Well, as an example, the BJC ILS 29R. In this case ALIKE is both the IAF and
the FF. Clearly if you are coming in from the west or southeast quadrants,
the course reversal is needed to lose altitude, as John pointed out. Also,
as Andrew pointed out, even if the approach was in Kansas, you migt be
approaching on a 090 heading to a final approach course of 293, and hence
the course reversal makes sense. I guess my question is why not have a
conditional, say if approaching with heading 270 - 330 at altitude of 7300,
no PT required.

I'm not trying to be arugmentative - I just think the procedure turn, in
IMC, may cause more danger than it allieves. On the other hand the
conditional may complicate the instruction - conditionals always provide
more opportunity for error.

Michael


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 20:32:22 GMT, "Michael 182"
wrote:

What is the reasoning behind the required course reversal in many
approaches? It's hard to believe that I will be safer flying the
racetrack
and then the approach to the runway than simply flying to the IAF and
proceeding inbound - especially with GPS guidance. I have no problem
flying
the full published course, done it many times, I'm just curious why they
are
designed that way.

Michael


Michael,

Others have given you some good answers. However, the reasoning often
depends on the particular approach. So it would be useful if you could
post a reference to a procedure about which you have a question.




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