Reasoning behind course reversal

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:38:24 GMT, "Michael 182"
wrote:

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.

Now you have to ask yourself how you would navigate to an area South or
East of ALIKE at an altitude of 7300'? I'm having to look at a NACO chart,
and I'm used to Jepps. But it seems that there is no airway leading to
ALIKE. And the MSA for that area is 10500'.

If ATC can give you "vectors to final" in that area, then you would not
have to do the course reversal (and can't do it without permission). But
absent radar vectors, I don't see a charted way to get to ALIKE at an
altitude low enough to avoid the course reversal.



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.


If you feel that procedure turns cause danger, you probably need to
practice them. They should be second nature.


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