Instrument approach question

ScottG

Well-Known Member
I am an instrument rated pilot but it has been greater than 4 years since I went up in an aircraft that I was flying. I am getting back into it as my navy time dwindles and I have questions about instrument flight. I have looked quite a few places including some of the standard publications for these but the struggle to regain lost knowledge continues. This question in particular (and hopefully it is in the right forum) has me confused. The approach into Burns, Oregon on the VOR RWY 30 has an IAF on the airport and an outbound leg with a PT. There is no place indicating NO PT so what if you approach the fix from say the 072 or 123 radial? Are you expected to make the large turn to 124 and do the PT that way or is it more likely you receive radar vectors to intercept the approach course? There was a similar discussion years ago here but I still have this question.

Link to plate:
http://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1506/pdf/06331V30.PDF
 
I would personally probably enter it like one would a hold, especially with the VOR holding pattern over to the right. In the case of arriving on the 072 or 123 I would probably pass the VOR (at or above 7900) then do a right hand teardrop.

I'm sure someone else has the technical definitions on what must be done and whatever, I'm just saying from a practical standpoint.

Unrelated side note: FAA charts are yuck. I <3 my Jepp charts
 
The only IAF is the VOR, so the only way to start this approach is via the VOR. Even if you're on the 124 radial. You must to the PT, or get center to give you vectors or request "straight in" if you're on the inbound radial.
 
I like the teardrop, just wish it did't feel like improvising. And the hold if I am not mistaken is for the missed, can you use it for approach entry? Maybe I am way off though, I just don't have a feel for the rules anymore.
 
The only IAF is the VOR, so the only way to start this approach is via the VOR. Even if you're on the 124 radial. You must to the PT, or get center to give you vectors or request "straight in" if you're on the inbound radial.

So you use a teardrop to reverse course from the 123 radial to the 124? Wouldn't that be published?
 
Timely post, since I am taking my IR checkride pretty soon. Reading the chart, I came up with the same conclusions you did, but I posed the question to my CFII. His response:

Excellent question.

Since the VOR is the IAF and there is no restriction on direction (ie some charts say "not valid from V186 southbound"), you get to IAF and turn the shortest direction. The approach designers allowed for this.

So you don't necessarily have to teardrop it once you get to the VOR...just make the turn to get to where you want to make the procedure turn.
 
I like the teardrop, just wish it did't feel like improvising. And the hold if I am not mistaken is for the missed, can you use it for approach entry? Maybe I am way off though, I just don't have a feel for the rules anymore.
You are not improvising.

As you get up to speed, your reading should include the AIM.

On U.S. Government charts, a barbed arrow indicates the maneuvering 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 (limited by the charted remain within xx NM distance). Some of the options are the 45 degree procedure turn, the racetrack pattern, the teardrop procedure turn, or the 80 degree « 260 degree course reversal.​

IOW, so long as you stay on the protected side and within any distance limitations, it doesn't matter how you make the turn.

As others said, you can anticipate vectors if you are in a radar environment. On this approach you are not in a radar environment so you would need to do the PT, whatever direction you are coming from.

Besides, you probably want to do the PT on this one, even if you could be cleared straight in...

..which leads me to a tip: when reading approach plates, don't look at them in a vacuum. Remember that there has to be a connection to the en route environment. In this case, the lowest MEA on any of the airways leading to ILR VOR is 9,000'. That's 2,000' above the 7,000' minimum altitude once outbound for the PT and 4,500' above the MDA. Chances are, even if you could be cleared straight in, it would to a pretty interesting task to need to descend 4,500' in only 5.5 NM (assuming you want to reach the VDP in time for a normal descent to the runway). That would be about a 1700 FPM descent at 100 KTS.

Don't know about you but I'd prefer use the PT to lose those 4,500'.
 
Timely post, since I am taking my IR checkride pretty soon. Reading the chart, I came up with the same conclusions you did, but I posed the question to my CFII. His response:



So you don't necessarily have to teardrop it once you get to the VOR...just make the turn to get to where you want to make the procedure turn.

Just curious on his response, don't all instrument approaches have a protected and not protected side? In this case, it looks like the right side as that is where the hold and the PT barb are located, and even if for some reason it would be easier to turn left, with that obstacle at 5320', I wouldn't want to be flying anywhere near that in the event of an emergency.

Also have not flown in 4 years, so much knowledge has been lost to time.
 
Just curious on his response, don't all instrument approaches have a protected and not protected side? In this case, it looks like the right side as that is where the hold and the PT barb are located, and even if for some reason it would be easier to turn left, with that obstacle at 5320', I wouldn't want to be flying anywhere near that in the event of an emergency.

Also have not flown in 4 years, so much knowledge has been lost to time.
Just like a parallel entry to a holding pattern, in which one might also cross to the non-holding side, the protected airspace includes a maneuvering buffer on the unprotected side.

You probably don't need to get anywhere close to the obstancle laterally to make a standard rate turn to the left. It's 8 NM west of the VOR But if you did, what's the big deal with turning over an obstacle more than 3500' below you? I'll bet you get closer than that regularly.
 
Thanks for the responses all! One last question to clarify, so if approaching the IAF from the southeast you would fly to the VOR do some sort of course reversal to get outbound on the R-124 and then the PT once more inbound? Just making sure two reversals would be intended. I read that bit in the AIM but two reversals seemed beyond it's discussion.
 
Thanks for the responses all! One last question to clarify, so if approaching the IAF from the southeast you would fly to the VOR do some sort of course reversal to get outbound on the R-124 and then the PT once more inbound? Just making sure two reversals would be intended. I read that bit in the AIM but two reversals seemed beyond it's discussion.
If approaching from the southeast, you would do exactly what you would do if you were approaching from the northwest: turn outbound.

"Course reversal" is a term pretty much reserved for the maneuver that gets your turned inbound on the final approach course (or its extension). There aren't two course reversals here and I think you may confuse yoursel if you think about it that way.

For example, if I were approaching from the southeast in a light piston and decided to do a "traditional" procedure turn, once I reached the VOR, I would make a right 220 degree turn (depending on wind) and intercept the R-124 outbound. Once on course, due to the need to lose altitude, I'd start my descent to 7000' and start the timer giving myself at least another minute to get some good distance. The, I'd turn left 45 degrees to start the PT.

The process for using a racetrack pattern would be a bit different. I'd make the same right turn at the VOR, but only to 124 degrees, basically a direct entry to the racetrack. I'd still fly outbound more than one minute bacause of the amount of altitude loss required.
 
I truly thank you all for your patience and expertise.
I think what happens is, the barbed PT is a "standard" way of flying the PT. It tends to be taught that way initially because there's a nice picture, complete with suggested courses, which makes it simple to teach it. .

When we get to the point of learning that the barb only tells us "where" and not "how" it can get a bit confusing.
 
Back
Top