Do you have to fly the procedure turn?

[Lee D]

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 the same understanding, If the PT is depicted it must be done, unless you are given radar vectors or cleared straight in.

There is a PT on the Rock Springs Runway 27 ILS. Most the time we get vectors and don't worry about it, but every blue moon we have to do the PT.

 

[E_Dawg]

Oddly enough I have already been given a near identical clearance at a different airport. When I asked the controller if we could omit the procedure turn he gave us a nonverbal "WTF" and just said he would prefer us to omit the turn.

To me this isn't a grey area, it's a complete disparity between what the aim says vs the real world. Best to keep asking what atc expects, I think...

 

[germb747]

I have the same understanding, If the PT is depicted it must be done, unless you are given radar vectors or cleared straight in.

There is a PT on the Rock Springs Runway 27 ILS. Most the time we get vectors and don't worry about it, but every blue moon we have to do the PT.

Generally, you're getting radar vectors to the final approach course unless you request the full procedure for training or the radar is out of service.

 

[Blackhawk]

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/cb/cb_363.pdf

 

[fholbert]

Generally, you're getting radar vectors to the final approach course unless you request the full procedure for training or the radar is out of service.

I'll do the PT any time I can, it's so rare we get one in SoCal. I trained and took my checkride at a non-radar facility with 4 different approaches.

Anybody can fly a radar vectored approach.

 

[Corporate Pilot]

No.

 

[zmiller4]

To me this isn't a grey area, it's a complete disparity between what the aim says vs the real world. Best to keep asking what atc expects, I think...

:yeahthat:

I've always been and have taught that without flying from a fix with the "NoPT", you're flying the procedure turn unless you get vectors.

I'd be really interested to get clarification on whether the "cleared for the straight-in approach" from ATC is a valid approval to deviate from the AIM.

 

[fholbert]

I'd be really interested to get clarification on whether the "cleared for the straight-in approach" from ATC is a valid approval to deviate from the AIM.

Just remember the AIM is not law, it's recommended procedure... Unless you crash.

 

[SteveC]

Guess it was an appropriate day to receive this in my inbox:

CALLBACK
*****************************************************
From NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System

Issue 363

March 2010
______________________________________________________________

Pilot and ATC "Cones of Confusion"

"Cone of confusion" is one of those versatile aviation terms that may be applied to conditions other than those intended. In a strict sense, the term refers to a cone-shaped volume of airspace directly above ground-based navigation equipment, such as a VOR or NDB, where there is an area of signal ambiguity that causes bearing information to be unreliable.

And then there's a humorous definition found on many aviation web sites: "Cone of confusion is an area about the size of New Jersey located near the final approach fix at an airport." This definition fits recent reports of pilot and ATC confusion regarding procedure turn and/or holding requirements of IFR approach procedures.

This month we will look at several common IFR approach situations where confusion reigns:
- Making a Procedure Turn
- Making a Hold-in-Lieu-of Procedure Turn
- Expecting a Straight-In Approach

Although we don't offer solutions to the misunderstandings described, we hope that sharing these reports will encourage clearer ATC-pilot communications.
______________________________________________________________

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/publications/callback/cb_363.html

 

[Bernoulli Fan]

No.

It wasn't a yes/no question.:beer:

 

[Corporate Pilot]

It wasn't a yes/no question.:beer:

Do you have to fly the procedure turn? Yes it was. But I thought the question was would you.

 

[tgrayson]

I'd be really interested to get clarification on whether the "cleared for the straight-in approach" from ATC is a valid approval to deviate from the AIM.

Let me give you the full quotation that mojo partially quoted:

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).
​

This note is discussing ATC's request to make sure you don't fly a PT when it isn't required or permitted in the first place.

 

[zmiller4]

Let me give you the full quotation that mojo partially quoted:

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).
​

This note is discussing ATC's request to make sure you don't fly a PT when it isn't required or permitted in the first place.

I've got that...but again:

The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart.

It seems to me that in the initial situation here, a PT (or hold) *is* depicted on the chart, so it's required and according to the AIM there's no way for ATC to wave that requirement by telling you to make a "straight-in approach" unless they give you radar vectors to the final approach course.

Again, I think there's a difference between what ATC expects/thinks they can do and what the guidance we get from the AIM says.

 

[SteveC]

It seems to me that in the initial situation here, a PT (or hold) *is* depicted on the chart, so it's required and according to the AIM there's no way for ATC to wave that requirement by telling you to make a "straight-in approach" unless they give you radar vectors to the final approach course.

Again, I think there's a difference between what ATC expects/thinks they can do and what the guidance we get from the AIM says.

Agree and agree.

If the approach has a procedure turn and the fix that you are cleared to does not say NoPT, then you are supposed to do the PT. If ATC wants to override that requirement they need to give you vectors to the final approach course, not clear you direct to the fix.

The expectations need to be crystal clear so that everyone is always on the same page. Yes, there are many situations (such as the original post) where it doesn't make sense to do the PT, but then ATC should play by the rules and issue the approach clearance appropriately. Conversely the pilots should fly by the rules, and ask for clarification when unsure.

One of these days ATC is going to have two airplanes cleared to the final fix, 5 miles in trail, and the first one is going to do what the rules say he should do and start the PT right back towards oncoming traffic.

I really dislike when ATC (and pilots!) plays those games. I suspect that Denver Center was hoping I would take that very bait a couple of weeks back. We were on our way to the west coast and made a fuel stop in North Platte, Nebraska. We had to pick our way around some storms and were approaching the airport from the north-northeast in moderate/heavy rain. ATC cleared us "...direct to PANBE, maintain 4,900 (maybe 4,700 - I don't remember) feet, cleared for the ILS 30". Direct to PANBE was roughly a 190 or 200 heading. Here's the approach: http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1003/00292IL30.PDF

View attachment 00292IL30.pdf


There was an airliner taxiing out for departure, and I kind of suspect that ATC was hoping we'd just turn inbound at PANBE and sneak down for the glideslope. But with a 90 degree intercept angle, starting out above the glideslope intercept altitude...well...here's what we did instead:



My suspicion is that Denver Center's radar coverage at LBF isn't good enough (high enough resolution or coverage down low enough or...) to allow them to give vectors to final, but they have learned that if they leave the door open that many pilots will take the opportunity to fly the approach straight-in. (Now if we had had a shallower intercept angle and a chance to intercept the glideslope from below... :dunno: )

The problem is that those kind of expeditious short-cuts, while helpful for both the pilot and ATC, are going to bite someone some day. If the rules are not working the way they're written, get 'em changed. This wink wink nod nod way of doing business is an accident waiting to happen.

(Now all you Denver Center guys that play strictly by the rules, don't get mad at the implications I've made. I don't have any proof of the suspicions that I outlined here BUT, just the fact that I suspect that I could have flown that approach straight-in based on the clearance I was given should give you all something to ponder, no?)

 

[tgrayson]

It seems to me that in the initial situation here, a PT (or hold) *is* depicted on the chart, so it's required and according to the AIM there's no way for ATC to wave that requirement by telling you to make a "straight-in approach" unless they give you radar vectors to the final approach course.

Again, I think there's a difference between what ATC expects/thinks they can do and what the guidance we get from the AIM says.

Agreed.

However, ATC has been granted a new power in the last few years to clear an RNAV-equipped aircraft on an RNAV approach direct to an intermediate fix, cleared for the approach with the expectation that the PT, normally located at the IF, will not be flown, as long as certain criteria are met, such as less than 90 degree turn. This new procedure is poorly documented in the 7110.65, ATC Handbook, and even worse in the AIM. The only reason I know of its existence is that they guys who developed the new criteria have discussed it in some of the working documents of the committees. Here is what the AIM now says:

i. ATC may clear aircraft that have filed an Advanced RNAV equipment suffix to the intermediate fix when clearing aircraft for an instrument approach procedure. ATC will take the following actions when clearing Advanced RNAV aircraft to the intermediate fix:

​

1.Provide radar monitoring to the intermediate fix.​

2.Advise the pilot to expect clearance direct to the intermediate fix at least 5 miles from the fix.​

NOTE
This is to allow the pilot to program the RNAV equipment to allow the aircraft to fly to the intermediate fix when cleared by ATC.​

​

3. Assign an altitude to maintain until the intermediate fix.​

4. Insure the aircraft is on a course that will intercept the intermediate segment at an angle not greater than 90 degrees and is at an altitude that will permit normal descent from the intermediate fix to the final approach fix.​

​

Apparently ATC has been lobbying for years for this ability; I was hoping they wouldn't get it because I thought it would make the rules a lot fuzzier about what was legal and safe, and what was not. I think this is exactly what has occurred. Overall, I think it's better to put up with some inefficiency for the sake of having clear rules.

And the AIM guidance is still very poor in this area, in spite of one rewriting after another. The authors really ought to involve pilot groups when they write this stuff.​

 

[Bernoulli Fan]

Do you have to fly the procedure turn? Yes it was. But I thought the question was would you.

Ha, I didn't even look at the subject. I was going by the actual question in the original post. Anyway, I don't see how there's any debate. Yes, you are supposed to. ATC doesn't always recognize this. I agree that it is an accident waiting to happen in some cases.

 

[SteveC]

...it would make the rules a lot fuzzier about what was legal and safe, and what was not. I think this is exactly what has occurred. Overall, I think it's better to put up with some inefficiency for the sake of having clear rules.

Mirrors my thoughts above, but stated clearer. Thanks for doing so.

 

[jeflies]

Crossing ASHIE at 9300' via a direct clearance is not going to establish you on the approach. Simply put it is not a RV into the LOC, it is a clearance to the IAF.

Just think about whats ahead. Say your @ 120kts crossing ASHIE trying to get configured for the descent because your step downs are coming shortly after ASHIE. Yes you should be configured before, but your loading yourself up with a lot of extra crap.

Common sense would tell you to do the entry to the hold for course establishment on the LOC plus be prepared for the step downs. And hey, if your having a really bad day, request another turn in the hold if needed.

 

[E_Dawg]

In the situation described, the controller questioned the pilots then went on to say that he considered his "direct ashie" clearance to be a radar vector, and that it was the only time he had ever seen somebody do a procedure turn, given the clearance. Now, if I'm putting my certs and job on the line each time I fly, I'd rather avoid confusion like this - which is hard to do given the obvious differences between controller expectations, common practice, and the faa's official guidance per the aim.

 

[MikeD]

In the situation described, the controller questioned the pilots then went on to say that he considered his "direct ashie" clearance to be a radar vector, and that it was the only time he had ever seen somebody do a procedure turn, given the clearance. Now, if I'm putting my certs and job on the line each time I fly, I'd rather avoid confusion like this - which is hard to do given the obvious differences between controller expectations, common practice, and the faa's official guidance per the aim.

To be clear, I've never performed the HILO when in similar circumstances to this in the many times I've flown the KTUS approach that I depicted. And, ATC has never wanted anyone to for reasons mentioned in this thread too. Who knows....I may have been doing this at my own cert peril too, depending on the controller?

Personally, I think the rules should be amended so that the HILO should be something that ATC needs to clear you to do, versus a "must do, regardless (exceptions for NoPT, notwithstanding)", and should only be performed as-needed (for altitude loss, etc).