HELP!?! LOZ VOR Approach question!!

[MikeD]

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

Damn kids.

I know.... Just thought I'd muck up the works for a bit.

I do like the idea of flying all over the place.....crossing VORs just to fly all the way back to a course reversal.

Legal? Sure.

Good way to build some actual time or milk the Hobbs? Yes

Necessary or efficient? Not really.

But to each their own.....

 

[SteveC]

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?

Mine wouldn't be that pretty.

Sure (assuming I was actually cleared for the approach prior to reaching the IAF), inbound heading 025, cross the VOR, turn right heading 205 (adjusted for wind based on earlier turns in the pattern), start timer abeam the VOR, fly 2 minutes, turn right to intercept the final approach course inbound, once established descend to 3200', continue descent to 2300' once inside 4 NM.

Do you see a problem with doing so? If so, why?

Maybe this will help some:

 

[SteveC]

I don't draw so good, but I thought I'd take a shot at what I believe you're saying that you would do in this situation. Let's see if I get it right:

Um, I'm sure you'd fly a lot smoother then I draw though.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Do you see a problem with doing so? If so, why?

Yes, I do, and it goes back to the issue of dashed vs solid lines depicting the holding pattern. In this case, I don't think it is correct to use a missed approach hold like you would a hold over an IAF. My take on it is that as soon as you are cleared for the approach, you are no longer on the missed approach segment and the holding pattern is no longer usable; not until you miss the approach again. However, if the hold was depicted as a solid line, it would serve a dual role, both as the missed approach hold and an IAF hold from which to transition to the inbound course of the approach.

Seeing as how approach holds and missed approach holds are covered under different sections of the TERPS, I'd be willing to bet that the amount of protected airspace differs considerably.

 

[Stone Cold]

Yes, I do, and it goes back to the issue of dashed vs solid lines depicting the holding pattern. In this case, I don't think it is correct to use a missed approach hold like you would a hold over an IAF. My take on it is that as soon as you are cleared for the approach, you are no longer on the missed approach segment and the holding pattern is no longer usable; not until you miss the approach again. However, if the hold was depicted as a solid line, it would serve a dual role, both as the missed approach hold and an IAF hold from which to transition to the inbound course of the approach.

Seeing as how approach holds and missed approach holds are covered under different sections of the TERPS, I'd be willing to bet that the amount of protected airspace differs considerably.

Let me ask this...what is the purpose of the maneuver? Course reversal, correct? Established inbound? What have you been doing the entire time you've been in the hold? Tell ATC you will go outbound for a longer time to let yourself down from the altitude, but other than that, what are you doing differently that what you were doing the entire time in the hold?

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

I don't draw so good, but I thought I'd take a shot at what I believe you're saying that you would do in this situation. Let's see if I get it right:

Um, I'm sure you'd fly a lot smoother then I draw though.

Yes, thats what I would do.

 

[dasleben]

Thanks for posting this. Good to see the actual TERPS criteria for it. But getting right down to it, I still don't think either method is downright wrong. I will say that when I've shot non-precision approaches into unfamiliar fields with surrounding terrain, I've always just done the standard procedure turn as depicted. By following the course outbound you're 100% positive where you're at and that you're safe, even if it takes a marginal amount of time longer to do a course reversal and come back inbound. Not to mention, everybody's on the same page in a crew environment, rather than one guy doing what he says is right and the other guy not being 100% certain.

 

[SteveC]

Yes, I do, and it goes back to the issue of dashed vs solid lines depicting the holding pattern. In this case, I don't think it is correct to use a missed approach hold like you would a hold over an IAF. My take on it is that as soon as you are cleared for the approach, you are no longer on the missed approach segment and the holding pattern is no longer usable; not until you miss the approach again. However, if the hold was depicted as a solid line, it would serve a dual role, both as the missed approach hold and an IAF hold from which to transition to the inbound course of the approach.

Seeing as how approach holds and missed approach holds are covered under different sections of the TERPS, I'd be willing to bet that the amount of protected airspace differs considerably.

I think you're hung up on the semantics. How about this:

1. At the point that I'm cleared for the approach I am going to quit doing a hold. I am not going to do a missed approach hold, nor any other type of hold.

2. I'm going to do a procedure turn to get established inbound on the final approach course at an appropriate altitude.

3. The AIM says that I can do a racetrack pattern as a procedure turn.

Do you disagree with any of those points?





Let me put it another way using a slightly different example. Assume that I'm west of the VOR and have been cleared "...direct to London, cleared for the approach, maintain 4000' until established." The AIM says that I can do a racetrack pattern as my procedure turn, I just have to do it on the protected side of the final course. From my position to the west I will fly direct to LOZ (approx. 270 heading), turn right to heading 205, time for two minutes starting abeam the VOR, turn right approximately 180 degrees to intercept the final approach course inbound. Descend. Simple, legal, safe. All per the AIM and regs.

 

[RynoB]

I'm going to see if I can muddy the water a little more. I'll use the VOR 17L at PWA as an example, because the missed approach does not take you back to the IAF. If you were Northeast of MCLAN (IAF) and ATC clears you direct MCLAN and "cleared for the VOR RWY 17L," what would you do. Would you procede to MCLAN, turn outbound to intercept the R-356 for the standard procedure turn that we all learned? It would be safe and acceptable; but would it also be safe and acceptable to cross MCLAN, turn right to fly outbound on a 356 degree heading +/- for wind correction, time for two minutes (Racetrack), and turn inbound on the 356 radial? It is the same concept as the approach that the OP posted.

 

[SteveC]

Thanks for posting this. Good to see the actual TERPS criteria for it. But getting right down to it, I still don't think either method is downright wrong. I will say that when I've shot non-precision approaches into unfamiliar fields with surrounding terrain, I've always just done the standard procedure turn as depicted. By following the course outbound you're 100% positive where you're at and that you're safe, even if it takes a marginal amount of time longer to do a course reversal and come back inbound. Not to mention, everybody's on the same page in a crew environment, rather than one guy doing what he says is right and the other guy not being 100% certain.

I've backed off from my earlier stance - I don't think it's wrong to do what you (and TFaudree_ERAU) want to do, I just think it's overly complicated. That said, if you'd rather do it that way and your crew is on-board with the plan that's fine.

I'm sticking to my contention that my way is simpler, safe, and legal.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

I think you're hung up on the semantics. How about this:

1. At the point that I'm cleared for the approach I am going to quit doing a hold. I am not going to do a missed approach hold, nor any other type of hold.

2. I'm going to do a procedure turn to get established inbound on the final approach course at an appropriate altitude.

3. The AIM says that I can do a racetrack pattern as a procedure turn.

Do you disagree with any of those points?





Let me put it another way using a slightly different example. Assume that I'm west of the VOR and have been cleared "...direct to London, cleared for the approach, maintain 4000' until established." The AIM says that I can do a racetrack pattern as my procedure turn, I just have to do it on the protected side of the final course. From my position to the west I will fly direct to LOZ (approx. 270 heading), turn right to heading 205, time for two minutes starting abeam the VOR, turn right approximately 180 degrees to intercept the final approach course inbound. Descend. Simple, legal, safe. All per the AIM and regs.

I'd buy off on it if the procedure turn commenced at the VOR. It doesn't, however. If ATC cleared you direct to OTAPE, and then you flew the procedure as you described, then that'd be A-OK with me.

Ya feel me?

An extreme depiction, I know, but lets assume it is designed within TERPS criteria

 

[SteveC]

I'd buy off on it if the procedure turn commenced at the VOR. It doesn't, however. If ATC cleared you direct to OTAPE, and then you flew the procedure as you described, then that'd be A-OK with me.

Why do you think the procedure turn is based on OTAPE rather than LOZ?

 

[tgrayson]

Why do you think the procedure turn is based on OTAPE rather than LOZ?

He might be confused by the fact that OTAPE is depicted in the planview, with the PT shown after it. A common misconception. A similar one is the idea that you can't start the PT until after OTAPE.

 

[SteveC]

He might be confused by the fact that OTAPE is depicted in the planview, with the PT shown after it. A common misconception. A similar one is the idea that you can't start the PT until after OTAPE.

Now I see why we aren't agreeing on my racetrack pattern procedure turn.

 

[MikeD]

I'm going to see if I can muddy the water a little more. I'll use the VOR 17L at PWA as an example, because the missed approach does not take you back to the IAF. If you were Northeast of MCLAN (IAF) and ATC clears you direct MCLAN and "cleared for the VOR RWY 17L," what would you do. Would you procede to MCLAN, turn outbound to intercept the R-356 for the standard procedure turn that we all learned? It would be safe and acceptable; but would it also be safe and acceptable to cross MCLAN, turn right to fly outbound on a 356 degree heading +/- for wind correction, time for two minutes (Racetrack), and turn inbound on the 356 radial? It is the same concept as the approach that the OP posted.

Just hit MCLAN, fly heading 325 for 1- 2 mins or as required to remain within 10nm, make a right turn teardrop and intercept the R-356 inbound. There's your PT.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

He might be confused by the fact that OTAPE is depicted in the planview, with the PT shown after it. A common misconception. A similar one is the idea that you can't start the PT until after OTAPE.

I concede that you are correct about this. Its good to have a little refresher on the finer points. Its been seven years since my obtaining instrument rating, and it is easy to become complacent on anything other than a straight in ILS when flying jets into big airports day in and day out. I certainly have learned a few things, and it killed a day of surefire boredom in the FBO (except for Taylor Swift strolling through...she looks as bad as she sounds), so, thanks for that. I think we all agree that for every chart, there are approximately 47 1/3 +/- 3 different (correct) ways to interpret it.

 

[RynoB]

Just hit MCLAN, fly heading 325 for 1- 2 mins or as required to remain within 10nm, make a right turn teardrop and intercept the R-356 inbound. There's your PT.

I can agree with that as well.

 

[SteveC]

Its been seven years since my obtaining instrument rating, and it is easy to become complacent on anything other than a straight in ILS when flying jets into big airports day in and day out.

Exactly why I like these discussions. It's been 13+ years since I earned my instrument rating, and I never instructed, so I have to work at staying on top of this stuff too. It's good to dig into the books once in a while.

 

[pilotsav27]

Im glad my question sparked so many responses! I love to debate on things where differing opinions can all be right. Thanks for all the input and help with resolving the issue at hand. I do agree, however, that the racetrack type reversal is perfectly legal, safe and practical. Plus, this is what the DPE I will be using recommended. I want to learn the CORRECT way to interpret approaches, but I also want to make the DPE happy!

 

[MikeD]

Well done gentlemen!