Do you have to fly the procedure turn?

E_Dawg said:
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.
Click to expand...


DIRECT somewhere isn't a vector, it's a clearance. A "pilot nav" clearance at that.
 
MikeD said:
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?
Click to expand...
I think E-Dawg nails it on the head. It's all about a divergence of controller and pilot expectations.

The rule is pretty clear - depicted PTs (whether barbed, teardrop, HILO , or whatever weird design approach designers may come up with) are required unless one of the 91.175 conditions appear.

The primary problem is that in most situations where straight-in makes sense, most controllers expect that. Your certificate risk as a pilot is when you guess what the controller is thinking and you are wrong. If you clear up that issue with ATC, you've removed 99.99% of the certificate risk.

Why not 100%? Well, if you take the strictest view, ATC can't waive the requirement for the PT (and that's subject to argument) and you can't go straight in. So at least in theory, there is a technical violation. But who's going to report it? The controller who wanted you to go straight in and cleared you for it?

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).
Click to expand...
I wouldn't want a rule that treated different type of procedure turns differently in terms of whether they are required or not. Look at the one you refer to at TUS. That PT happens to be in the form of a racetrack for either terrain or traffic problems; otherwise it would be a standard barb. So replace it with a standard barb - why should it suddenly make a difference in whether it's required or not?
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
I wouldn't want a rule that treated different type of procedure turns differently in terms of whether they are required or not. Look at the one you refer to at TUS. That PT happens to be in the form of a racetrack for either terrain or traffic problems; otherwise it would be a standard barb. So replace it with a standard barb - why should it suddenly make a difference in whether it's required or not?
Click to expand...

Thats a good point. Where I mean it with HILOs, is that they're usually the more inconvenient of the various PTs (have to perform, even when not needed), especially when you're already aligned good enough with the final course, at the correct altitude (ie- you don't need the HILO, but are technically required to fly it anyway). Probably a better thing to do would be to modify the particular IAPs that have the HILOs where this could be an issue, with a notation to the effect of, for example "arrivals from 270 to 030, PT not required." But at the very least, the individual IAPs need this addressed on them, in order to avoid the one guy performing the HILO (or other PT) he has no operational need to perform, but is just doing so because he legally has to, and on the outbound he's in the face of the next aircraft behind him.

This could also apply to any other individual IAPs so pilots aren't bound to flying a PT where there's no common sense reason to.
 
MikeD said:
Not a bad idea either.
Click to expand...
Either way. It's would be applying the TAA NoPT quadrant concept to other approaches.

Just a guess, but the design of non-RNAV approaches probably still contemplates that you are approaching the IAF/FAF from an airway or transition feeder and (unless being vectored) not simple coming in from a random point in space. Even the whole concept of Off-Route Obstacle Clearance Altitudes is relatively new.

The TAA RNAV approach, OTOH is new and contemplates that pilots will be coming direct from just about anywhere, so it has NoPT quadrants that make sense.

Applying the concept to the "older technology" approaches might make some sense. The downside is the potential cost of re-design.
 
zmiller4 said:
I've got that...but again:



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.
Click to expand...

Think about getting vectors. You aren't shooting a full procedure approach, but the full procedure is required as well.
 
I had no idea this was an issue that was even in dispute or confusing to the level it seems to be. My understanding has always been that if you're cleared direct to an IAF and told "cleared for the approach", you always excute the course reversal unless along a routing that expressly says "No PT" or given radar vectors to intercept the final approach course (i.e. maintain 3000 until established on the localizer".
 
my input is if you are just coming in from the southeast you need to do the 1 turn in holding to establish yourself inbound
 
ian said:
my input is if you are just coming in from the southeast you need to do the 1 turn in holding to establish yourself inbound
Click to expand...

You're legally correct too.

Thinking out loud though, I've never understood what the sense is behind having to do this, unless you need to lose altitude. Heck, from the southeast, you're already fairly established inbound, even moreso than from the arc, which at NoPT routings themselves. That's why I wish they were the exception rather than the rule for individial IAPs, and so-noted on the affected IAP chart in the methods I've discussed before. That way, there will be no "wondering" if ATC is expecting you to do the PT, in these cases where it's of questionable utility, such as the TUS example.
 
MikeD said:
You're legally correct too.

Thinking out loud though, I've never understood what the sense is behind having to do this, unless you need to lose altitude. Heck, from the southeast, you're already fairly established inbound, even moreso than from the arc, which at NoPT routings themselves. That's why I wish they were the exception rather than the rule for individial IAPs, and so-noted on the affected IAP chart in the methods I've discussed before. That way, there will be no "wondering" if ATC is expecting you to do the PT, in these cases where it's of questionable utility, such as the TUS example.
Click to expand...

i'm sure its probably already been said, but to avoid the turn in holding you could always request with ATC maneuvering airspace to intercept the inbound course
 
ian said:
i'm sure its probably already been said, but to avoid the turn in holding you could always request with ATC maneuvering airspace to intercept the inbound course
Click to expand...

There are many ways to get around it. I'm looking for more of a fix that would alleviate the need for "work arounds", and alleviate any and all potential confusion.
 
MikeD said:
Thinking out loud though, I've never understood what the sense is behind having to do this, unless you need to lose altitude. Heck, from the southeast, you're already fairly established inbound, even moreso than from the arc, which at NoPT routings themselves.
Click to expand...

I've never understood it either, so I usually read back "straight in" when I get the clearance. While it would be nice to have "legal" authority to omit the PT when already established or near so, the effort involved in checking every IAP in the US against the TERPs would take quite a bit of time and money. The status quo is therefore unlikely to change.

A change in the regs to allow a PIC to request straight in at their own risk would make the most sense (and that is basically what happens now anyway).
 
drunkenbeagle said:
I've never understood it either, so I usually read back "straight in" when I get the clearance. While it would be nice to have "legal" authority to omit the PT when already established or near so, the effort involved in checking every IAP in the US against the TERPs would take quite a bit of time and money. The status quo is therefore unlikely to change.
Click to expand...

Sure it'd cost some money. But if there was a way to phase it in, such as by region or some such, it's be worth it IMHO.

A change in the regs to allow a PIC to request straight in at their own risk would make the most sense (and that is basically what happens now anyway).
Click to expand...

That wouldn't hurt either, but it's still a band-aid fix IMHO, requests made simply to clarify something we know to be true 99% of the time anyway. Good idea, but more a temporary one IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top