Procedure turn required?

"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

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

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?

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

"Paul Lynch" wrote in message
news:cmFoe.34289$Fv.22813@lakeread01...

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?


There is no predictability in these situations. ATC is going to do whatever
is necessary to ensure separation. If you still present a radar target they
can work with then they'll keep other IFR aircraft away from you and
continue with other operations as best they can. If it means clearing the
airspace for 25 miles then that's what they'll do.

wrote in message ...

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


Not according to the Pilot/Controller Glossary. That defines the four
segments of an instrument approach procedure as initial, intermediate,
final, and missed. I can't find "feeder route" anywhere in Part 97.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message ...

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


Not according to the Pilot/Controller Glossary. That defines the four
segments of an instrument approach procedure as initial, intermediate,
final, and missed. I can't find "feeder route" anywhere in Part 97.

As a matter of definition a feeder route is not a segment of an IAP (but if it
looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...). As a matter
of regulation, it is a component of an IAP, which is by procedure design an
evaluated and designed segment, just like the four set forth in the definition.
Further, you can find it on any Part 97-issued Form 8260 -3 or -5 that has a
feeder route and you can find it in TERPs Paragraph 220:

220. FEEDER ROUTES. When the IAF is part of the enroute structure there may be
no need to designate additional routes for aircraft to proceed to the IAF. In
some cases, however, it is necessary to designate feeder routes from the
enroute structure to the IAF. Only those feeder routes which provide an
operational advantage shall be established and published. These should coincide
with the local air traffic flow. The length of the feeder route shall not
exceed the operational service volume of the facilities which provide
navigational guidance unless additional frequency protection is provided.
Enroute airway obstacle clearance criteria shall apply to feeder routes. The
minimum altitude established on feeder routes shall not be less than the
altitude established at the IAF.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
I agree with your instructor. AFAIK, there is NEVER a requirement to make
a procedure turn.

Legal Counsel has issued an opinion, see below.

Kris


Nov. 28, 1994
Mr. Tom Young, Chairman
Charting and Instrument Procedures Committee
Air Line Pilots Association
535 Herndon Parkway
Herndon, VA 22070

Dear Mr. Young

This is a clarification of our response to your letter of August 23,
1993. In that letter you requested an interpretation of Section 91.175 of
the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) (14 CFR Section 91.175). You address
the necessity of executing a complete Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP) in a non-radar environment while operating under Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR). Our response assumes that each of the specific scenarios you
pose speaks to a flight conducted under IFR in a non-radar environment.
Section 91.175(a) provides that unless otherwise authorized by the
Administrator, when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary,
each person operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United
States, shall use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed for
the airport in Part 97.
First you ask whether an arriving aircraft must begin the SIAP at a
published Initial Approach Fix (IAF). A pilot must begin a SIAP at the IAF
as defined in Part 97. Descent gradients, communication, and obstruction
clearance, as set forth in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument
Approach Procedures (TERPs), cannot be assured if the entire procedure is
not flown.
You also ask whether a Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) arc initial
approach segment can be substituted for a published IAF along any portion of
the published arc. A DME arc cannot be substituted for a published IAF along
a portion of the published arc. If a feeder route to an IAF is part of the
published approach procedure, it is considered a mandatory part of the
approach.
Finally, you ask whether a course reversal segment is optional "when one
of the conditions of FAR section 91.175(j) is not present." Section
91.175(j) states that in the case of a radar vector to a final approach
course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach for which
the procedures specifies "no procedure turn," no pilot may make a procedure
turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.
Section 97.3(p) defines a procedure turn, in part, as a maneuver
prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the
aircraft on a intermediate or final approach course. A SIAP may or may not
prescribe a procedure turn based on the application of certain criteria
contained in the TERPs. However, if a SIAP does contain a procedure turn and
ATC has cleared a pilot to execute the SIAP, the pilot must make the
procedure turn when one of the conditions of Section 91.175(j) is not
present.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Patricia
R. Lane, Manager, Airspace and Air Traffic Law Branch, at (202) 267-3491.

Sincerely,

/s/
Patricia R. Lane
for Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations Division

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)