Procedure turn required?

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?

Gotta wonder why the protected airspace on the non-PT side is 1.4 miles wide
all the way out to the maximum distance. If flying on the black line is a
regulatory requirement, why not just protect the turn area alone?

Bob Gardner


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
Since it's such a nice day, I'm going to quibble. Where is it written
that you have to track the inbound course when outbound?

IMHO, that's in the definition of "procedure turn" (97.3(p)). "The
outbound course, direction of turn, distance within which the turn must be
completed, and minimum altitude are specified in the procedure". Note
that they say "outbound course", not "outbound heading". To me, this
means you are required to fly exactly that course (inasmuch as you are
required to fly the procedure turn at all).

I don't disagree that there are situations in which it's perfectly safe to
parallel the outbound course. Your example at KPAE is a fine one.

But if someone believes that the regulations require the full procedure to
be flown even when no course reversal is actually necessary for the
approach, they darn well better believe that the regulations require
flying the outbound *course* as depicted, rather than just the outbound
heading. That seems much more explicitly stated than the presumed
requirement to fly the full procedure.

Pete

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

Bob Gardner wrote:

Gotta wonder why the protected airspace on the non-PT side is 1.4 miles wide
all the way out to the maximum distance. If flying on the black line is a
regulatory requirement, why not just protect the turn area alone?


Where did you get that number?

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 10:53:40 -0700, "Bob Gardner"
wrote:

Gotta wonder why the protected airspace on the non-PT side is 1.4 miles wide
all the way out to the maximum distance. If flying on the black line is a
regulatory requirement, why not just protect the turn area alone?

Maybe to take into account and give some protection for VOR, onboard
equipment, and operator error? At the far end of the maximum 10NM
circle for a standard procedure turn distance, if the VOR itself was
drifted say 4 degrees and then your aircraft was off 4 degrees and
then you didn't have the exact number dialed in and so were off 1
degree to begin with... So say there is a combined error of 9 degrees
off, you're already 1.1NM off the 'desired' track at about 7nm, right,
but still would have a centered needle. Even with a perfect needle
(say glass cockpit for the VOR OBS setting and autopilot handling
accuracy) the VOR approach to 6B6 puts you at/over (I forget the exact
number right now) around 1NM to the right of the airport at the MAP.
It was quite interesting doing it under the hood, having the needle
centered the whole time, and then playing 'find the airport' when I
pulled up the hood.

Bob Gardner wrote:
Gotta wonder why the protected airspace on the non-PT side is 1.4 miles wide
all the way out to the maximum distance. If flying on the black line is a
regulatory requirement, why not just protect the turn area alone?

Probably because neither pilots, their nav radios more the ground VOR
stations are that accurate. :-)


Matt

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
Yes, but "course" only refers to "The intended *direction* of flight in
the
horizontal plane measured in degrees from north." It does not refer to a
particular ground track.

Where does it say that?

On the other hand, there are "Some procedure turns are specified by
procedural track. These turns must be flown exactly as depicted."

As far as I know, that's to distinguish from those procedure turns that
require a particular kind of turn, versus those that simply require the
pilot to remain on the "protected" side of the turn. It has nothing at all
to do with whether one is supposed to fly the depicted outbound course.

Pete

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 16:47:49 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

Yes, but "course" only refers to "The intended *direction* of flight in
the
horizontal plane measured in degrees from north." It does not refer to a
particular ground track.

Where does it say that?

Pilot/Controller Glossary under the C's for Course


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

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
Pilot/Controller Glossary under the C's for Course

I'm not aware of any reason that glossary is legally applied to words found
in FAR 97.3. The glossary exists to describe communications between pilots
and controllers, nothing more.

Pete