Procedure Turn

In the U.S. the airspace TERPS criteria protect you better than in some parts of the world. If you "fly the picture", you can't go wrong. Granted, the AIM allows you to fly a course reversal pretty much however you want (i.e. a 80-260 or teardrop, etc), keep in mind if you're in ICAO airspace you need to fly the procedure as depicted.
 
germb747 said:
In the U.S. the airspace TERPS criteria protect you better than in some parts of the world. If you "fly the picture", you can't go wrong. Granted, the AIM allows you to fly a course reversal pretty much however you want (i.e. a 80-260 or teardrop, etc), keep in mind if you're in ICAO airspace you need to fly the procedure as depicted.
Click to expand...
Interesting. So, for example, if a PT shows the standard 45-135 barb or track, you are required to fly those courses?
 
The 45 degree barb means you can fly whatever you want. If they've got anything else depicted you have to fly it as published (if I remember ground school correctly).

In the states, of course.
 
jtrain609 said:
The 45 degree barb means you can fly whatever you want. If they've got anything else depicted you have to fly it as published (if I remember ground school correctly).

In the states, of course.
Click to expand...
right . . .so long as you're within the time or distance limit depicted. remember if you do a 90 deg turn you will go farther from the inbound course during the minute than if you did a 45.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
No, the terminology is fine. Protected side and non-protected side because the only reason the non-protected side has a protected buffer is for "oops" moments with either you or someone else.
Click to expand...

Instrument Procedure Handbook on Protected airspace(2007 edition).

Sounds like protect airspace is equal on both sides. During an approach, it would make sense that the non-PT side will have the normal approach protection with the PT side having more room.

Instrument Procedures Handbook said:
Pilots also are required
to maneuver the aircraft on the procedure turn side of
the final approach course. These requirements are
necessary to stay within the protected airspace and
maintain adequate obstacle clearance.
Click to expand...

So yes the procedure turn side will have more room for protected airspace, but the other side is still protected. The PT side will have more room so the aircraft will "stay" in protected airspace. The non-PT is protected depending on the approach. A VOR could have 4 miles of protection on the non-PT side depending on how far away the VOR happens to be.

Change the PT turn into a hold in lieu of a PT , is the non-hold side protected? Yes it is. Otherwise we wouldn't be recommended to use a parallel entry into unprotected airspace.

Protected and non-protected is bad terminology and could cause problems with a student on a check ride or just in flight from knowing he has entered unprotected areas. Not to mention by calling airspace non-protected is a flat out lie when it is in fact protected.

"Oops moments" can't be helped. Wind, bad vectors by ATC, ect. could cause an oops, moment. No one will make a perfect approach (hand flown), hence the protected areas.

There is a reason why the FAA uses terms other than protected and non-protected with holds and such.
 
Maurus said:
Change the PT turn into a hold in lieu of a PT , is the non-hold side protected? Yes it is. Otherwise we wouldn't be recommended to use a parallel entry into unprotected airspace.
Click to expand...

Reference AIM 5-4-9 Procedure Turn. You must make the turn on the same side of the course as the barbed arrow. No question about it. The practical test standards make no mention of procedure turns, but failure to do so would definitely be a pink slip due to lack of knowledge of the elements of the IAP.

As a former check airman, the FAA office that I worked for required parallel entries into holds to track the holding radial outbound during the course reversal. I never taught this as an instructor, and don't believe it is required, but it illustrates the importance of situational awareness in relation to the holding/final approach course.
 
I track the holding radial outbound too but I generally track it with reverse sensing rather than switch the OBS back and forth -- well that was when I didn't have an HSI. Sometimes its a little easier if I am like one dot into the non-holding side. :o
 
B767Driver said:
Reference AIM 5-4-9 Procedure Turn. You must make the turn on the same side of the course as the barbed arrow. No question about it. The practical test standards make no mention of procedure turns, but failure to do so would definitely be a pink slip due to lack of knowledge of the elements of the IAP.

As a former check airman, the FAA office that I worked for required parallel entries into holds to track the holding radial outbound during the course reversal. I never taught this as an instructor, and don't believe it is required, but it illustrates the importance of situational awareness in relation to the holding/final approach course.
Click to expand...

I know the AIM says that the direction is required and so does the Instrument Procedures Handbook. I am just saying how it isn't right to be saying protected side and non-protected side.

I think the FAA office you were at is a little bonkers as the AIM shows a parallel entry going into the non-holding side and staying parallel and in the non-holding side till you turn and join in inbound part of the hold. Also:

AIM (with reference to the picture)](a) [B]Parallel Procedure.[/B] When approaching the holding fix from anywhere in sector (a) said:
Someone sent me this link to an interesting article on PT's

www.paragonair.com/services/premium/IR/E_PTs-Schwab.pdf
Click to expand...

That article is very good. Shows that both sides are protected in the primary area with a little more room to the PT side. There is no protected and non-protected side and the terminology should not be used to avoid confusion as both sides are protected. I am just arguing the terminology as is it blatantly wrong.

Turning the direction depicted is required and should be done. There are more factors than obstacle clearance as ATC will expect you to make your PT as depicted. It is for standardization so others may anticipate your actions for safety reasons.
 
Maurus said:
I know the AIM says that the direction is required and so does the Instrument Procedures Handbook. I am just saying how it isn't right to be saying protected side and non-protected side.

I think the FAA office you were at is a little bonkers as the AIM shows a parallel entry going into the non-holding side and staying parallel and in the non-holding side till you turn and join in inbound part of the hold. Also:



Then again I don't know when or how long you were there so the AIM may have been different at the time and the FSDO could interpret the hold how they wanted to.
Click to expand...

My only thing is that by calling both sides protected, which they are to different extents, could imply that going over there consistently is a standard practice and since "less protected side" sounds silly I use "non-protected side."
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
My only thing is that by calling both sides protected, which they are to different extents, could imply that going over there consistently is a standard practice and since "less protected side" sounds silly I use "non-protected side."
Click to expand...

But people do go over there constantly. Wind in a hold can push you pretty far over into the non-hold side. No one flies an approach or follows an airway to perfection and will end up with a CDI deflection into the "non-protected side". On the second half of a PT people screw up on the way back to the localizer and overshoot the localizer.

By calling something non-protected it is implying it has no protection at all whatsoever. Don't use less protected side. The FAA uses for holding the "holding side" and "non-holding side". So for a PT say "PT side" and "non-pt side". Makes more sense and wont imply that there is no protection at all and a little error could be disastrous when in fact a little error is expected and the protection is there to compensate for the error.
 
B767Driver said:
As a former check airman, the FAA office that I worked for required parallel entries into holds to track the holding radial outbound during the course reversal. I never taught this as an instructor, and don't believe it is required, but it illustrates the importance of situational awareness in relation to the holding/final approach course.
Click to expand...

I would not tolerate someone doing the Pt to the non-protected side. Very bad habit, as I said above. However, the above shows that you can't assume something coming from FAA (unless it's the office of the Chief Counsel, and, even then, I've seen them goof!) is correct!

Watch the FMS fly a parallel entry. It flys them like I do. Parallels the outbound course (which is why they CALL it that!).
 
seagull said:
Watch the FMS fly a parallel entry. It flys them like I do. Parallels the outbound course (which is why they CALL it that!).
Click to expand...

The FMS flies the ugliest holding patterns entries. I think it subscribes to Larry the Cable Guys theory of getting established in the hold....just "Git'r Done". It seems to shuck and jive its way to the holding radial.
 
Interesting. The Universal FMS in the Lear and the Citation does a nice job on holds, including the entries.
 
I've had to hand fly two out of the three full procedure approaches I've done in the CRJ using raw data. If you are going faster then about 200 the FMS/AP couple has trouble keeping up. And even if you slow, it often times gets confused and starts to turn one way before turning the other.

But it's pretty common knowledge that the Collins flight director in CRJ is weak.
 
Some version of Honeywell FMS in most Delta jets. I really have no idea what algorithms are used...but it appears that the FMS knows where it needs to go...the outbound and inbound legs...and it does what it needs to do to get there. It always ends up in the proper place...but watching it get there, sometimes, is interesting.
 
019er,

If you really want to be proactive and save some other student from augering into a hill, you might consider mentinoned that intructor's view on PTs to his supervisor. Somebody's gonna get themselves dead following his advice.

Maybe you're just asking the supervisor for another perspective.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
and that should be encouraged?
Click to expand...

It is only encouraged when you tell them they can fly there as much as they want. That is it. If you do that it is bad teaching.

To your logic, wouldn't calling something protected make the student dwell on that side of the approach? They would make the same mistake to your logic except they would stay on the "protected" side, when both sides are protected and the middle gives the best safety.

By saying the other side is non-protected people will take it to heart and overcompensate for overshooting a localizer and such. They need to know there is protection on both sides so they wont overreact and will correct their flight path as needed. Proper teaching would tell them to keep the CDI in the middle as much as possible. If they don't know that coming out of a private or instrument training, they will probably kill themselves one day cause of poor teaching.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top