I was using a Frasca 141 sim today with an instructor when this question
came up. Fullerton CA (KFUL) VOR-A approach. At WILMA on V64, flying the
full approach. Do you need to turn outbound at the VOR for the procedure
turn?

Instructor says no because a Victor airway leads to the IAF. I say yes
because even though that's true, "No PT" is not listed on that feeder
route.

> I was using a Frasca 141 sim today with an instructor when this question
> came up. Fullerton CA (KFUL) VOR-A approach. At WILMA on V64, flying the
> full approach. Do you need to turn outbound at the VOR for the procedure
> turn?
>
> Instructor says no because a Victor airway leads to the IAF. I say yes
> because even though that's true, "No PT" is not listed on that feeder
> route.

I agree with you (but am willing to learn if your instructor's right).
The purpose of going around the PT is to establish you on the inbound
course before passing the FAF. The Seal Beach VOR is the FAF even
though it's also an IAF. So, if you come to the FAF from some
cockamamie angle, you'll be hard put to be established before the FAF.
This is true whether there's an airway there or not (and whether or not
the airway goes to the FAF - it might just graze that 10NM circle going
North, for example).

The other purpose of the procedure turn is to allow you to descend in a
protected area if the enroute altitude is higher than the approach
altitude.

Granted that from WILMA you are already at the approach altitue, and the
angle isn't all that cockamamie, but that's (presumably) why they say
NoPT for certain IAFs. They don't want pilots and controllers
disagreeing on just how cockamamie the angle is.

I'd say that the approach designers figured that the angle at the FAF
coming from WILMA and going to the MAP was "too cockamamie" (it's 51
degrees) and put the PT in to give you a shot at getting established.
The angle from ALBAS is only 29 degrees, so is an easier turn to final.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Yossarian" > wrote in message
. 97.142...
> I was using a Frasca 141 sim today with an instructor when this question
> came up. Fullerton CA (KFUL) VOR-A approach. At WILMA on V64, flying the
> full approach. Do you need to turn outbound at the VOR for the procedure
> turn?
>
> Instructor says no because a Victor airway leads to the IAF. I say yes
> because even though that's true, "No PT" is not listed on that feeder
> route.

You'll need a true expert to answer the question with certainty. However...

I agree with your instructor. AFAIK, there is NEVER a requirement to make a
procedure turn. The "NoPT" exists to prohibit a procedure turn, not to tell
you when you are required to make one. Obviously, if you're going the wrong
way, you need a course reversal at some point. But that's a practical
requirement, not a regulatory one.

In the case of the approach from ALBAS, not only is there clearly no need
for a procedure turn, they've even gone so far as to put the IAF way out
there. While I'm not an expert in the TERPS, I suspect that there's
something in there that stipulates when "NoPT" is used; probably any arrival
30 degrees or less from the final approach course gets a "NoPT" (the arrival
from ALBAS just barely squeaks by). If the approach designer had been given
the latitude to put "NoPT" on any arrival where he thinks a procedure turn
is unnecessary, we'd probably see that on the arrival from WILMA too.

I would agree that in general, it would be nice to be established on the
final approach course at the FAF. But again, I'm not aware of any
requirement for this. Assuming you can cross the FAF at the FAF (which
should never be in question), and then immediately establish yourself on the
final approach course (which should be no problem in this case), I don't see
any problem.

As far as I can tell, the procedure turn on that approach is for pilots who
are coming at the VOR from the opposite direction. For example, someone who
flew the missed approach.

Of course, lacking the "NoPT", you are of course welcome to fly the whole
procedure turn. But you're looking at 45 seconds or so just to get
established outbound parallel to the final approach course, and that's not
counting the time spent flying back to it (and then, of course, the time for
the procedure turn itself). I'm betting not many people fly the procedure
turn coming in from WILMA.

I'm a little curious as to how this question is on r.a.piloting, but not on
r.a.ifr. I've cross-posted for your benefit (and quoted your entire post
for theirs). :)

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

>
> I agree with your instructor. AFAIK, there is NEVER a requirement to
> make a procedure turn. The "NoPT" exists to prohibit a procedure
> turn, not to tell you when you are required to make one. Obviously,
> if you're going the wrong way, you need a course reversal at some
> point. But that's a practical requirement, not a regulatory one.
>

AIM 5-4-9 a. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a
required maneuver.

>
> Of course, lacking the "NoPT", you are of course welcome to fly the
> whole procedure turn. But you're looking at 45 seconds or so just to
> get established outbound parallel to the final approach course, and
> that's not counting the time spent flying back to it (and then, of
> course, the time for the procedure turn itself). I'm betting not many
> people fly the procedure turn coming in from WILMA.
>

true on that last sentence, but it's because you always get vectors.

"Yossarian" > wrote in message
7.142...
> AIM 5-4-9 a. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a
> required maneuver.

I'm going to have to equivocate on the phrase "is a required maneuver".
You'll note that the very first sentence reads (in part) "A procedure turn
is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course
reversal..."

The AIM is, of course, not regulatory. So if it claims that the procedure
turn is a required maneuver, it must be referring to some other regulation
somewhere. Of course, the AIM doesn't actually provide a cross-reference,
so we don't know what regulation they have in mind.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the "is a required
maneuver" phrase applies only when "it is necessary to perform a course
reversal". IMHO, any other interpretation is absurd. They are specifically
telling you the procedure turn exists for the sole purpose of reversing
course; why would it be required to fly the procedure turn when you don't
need to reverse course?

Executing a procedure turn in the example you give requires more
maneuvering, more time, and provides no real safety improvement (and in
fact, could lead to a pilot inadvertently leaving the protected airspace,
and/or flying below minimum safe altitudes for the approach and surrounding
area).

Now, all that said, I think I've already implied I'm not an expert in this
area. I certainly don't KNOW that I'm right. But I'm definitely not
convinced I'm wrong either.

>> [...] I'm betting not many
>> people fly the procedure turn coming in from WILMA.
>
> true on that last sentence, but it's because you always get vectors.

I will further bet that's not the ENTIRE reason.

Where's Wally when you need him? :)

Actually, he might not be as helpful (at least, to me) as I might have
thought. Here's an interesting article that supports your interpretation of
the rules:
http://cf.alpa.org/internet/alp/2000/jansafety.htm
However, IMHO it's an obviously absurd way to interpret the rules. It
doesn't address your example directly, since the inbound course is nearly
aligned with the final approach course. But it seems patently obvious to me
that flying the entire procedure turn in this case is just plain wrong; it
achieves nothing except to waste time and put the airplane farther away from
a proper approach course.

Roberts is, as the article shows, a firm believer that without radar vectors
and/or other criteria mentioned in the AIM, the procedure turn is mandatory.
The justification appears to be that no matter how closely aligned with the
final approach course you are, if you're not EXACTLY aligned with it, you
have to turn around and "try again".

My understanding is that, if ever there was an expert, Roberts is it. But
it's still unclear to me where his interpretation comes from. It also still
seems to fly in the face of sensibility.

Another well-respected aviation educator and writer, Gene Whitt, suggests
that it is the pilot's discretion to fly the procedure turn or not (though,
he also has no references). From his web page:
http://www.whittsflying.com/Page7.38IFRStill%20More%20Procedures.htm

If ATC does not specifically state that you will be given
radar vectors, you as PIC can decide if a procedure turn
is required.

Note that I am not suggesting that straight-in always implies no need to fly
the procedure turn. As Jose noted, there may also be an altitude issue.
I'm simply talking about the example you provided, in which the transition
altitude is already low enough to allow for entry over the FAF at a normal
approach inbound altitude, and where the maneuvering required in order to
complete the procedure turn is at least as complex (and thus potentially
dangerous) as that required to simply proceed inbound on the approach from
the transition route.

Pete

The AIM is not regulatory, but it is directive.

The regulatory source is the Part 97 document for any particular IAP. If there
is a course reversal initial approach segment and NoPT is not on a segment
leading to the course reversal segment then by inference the course reversal is
required.

In cases where alignment seems to make it unnecessary it may be an issue of
descent gradient. It other cases, it may be poor procedure design and pilots
have a duty to provide feedback to the FAA in such cases.

If you check through the minutes of previous FAA Aeronautical Charting Forums
you can find that the AIM language cited was done in a couple of steps to try to
make clear what is implied by the individual amendment to Part 97 for any
particular SIAP.

The reason the course reversal is required in the cited case at KFUL is because
going straight in from V-64 requires a course change entering the final approach
segment that well exceeds the maximum course change at the FAF of 30 degrees
permitted for VOR IAPs.

Like it or not that is the criteria. Keep in mind that TERPs is simplistic
criteria in the sense that it tries to make one size fit all in most aspects of
IAP construction.

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Yossarian" > wrote in message
> 7.142...
> > AIM 5-4-9 a. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a
> > required maneuver.
>
> I'm going to have to equivocate on the phrase "is a required maneuver".
> You'll note that the very first sentence reads (in part) "A procedure turn
> is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course
> reversal..."
>
> The AIM is, of course, not regulatory. So if it claims that the procedure
> turn is a required maneuver, it must be referring to some other regulation
> somewhere. Of course, the AIM doesn't actually provide a cross-reference,
> so we don't know what regulation they have in mind.
>
> I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the "is a required
> maneuver" phrase applies only when "it is necessary to perform a course
> reversal". IMHO, any other interpretation is absurd. They are specifically
> telling you the procedure turn exists for the sole purpose of reversing
> course; why would it be required to fly the procedure turn when you don't
> need to reverse course?
>
> Executing a procedure turn in the example you give requires more
> maneuvering, more time, and provides no real safety improvement (and in
> fact, could lead to a pilot inadvertently leaving the protected airspace,
> and/or flying below minimum safe altitudes for the approach and surrounding
> area).
>
> Now, all that said, I think I've already implied I'm not an expert in this
> area. I certainly don't KNOW that I'm right. But I'm definitely not
> convinced I'm wrong either.
>
> >> [...] I'm betting not many
> >> people fly the procedure turn coming in from WILMA.
> >
> > true on that last sentence, but it's because you always get vectors.
>
> I will further bet that's not the ENTIRE reason.
>
> Where's Wally when you need him? :)
>
> Actually, he might not be as helpful (at least, to me) as I might have
> thought. Here's an interesting article that supports your interpretation of
> the rules:
> http://cf.alpa.org/internet/alp/2000/jansafety.htm
> However, IMHO it's an obviously absurd way to interpret the rules. It
> doesn't address your example directly, since the inbound course is nearly
> aligned with the final approach course. But it seems patently obvious to me
> that flying the entire procedure turn in this case is just plain wrong; it
> achieves nothing except to waste time and put the airplane farther away from
> a proper approach course.
>
> Roberts is, as the article shows, a firm believer that without radar vectors
> and/or other criteria mentioned in the AIM, the procedure turn is mandatory.
> The justification appears to be that no matter how closely aligned with the
> final approach course you are, if you're not EXACTLY aligned with it, you
> have to turn around and "try again".
>
> My understanding is that, if ever there was an expert, Roberts is it. But
> it's still unclear to me where his interpretation comes from. It also still
> seems to fly in the face of sensibility.
>
> Another well-respected aviation educator and writer, Gene Whitt, suggests
> that it is the pilot's discretion to fly the procedure turn or not (though,
> he also has no references). From his web page:
> http://www.whittsflying.com/Page7.38IFRStill%20More%20Procedures.htm
>
> If ATC does not specifically state that you will be given
> radar vectors, you as PIC can decide if a procedure turn
> is required.
>
> Note that I am not suggesting that straight-in always implies no need to fly
> the procedure turn. As Jose noted, there may also be an altitude issue.
> I'm simply talking about the example you provided, in which the transition
> altitude is already low enough to allow for entry over the FAF at a normal
> approach inbound altitude, and where the maneuvering required in order to
> complete the procedure turn is at least as complex (and thus potentially
> dangerous) as that required to simply proceed inbound on the approach from
> the transition route.
>
> Pete

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 22:06:48 -0500, Yossarian >
wrote:

>I was using a Frasca 141 sim today with an instructor when this question
>came up. Fullerton CA (KFUL) VOR-A approach. At WILMA on V64, flying the
>full approach. Do you need to turn outbound at the VOR for the procedure
>turn?
>
>Instructor says no because a Victor airway leads to the IAF. I say yes
>because even though that's true, "No PT" is not listed on that feeder
>route.

You are correct. Your instructor is wrong.

In this particular instance, I believe the PT is needed (as well as being
required by regulation) because the turn required to proceed without a PT
along that route would exceed the allowable per TERPs.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Yossarian" > wrote in message
> 7.142...
>> AIM 5-4-9 a. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a
>> required maneuver.
>
> I'm going to have to equivocate on the phrase "is a required maneuver".
> You'll note that the very first sentence reads (in part) "A procedure turn
> is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course
> reversal..."
> [...]
> I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the "is a required
> maneuver" phrase applies only when "it is necessary to perform a course
> reversal".

That's certainly a clever interpretation. :) But I think the two sentences
are more plausibly paraphrased "When we think it is necessary for you to
perform a course reversal..., we prescribe a procedure turn; when we
prescribe it, it's a required maneuver". If they'd intended it the other
way, they'd more appropriately have said "When it is necessary to perform a
course reversal.., a prescribed procedure turn is a required maneuver".

> IMHO, any other interpretation is absurd. They are specifically telling
> you the procedure turn exists for the sole purpose of reversing course;

They don't actually say that's the *sole* purpose; they say "when", not
"when and only when".

> why would it be required to fly the procedure turn when you don't need to
> reverse course?

They may have decided, for reasons unobvious to us (or perhaps for reasons
that are simply mistaken), that the turn is needed. In the vast majority of
cases where there is no evident need for a procedure turn, none is
prescribed.

> The AIM is, of course, not regulatory. So if it claims that the procedure
> turn is a required maneuver, it must be referring to some other regulation
> somewhere. Of course, the AIM doesn't actually provide a cross-reference,
> so we don't know what regulation they have in mind.


Presumably 97.10, which incorporates the SIAPs into the FARs. The AIM, in
turn, frequently elaborates aspects of the interpretation of the charts (or
their interaction with ATC clearances) that are otherwise unspecified.

--Gary

In general, here is what I do. If I am being vectored, there is almost
never a procedure turn. If the controller wants you to make a course
reversal, he vectors me around. So procedure turns are only for flying
the full approach without vectors. If I am not aligned within 30
degrees of the final approach course outside of the FAF, then I need to
do SOMETHING to get straightened out. If a procedure turn is allowed, I
do that, otherwise a hold. If I am aligned with the FAF, then there is
no sense in making a procudure turn or hold, so I go on in. It makes
sense, it is safe and it works. So that is what I do.

> I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the "is a required
> maneuver" phrase applies only when "it is necessary to perform a course
> reversal". IMHO, any other interpretation is absurd.

Well, required in the sense of geometry or what? If you have to turn
around, you have to turn around. And since the procedure turn =shape=
is not usually prescribed (except that it happens on one side of the
course) it's just a sexy u-turn.

> They are specifically
> telling you the procedure turn exists for the sole purpose of reversing
> course;

Not quite. As you quoted:

> "A procedure turn
> is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course
> reversal..."

It doesn't say "only when it is necessary", and the quote does not imply
it's the =sole= purpose of the PT.

> the maneuvering required in order to
> complete the procedure turn is at least as complex (and thus potentially
> dangerous) as that required to simply proceed inbound on the approach from
> the transition route.

The PT is actually more complex in this case, but it occurs at a higher
altitude (the same altitude really, but not commencing a descent) than
the maneuvering to proceed inbound. It's also further from the MAP (the
same distance really, but you will be flying away from the airport, not
towards it, so you are further away in time).

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> In general, here is what I do. If I am being vectored, there is almost
> never a procedure turn.

Yup, AIM 5-4-9a explicitly exempts vectoring situations from the PT
requirement.

> If I am aligned with the FAF, then there is
> no sense in making a procudure turn or hold, so I go on in. It makes
> sense, it is safe and it works. So that is what I do.

That does sound sensible (if you're at the prescribed altitude, as well as
being aligned with the course); but I'm not sure if it's technically legal
to skip the PT if the chart has a PT, unless you're being vectored or
there's a NoPT designation for your IAF or feeder route.

--Gary

Yossarian wrote:
> I was using a Frasca 141 sim today with an instructor when this
> question came up. Fullerton CA (KFUL) VOR-A approach. At WILMA on
> V64, flying the full approach. Do you need to turn outbound at the
> VOR for the procedure turn?
>
> Instructor says no because a Victor airway leads to the IAF. I say
> yes because even though that's true, "No PT" is not listed on that
> feeder route.

If, after evaluating that the altitude/heading that your arrival ends up at
the IAF/FAF will not require a procedure turn for alignment or altitude
considerations, the best solution would be to advise ATC that you wish to
make a straight in approach rather than fly the published procedure turn.
If that is not practical you should advise ATC that you plan to make the
published procedure turn. Either decision should be passed on to ATC for
traffic separation and aircraft control. (it also has the benefit of helping
insure ATC won't file some procedural violation against you).

--

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

"Darrell S" > wrote in message
news:ytloe.568$qr.464@fed1read06...
> If, after evaluating that the altitude/heading that your arrival ends up
> at the IAF/FAF will not require a procedure turn for alignment or altitude
> considerations, the best solution would be to advise ATC that you wish to
> make a straight in approach rather than fly the published procedure turn.
> If that is not practical you should advise ATC that you plan to make the
> published procedure turn. Either decision should be passed on to ATC for
> traffic separation and aircraft control. (it also has the benefit of
> helping insure ATC won't file some procedural violation against you).

Not necessarily. According to the FARs and the AIM, the only way ATC can
exempt you from an otherwise required PT is if they vector you to final.
Otherwise, the regs apparently call for you to execute the PT; and (as
discussed in another thread here recently) you must comply with the regs
even if ATC gives you a clearance that is contrary to the regs.

--Gary

> wrote in message ...
> [...]
> The reason the course reversal is required in the cited case at KFUL is
> because
> going straight in from V-64 requires a course change entering the final
> approach
> segment that well exceeds the maximum course change at the FAF of 30
> degrees
> permitted for VOR IAPs.

A procedure turn requires a course change of over 130 degrees (including
getting back onto the outbound course). And then of 180 degrees. You can
fly the transition at the same altitude allowed for the procedure turn.

How is the procedure turn better?

> Like it or not that is the criteria. Keep in mind that TERPs is
> simplistic
> criteria in the sense that it tries to make one size fit all in most
> aspects of
> IAP construction.

Well, I can agree with that.

From a practical point of view, however...

It seems likely that when radar coverage is available, vectors will be
given. This allows no procedure turn to be flown. If radar coverage is not
available, how is anyone going to know if you've flown the procedure turn?

I would think that from an enforcement point of view, the cases where a
procedure turn is theoretically required, but where the pilot could ever be
cited for not flying one, are pretty far and few between. From a safety
point of view, not flying the procedure turn appears to be the superior
approach, at least in this case.

Pete

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
> Well, required in the sense of geometry or what?

Yes, in the sense of geometry.

> If you have to turn around, you have to turn around. And since the
> procedure turn =shape= is not usually prescribed (except that it happens
> on one side of the course) it's just a sexy u-turn.

The *inbound* turn is usually not prescribed. The outbound leg is required
to be flown along the depicted route. In the case of the example here, that
requires a greater than 130 degree right-hand turn from the transition
route.

You only get to make up your turn on the way back in.

If the procedure allowed one to simply fly a standard-rate right-hand turn
after crossing the VOR, to return to the inbound leg, I might not have as
big an issue with the idea that the procedure turn is required. That's
still more complex, but it's reasonably efficient, does result in one being
established on the inbound course earlier, and is much less likely to wind
up with the airplane outside protected airspace (because there's a lot less
maneuvering going on).

But it doesn't. It requires that one first turns outbound, gets established
on the outbound course, and only then reverses course (again) to come back
inbound.

> Not quite. As you quoted:
>
>> "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
>> perform a course reversal..."
>
> It doesn't say "only when it is necessary", and the quote does not imply
> it's the =sole= purpose of the PT.

It's the introductory sentence to the entire section on procedure turns. I
don't think it's a stretch *at all* (as opposed to some of my other
interpretations) to believe that they are describing *exactly* why a
procedure turn exists.

Pete

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 11:13:47 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>It seems likely that when radar coverage is available, vectors will be
>given. This allows no procedure turn to be flown. If radar coverage is not
>available, how is anyone going to know if you've flown the procedure turn?

Anyone who listens to the tapes, assuming radio coverage? At least
around here whenever I'm flying a full procedure ATC always requests
"report procedure turn inbound".

Since it's such a nice day, I'm going to quibble. Where is it written that
you have to track the inbound course when outbound? IOW (I sense that you
fly in the Northwest, specifically western Washington), if I am coming from
the west to shoot the ILS into Paine, and my outbound turn over RITTS takes
me east of the extended runway/localizer, I am perfectly justified in flying
parallel to the localizer if I want to....the protected airspace is plenty
wide. I have seen dozens of instrument students work themselves into a
frenzy trying to get established outbound on the inbound, if you catch my
drift (no-wind conditions <g>).

Bob Gardner

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Well, required in the sense of geometry or what?
>
> Yes, in the sense of geometry.
>
>> If you have to turn around, you have to turn around. And since the
>> procedure turn =shape= is not usually prescribed (except that it happens
>> on one side of the course) it's just a sexy u-turn.
>
> The *inbound* turn is usually not prescribed. The outbound leg is
> required to be flown along the depicted route. In the case of the example
> here, that requires a greater than 130 degree right-hand turn from the
> transition route.
>
> You only get to make up your turn on the way back in.
>
> If the procedure allowed one to simply fly a standard-rate right-hand turn
> after crossing the VOR, to return to the inbound leg, I might not have as
> big an issue with the idea that the procedure turn is required. That's
> still more complex, but it's reasonably efficient, does result in one
> being established on the inbound course earlier, and is much less likely
> to wind up with the airplane outside protected airspace (because there's a
> lot less maneuvering going on).
>
> But it doesn't. It requires that one first turns outbound, gets
> established on the outbound course, and only then reverses course (again)
> to come back inbound.
>
>> Not quite. As you quoted:
>>
>>> "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
>>> perform a course reversal..."
>>
>> It doesn't say "only when it is necessary", and the quote does not imply
>> it's the =sole= purpose of the PT.
>
> It's the introductory sentence to the entire section on procedure turns.
> I don't think it's a stretch *at all* (as opposed to some of my other
> interpretations) to believe that they are describing *exactly* why a
> procedure turn exists.
>
> Pete
>

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> Since it's such a nice day, I'm going to quibble. Where is it written that
> you have to track the inbound course when outbound?

IMHO, that's in the definition of "procedure turn" (97.3(p)). "The outbound
course, direction of turn, distance within which the turn must be completed,
and minimum altitude are specified in the procedure". Note that they say
"outbound course", not "outbound heading". To me, this means you are
required to fly exactly that course (inasmuch as you are required to fly the
procedure turn at all).

I don't disagree that there are situations in which it's perfectly safe to
parallel the outbound course. Your example at KPAE is a fine one.

But if someone believes that the regulations require the full procedure to
be flown even when no course reversal is actually necessary for the
approach, they darn well better believe that the regulations require flying
the outbound *course* as depicted, rather than just the outbound heading.
That seems much more explicitly stated than the presumed requirement to fly
the full procedure.

Pete

Lots of posters are spouting ideas, regs, AIM citations, etc. but have not
looked at the approach plate. So lets do that.

1st... What is your flight plan route? Wilma is NOT part of the approach.
It is a feeder for the airport.

2nd... If you filed to Wilma, then the airport and went lost communications
and were IFR you would have to fly to an IAF and then commence the approach.
ATC would expect you to fly to Seal Beach and fly the procedure turn.

3rd... If you are under ATC control, they would likley either vector you to
final or tell you to fly to Seal Beach and then intercept final and probably
tell you to to that at 1500 feet so you would be in the proper postion to
descend to MDA for the circle to land.



"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Yossarian" > wrote in message
> . 97.142...
>> I was using a Frasca 141 sim today with an instructor when this question
>> came up. Fullerton CA (KFUL) VOR-A approach. At WILMA on V64, flying
>> the
>> full approach. Do you need to turn outbound at the VOR for the procedure
>> turn?
>>
>> Instructor says no because a Victor airway leads to the IAF. I say yes
>> because even though that's true, "No PT" is not listed on that feeder
>> route.
>
> You'll need a true expert to answer the question with certainty.
> However...
>
> I agree with your instructor. AFAIK, there is NEVER a requirement to make
> a procedure turn. The "NoPT" exists to prohibit a procedure turn, not to
> tell you when you are required to make one. Obviously, if you're going
> the wrong way, you need a course reversal at some point. But that's a
> practical requirement, not a regulatory one.
>
> In the case of the approach from ALBAS, not only is there clearly no need
> for a procedure turn, they've even gone so far as to put the IAF way out
> there. While I'm not an expert in the TERPS, I suspect that there's
> something in there that stipulates when "NoPT" is used; probably any
> arrival 30 degrees or less from the final approach course gets a "NoPT"
> (the arrival from ALBAS just barely squeaks by). If the approach designer
> had been given the latitude to put "NoPT" on any arrival where he thinks a
> procedure turn is unnecessary, we'd probably see that on the arrival from
> WILMA too.
>
> I would agree that in general, it would be nice to be established on the
> final approach course at the FAF. But again, I'm not aware of any
> requirement for this. Assuming you can cross the FAF at the FAF (which
> should never be in question), and then immediately establish yourself on
> the final approach course (which should be no problem in this case), I
> don't see any problem.
>
> As far as I can tell, the procedure turn on that approach is for pilots
> who are coming at the VOR from the opposite direction. For example,
> someone who flew the missed approach.
>
> Of course, lacking the "NoPT", you are of course welcome to fly the whole
> procedure turn. But you're looking at 45 seconds or so just to get
> established outbound parallel to the final approach course, and that's not
> counting the time spent flying back to it (and then, of course, the time
> for the procedure turn itself). I'm betting not many people fly the
> procedure turn coming in from WILMA.
>
> I'm a little curious as to how this question is on r.a.piloting, but not
> on r.a.ifr. I've cross-posted for your benefit (and quoted your entire
> post for theirs). :)
>
> Pete
>

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 22:50:57 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

> To me, this means you are
>required to fly exactly that course

Yes, but "course" only refers to "The intended *direction* of flight in the
horizontal plane measured in degrees from north." It does not refer to a
particular ground track.

On the other hand, there are "Some procedure turns are specified by
procedural track. These turns must be flown exactly as depicted."


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Paul Lynch wrote:

> Lots of posters are spouting ideas, regs, AIM citations, etc. but have not
> looked at the approach plate. So lets do that.

Gee, I did that when I identified that segment as a feeder route.

>
>
> 1st... What is your flight plan route? Wilma is NOT part of the approach.
> It is a feeder for the airport.

A feeder route is part of an IAP, and issued under Part 97 along with the other
segments of the IAP.

>
>
> 2nd... If you filed to Wilma, then the airport and went lost communications
> and were IFR you would have to fly to an IAF and then commence the approach.
> ATC would expect you to fly to Seal Beach and fly the procedure turn.

True enough.

>
>
> 3rd... If you are under ATC control, they would likley either vector you to
> final or tell you to fly to Seal Beach and then intercept final and probably
> tell you to to that at 1500 feet so you would be in the proper postion to
> descend to MDA for the circle to land.
>

They can certainly vector you to "final" in accordance with the ATC Handbook
7110.65, Paragraph 5-9-1. That also requires that they have you at an altitude
compatable with the procedure, outside the FAF unless you accept a turn on at
the FAF, and at a vector angle not to exceed 30 degrees (20 degrees closer to
the FAF).

ATC cannot simply "tell you to fly to Seal Beach and then intercept final and
probably tell you to do that at 1,500 feet...." Where do you come up with this
procedure?

Sounds like you are a controller or approach designer! Your comments have always been germane and on point, unlike many others. So maybe you can set me straight...

Wilma may be a feeder, but it is not an Intial Approach Point (IAP). That means if you filed to Wilma as the final point on your route, your next point is your destination. Thinking in terms of lost communication, which is a driver for many procedural practices... If you went from Wilma to one of the 2 initials (SLI or ALBAS) you have some predictability. If you go from Wilma to some place on the approach because you believe you can hack the intercept (which some proposed), you have less predictability. If you were shooting an approach at some airports that have several more feeders, then what is ATC supposed to do? Clear the airspace for a 25 NM radius?

Although I have never flown the approaches at FUL, I have been vectored with the instructions similar to what I mentioned at several places in the easter half of the country. WRT to the VOR-A at FUL, when arriving at WILMA, I would not be surprised to hear "descend to 2600 feet, turn to 090 and intercept the SLI 200 radial inbound, you are cleared for the VOR-A approach." 1500 feet came from the ALBAS IAP. I didn't see the asterisk before. My screwup.

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Paul Lynch wrote:
>
>> Lots of posters are spouting ideas, regs, AIM citations, etc. but have not
>> looked at the approach plate. So lets do that.
>
> Gee, I did that when I identified that segment as a feeder route.
>
>>
>>
>> 1st... What is your flight plan route? Wilma is NOT part of the approach.
>> It is a feeder for the airport.
>
> A feeder route is part of an IAP, and issued under Part 97 along with the other
> segments of the IAP.
>
>>
>>
>> 2nd... If you filed to Wilma, then the airport and went lost communications
>> and were IFR you would have to fly to an IAF and then commence the approach.
>> ATC would expect you to fly to Seal Beach and fly the procedure turn.
>
> True enough.
>
>>
>>
>> 3rd... If you are under ATC control, they would likley either vector you to
>> final or tell you to fly to Seal Beach and then intercept final and probably
>> tell you to to that at 1500 feet so you would be in the proper postion to
>> descend to MDA for the circle to land.
>>
>
> They can certainly vector you to "final" in accordance with the ATC Handbook
> 7110.65, Paragraph 5-9-1. That also requires that they have you at an altitude
> compatable with the procedure, outside the FAF unless you accept a turn on at
> the FAF, and at a vector angle not to exceed 30 degrees (20 degrees closer to
> the FAF).
>
> ATC cannot simply "tell you to fly to Seal Beach and then intercept final and
> probably tell you to do that at 1,500 feet...." Where do you come up with this
> procedure?
>

Gotta wonder why the protected airspace on the non-PT side is 1.4 miles wide
all the way out to the maximum distance. If flying on the black line is a
regulatory requirement, why not just protect the turn area alone?

Bob Gardner


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Since it's such a nice day, I'm going to quibble. Where is it written
>> that you have to track the inbound course when outbound?
>
> IMHO, that's in the definition of "procedure turn" (97.3(p)). "The
> outbound course, direction of turn, distance within which the turn must be
> completed, and minimum altitude are specified in the procedure". Note
> that they say "outbound course", not "outbound heading". To me, this
> means you are required to fly exactly that course (inasmuch as you are
> required to fly the procedure turn at all).
>
> I don't disagree that there are situations in which it's perfectly safe to
> parallel the outbound course. Your example at KPAE is a fine one.
>
> But if someone believes that the regulations require the full procedure to
> be flown even when no course reversal is actually necessary for the
> approach, they darn well better believe that the regulations require
> flying the outbound *course* as depicted, rather than just the outbound
> heading. That seems much more explicitly stated than the presumed
> requirement to fly the full procedure.
>
> Pete
>

Tough to reply because you message is in a text box this time for some
reason.

Filing to WILMA would not be appropriate because, although it's a feeder
fix for this approach, it is short of destination. If you were coming
from the north it would be typical to file the prefered airway to SLI
then direct. You don't have the option to proceed to ALBAS unless it's
on your clearance route.

As to the heading you suggest of 090 at 2600 that would not be a vector
permitted by 7110.65, 5-9-1.

Paul Lynch wrote:

> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> Encoding: quoted-printable

Bob Gardner wrote:

> Gotta wonder why the protected airspace on the non-PT side is 1.4 miles wide
> all the way out to the maximum distance. If flying on the black line is a
> regulatory requirement, why not just protect the turn area alone?
>

Where did you get that number?

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 10:53:40 -0700, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote:

>Gotta wonder why the protected airspace on the non-PT side is 1.4 miles wide
>all the way out to the maximum distance. If flying on the black line is a
>regulatory requirement, why not just protect the turn area alone?

Maybe to take into account and give some protection for VOR, onboard
equipment, and operator error? At the far end of the maximum 10NM
circle for a standard procedure turn distance, if the VOR itself was
drifted say 4 degrees and then your aircraft was off 4 degrees and
then you didn't have the exact number dialed in and so were off 1
degree to begin with... So say there is a combined error of 9 degrees
off, you're already 1.1NM off the 'desired' track at about 7nm, right,
but still would have a centered needle. Even with a perfect needle
(say glass cockpit for the VOR OBS setting and autopilot handling
accuracy) the VOR approach to 6B6 puts you at/over (I forget the exact
number right now) around 1NM to the right of the airport at the MAP.
It was quite interesting doing it under the hood, having the needle
centered the whole time, and then playing 'find the airport' when I
pulled up the hood.

Bob Gardner wrote:
> Gotta wonder why the protected airspace on the non-PT side is 1.4 miles wide
> all the way out to the maximum distance. If flying on the black line is a
> regulatory requirement, why not just protect the turn area alone?

Probably because neither pilots, their nav radios more the ground VOR
stations are that accurate. :-)


Matt

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, but "course" only refers to "The intended *direction* of flight in
> the
> horizontal plane measured in degrees from north." It does not refer to a
> particular ground track.

Where does it say that?

> On the other hand, there are "Some procedure turns are specified by
> procedural track. These turns must be flown exactly as depicted."

As far as I know, that's to distinguish from those procedure turns that
require a particular kind of turn, versus those that simply require the
pilot to remain on the "protected" side of the turn. It has nothing at all
to do with whether one is supposed to fly the depicted outbound course.

Pete

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 16:47:49 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>> Yes, but "course" only refers to "The intended *direction* of flight in
>> the
>> horizontal plane measured in degrees from north." It does not refer to a
>> particular ground track.
>
>Where does it say that?

Pilot/Controller Glossary under the C's for Course


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> Pilot/Controller Glossary under the C's for Course

I'm not aware of any reason that glossary is legally applied to words found
in FAR 97.3. The glossary exists to describe communications between pilots
and controllers, nothing more.

Pete

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 16:47:49 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>As far as I know, that's to distinguish from those procedure turns that
>require a particular kind of turn, versus those that simply require the
>pilot to remain on the "protected" side of the turn. It has nothing at all
>to do with whether one is supposed to fly the depicted outbound course.

I don't know where you find a requirement that one must fly for any
distance at all outbound along the "depicted outbound course" in executing
a procedure turn that does not have a required track.

You cite 97.3 but that paragraph also states that "the point at which the
turn may be commenced, and the type and rate of turn, is left to the
discretion of the pilot". Some of the types of turns that would not
require flying along the charted outbound track include teardrop, racetrack
and 80-260. Even the 45° turn would not require flying along the "depicted
outbound course" if the pilot elected to start that turn immediately.

At the approach under discussion (KFUL VOR-A via the WILMA transition), I
would probably elect to fly a racetrack turn after Seal Beach and,
depending on the winds, I might never even be parallel to the charted
inbound course of 020 until I turned inbound. All perfectly legal
according to both 97.3 and the AIM.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> I don't know where you find a requirement that one must fly for any
> distance at all outbound along the "depicted outbound course" in executing
> a procedure turn that does not have a required track.

Asked and answered.

> You cite 97.3 but that paragraph also states that "the point at which the
> turn may be commenced, and the type and rate of turn, is left to the
> discretion of the pilot".

Unless by "turn" they are referring to the final course reversal, that
sentence IMHO basically makes this entire thread moot. That is, it answers
the question, and leaves the entire procedure up to the discretion of the
pilot.

Now, that's a fine interpretation by me. :) But I take it as granted that
those arguing that the entire procedure is required to be flown (absent the
explicitly stated exceptions, of course) feel that the sentence you quote is
referring only to the final course reversal, not the entire procedure turn.

> Some of the types of turns that would not
> require flying along the charted outbound track include teardrop,
> racetrack
> and 80-260. Even the 45° turn would not require flying along the
> "depicted
> outbound course" if the pilot elected to start that turn immediately.

All of your examples are ways to complete the course reversal *after flying
the outbound leg*. That is, if those are all valid methods for executing
the entire procedure turn itself, then surely so too is simply turning onto
the final approach course. So, either you are simply supporting my point,
or your examples are in no way a counter-example to what I've written.

> At the approach under discussion (KFUL VOR-A via the WILMA transition), I
> would probably elect to fly a racetrack turn after Seal Beach and,
> depending on the winds, I might never even be parallel to the charted
> inbound course of 020 until I turned inbound. All perfectly legal
> according to both 97.3 and the AIM.

If you have the discretion to choose your outbound track, why bother flying
outbound at all?

Pete

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 21:54:12 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>If you have the discretion to choose your outbound track, why bother flying
>outbound at all?


You are skipping over the part of the regulation which states that the
"point at which the turn may be commenced" is up to the pilot. There is no
MINIMUM length of an outbound leg. There is only a maximum length. You
can begin your turn (or course reversal if you will), immediately.

But if you do not see that, then further discussion here is pointless.

There is certainly nothing wrong with returning to the outbound course
after Seal Beach, flying outbound for some length that you determine you
want to; and then executing a 45° turn on the charted side, so long as you
remain within the mileage limit. But it is not the only valid, legal
method of executing the procedure.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Bob Gardner wrote:
> > Gotta wonder why the protected airspace on the non-PT side is 1.4 miles wide
> > all the way out to the maximum distance. If flying on the black line is a
> > regulatory requirement, why not just protect the turn area alone?
>
> Probably because neither pilots, their nav radios more the ground VOR
> stations are that accurate. :-)
>
> Matt

Especially at a VOR intersection.

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Pilot/Controller Glossary under the C's for Course
>
> I'm not aware of any reason that glossary is legally applied to words found
> in FAR 97.3. The glossary exists to describe communications between pilots
> and controllers, nothing more.
>
> Pete

Then again, an IAP is issued under a subset of 97.20 on a form 8260-3 or -5,
and on that form (which is regulatory as to courses, altitudes, and distances,
as it says at the top of the form) specifies the outbound course for the
procedure turn. Line 1 of the form. If, instead, the course reversal is a
holding pattern, then Line 2 specifies the inbound course of the holding
pattern.

Would you deem the inbound course for the holding pattern to be regulatory? I
would.

So, following that reasoning, where the outbound course for a standard
procedure turn is set forth on Line 1 of the 8260-3 or -5, it seems that it
would be regulatory.

Because the procedure turn is treated with sufficient detail under 97.2X (the
8260 form) there is no need for a definition under 97.3

It makes no sense to me whatsoever, to do a course reversal or a
procedure turn if one is already inbound and aligned with Final
Approach Course. Just why are pilots supposed to go around in a hold or
execute a procedure turn under these circumstances? Flying good
approaches in IMC means MINIMIZING manuevering and MINIMIZING the time
spent in the clouds. Also it could disorient the pilot and make the
passengers sick. I don't believe any controller, who has turned an
airplane loose doing the full approach with no radar, would COUNT on an
aircraft doing or not doing a once around hold or procedure turn,
timing wise regarding seperation. Usually these non-radar approaches
are one in at a time, and no one gets to go in next until the previous
cancels.

You can read all the FARS and AIMS and TERPS in the world, but unless
you can give me a direct quote that CLEARLY states that a pilot MUST do
this, I don't think there is any reason to do so. Even then, I would
argue that for the SAFTETY of the flight, a pilot could deviate from
such a requirement, just as a pilot can deviate from other requirements
if the safety of the flight demands it.

I don't want to be cynical, but somehow I tend to think this whole
thing has been cooked up by some instructors with too much time on
their hands. Instructors seem to think that a good approach means the
MAXIMUM manuevering allowed by the approach. Fine for practice, but not
for real IMC. Straight as possible is the way to go.

I know I'm probably guilty of applying common sense to this problem,
but I insist on doing that now and then. Think about it.

On 6 Jun 2005 08:48:06 -0700, "Doug" >
wrote:

>You can read all the FARS and AIMS and TERPS in the world, but unless
>you can give me a direct quote that CLEARLY states that a pilot MUST do
>this, I don't think there is any reason to do so.

AIM 5-4-7(e)?

"e. Except when being radar vectored to the final approach course,
when cleared for a specifically prescribed IAP; i.e., "cleared ILS
runway one niner approach" or when "cleared approach" i.e., execution
of any procedure prescribed for the airport, pilots shall execute the
entire procedure commencing at an IAF or an associated feeder route as
described on the IAP chart unless an appropriate new or revised ATC
clearance is received, or the IFR flight plan is canceled."

AIM 5-4-9(a)?

"A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in
lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver. The procedure turn is
not required when the symbol "No PT" is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to
the final approach course is provided, when conducting a timed
approach, or when the procedure turn is not authorized."

Seems to be relatively clear that if the entire procedure includes a
PT, unless you're being radar vectored or on a labeled NoPT segment,
you are required to fly it.

"Doug" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> It makes no sense to me whatsoever, to do a course reversal or a
> procedure turn if one is already inbound and aligned with Final
> Approach Course.

As I said earlier, I agree that skipping the PT is the sensible thing to do
in that case. I just question whether it's technically legal. Such a PT may
well have been prescribed in error, but an erroneous requirement is still a
requirement.

> You can read all the FARS and AIMS and TERPS in the world, but unless
> you can give me a direct quote that CLEARLY states that a pilot MUST do
> this, I don't think there is any reason to do so.

AIM 5-4-9a: "The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a
required maneuver." It doesn't get much clearer than that. Section 5-4-9
enumerates some exceptions to the requirement, but already being aligned is
not one of them.

> Even then, I would
> argue that for the SAFTETY of the flight, a pilot could deviate from
> such a requirement, just as a pilot can deviate from other requirements
> if the safety of the flight demands it.

No, a pilot only has authority (under FAR 91.3b) to deviate from the
regulations when an *in-flight emergency* demands such a deviation. A
gratuitous PT is not (under ordinary circumstances) so unsafe as to
constitute an emergency. If ATC explicitly told you to hold there, you
wouldn't respond by declaring an emergency, would you?

> I know I'm probably guilty of applying common sense to this problem,
> but I insist on doing that now and then. Think about it.

Uh, ok.

--Gary

I have to take issue with your statement:

"Seems to be relatively clear that if the entire procedure includes a PT,
unless you're being radar vectored or on a labeled NoPT segment, you are
required to fly it."

But take another look at what the AIM actually says:

"A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
perform a course reversal..."

As I read this, it is saying:

If a course reversal IS required, it must be done via a procedure turn.

If a course reversal IS NOT required, a procedure turn IS NOT required.

..It appears that the intention is to specify the METHOD THAT MUST BE USED if
a course reversal is required, not to require a procedure turn under all
circumstances...




"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On 6 Jun 2005 08:48:06 -0700, "Doug" >
> wrote:
>
> >You can read all the FARS and AIMS and TERPS in the world, but unless
> >you can give me a direct quote that CLEARLY states that a pilot MUST do
> >this, I don't think there is any reason to do so.
>
> AIM 5-4-7(e)?
>
> "e. Except when being radar vectored to the final approach course,
> when cleared for a specifically prescribed IAP; i.e., "cleared ILS
> runway one niner approach" or when "cleared approach" i.e., execution
> of any procedure prescribed for the airport, pilots shall execute the
> entire procedure commencing at an IAF or an associated feeder route as
> described on the IAP chart unless an appropriate new or revised ATC
> clearance is received, or the IFR flight plan is canceled."
>
> AIM 5-4-9(a)?
>
> "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
> perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
> intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in
> lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver. The procedure turn is
> not required when the symbol "No PT" is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to
> the final approach course is provided, when conducting a timed
> approach, or when the procedure turn is not authorized."
>
> Seems to be relatively clear that if the entire procedure includes a
> PT, unless you're being radar vectored or on a labeled NoPT segment,
> you are required to fly it.
>

> wrote in message ...
> [...]
> So, following that reasoning, where the outbound course for a standard
> procedure turn is set forth on Line 1 of the 8260-3 or -5, it seems that
> it
> would be regulatory.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. You seem to be reinforcing
my point.

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> You are skipping over the part of the regulation which states that the
> "point at which the turn may be commenced" is up to the pilot.

No, I'm not skipping that at all. I'm simply pointing out that if the pilot
is permitted to degenerate the entire thing down to just the reversal
itself, how is it that logic doesn't also show that the pilot can degenerate
the entire thing down to the final turn to the final approach course?

After all, ALL of the elements of the "reversal" are at the pilot's
discretion. A 90 degree left turn is "the same" as a 270 degree right turn.
If a 270 degree right turn is allowed, then a 90 degree left turn is too.

> There is no MINIMUM length of an outbound leg.

And no specific direction of the turn.

> There is only a maximum length.

Depending on where you start the turn, correct.

> You can begin your turn (or course reversal if you will), immediately.

And the type of turn is entirely at the pilot's discretion. S