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