wrote in message
ups.com...

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

I fail to see it as a real world problem.

Let me give you an example.

Take the VOR/DME-31 approach to PAO.
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0606/09216VD31.PDF Its got a holding
pattern-shaped procedure turn at the SJC VOR and the final approach fix
5 miles past the VOR. And no feeder routes or other IAFs.

ATC (Northern California TRACON) is really allergic to the procedure
turn because it conflicts with their favorite SID out of San Jose and
delays departures. But they are also not too good about vectoring
airplanes onto the final approach course. They frequently say "proceed
direct to the San Jose VOR, cross the VOR at 3000 ft, cleared for the
approach." And then they will chew you out if you try and do the
procedure turn. Sometimes they clear you for the "straight-in
approach" still without vectors.

Now you might be arriving at the SJC VOR on a radial that is nearly
aligned with the final approach course, or you might be arriving at a
90 degree or greater angle. ATC never wants the procedure turn done,
but the AIM says it should always be done. That is a real-world
problem.

Pilots have complained, and some controllers are good about providing
vectors, but some still get lazy about it and leave the pilot in a
strange situation. Sometimes the controller will instruct the pilot to
intercept the final approach course without a clearance for the
approach, then will issue the clearance after the VOR has passed. Now
is that RADAR vectoring? Not really. But you've skipping the
procedure turn anyway.


It may be a real world problem, but it's not the problem I presented.

Clearance for the approach while proceeding direct to SJC VOR is clearance
for the procedure turn, there's no basis for ATC to chew anyone out.