procedure turns revisited

wrote in message
oups.com...

But it can be. You may be approaching the VOR and be lined up, or
almost lined up with the final approach course. Sure RADAR is
available, but ATC did not provide vectors. Technically you should go
around the hold once. But that doesn't make good sense unless you have
altitude to lose. And ATC doesn't like it. Why should the controller
be forced to provide vectors in this instance?


Why doesn't ATC like it? Why wouldn't the controller provide vectors? You
make it sound like it's a burden on them. If you're almost lined with the
final approach course anyway it only takes a small heading change as you
near the IAF. "Turn ten degrees right, join the final approach course".



Yeah, that's why pilots have complained and at least one received a
profuse apology from a supervisor at the TRACON. But that doesn't
change the fact that ATC would rather not deal with the procedure turn
and many controllers cut corners in trying to avoid it. And, yes, they
are wrong. But they still do it (it got better for a while after the
complaints, but lately they seem to have reverted to their old tricks).


The way for them to avoid the procedure turn is to provide vectors to the
approach. The way for them to avoid providing vectors to the approach is to
accommodate the procedure turn. Those are the only options available, they
must choose one of them.



Now let me ask a question. What if ATC clears you direct to the VOR
and then clears you for the "straight-in" approach?


I suppose it depends on the angle of intercept. If it's 15 degree turn to
the FAC I'd go straight in, if it's a 150 degree turn to the FAC I'd fly a
procedure turn.



Isn't the controller's instruction in conflict with the AIM? Who wins,
hypothetically speaking (say you can't contact him for clarification)?


If a procedure turn was necessary I'd tell him "unable straight in". If he
didn't respond before I hit the VOR I'd squawk 7600 and fly the procedure
turn.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Why doesn't ATC like it?

Because it conflicts with San Jose's LOUPE ONE departure. The extra
three to four minutes hanging over the airport really ****es them off.
Especially since they're not expecting it.

Why wouldn't the controller provide vectors?

I don't know. Some of them are good about it and do provide vectors.
I suspect that the others aren't as familiar with the procedure turn
requirements as you are, so they don't see the need to do it.

You make it sound like it's a burden on them.

That's the impression I get. Its probably easier to give a one-time
instruction and then concentrate on talking to the airliners that are
getting vectors, than to make sure that the little single-engine
airplane doesn't get pushed around by the wind and correct the vectors,
then issue the turn to intercept at just the right time.

The way for them to avoid the procedure turn is to provide vectors to the
approach. The way for them to avoid providing vectors to the approach is to
accommodate the procedure turn. Those are the only options available, they
must choose one of them.

I agree with you, but in practice it doesn't always go that way.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Because it conflicts with San Jose's LOUPE ONE departure. The extra
three to four minutes hanging over the airport really ****es them off.
Especially since they're not expecting it.


Then they need to find other employment. Conflict resolution is the reason
we have ATC.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
nk.net:

Then they need to find other employment. Conflict resolution is the
reason we have ATC.

But they aren't going to resign over this. That's easy for you to say, but
it solves nothing, and will never solve anything. Ain't gonna happen, GI.
The way to solve it is to do away with the idiotic requirement to do a
precedure turn, but that ain't gonna happen, either.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin