When to do the procedure turn?

I agree...it's Miami...your going to get vectored by Miami center. You're going to do what ever the controller tells you to do. I took my instrument check ride in Southern Florida and I was a little worried about the check ride, flying the approaches and having to deal with Miami Center....My examiner turned the radios off, that was a great check ride.
 
I haven't read all the replies but has anyone raised the possibility of a charting error? I saw one just like this once - a feeder or transition route to the IAF at the right altitude for a straight-in but no NoPT notation. I wrote to the charting office about it and they issued a NOTAM within 48 hours adding the NoPT note.
 
Dugie8 said:
Remember these approaches aren't built just around airplanes flying at 80 knots, which at that speed it would be relatively easy to use the DEEDS route as a NoPT but at 140 knots, not so much.
Click to expand...

That's part of what got me thinking in the 1st place. You could probably hack it at 80kt in a 172, but if approaching MONRY from the west, you'd need a fairly large protected area at 180kt.
 
Mike H said:
it's Florida; Miami, Florida.

realistically, you're not going to not have ATC vectoring you and realistically the only way you'll do the PT is if you request it
- imo
Click to expand...

Realistically, you probably will not have ATC vectoring you. A pal of mine explained that the airport is in an awkward location, with the approach in Miami Center's airspace, and the initial part of the missed being in the TRACON's airspace. As such it requires a fair bit of coordination between the facilities.

That's not the point though. I realize that a transport jet inbound from DEEDS doing the PT is mostly an academic matter, but I'd still like to understand the situation a bit more thoroughly.
 
Chief Captain said:
I'd still like to understand the situation a bit more thoroughly.
Click to expand...
My take on this is kinda like the AIM recommended non-tower airport pattern entry. It is really up to the pilot. As long as you are staying within the approach airspace protected boundaries, you may make your own decision about when you need to make a course reversal.
Many will argue, but I emphasize 'you are staying well within designated approach protected space'. YOu have to know that. In an unfamiliar approach, it may not be safe. Not all approaches follow the average model. But when you shoot the same approach day after day, in VFR conditions in a slow airplane, and you can see without a doubt the the course reversal is not a necessity, I don't believe an FAA inspector has a regulation to bust you on. It isn't careless and reckless; matter of fact, doing a PT in actual stormy conditions when it is obviously not needed is closer to reckless than making the common sense PIC decision to skip it.
 
Chief Captain said:
A pal of mine explained that the airport is in an awkward location, with the approach in Miami Center's airspace, and the initial part of the missed being in the TRACON's airspace. As such it requires a fair bit of coordination between the facilities.
.
Click to expand...

Well, you could have saved yourself some time if you'd have just asked your pal, the expert, when to do the PT instead of asking us
 
necoflyer said:
I would either:

a) once passing MONRY, right turn to a heading of 320*, start time for 1 min. when crossing localizer, do the PT.

or

b) right turn to intercept the localizer, track outbound on the localizer for 1 min., then fly a tear drop reversal, like you would use to enter a hold.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that you turn towards the unprotected side of the published hold?
 
nosehair said:
But when you shoot the same approach day after day, in VFR conditions in a slow airplane, and you can see without a doubt the the course reversal is not a necessity, I don't believe an FAA inspector has a regulation to bust you on..
Click to expand...
You mean other than 91.175 as interpreted by the Chief Counsel's office 17 years ago?

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...ns/data/interps/1994/AGC Opinion-ARC IAFs.pdf

And for the true diehards (me not included), there's even very current (less than 2 months ago) support for the most restrictive view - that a controller can't waive the PT when it's prescribed by the procedure: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...00/interpretations/data/interps/2011/Boll.pdf
 
Mike H said:
Well, you could have saved yourself some time if you'd have just asked your pal, the expert, when to do the PT instead of asking us
Click to expand...

Well my pal, the expert happens to be a controller at one of the said facilities, and that's exactly what he told me. Again, his input doesn't really help, as I'm looking at it from a procedural control (or even no ATC) perspective.

Thank you all for your answers though. I've got some reading to do.
 
If a procedure turn, or hold-in-lieu of a procedure turn is depicted, you must complete the depicted course reversal.

Unless:

- NOPT is specified
- You are cleared "straight-in"
- You are getting radar vectors to the final approach course
- You're doing a timed approach from a holding fix

If ATC clears you direct to a fix where a PT is depicted, unless you meet the above requirements, you legally must do the PT.

Now does that make much sense? Absolutely not, but it's the way it's written. If I'm cleared to a fix where a PT is depicted, and I'm already relatively aligned with the final approach course, I'd clarify with ATC that I'd like straight-in. End of story. If ever in doubt, just get clarification.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Why does a set of uniform rules that keeps everyone on the same regulatory page doing what's expected in airspace where there is unseen terrain and other aircraft make absolutely no sense? :confused:
Click to expand...

Read my post in context. There are times when you legally have to do a procedure turn and it doesn't make sense to do it. Take this approach for instance: GPS 2 KLOT. If I'm directly south of CAMLI, and the approach controller says: "Arrow 123 cleared direct CAMLI, cleared GPS Runway 2 into KLOT," I am legally required to do the procedure turn based on what he/she said.

Now why would I want to go out of my way to maneuver more when it would take less maneuvering to get established on the final approach course from where I'm coming from? Any time I am put in this situation I request clarification from the controller, and never have I been told to execute the full procedure when I am already relatively aligned with the final approach course.
 
But it still makes sense to have rules that are common across the board. It is easy to point out situations where those rules may not make sense to you, but you still have to remember that the rules need to be established to keep everyone safe. They need to be applied consistently, and they need to be designed to an over-riding set of constraints that keep all users safe. I have not looked at the example(s) that you give, but I'm willing to assume that there is some set of criteria in TERPS that kept them from designating a NoPT area, and that just because it is probably safe for most users, doesn't mean the rule shouldn't exist, nor should it be disregarded lightly.

Edit to add: be very careful about assuming that you know more than the people that design approaches. That is not a good road to travel.
 
SteveC said:
But it still makes sense to have rules that are common across the board. It is easy to point out situations where those rules may not make sense to you, but you still have to remember that the rules need to be established to keep everyone safe. They need to be applied consistently, and they need to be designed to an over-riding set of constraints that keep all users safe. I have not looked at the example(s) that you give, but I'm willing to assume that there is some set of criteria in TERPS that kept them from designating a NoPT area, and that just because it is probably safe for most users, doesn't mean the rule shouldn't exist, nor should it be disregarded lightly.

Edit to add: be very careful about assuming that you know more than the people that design approaches. That is not a good road to travel.
Click to expand...

Not saying I don't agree with the rules. Just saying there are certain instances where you're legally required to do one but it's not practical to do so. In any case, if you're unsure of whether the controller expects you to do the PT, request clarification so that you're both on the same page.
 
FDX8891 said:
Read my post in context. There are times when you legally have to do a procedure turn and it doesn't make sense to do it. Take this approach for instance: GPS 2 KLOT. If I'm directly south of CAMLI, and the approach controller says: "Arrow 123 cleared direct CAMLI, cleared GPS Runway 2 into KLOT," I am legally required to do the procedure turn based on what he/she said.

Now why would I want to go out of my way to maneuver more when it would take less maneuvering to get established on the final approach course from where I'm coming from? Any time I am put in this situation I request clarification from the controller, and never have I been told to execute the full procedure when I am already relatively aligned with the final approach course.
Click to expand...
The procedure as depicted contemplates that you are coming from the en route environment. Look at that approach in the context of the en route chart. Two IAFs located on Victor airways with NoPT transitions to the FAC. This particular chart just doesn't contemplate that you are coming in from some random point in the sky, so it doesn't account for it. MY WAG is the the lack of a TAA on this particular approach has more to do with traffic flow just south of the Chicago Class B than it does with terrain considerations.

But that's why there's the catch-all for vectors (and arguably pseudo-vectors).

So why does it "make sense" for you to be coming from some random point outside the en route structure south of the airport and expect the chart to take you into consideration?
 
He's not saying he disagrees with the rules, but there are approaches that require a PT when already established on the inbound leg...

vor.jpg


On this approach if you're coming from the south you would still need to do a PT... It doesn't make sense to have to do 2 course reversals (It's like doing a parallel entry to a hold that you're entering from the south [like the one depicted on that chart.]) However you're required to do them unless you meet the criteria that waives the PT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top