum altitude specified.
 
CFIT99 said:
willing to bet that the AP says that when intercepting at that angle "NO PT" is printed and is not required. B/C your either coming in from a feeder route or being vectored, either way both wouldn't have you perform a course reversal.
Click to expand...

I wondered about that. I was going to say something along those lines, but wasn't sure, so I just let it go.

Perhaps we could get an actual approach chart where the diagrammed pictures would be applicable?
 
Roger said:
Hit the fix. Turn 90. Turn back 270. Descend as appropriate to cross the FAF at the minimum altitude specified.
Click to expand...

I prefer the 90-270 method myself too. It is simple, nothing to time, easy to remember.

In the examples above, I don't see why you wouldn't just go straight in. Procedure turns are only required when you need to make a course reversal - approaching from the North in this case, you don't.

Without seeing the plate this came from, I would guess you aren't coming from a fix on the approach, so you are probably getting radar vectors anyway.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Procedure turns are only required when you need to make a course reversal - approaching from the North in this case, you don't.
Click to expand...

The need for a course reversal is not yours to determine....that right belongs to the FAA employee who designs the approach. If the procedure designer determines that you don't need a course reversal, he won't put one on the plate or he'll mark a route as NoPT. Absent that (or vectors, timed approaches from a holding pattern) the PT is a required maneuver.
 
First, I am not a II. But in my training I always did 90/270 as well. However, from what I remember, as long as your on the protected side and (within 10 miles?) then it doesn't matter what you do. If you want to do a 450 and then a 630 just to try and make your student/CFII dizzy then have at it. Just stay on the protected side, ATC might question your motives though. :)
 
This question was predicated on having to execute the reversal.

Thanks a lot everyone, good stuff. It's good to see people using different techniques to accomplish the same thing.

tgrayson:
The need for a course reversal is not yours to determine....that right belongs to the FAA employee who designs the approach. If the procedure designer determines that you don't need a course reversal, he won't put one on the plate or he'll mark a route as NoPT. Absent that (or vectors, timed approaches from a holding pattern) the PT is a required maneuver.
Click to expand...

Absolutely
 
tgrayson said:
The need for a course reversal is not yours to determine....that right belongs to the FAA employee who designs the approach. If the procedure designer determines that you don't need a course reversal, he won't put one on the plate or he'll mark a route as NoPT. Absent that (or vectors, timed approaches from a holding pattern) the PT is a required maneuver.
Click to expand...

Well, if already established inbound, I'm not sure ATC always expects you to do it. AIM 5-4-7 seems to allow this when on an unpublished route when established inbound.

Just last week, I was asked if I wanted the course reversal for the VOR/DME 17 KMKY. I wasn't using the HICUP IAF, or getting radar vectors. I said no, and got "resume own navigation, cleared direct CYY, cleared for the VOR/DME 17, change to advisory." So it didn't sound like ATC had a problem with that. I don't really see the point of the course reversal when you are already within 5 degrees inbound. Other than making the traffic behind me wait even longer to get in (just above minimums, and can't reach approach from the ground there).

I do agree though, starting the approach from HICUP is probably the more legal way to go.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
ATC always expects you to do it.
Click to expand...

ATC has no authority to waive Federal Regulations unless that authority is explicitly granted to them. The only authority they've been given in this regard is the ability to vector you to final; if they are unable to do that, then the pilot's regulatory obligation is to follow the approach plate


AIM 5-4-7 seems to allow this when on an unpublished route when established inbound.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you get that from that paragraph. But this is pretty explicit:
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 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.

​
So it didn't sound like ATC had a problem with that.
Click to expand...

It isn't ATC's job to enforce the regulations which apply to pilots. Sometimes you have to be pretty firm with them to demand they allow you to do what you know is proper.

I don't really see the point of the course reversal when you are already within 5 degrees inbound.
Click to expand...

Probably none, but do you think that, as a general policy, pilots should figure out for themselves when a PT is needed, given that they don't understand the TERPS criteria that placed the PT on the chart? They know nothing about protected areas or turn radii or descent gradients? ATC doesn't know anything about those things either, which is why they don't have any ability to modify instrument approaches, other than vectoring to final under strict guidelines.
 
AP2B said:
How do you guys do it? Pardon the picture, it looks pretty bad on my screen...

Someone recently described to me A, and I had never done this before. Their reasoning I believe is so they have can keep an accurate estimation of their distance from the FAF while outbound. This is /U.


In case my picture is confusing, A is maneuvering to establish them self on the outbound course prior to the FAF so they can hack the time right at the FAF.

B hits the fix and turns to intercept the outbound course "down range" of the FAF.



Thanks all!


Reversal.jpg
Click to expand...

I would do B.
 
tgrayson said:
The only authority they've been given in this regard is the ability to vector you to final; if they are unable to do that, then the pilot's regulatory obligation is to follow the approach plate
Click to expand...

In the example I cited, they pretty much had me on a course to intercept final. I also had a higher crossing restriction. I guess the question is, how long are vectors necessary to comply with the rules - is it a distance or time thing?
 
drunkenbeagle said:
In the example I cited, they pretty much had me on a course to intercept final. I also had a higher crossing restriction. I guess the question is, how long are vectors necessary to comply with the rules - is it a distance or time thing?
Click to expand...

You said you were cleared direct, and "cleared direct" is notorious in the industry for NOT being a vector and for NOT being safe when the fix is the FAF. Depending on the angle from which you arrive, your turn to the final approach course might well exceed the narrow protected airspace at the FAF. Part of the purpose of the PT and intermediate segments is to get you comfortably established on the FAC so that no maneuvering is necessary once the protected airspace starts to narrow down.

The big danger here is to assume that ATC's permission is equivalent to saying that what you are about to do is safe, even ignoring the legal issue. ATC doesn't have any idea if it's safe or not; if they give you permission to do something, they're basically saying "no traffic conflict." A friend reported hearing a pilot ask to do a PT once, and ATC gave its permission. However, the friend noted that the chart did not contain a PT, so there was no protected airspace for the maneuver. The pilot apparently assumed that ATC was guaranteeing obstacle protection and ATC assumed the pilot knew what he was doing. Both assumptions were false. ;)

ATC is allowed to vector you to the FAF, but only if you specifically ask and the interception angle must be 20 degrees or less. (5-9-1. VECTORS TO FINAL APPROACH COURSE)
 
tgrayson said:
The big danger here is to assume that ATC's permission is equivalent to saying that what you are about to do is safe, even ignoring the legal issue. ATC doesn't have any idea if it's safe or not; if they give you permission to do something, they're basically saying "no traffic conflict." A friend reported hearing a pilot ask to do a PT once, and ATC gave its permission. However, the friend noted that the chart did not contain a PT, so there was no protected airspace for the maneuver. The pilot apparently assumed that ATC was guaranteeing obstacle protection and ATC assumed the pilot knew what he was doing. Both assumptions were false. ;)
Click to expand...

This, from the AIM, is something people should be aware of, too.

 5-5-1. General
a. The roles and responsibilities of the pilot and controller for effective participation in the ATC system are contained in several documents. Pilot responsibilities are in the CFRs and the air traffic controllers' are in the FAA Order JO 7110.65, Air Traffic Control, and supplemental FAA directives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top