HELP!?! LOZ VOR Approach question!!

[SteveC]

From the AIM 5-4-9.a.

1. On U.S. Government charts, a barbed arrow indicates the direction or 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. Some of the options are the 45 degree procedure turn, the racetrack pattern, the tear-drop procedure turn, or the 80 degree / 260 degree course reversal.

(Bold added)

I'm not advocating improvising. I'm advocating doing a procedure turn as allowed by the AIM, i.e. in a racetrack pattern. See my earlier post on why I think it's simpler and easier.

Bottom line, if you feel better coming back and intercepting the course outbound, then doing a full procedure turn...knock yourself out. I like my way better, and as far as I can tell it's perfectly safe and legal.

 

[pilotsav27]

The DPE that works out of my home airport...KLOZ....is back from Florida today and I talked to him about this. His response was: extend the downwind leg of the hold, but DO NOT descend below 3900', the MSA, and stay within 10 miles, make a 180 turn and intercept the 205 radial inbound. His exact terminology was racetrack type reversal. He said rejoining the 205r outbound was not required. He also stated that as long as you dont descend below 3900' before being established this was perfectly safe and well accepted. He also stated that, if holding and cleared for the approach, there is no need to inform ATC that you will be doing a procedure turn or extending further out. Cleared for the approach means, cleared for the entire approach, and ATC will have cleared that airspace for you. As long as I do that, he said I would pass his checkride, no questions asked.

This DPE is a retired airline pilot, worked and retired from the FAA in Oklahoma City where he helped develop the classes of airspace over the old zones, has type ratings in more airplanes than I have total time, and has given checkrides from PPL throught ATP for over 10 years......YES he is old! 78 I think to be exact. He works non stop with students at the airport, currently flies a corporate citation, and gets around great! He is a legend from my parts.

 

[dasleben]

The DPE that works out of my home airport...KLOZ....is back from Florida today and I talked to him about this. His response was: extend the downwind leg of the hold, but DO NOT descend below 3900', the MSA, and stay within 10 miles, make a 180 turn and intercept the 205 radial inbound. His exact terminology was racetrack type reversal. He said rejoining the 205r outbound was not required. He also stated that as long as you dont descend below 3900' before being established this was perfectly safe and well accepted. He also stated that, if holding and cleared for the approach, there is no need to inform ATC that you will be doing a procedure turn or extending further out. Cleared for the approach means, cleared for the entire approach, and ATC will have cleared that airspace for you. As long as I do that, he said I would pass his checkride, no questions asked.

This DPE is a retired airline pilot, worked and retired from the FAA in Oklahoma City where he helped develop the classes of airspace over the old zones, has type ratings in more airplanes than I have total time, and has given checkrides from PPL throught ATP for over 10 years......YES he is old! 78 I think to be exact. He works non stop with students at the airport, currently flies a corporate citation, and gets around great! He is a legend from my parts.

Works for me.

SteveC, I think we're both on the same page; either method works, and neither is illegal or unsafe. Different strokes for different folks I suppose. Good discussion for sure.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

I'm still not buying off on this whole "extend the outbound leg of the holding pattern" technique. Like dasleben and I said before; the hold in this particular case is dashed line, which makes it a segment of the missed approach procedure, not part of the approach.

Reference page 8 (Holding Patterns) in the IAP symbols PDF

If it is bold, you use it in lieu of a procedure turn. If it is dashed, it is part of the missed approach. You can't just decide on a whim to turn a segment of the missed approach into part of the approach procedure. You're improvising your own approach and cannot be guaranteed terrain and obstacle clearance. I'm very surprised that the DPE told you this was acceptable. If the hold was intended to be part of the approach, it would be in bold, and it would also not require you to lose 1700' on the inbound leg. If you'll notice on any other chart that has the hold in bold, the required descent is much much less; 300' or so in most cases.

If you do it SteveC's and the DPE's way, where do you draw the line? What if it is 15 miles from the holding fix to the procedure turn? How about if the holding fix is on the other end of the runway? After you're done holding, do you just extend the outbound leg back towards the IAF, make up your own procedure turn and turn inbound to join a published segment? Seems to me this would be no different than what is being suggested here.

 

[Stone Cold]

I'm still not buying off on this whole "extend the outbound leg of the holding pattern" technique. Like dasleben and I said before; the hold in this particular case is dashed line, which makes it a segment of the missed approach procedure, not part of the approach.

Reference page 8 (Holding Patterns) in the IAP symbols PDF

If it is bold, you use it in lieu of a procedure turn. If it is dashed, it is part of the missed approach. You can't just decide on a whim to turn a segment of the missed approach into part of the approach procedure. You're improvising your own approach and cannot be guaranteed terrain and obstacle clearance. I'm very surprised that the DPE told you this was acceptable. If the hold was intended to be part of the approach, it would be in bold, and it would also not require you to lose 1700' on the inbound leg. If you'll notice on any other chart that has the hold in bold, the required descent is much much less; 300' or so in most cases.

If you do it SteveC's and the DPE's way, where do you draw the line? What if it is 15 miles from the holding fix to the procedure turn? How about if the holding fix is on the other end of the runway? After you're done holding, do you just extend the outbound leg back towards the IAF, make up your own procedure turn and turn inbound to join a published segment? Seems to me this would be no different than what is being suggested here.

What methods do you use for procedure turns? Are you saying the racetrack pattern for a procedure turn is not allowed? They are using the procedure turn...they are just using the holding pattern that they were already on to accomplish the procedure turn. Don't think of it as a hold any more.

As for the holding pattern working everywhere, no, this is a specific case where it happens to work out. I don't think anybody is suggesting just throwing any hold into a PT, especially if they are not at the same point.

 

[SteveC]

I'm still not buying off on this whole "extend the outbound leg of the holding pattern" technique. Like dasleben and I said before; the hold in this particular case is dashed line, which makes it a segment of the missed approach procedure, not part of the approach.

Actually, you're right. I've decided that I would not continue the hold when the approach that I've just been cleared for requires me to do a procedure turn. My bad.

If it is bold, you use it in lieu of a procedure turn. If it is dashed, it is part of the missed approach. You can't just decide on a whim to turn a segment of the missed approach into part of the approach procedure. You're improvising your own approach and cannot be guaranteed terrain and obstacle clearance.

Yep, not going to do part of the missed procedure as a part of the approach. I'm going to do a procedure turn instead. I'm going to do one like the AIM says that I can, in a racetrack pattern. Not a hold, but a procedure turn. Real, true-to-life, all legal like procedure turn. In a racetrack pattern. (Reference 5 posts above.)

If you do it SteveC's and the DPE's way, where do you draw the line? What if it is 15 miles from the holding fix to the procedure turn?

Then the procedure turn must not be co-located with the holding fix, and it wouldn't be appropriate to do a racetrack pattern procedure turn there. I suppose it would still be legal to travel the 15 miles and then do a racetrack pattern procedure turn, but I can't visualize that making much sense.

How about if the holding fix is on the other end of the runway? After you're done holding, do you just extend the outbound leg back towards the IAF, make up your own procedure turn and turn inbound to join a published segment? Seems to me this would be no different than what is being suggested here.

If the holding fix is not an IAF, then there must be a safe way to get from the holding fix to the IAF. Either ATC will say "fly direct <IAF>, cleared for the approach, or maybe there is a feeder route from the holding fix to the IAF. Either way I would not just make something up. I don't "improvise" approaches.

Sometimes I have to remind myself that words mean things. I concede that I won't do a dotted line hold from a missed approach procedure in lieu of a procedure turn. Will you concede that I can safely and legally do a racetrack pattern procedure turn?

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

What methods do you use for procedure turns? Are you saying the racetrack pattern for a procedure turn is not allowed? They are using the procedure turn...they are just using the holding pattern that they were already on to accomplish the procedure turn.

I use a hold in lieu of a procedure turn when the holding pattern is depicted on the chart as a hold that can be used in lieu of a procedure turn. I say it again; in this case, it doesn't show that. It is a dashed line, indicating that it is part of the missed approach procedure, NOT part of the approach procedure. There are plenty of cases where the missed approach hold is coincident with the IAF hold, but this isn't one of them.

Don't think of it as a hold any more.

If you're talking about this approach specifically, there is no other way to "think of it". It is a hold on the missed approach and nothing else. It is not a hold from which you can transition back on to the approach without executing another course reversal.

As for the holding pattern working everywhere, no, this is a specific case where it happens to work out. I don't think anybody is suggesting just throwing any hold into a PT, especially if they are not at the same point.

So you're agreeing with me that in this particular case, you may not use the (missed approach) hold in lieu of a procedure turn?

EDIT: Was typing while SteveC was. Sorry for redundant points.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Will you concede that I can safely and legally do a racetrack pattern procedure turn?

Absolutely. But only if you do it blindfolded, in a Cirrus, inverted, in ice.

 

[Stone Cold]

...If you're talking about this approach specifically, there is no other way to "think of it". It is a hold on the missed approach and nothing else. It is not a hold from which you can transition back on to the approach without executing another course reversal.

I am talking about this specific approach and doing a racetrack pattern procedure turn. It just happens to be the same pattern you are already flying and is a legitimate way of executing a procedure turn.

So you're agreeing with me that in this particular case, you may not use the (missed approach) hold in lieu of a procedure turn?

EDIT: Was typing while SteveC was. Sorry for redundant points.

You are correct. This approach does not allow for the use of hold in lieu of a procedure turn. I instead would use a racetrack pattern procedure turn at the VOR with a 2 minute leg outbound, and advise ATC you are extending your outbound leg in case they have some spacing issues.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

You are correct. This approach does not allow for the use of hold in lieu of a procedure turn. I instead would use a racetrack pattern procedure turn at the VOR with a 2 minute leg outbound, and advise ATC you are extending your outbound leg in case they have some spacing issues.

I have a question to which I don't know the answer. Do you have to be beyond 4 DME to execute the procedure turn? Or is it simply because of "artistic license" that it is depicted that way? The reason I bring it up is because flying a racetrack pattern, in lieu of the procedure turn, with an outbound leg of 2 minutes (time starting abeam the VOR) at 90 knots, assuming zero wind, you're only covering 3 miles. I'm thinking that it might be required to go to at least 4 DME in order to meet TERPS criteria for the descent from 4000 to 2300.

FWIW, the Jepp version of this chart shows the procedure turn commencing outbound from OTAPE (4 DME)

 

[Stone Cold]

I have a question to which I don't know the answer. Do you have to be beyond 4 DME to execute the procedure turn? Or is it simply because of "artistic license" that it is depicted that way? The reason I bring it up is because flying a racetrack pattern, in lieu of the procedure turn, with an outbound leg of 2 minutes (time starting abeam the VOR) at 90 knots, assuming zero wind, you're only covering 3 miles. I'm thinking that it might be required to go to at least 4 DME in order to meet TERPS criteria for the descent from 4000 to 2300.

FWIW, the Jepp version of this chart shows the procedure turn commencing outbound from OTAPE (4 DME)

That's a good question and one I don't have the answer to. According to the AIM:

1. On U.S. Government charts, a barbed arrow indicates the direction or 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.

So, technically you can begin your procedure turn anywhere as long as you remain in the protected area (usually 10 NM). I do not see where it says you must begin the turn after 4 DME, so if this is the case, then I would say that is a very poor drawing indicating this. You make a very valid point though, and one I had not thought of (stupid 4 DME line)!

Do you have a link to the Jepp diagram? That might answer some questions as I think the way the chart we are using is drawn terribly and leaves much to the imagination.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Two things pop out at me initially. One, the 4NM notation on the holding pattern. Two, the PT appears to start right at OTAPE; very similar to the NACO chart

To add:

Although 45° turns are provided on the approach chart for the procedure turn, the point at which the turn may be started and the type and rate of turn are left to the discretion of the pilot. When a procedure turn is depicted, there are various options. In addition to the procedure turn, the race track pattern or the teardrop procedure turn can be substituted. However, when a holding pattern or teardrop procedure turn is depicted, the holding pattern or the teardrop course reversal must be flown as shown on the chart.

I would highly recommend you read the article, specifically the last bit on page one and the remainder of the paragraph on the top of page two.

 

[Stone Cold]

The way the Jepp is drawn, I would agree with your initial assessment of not doing the racetrack pattern but doing the procedure turn. With the government chart, it is ambiguous on whether they want the procedure turn after the 4 DME point or just "artist drawing may be closer than it appears" in my opinion.

This just proves why Jepps are so much better charts in most cases, in my opinion.

Edit to add: Looking at the article that tgrayson put up on the first page, it is something very similar to this OP's approach, minus the 4 NM notation on the hold that the Jepps provide, and says to continue into the hold, extend it out to 10 NM and shoot the approach from there. I think I would do different things depending on which chart I was using that day, unfortunately. With the Jepps, it is a lot clearer the intentions. With the government chart, I would still do the hold, extend it out and shoot the approach from there since there is no 4 NM limit on the hold.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

I'm not willing to put my ass on the line by doing something that is "legal, but not good practice", as the article puts it. Scud running is legal in some cases...

Pssssst. We're trying to mold a student pilot here.

 

[Stone Cold]

I'm not willing to put my ass on the line by doing something that is "legal, but not good practice", as the article puts it. Scud running is legal in some cases...

Pssssst. We're trying to mold a student pilot here.

Just to play devils' advocate here, looking at the government charts, when would you start your procedure turn? You originally said you would:

My answer is that I'd cross the VOR on the inbound leg of the hold, make a right 225* turn to join the R-205 outbound. Start the time abeam the VOR. If the sharp turn makes you uncomfortable, I'd make a request to fly the outbound radial to either ESONE or JARAM and join the arc.

So, would you start your turn after 1 minute? Two minutes? Before you looked at the Jepps, what would you do? At 90 Kts? Just curious...

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Just to play devils' advocate here, looking at the government charts, when would you start your procedure turn? You originally said you would:So, would you start your turn after 1 minute? Two minutes? Before you looked at the Jepps, what would you do? At 90 Kts? Just curious...

I mistakenly mentioned time previously. I hadn't studied the chart as much as I have in the past couple of hours. Even without having a look at the Jepps, on this particular approach, I would make the right 225* turn after the VOR, join the R-205 outbound and then execute the published procedure turn at 4 DME. Not only does this ensure you are far enough outbound to lose the altitude, but it also keeps you within 10 NM. This takes speed and time completely out of the equation (Chart note: DME REQUIRED), and keeps you on thick black lines. The only ambiguity I can see on the NACO chart is the point at which I would start the turn after the 4 DME fix; right at 4 DME, or any point thereafter inside of 10 miles.

 

[SteveC]

It can be a mistake to try to read too much into the pictorial representations.
Remember: "...the point at which the turn may be started and the type and rate of turn are left to the discretion of the pilot."

The only time that you have to do a procedure turn as depicted is if it is shown as a holding pattern or a teardrop pattern. If it shows the 45 degree barb you are free to use any of the approved methods to do a procedure turn. You are free to begin the turn at any time you desire after passing the IAF outbound, you do not have to wait until 4 DME (although you certainly can if you want to). Just stay within the 10 NM as depicted.

Again, any type of approved procedure turn is OK. Whichever type the pilot decides to use (45/180, 80/260, 90/270, teardrop, racetrack), the pilot is allowed to descend to 3900' until established inbound, then he can go down to 3200', then within 4 NM DME can continue down to 2300'.

I still contend that the simplest way to do the approach is to do a racetrack procedure turn. I could descend from 4000 to 3900 while outbound. If I chose to do a two minute outbound leg I would have two minutes to complete the descent from 3900 to 2300' (not descending below 3200 until within 4 DME). I also contend that this method is perfectly legal, and perfectly safe.

You can certainly do the more complicated way that you describe if you want to. It definitely will keep you safe enough. It just strikes me as being too complicated and not necessary.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Is this how you would fly it Steve; fly the red racetrack pattern when cleared for the approach, after crossing the VOR inbound on the R-205?

 

[MikeD]

Is this how you would fly it Steve; fly the red racetrack pattern when cleared for the approach, after crossing the VOR inbound on the R-205?

Even easier would be one of the other approved methods already mentioned: cross the VORTAC outbound heading 175 to about 5 DME and fly a teardrop entry culminating in a right turn to join the R-205 inbound. This is, of course, if not already holding.....but initially crossing the IAF

 

[SteveC]

Even easier would be one of the other approved methods already mentioned: cross the VORTAC outbound heading 175 to about 5 DME and fly a teardrop entry culminating in a right turn to join the R-205 inbound. This is, of course, if not already holding.....but initially crossing the IAF

Pay attention DUDE! The premise is that we are already holding at the VOR, then are cleared for the approach! SHEESH.

Damn kids.