Reasoning behind course reversal

I think I said " I just think the procedure turn, in IMC, may cause more
danger than it allieves". I don't think the turn is dangerous per se, but an
approach directly to the FF and inbound, with no dramatic changes in
altitude and direction, seems less dangerous than the same approach with the
addition of a run around the racetrack.

Michael



"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:jK6Zb.359414$na.536935@attbi_s04...
Why would a maneuver in protected airspace, sterilized against other IFR
(and VFR talking to ATC) airplanes be dangerous?

Bob Gardner

"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.

They are designed that way for the least proficient pilot (the one who
just squeaked through his instrument rating ride) with the minimum
equipment (no GPS, certainly).

In most (maybe all) cases, a proficient pilot with GPS guidance can
safely proceed to the FAF, lead his turn onto the FAC using the GPS,
and sort out the exact course alignment while descending on the GS or
to MDA. In fact, many freight dogs do it all the time when not in
RADAR contact, to save time. The only time a course reversal is ever
really necessary is when the transition segment has a very high
minimum altitude (due to terrain) and you just can't get down in time
without shock cooling your engine(s).

On the other hand, if you must fly a crappy non-precision approach to
mins when you haven't flown IFR in weeks, especially partial panel and
without GPS guidance, you will want to be solidly established on the
FAC, with crosswind correction in place, because otherwise the
approach will eat your lunch as you attempt to turn onto final, get
the descent going, blow through the final, correct the other way...
well, just try it sometime and you will see what I mean.

Of course the course reversal ought to be optional - a pilot ought to
know what his limitations are and if he feels that he doesn't need the
procedure turn, then he shouldn't have to make one. However, in
practice it's already that way. If you are in RADAR contact, you will
generally get vectors to final anyway. If you don't, controllers are
generally all too happy to clear you for the approach without course
reversal. Requested it a couple of times myself, always got it. Is
it legal? Who knows. One thing is for sure, nobody is going to
report it so nobody is getting busted. And of course if you're not in
RADAR contact, you can do whatever you want, nobody is watching.

Michael

Good answer - thanks.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"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.

They are designed that way for the least proficient pilot (the one who
just squeaked through his instrument rating ride) with the minimum
equipment (no GPS, certainly).

In most (maybe all) cases, a proficient pilot with GPS guidance can
safely proceed to the FAF, lead his turn onto the FAC using the GPS,
and sort out the exact course alignment while descending on the GS or
to MDA. In fact, many freight dogs do it all the time when not in
RADAR contact, to save time. The only time a course reversal is ever
really necessary is when the transition segment has a very high
minimum altitude (due to terrain) and you just can't get down in time
without shock cooling your engine(s).

On the other hand, if you must fly a crappy non-precision approach to
mins when you haven't flown IFR in weeks, especially partial panel and
without GPS guidance, you will want to be solidly established on the
FAC, with crosswind correction in place, because otherwise the
approach will eat your lunch as you attempt to turn onto final, get
the descent going, blow through the final, correct the other way...
well, just try it sometime and you will see what I mean.

Of course the course reversal ought to be optional - a pilot ought to
know what his limitations are and if he feels that he doesn't need the
procedure turn, then he shouldn't have to make one. However, in
practice it's already that way. If you are in RADAR contact, you will
generally get vectors to final anyway. If you don't, controllers are
generally all too happy to clear you for the approach without course
reversal. Requested it a couple of times myself, always got it. Is
it legal? Who knows. One thing is for sure, nobody is going to
report it so nobody is getting busted. And of course if you're not in
RADAR contact, you can do whatever you want, nobody is watching.

Michael

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)

Michael 182 wrote:

Good answer - thanks.

Good answer, or the answer you wanted to hear?

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:38:24 GMT, "Michael 182"
wrote:


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'.

MSA to the NE is 7300. Navigation by GPS.


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.


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

Hard to argue I need more practice since I live in Colorado where we get
very little actual and I only fly 100-150 hours or so a year. In fact, I
just hired a CFII for some practice (and an IPC) the other day. No argument
that more practice and currency would make me a better pilot. Regardless, my
point was not that the PT was dangerous, but relative to an almost straight
in approach just added some incremental danger, since there is more time
spent maneuvering in IMC at a reasonable low altitude.



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

A good answer, with information that was interesting to me. The regs are
clear, and I'm not looking to circumvent them. My first post on this topic
made it clear I was interested in reasoning, not just regulatory fact.

MIchael


wrote in message ...


Michael 182 wrote:

Good answer - thanks.

Good answer, or the answer you wanted to hear?

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 03:04:53 GMT, "Michael 182"
wrote:

MSA to the NE is 7300. Navigation by GPS.


Hmmm. According to the NACO chart I downloaded from AOPA, it looks as if
the MSA is centered on BJC (VORTAC). So if you are NE of ALIKE, and south
of the BJC 090° radial, you would be in the 10500 segment.

If you have a Jepp chart that shows the MSA centered on ALIKE, we need to
report the discrepancy.


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

You're right. My mistake.

Michael

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 03:04:53 GMT, "Michael 182"
wrote:

MSA to the NE is 7300. Navigation by GPS.


Hmmm. According to the NACO chart I downloaded from AOPA, it looks as if
the MSA is centered on BJC (VORTAC). So if you are NE of ALIKE, and south
of the BJC 090° radial, you would be in the 10500 segment.

If you have a Jepp chart that shows the MSA centered on ALIKE, we need to
report the discrepancy.


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

MSA is not an operational altitude...it is for emergency use only. Read
5-4-5 AIM.

Bob Gardner

"Michael 182" wrote in message
newsPeZb.82854$uV3.542041@attbi_s51...

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 16:38:24 GMT, "Michael 182"
wrote:


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'.

MSA to the NE is 7300. Navigation by GPS.


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.


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

Hard to argue I need more practice since I live in Colorado where we get
very little actual and I only fly 100-150 hours or so a year. In fact, I
just hired a CFII for some practice (and an IPC) the other day. No
argument
that more practice and currency would make me a better pilot. Regardless,
my
point was not that the PT was dangerous, but relative to an almost
straight
in approach just added some incremental danger, since there is more time
spent maneuvering in IMC at a reasonable low altitude.



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