Would you PT here? Should you PT here?

mdolezal

Well-Known Member
Just out of curiosity - I'm getting multiple answers on this exact approach. http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0810/00083IL21L.PDF

Let's say you're lost communications, or heck, just cleared for the approach into LUK ILS 21L. Let's also say you're inbound from MOAKS as depicted on the charted approach. When you arrive at the Madiera IAF, would you initiate a procedure turn or turn inbound? Obviously I can see what is LOGICAL, but I'm asking what is LEGALLY correct. Sure, to turn direct inbound is only a 39 degree turn, where as a PT outbound would be a 141 degree turn, but the feeder route does not denote NoPT. So, what are your thoughts? I've received different answers from DPE's and CFI's. Just curious.
Thanks-
 
So, what are your thoughts? I've received different answers from DPE's and CFI's. Just curious

The PT is legally required, since the route isn't labeled "NoPT". Safety requires it, too...you're 100 feet above glide slope and you may not have the protected area to safely make a 40 degree turn. The turn outbound is protected for this purpose, so the larger turn isn't a factor.

It's a no-brainer, IMO.
 
Yup, I can agree with these statements. When I was first asked this question, I immediately said "Yes, PT is required". In all honesty, I believe the PT is required, despite the fact that the DPE I was talking with stated it was NOT required, and more so, would be a BAD idea because the turn outbound may not be protected. To this I pointed to the MSA, which is predicated on MDE and has an altitude of 3000. The DPE shook his head and said "No, don't even bother with that. That's for emergency use only."
Kinda strange, huh? I was then told to read AIM 5-4-9 by this DPE, where he stated the key is the first sentence, "A PT is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course."
Where this bothers me the most is that this DPE is not only a DPE, but a former airline captain, an aviation attorney, and spoke with local FSDO reps about this matter. It's hard to discount his opinion as a 250 hour commercial student, but still, I can't say I was convinced, hence my request for opinions on this forum.
 
DPE I was talking with stated it was NOT required, and more so, would be a BAD idea because the turn outbound may not be protected.

No, that's silly. The protected area for the PT is based on the fix designated for the PT, which is the NDB in this case. The purpose of the protected area is to allow for the maneuvering to get yourself turned around and this includes the entry. The PT is protected on all sides of the NDB. You can find diagrams of the protected area in the Instrument Procedures Handbook.

DPE shook his head and said "No, don't even bother with that. That's for emergency use only."
He's right about that. That does not depict the protected area for the PT. (It isn't circular.)

A PT is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course.
That sentence comes from TERPS, which are instructions towards the approach designer, not the pilot. The designer determines when it's necessary to reverse direction.

It's hard to discount his opinion as a 250 hour commercial student
Understood, but if you learn the proper methodology of determining the truth, you can run rings around these guys who pick up info sitting around the pilot lounge, know what I mean? You made a good start by referring to the AIM, rather than taking what the DPE said at face value. Keep it up.

Here, read this and you'll know more about the subject than any pilot you'll ever fly with:

http://www.terps.com/ifrr/jul96.pdf
 
Awesome, I love the detail in this explanation, and I'm in the midst of reading the referenced document. I'm sorta neurotic about knowing not only what, buy why and how, so this is great info.
The only question I have is regarding the MSA statement. It's depicted as 3000 feet within a 25NM radius of MDE NDB, correct? So, theoretically, one could fly at 3000 feet within this 25NM radius and be clear of obstacles, correct? And this is a circular dimension, correct? That's how I was taught, I hope it's not something different. I'll have to retrain my brain.
Thanks again for the detailed info, it's appreciated.
 
one could fly at 3000 feet within this 25NM radius and be clear of obstacles, correct?

Absolutely, but it's for emergency use only...it's not part of the instrument approach (in the US, anyway.) If you're cleared for the approach, you cannot descend to the MSA when inside the ring. I know that it's commonly taught that you can.

The MSA altitude will often be different from the PT altitude, because the PT protected area is shaped differently, smaller, and may have its origin from a different location.

(Also note that the 10 nm ring isn't the protected area either.)
 
Just out of curiosity - I'm getting multiple answers on this exact approach. http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0810/00083IL21L.PDF

Let's say you're lost communications, or heck, just cleared for the approach into LUK ILS 21L. Let's also say you're inbound from MOAKS as depicted on the charted approach. When you arrive at the Madiera IAF, would you initiate a procedure turn or turn inbound? Obviously I can see what is LOGICAL, but I'm asking what is LEGALLY correct. Sure, to turn direct inbound is only a 39 degree turn, where as a PT outbound would be a 141 degree turn, but the feeder route does not denote NoPT. So, what are your thoughts? I've received different answers from DPE's and CFI's. Just curious.
Thanks-

Go out shoot the approach and turn 141 degrees and see what ATC says.
My question is this: why would you turn away from the airport you're trying to land at. You've got a nice 40 degree intercept, at 3,000 and when you intercept the glide slope you go down. I don't know why people think that every approach requires some sort of turn.
Which way would you turn? At 180 kts how big of a turn would that be? Would you be in the protected area? Could you stay in the depicted 10 miles?
When coming in from that side, you join the localizer. No procedure turn is needed.
 
Go out shoot the approach and turn 141 degrees and see what ATC says.

Irrelevant. Prudent (though unnecessary) to tell them you're doing the PT, though, since they have clueless pilots turning directly in.

why would you turn away from the airport you're trying to land at.
1) It's the law.
2) You're above glideslope
3) You have a steep turn INSIDE the FAF.

The pilot isn't competent to second-guess the approach designer. There's a reason the route isn't NoPT. A professional should be disciplined enough to follow published procedures.
 
I've been wondering about this too. So is a PT always required unless the chart says something else? What if you are 20 miles straight out on the ILS centerline? Do you still have to reverse the course? Is the protected area for the procedure turn depicted anywhere?
 
I've been wondering about this too. So is a PT always required unless the chart says something else? What if you are 20 miles straight out on the ILS centerline?

You do not have to do a procedure turn when:
- You are being radar vectored
- The chart says "No PT" on the segment you are flying
- You're already on the final approach course

Which means that on this approach coming from MOAKS at 3000' you should fly outbound and do the PT.

Although it would be a heck of a lot easier to just turn the airplane onto final like you normally would (40 degrees is not an unreasonable intercept angle) and being 98 feet above the glideslope at the FAF would not take more than a few seconds to correct. If I was min fuel or I had a medical emergency or something to that effect I would not hesitate to do this.
 
If you are cleared straight-in by ATC, you don't need (and are not expected) to do the PT.

If they replaced that PT barb with a hold-in-lieu of PT I think everyone would get the correct answer.
 
If you are cleared straight-in by ATC, you don't need (and are not expected) to do the PT.

ATC does not have the authority to waive a PT if it's legally required on the approach. They should only use the "straight-in" phraseology if the PT isn't required anyway and they want to make sure you understand that.

And that makes sense. The need for a PT is determined by the TERPS experts; you don't want someone ignorant of TERPS criteria dismissing the careful analysis of those who actually know what they're doing.
 
ATC does not have the authority to waive a PT if it's legally required on the approach. They should only use the "straight-in" phraseology if the PT isn't required anyway and they want to make sure you understand that.

And that makes sense. The need for a PT is determined by the TERPS experts; you don't want someone ignorant of TERPS criteria dismissing the careful analysis of those who actually know what they're doing.

In the subject ILS at LUK, what if we were already established on the final approach course outside of the NDB? Are you saying that if ATC issued a straight-in clearance from that point, we would still have to fly the PT once we hit the NDB?

Or maybe ATC would just never issue a straight-in clearance for this approach?
 
In the subject ILS at LUK, what if we were already established on the final approach course outside of the NDB? Are you saying that if ATC issued a straight-in clearance from that point, we would still have to fly the PT once we hit the NDB? Or maybe ATC would just never issue a straight-in clearance for this approach?

Here's the main idea: ATC knows almost nothing about correctly flying an instrument approach. Their permission to do something doesn't mean it's legal or safe, it means that there is no traffic conflict.

By law, unless you are being vectored to final or are on a NoPT course, you're supposed to do the PT. Would that surprise ATC in your scenario? Probably. Would they issue a straight-in clearance? They might very well do so; ATC only has the vaguest idea of when a PT is required. If they saw you go to the IAF and then turn outbound for the PT, they'd be scratching their collective heads on that one.

The reason the law is somewhat rigid on this issue is that the IFR system was built presuming 1) no radar, and 2) you're flying airways. Once you are no longer conforming to the assumptions of the IFR system, all bets are off as to whether obstacle clearance is assured under all reasonable circumstances. It's simply impossible to construct guidance to the pilot that will keep him safe while taking full advantage of RNAV and radar, so they restrict what you're allowed to do with these tools. That's why when conducting an instrument approach, you need to be vectored to final (according to strict ATC guidelines) or start at an IAF and conduct a full approach. They *know* that will work, but they aren't sure about anything else. There are probably some other things that would work too, but neither the pilot nor ATC is trained in evaluating them, particularly in real-time.

So in the scenario you described, on course, on airspeed, good situational awareness, you certainly could safely go straight in and ATC probably expects that, but the rules contain no provision for you to make that determination. Most pilots would probably do it anyway, though. ;) Overall, I think it's a good thing not to give pilots the discretion on how to fly an approach, because I've seen pilots make poor decisions based on an incorrect understanding of procedure design.
 
I am so glad this brought up some discussion because I felt like a dweeb for telling the DPE that a PT was required when he said it wasn't. Now I don't feel so dweeby, which is important to me. Being right always makes a guy feel good. Thanks for all of the thoughts on this one.
 
Let me give you an example of how our assumptions can be dangerous. I've posted the attached approach before, but it was a year or so ago and you might not have seen it. This approach was at my home airport, and the final approach course crossed underneath the approach to 27 at Memphis. The clearance we'd get when shooting the approach was typically:
Turn left heading 210, maintain 2,500 until established on the localizer, cleared localizer 18 Olive Branch.

The question is, when can I descend down to 2,000 feet? Here's the approach:
olv%20loc%2018.jpg

 
Agreed, I have had this same question with my home airport (MQJ) on the ILS 25 approach (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0810/06452IL25.PDF). We're generally cleared in at 3000 feet, but GSI is 2700. So, at what point can I come down? I know, I know, when I'm on a published segment. I've asked flight instructor's at the airport who genuinely don't know the answer to this. Sure, at MQJ it's only 300 feet, so the way I figured it was when I was 1 minute out, it's safe to be at 2700 feet, because the course reversal allows for a 1 minute pattern. But legally, is that correct?
What did you conclude on LOC18 at OLV? I guess I would have to say you maintain 3000 until you're passed MANND, as 2000 is the legal LOWEST altitude you can come in at. Of course that gives you 6 miles to drop 2200 feet, which at 120 knots (not unrealistic for a 6000 foot runway) gives you a descent rate of around 740 ft/min. I suppose that's not too radical, but the issue still remains - what are most pilots doing there, and where/and to what do they assume they can drop in at?
 
You do not have to do a procedure turn when:
- You are being radar vectored
- The chart says "No PT" on the segment you are flying
- You're already on the final approach course

Which means that on this approach coming from MOAKS at 3000' you should fly outbound and do the PT.

Although it would be a heck of a lot easier to just turn the airplane onto final like you normally would (40 degrees is not an unreasonable intercept angle) and being 98 feet above the glideslope at the FAF would not take more than a few seconds to correct. If I was min fuel or I had a medical emergency or something to that effect I would not hesitate to do this.

Where do I look to find this? I can't find it in any books...

For example if you are where the red airplane is not being vectored... Do you just make the straight in?

vorapp.jpg
 
because the course reversal allows for a 1 minute pattern. But legally, is that correct?

Your case is actually a bit easier than that because you have an initial segment that extends 5.6 nm from the FAF. You can descend down to 2700 once you're within that distance.

However, there are many approaches that have the 1 min holding pattern only. There FAA has provided no guidance on what constitutes "established" in this scenario. My argument would be that since the 1 min holding pattern has its origins from the OM, the 1 min is only valid if you start there. Coming inbound, I would maintain altitude until the fix. However, that would be a problem in your scenario. In our own similar approach, the hold-in-lieu is actually at the intermediate fix, not the FAF, so holding your altitude isn't a problem. And so far, our ATC has given the proper clearance, "cross EFPUB at or above 2500", rather than the incorrect "until established." I have discussed this issue with the guy who wrote the article I referenced you to and he said that the FAA was aware of the fuzziness of the situation, but so far hadn't addressed it.

As for the OLV approach I showed you, you have the right idea that you can't descend until MANDD. However, ATC **expected** you to because 2500 interfered with the traffic into MEM. They wanted you down, but couldn't clear you down because MVA was 2500. They didn't understand why the pilot didn't go down to 2,000 immediately. Making it more confusing to them, many pilots did.

The point I wanted to make is that some instructors justified going down because of the "rule" you can descend once you're within 10 nm of the FAF. As you must realize, this is an incorrect rule. That rule is often correct when 1) you have a PT, and 2) you have a published intermediate segment. Neither is the case on this approach, but they used a faulty understanding of instrument approaches to justify unsafe behavior.

Others had the understanding that the localizer IS a segment of an instrument approach. Not so. The localizer will extend much further than the black line and it hasn't even been surveyed for obstacles outside the charted limits.

Also in this case, ATC contributed to this behavior because they didn't understand the approach either. I discussed the issue with the procedures guy at MEM approach and finally got him to agree that the controllers were acting wrongly. However, nothing changed. Finally I spoke with a guy in the quality control division of the FAA in Oklahoma City who agreed to issue a notam to raise the crossing altitude at MANDD to 2500, which solved the problem until we got an ILS a year later.

So a further point is that ATC is wrong sometimes and the prudent pilot needs to learn not only his own responsibilities, but those of ATC as well.
 
Back
Top