Do you have to fly the procedure turn?

E_Dawg said:
You are direct ASHIE, approaching from the southeast. ATC tells you, "cross ASHIE at 9300, cleared for the LOC BC B approach." At ASHIE, do you swing a hard right for the pt or do you just keep on flying straight for the approach?

http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1003/00251LDBCB.PDF
Click to expand...

Press in for the approach.

Same with the one below.....if you're approaching from the west or north (ie- not inbound on the TUS R-303), yet not aligned with LIPTE, and told to cross and cleared for the IAP, and you start a turn in holding, you're going to get asked what you're doing, as you're assumed to be getting radar vectored when given the instructions..

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1003/00430VT11L.PDF
 
E_Dawg said:
You are direct ASHIE, approaching from the southeast. ATC tells you, "cross ASHIE at 9300, cleared for the LOC BC B approach." At ASHIE, do you swing a hard right for the pt or do you just keep on flying straight for the approach?
Click to expand...

Easy answer, heck no! A procedure turn isn't shown on the approach. That's a holding pattern.
 
MikeD said:
Press in for the approach.

Same with the one below.....if you're approaching from the west or north (ie- not inbound on the TUS R-303), yet not aligned with LIPTE, and told to cross and cleared for the IAP, and you start a turn in holding, you're going to get asked what you're doing.

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1003/00430VT11L.PDF
Click to expand...

You sure about that, Mike? I understand not performing the course reversal (procedure turn, HILO, whatever you want to call it) when you're on the published "NO PT" routing shown. In fact, I still remember the SNERT acronym from UPT covering the situations you don't do a procedure turn.

S - Straight In
N - No PT routing
E - Established in holding
R - Radar vectors
T - Timed approach

If I were already established on the localizer inbound and cleared "straight in", obviously I wouldn't do the HILO, but if I were at just some random location southeast of the fix and cleared for the approach, my understand is that you're supposed to do the course reversal, unless cleared otherwise. No? Do I need to go back to instrument school?

Edit: I realize high-altitude penetrations are handled a little bit differently....
 
germb747 said:
You sure about that, Mike? I understand not performing the course reversal (procedure turn, HILO, whatever you want to call it) when you're on the published "NO PT" routing shown. In fact, I still remember the SNERT acronym from UPT covering the situations you don't do a procedure turn.

S - Straight In
N - No PT routing
E - Established in holding
R - Radar vectors
T - Timed approach

If I were already established on the localizer inbound and cleared "straight in", obviously I wouldn't do the HILO, but if I were at just some random location southeast of the fix and cleared for the approach, my understand is that you're supposed to do the course reversal, unless cleared otherwise. No?
Click to expand...

Yes, because for that IAP I showed, you're considered being RV'd. Am assuming the same thing for the original IAP. If given the same exact clearance at the TUS approach, and you execute a turn, you're going to have your ass handed to you, as you'll likely be jamming up people inbound on the NoPT course. or other directions. ATC is not expecting you to make a turn, even though a HILO is depicted.
 
To clarify, you are not already straight in via the loc bc. You are gps direct to ashie, coming from a random point southeast of the field.
 
E_Dawg said:
To clarify, you are not already straight in, direct ashie via the loc bc. You are gps direct to ashie, coming from a random point southeast of the field.
Click to expand...

Would it hurt to query, if you're wondering? I personally think ATC wouldn't be expecting you to, even though in that case of GPS direct (ie- no RV?), now we're talking the HILO being technically required. Again, same thing at TUS TRACON, they're going to wonder what you're doing.
 
When you're not sure simply ask. Last year I cleared for an approach, 70 degree intercept at the FAF in IMC conditions, high and fast. "Are you expecting me to go straight in or can I make a turn for alignment?"
 
E_Dawg said:
To clarify, you are not already straight in, direct ashie via the loc bc. You are gps direct to ashie, coming from a random point southeast of the field.
Click to expand...

Technically the reversal is required. ATC may clear you for straight in without reversal, however. When in ANY doubt, ask!
 
fholbert said:
Easy answer, heck no! A procedure turn isn't shown on the approach. That's a holding pattern.
Click to expand...

It's a racetrack procedure turn - must be flown as published. And, since you're not coming from any part of a published approach that has NoPT on it, I'd be doing the procedure turn unless ATC has told me that I'm getting vectors to final.
 
Well I overheard a flight on freq getting querried by atc for doing the required turn in this scenario. Apparently they were the only flight the controller had seen actually do the procedure turn as required by the aim.

Personally I will always ask from now on. If not to simply save time, more importantly to avoid confusion. In the real world this is one instance where following the aim to the letter can really catch some controllers by surprise... weirdly enough the procedure turn question seems to be common in interviews, where the 'correct' answer may get you hired but would only create confusion if done for real.
 
Often misunderstood, a Procedure Turn and a Holding Pattern are two totally different things. The airspace to be protected on a Procedure Turn is huge compared to a Holding Pattern. If you enter a HP and fly it as a PT you're going to bust some airspace unless you're in a slow aircraft and the PT is TERPS for a fast aircraft.
 
E_Dawg said:
You are direct ASHIE, approaching from the southeast. ATC tells you, "cross ASHIE at 9300, cleared for the LOC BC B approach." At ASHIE, do you swing a hard right for the pt or do you just keep on flying straight for the approach?

http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1003/00251LDBCB.PDF
Click to expand...
Slightly different take.

First of all, I disagree with those SNERT people who suggest that "the pilot decides he in in a position from which he can go straight in" without a "straight in" clearance is an exception to the requirement for a PT. The S is the acronym is a Straight-in clearance, not just the pilot taking it upon himself.

That said, there is also a practical take to all this. There are ATC types who believe that being in a position to go straight in is an exception (almost failed an IPC with a CFII-Controller on this one). Some refer to these direct clearances a pseudo-vectors.

This scenario is related. Note that there is a DME arc that is, of course, NoPT to ASHIE at 9300'. That "direct" ASHIE, if not a pseudo-vector, is probably a pseudo intercept of the DME arc at a point other than an IAF forming an end of the arc.

I have no doubt that the controller in this scenario expects a straight-in but, even so, given that were are talking about pseudo and implied clearances rather that expected, I would do a simple, "confirm N1234X is cleared straight-in from ASHIE" to remove any chance that ATC and I are not on the same page.
 
E_Dawg said:
Well I overheard a flight on freq getting querried by atc for doing the required turn in this scenario. Apparently they were the only flight the controller had seen actually do the procedure turn as required by the aim.

Personally I will always ask from now on. If not to simply save time, more importantly to avoid confusion. In the real world this is one instance where following the aim to the letter can really catch some controllers by surprise... weirdly enough the procedure turn question seems to be common in interviews, where the 'correct' answer may get you hired but would only create confusion if done for real.
Click to expand...
This tends to be the most reasonable approach to the "straight-in" issue.

Although understand that there is a strong school of thought that ATC is not authorized to waive a required PT.
 
The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart.
Click to expand...

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. 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. If pilots elect to make additional circuits to lose excessive altitude or to become better established on course, it is their responsibility to so advise ATC upon receipt of their approach clearance.
Click to expand...

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...

Those are from the AIM, and make it pretty simple. I think this is a real issue that needs to be addressed on the pilot side and on the controller side. It seems like both sides are confused.
 
fholbert said:
Easy answer, heck no! A procedure turn isn't shown on the approach. That's a holding pattern.
Click to expand...

Ummmm not there is a procedure turn at the IAF. You might be looking at the hold over Rouge Valley.

The ony way you aren't doing that turn is under radar vectors. If they tell you full procedure or you ask for it you need to perform the turn. And of course if you are on a feeder arc that says no pt...

I have done them under vectors and sometimes get barked at soemtiems not. I have found under the radar enviornment at least in NORCAL that they don't want you to do them they have always vecored me.
 
E_Dawg said:
Well I overheard a flight on freq getting querried by atc for doing the required turn in this scenario. Apparently they were the only flight the controller had seen actually do the procedure turn as required by the aim.
Click to expand...

As some of the others have said, a PT is a required maneuver on an approach when one of the factors which waives the PT (91.175(j)) is not present (Letter of Interpretation). ATC does not have the power to waive an otherwise required PT.

That said, ATC is not normally expecting one in this scenario, because most pilots aren't doing them. And in truth, on course and on altitude, it doesn't serve any purpose.
 
Here's something else alot of people don't know. Just because you see the 45-degree 'barb' on a procedure turn doesn't mean you have to fly it that way (in the US only; doesn't apply overseas).

From AIM 5-4-9

On U.S. Government charts, a barbed arrow indicates the maneuvering side of the outbound course on which the procedure turn is made. Headings are provided for course reversal using the 45 degree type procedure turn. However, the point at which the turn may be commenced and the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of the pilot (limited by the charted remain within xx NM distance). Some of the options are the 45 degree procedure turn, the racetrack pattern, the teardrop procedure turn, or the 80 degree $ 260 degree course reversal. Racetrack entries should be conducted on the maneuvering side where the majority of protected airspace resides. If an entry places the pilot on the non-maneuvering side of the PT, correction to intercept the outbound course ensures remaining within protected airspace. Some procedure turns are specified by procedural track. These turns must be flown exactly as depicted.
 
Most controllers expect you to go straight in. The good ones will clear you for the straight in approach. But technically if nothing is said coming from the southeast you would do a direct entry into the hold and then go in.

If in doubt, like mentioned before, "verify Nxxxx is cleared for the straight in."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top