Feeder routes and procedure turns

[CloudNine]

if you are flying a feeder route to the IAF of an approach for which a procedure turn is published are you expected to execute the procedure turn even if common sense would suggest a course reversal isn't necessary. They only publish NoPT on terminal routes / published portions, not feeder routes?

At KMRY only the feeder routes from salinas SNS or PEBBS should require a procedure turn. Basically, how would you fly this if coming from SHOEY or SANTY ?

 

[jmc4]

If it was me and.....

If I am VMC I'm going to take the visual and fly straight in.

IMC? From SHOEY or SANTY will get me to MUMSY where I would fly through and then turn right (staying on the protected side) to rejoin the back course of the ILS. Once established outbound I start my clock, keep an eye on my DME to make sure I stay within 10NM, and start down to 2100'. After my minute has elapsed I'm doing the PT and once established inbound I'm going down to 1700' for glideslope intercept.

ATC can't give you a straight in because they can't clear you to MUMSY below 2600 regardless of the direction you are coming from.

 

[CloudNine]

Ahh , I see. So you can blow right through the final approach course as long as it's on the protected side ? For example , you're coming from SHOEY and your gonna make a 165 degree right hand turn to intercept the back course , then a left hand procedure turn to again reintercept inbound?
Why is the feeder route from shoey 100 ft lower than the outbound minimum altitude from the Outer marker ?

Thanks for the help.

 

[deadstick]

Unless the controller says "cleared straight in..." you need to do the turn.

Also, just remember to differentiate between the feeder and terminal routes. From the IPH "Feeder routes, also
referred to as approach transitions, technically are not
considered approach segments..."

As for the 100 ft difference, that is just a minimum altitude for that segment allowing the 1000'/2000' obstacle clearance.

 

[killbilly]

If it was me and.....

If I am VMC I'm going to take the visual and fly straight in.

IMC? From SHOEY or SANTY will get me to MUMSY where I would fly through and then turn right (staying on the protected side) to rejoin the back course of the ILS. Once established outbound I start my clock, keep an eye on my DME to make sure I stay within 10NM, and start down to 2100'. After my minute has elapsed I'm doing the PT and once established inbound I'm going down to 1700' for glideslope intercept.

ATC can't give you a straight in because they can't clear you to MUMSY below 2600 regardless of the direction you are coming from.

You mean MUNSO, right? Throwing me off there.

I just want to clarify something here in the bolded part, because I'm a wet-ink IFR pilot and still learning heaps about approaches. Probably still asking lots of dumb questions.

The question is: why can't they clear you to MUNSO at or above 2600 for a straight in?

If you're coming in from SHOEY, you can intercept the localizer well outside of MUNSO, and once you ID that fix, you can descend below 2600 anyway. SANTY is a little tougher because you've gotta shed more altitude (though I'm not sure why it's 1000' higher on the route given that it's over water) and what you described makes sense, but you could still get a straight-in from ATC if they approved, right?

 

[jmc4]

You mean MUNSO, right? Throwing me off there.

Whoops, you are correct. To add, no question is dumb. It shows you care and want to fully understand.

The question is: why can't they clear you to MUNSO at or above 2600 for a straight in?

They can clear you at or above 2600' for the approach, just not below.

As far as a straight in goes; I don't think they can assign it without your request, as it's 2600' at MUNSO (well above glideslope intercept) and the tdze is 193', leaving you with 2313' to shed in 4.3 miles (~6 degree path).

You will be well above the glideslope at MUNSO, and the "cleared for the straight in ILS 10R" is gone, we are now (if allowed) cleared for a straight in LOC approach.

If they could grant the LOC straight in, I suppose you could go for it if you thought it was safe.

Could ATC give you vectors and have you drop down to 1700' and intercept the LOC before MUNSO so that you may shoot the ILS? @boondr might know, Potomac has always made my life easy. I'm sure they as well as norcal controllers (or any controller for that matter) know all of the ins and outs. I'll have to wait till I get home to check for a few sources to find out for sure.

On the fly, I'm flying the PT, any doubt I'd ask ATC for clarification. But I am a noob IFR pilot with wet ink myself.

 

[Roger Roger]

Atc can't waive terps. Performing a straight in on a PT required leg is illegal. Happens all the time though so whatevs.

 

[deadstick]

Atc can't waive terps. Performing a straight in on a PT required leg is illegal. Happens all the time though so whatevs.

I think there's a difference if the controller can display the approach. With many RNAV ones that they do not see, you are cleared direct to a waypoint and fly the reversal.

In this case....

"Cleared direct MUNSO, cleared ILS..."
Vs
"Fly heading 120, maintain xxxx, cleared ILS..."

AIM 5-4-6(e)(4)

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

if you are flying a feeder route to the IAF of an approach for which a procedure turn is published are you expected to execute the procedure turn even if common sense would suggest a course reversal isn't necessary. They only publish NoPT on terminal routes / published portions, not feeder routes?

At KMRY only the feeder routes from salinas SNS or PEBBS should require a procedure turn. Basically, how would you fly this if coming from SHOEY or SANTY ?

Why do you say that?

The ability of a controller to vector you lower or clear you straight in if you request it aside, bear in mind that alignment is not the only reason for a procedure turn. Coming in from SHOEY, there's an 800' difference between the altitude you need to be at all the way to MUNSO. Coming in from SANTI, it's a 1900' difference.

In the SANTI case, a non-vectored full procedure means descending from the FAF at 3600' down to the 480' MDA (over 3,000') in only 4.3 NM. A little more shallow from SHOEY but still pretty significant. Diving 800' to intercept a localizer from above while inside the FAF doesn't sound terribly stabilized to me.

I'm no TERPS expert (far from it) but it seems pretty obvious the PT is there for the altitude loss.

 

[CloudNine]

Why do you say that?

The ability of a controller to vector you lower or clear you straight in if you request it aside, bear in mind that alignment is not the only reason for a procedure turn. Coming in from SHOEY, there's an 800' difference between the altitude you need to be at all the way to MUNSO. Coming in from SANTI, it's a 1900' difference.

In the SANTI case, a non-vectored full procedure means descending from the FAF at 3600' down to the 480' MDA (over 3,000') in only 4.3 NM. A little more shallow from SHOEY but still pretty significant. Diving 800' to intercept a localizer from above while inside the FAF doesn't sound terribly stabilized to me.

I'm no TERPS expert (far from it) but it seems pretty obvious the PT is there for the altitude loss.

Like a bonehead I wasn't considering altitude changes , simply the excessive intercept angle. My fault was in habitually associating the "NoPT" with transition routes that have near / decent alignment with the final approach course like those originating at shoey or santi. My experience with offshore ILS approaches Is controllers almost always vector for a straight in.

I'm fortunate to have you guys to verify that there is no such thing as an "implied" NoPT ; or that feeder routes, not being considered part of the approach, don't get the designation, but it is implied by thier direction.

In other words, if the TERPS designers wanted a NoPT option, they'd maybe make a transition route (bold line not fine like the feeder) , originating at an IAF Independant of MUNSO with an appropriate segment altitude and would forcibly label it with NoPT. Sorry if this is elementary but There's a chance I see this approach in an upcoming interview and I wanna have my ducks in a line.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

You can drop the "bonehead." Forgetting that alignment is not the only criteria is pretty common for a number of IFR items. Circling-only approaches is another. Besides, bet you'll alway look at altitudes from now on

Also, sometimes the chart is wrong, so the question is always a good one. I think it was one of the first discussions I participated in when I joined here. It was a very similar setup, but with the altitude aligned also. A query to the chart folks at the FAA resulted in a corrective NoPT NOTAM the very next day.

 

[Roger Roger]

I think there's a difference if the controller can display the approach. With many RNAV ones that they do not see, you are cleared direct to a waypoint and fly the reversal.

In this case....

"Cleared direct MUNSO, cleared ILS..."
Vs
"Fly heading 120, maintain xxxx, cleared ILS..."

AIM 5-4-6(e)(4)

Well yeah it's different if you're on vectors, but I would imagine chances are in a mountainous area you'll be own nav full procedure.