Procedure turn required?

nosehair said:
Another question. As you probably know, when the FAA wants to violate you, they must provide a regulation which was violated. Where is the reg that is violated if a pilot decides he does not need to reverse course on an approach where he is already aligned and configured for final approach when he crosses the faf?

Of course, reasonable caution must be applied. A mis-hap as a result of not being prepared for the final approach, and cutting out the PT could result in a violation of 91.13, but as long as you stay well within the approach profile, there is no violation.
Click to expand...

Again, as the reg currently reads, the PT must be flown if none of the reasons to not fly the PT exist at the time.

Granted, there are number of IAPs you can look at and wonder about the practicality of flying the final approach course all the way to the IAF, reversing course, flying all the way back out in order to make a course reversal, then flying the procedure back in again. And on some IAPs, I'd venture to think that its possible that "NoPT" may have been missed or accidently omitted where there could reasonably be one. Of course that doesn't change the regulatory requirement to fly the PT, or otherwise gain yourself one of the legal reasons to not fly the PT, as I mentioned before. Still, its something I wish the FAA could start looking at during IAP revisions.

tgrayson said:
That's been explained to you many times and you at one time admitted being convinced, but you have since relapsed. The person who decides whether or not a PT is required the approach designer, and he indicates his decision by whether or not he places a PT on the chart or provides a NoPT route. It is not for the pilot to decide whether or not the maneuver is required, because a pilot is not competent to make that determination. He knows nothing about descent gradients, turning radii, or obstacle clearance requirements. Neither do controllers.
Click to expand...

All regulatory requirements aside (we know the answer to that, and the solution to that problem); again, some of these IAPs you look at, it does make one wonder why there isn't a NoPT routing or point in the IAP. For example, this IAP in this thread. Flying inbound on the R-166 from 20 miles out; and when within 10 miles of the Navaid complying with the segment altitudes inbound, crossing the FAF inbound, and doing everything else as one would normally do on the final segment; none of that is any different than flying the inbound course all the way in, hitting the IAF, reversing course, flying any of the approved course reversal PTs while remaining within 10, coming back inbound, and commencing the approach as depicted. Practical? Yes. Legal (in this case with this IAP)? No. This is one where I do wonder if something may have been missed or not, OR whether if the NoPT can't be performed by ALL approach categories due to aforementioned gradients, etc. Still, the final segment is the final segment, regardless of how you play it. Thats why it'd be interesting to know what the TERPs designer was looking at on particular IAPs and why they are the way they are. And, with the info depicted here, we can't and won't know.
 
MikeD said:
Flying inbound on the R-166 from 20 miles out; and when within 10 miles of the Navaid complying with the segment altitudes inbound, crossing the FAF inbound, .
Click to expand...

Where would this aircraft be coming from? There is no published route in that direction. TERPS has no criteria for random arrivals from any direction, other than a TAA.
 
tgrayson said:
Where would this aircraft be coming from? There is no published route in that direction. TERPS has no criteria for random arrivals from any direction, other than a TAA.
Click to expand...

Thats what I'm saying. I would love to know the considerations given and be able to see a broader look (beyond the IAP itself) as to why this may not have been done (not specifically in this case, but in other cases where there's the seeming ability to put a feeder route in, but none is depicted).

In any event, the answer is easy for these IAPs: either fly the PT, or legally gain one of the reasons for not having to.
 
tgrayson said:
TERPS has no criteria for random arrivals from any direction, other than a TAA.
Click to expand...
If the FAA were really wanting to keep up with the times, I would think they might start putting TAAs with NoPT zones onto legacy (VOR/ILS) charts where terrain clearances permit. I would, however, imagine that that would take a backseat to the many other things that the TERPS people are busy with these days.
 
tgrayson said:
That's been explained to you many times and you at one time admitted being convinced, but you have since relapsed. The person who decides whether or not a PT is required the approach designer, and he indicates his decision by whether or not he places a PT on the chart or provides a NoPT route. It is not for the pilot to decide whether or not the maneuver is required, because a pilot is not competent to make that determination. He knows nothing about descent gradients, turning radii, or obstacle clearance requirements. Neither do controllers.
Click to expand...

In this case, I am well aware that I am bending the rules and do it anyway. ATC has always been complicit in my rule bending. Begin the "Call the FSDO, you are dangerous in 3, 2, 1..."

Someone from ATC please speak up, but I am pretty sure you really meant for me to intercept the radial and fly straight in...
 
drunkenbeagle said:
In this case, I am well aware that I am bending the rules and do it anyway. ATC has always been complicit in my rule bending. Begin the "Call the FSDO, you are dangerous in 3, 2, 1..."

Someone from ATC please speak up, but I am pretty sure you really meant for me to intercept the radial and fly straight in...
Click to expand...
val_kilmer_006.jpg
 
drunkenbeagle said:
In this case, I am well aware that I am bending the rules and do it anyway. ATC has always been complicit in my rule bending.
Click to expand...

"Mishap Pilot posted on an internet message board prior to the incident that, he was 'well aware [he is] bending the rules and do it anyway'."
 
Here is one that comes up at my flight school: We fly to Jutty intersection (IAP) and request a hold at Jutty (for training). After we conduct a turn in the hold we recieve our clearance for the approach. The question is upon reaching Jutty from the hold can we go straight-in or must we turn outbound again and fly the PT? The instructors I have ran this by are all 50/50 on the proper method.

DLO VOR 32:
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1009/06173V32.PDF
 
subpilot said:
Here is one that comes up at my flight school: We fly to Jutty intersection (IAP) and request a hold at Jutty (for training). After we conduct a turn in the hold we recieve our clearance for the approach. The question is upon reaching Jutty from the hold can we go straight-in or must we turn outbound again and fly the PT? The instructors I have ran this by are all 50/50 on the proper method.

DLO VOR 32:
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1009/06173V32.PDF
Click to expand...
I guess you could always go straight-in but the altitude at which you are holding might preclude you from doing so.
 
Holding at 3000, once cleared it is no problem beginning the descent in the holding pattern and making it to MDA in time.
 
Hmmm....there is actually a recent change to the AIM Guidance:

Procedure Turn
a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold−in−lieu−of−PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart, unless cleared by ATC for a straight−in approach.


​
 
tgrayson said:
Hmmm....there is actually a recent change to the AIM Guidance:

Procedure Turn
a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold−in−lieu−of−PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart, unless cleared by ATC for a straight−in approach.


​
Click to expand...

Interesting. And does make practical sense in some cases.
 
subpilot said:
Here is one that comes up at my flight school: We fly to Jutty intersection (IAP) and request a hold at Jutty (for training). After we conduct a turn in the hold we recieve our clearance for the approach. The question is upon reaching Jutty from the hold can we go straight-in or must we turn outbound again and fly the PT? The instructors I have ran this by are all 50/50 on the proper method.

DLO VOR 32:
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1009/06173V32.PDF
Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned, the turn in holding satisfies the intent of the course reversal. There is not one particular way a procedure turn must be flown, a lap around a holding pattern in my eyes (as a pilot and controller) serves the purpose as a procedure turn.
 
tgrayson said:
Hmmm....there is actually a recent change to the AIM Guidance:

Procedure Turn
a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold−in−lieu−of−PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart, unless cleared by ATC for a straight−in approach.


​
Click to expand...

My emphasis added.

I personally would not expect a pilot to do a 180 degree turn just to fly a course reversal if they were established on a course (not a vector) that allowed them to intercept the final approach course without having to make a rather drastic turn. For instance, if you filed or asked for direct to an initial/intermediate fix that allowed for an easy intercept of the localizer/final approach course, and all I stated was "maintain 2500 until FIX, cleared XXX approach", (in my personal, non-official opinion) I certainly wouldn't expect the pilot to fly a procedure turn in this instance. However, to comply with the .65 *I* personally would add the "cleared for the straight in" just to CYA.

I'm sure requiring that explicit clearance is probably a result of someone doing something stupid and killing themselves, then a lawyer suing the FAA because we didn't explicitly instruct the pilot that he didn't have to fly a procedure turn that was depicted when it made no sense to do so.
 
MikeD said:
as the reg currently reads, the PT must be flown if none of the reasons to not fly the PT exist at the time.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I'm not being smart, I respect your opinion and tgray's, but as he says, I must have relapsed. Where is that reg? The one that the ASI uses to write up the violation?
 
Barty said:
My emphasis added.
Click to expand...

I've already explained where the "when it is necessary to reverse direction" comes from, and it's for neither the controller nor the pilot to determine. It's already been determined for you when the chart was printed.

Controllers are given careful criteria about how vectors to final should occur and the reason for that is those who designed the criteria were knowledgeable about turning radii, descent gradients, and obstacle clearances, so the controller doesn't have to be.
 
nosehair said:
Honestly, I'm not being smart, I respect your opinion and tgray's, but as he says, I must have relapsed. Where is that reg? The one that the ASI uses to write up the violation?
Click to expand...

Perhaps 91.175(a):

§ 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United States military aircraft.
​
The fact that the PT is a mandatory part of the procedure probably first appeared in print in this LOI:

Legal Interp--IAF.pdf

I will link the other article again for your perusal:

http://www.terps.com/ifrr/jul96.pdf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top