If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Procedure turn required?
"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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in
: 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. AIM 5-4-9 a. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver. 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. true on that last sentence, but it's because you always get vectors. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Yossarian" wrote in message
7.142... AIM 5-4-9 a. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver. I'm going to have to equivocate on the phrase "is a required maneuver". You'll note that the very first sentence reads (in part) "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course reversal..." The AIM is, of course, not regulatory. So if it claims that the procedure turn is a required maneuver, it must be referring to some other regulation somewhere. Of course, the AIM doesn't actually provide a cross-reference, so we don't know what regulation they have in mind. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the "is a required maneuver" phrase applies only when "it is necessary to perform a course reversal". IMHO, any other interpretation is absurd. They are specifically telling you the procedure turn exists for the sole purpose of reversing course; why would it be required to fly the procedure turn when you don't need to reverse course? Executing a procedure turn in the example you give requires more maneuvering, more time, and provides no real safety improvement (and in fact, could lead to a pilot inadvertently leaving the protected airspace, and/or flying below minimum safe altitudes for the approach and surrounding area). Now, all that said, I think I've already implied I'm not an expert in this area. I certainly don't KNOW that I'm right. But I'm definitely not convinced I'm wrong either. [...] I'm betting not many people fly the procedure turn coming in from WILMA. true on that last sentence, but it's because you always get vectors. I will further bet that's not the ENTIRE reason. Where's Wally when you need him? Actually, he might not be as helpful (at least, to me) as I might have thought. Here's an interesting article that supports your interpretation of the rules: http://cf.alpa.org/internet/alp/2000/jansafety.htm However, IMHO it's an obviously absurd way to interpret the rules. It doesn't address your example directly, since the inbound course is nearly aligned with the final approach course. But it seems patently obvious to me that flying the entire procedure turn in this case is just plain wrong; it achieves nothing except to waste time and put the airplane farther away from a proper approach course. Roberts is, as the article shows, a firm believer that without radar vectors and/or other criteria mentioned in the AIM, the procedure turn is mandatory. The justification appears to be that no matter how closely aligned with the final approach course you are, if you're not EXACTLY aligned with it, you have to turn around and "try again". My understanding is that, if ever there was an expert, Roberts is it. But it's still unclear to me where his interpretation comes from. It also still seems to fly in the face of sensibility. Another well-respected aviation educator and writer, Gene Whitt, suggests that it is the pilot's discretion to fly the procedure turn or not (though, he also has no references). From his web page: http://www.whittsflying.com/Page7.38...Procedures.htm If ATC does not specifically state that you will be given radar vectors, you as PIC can decide if a procedure turn is required. Note that I am not suggesting that straight-in always implies no need to fly the procedure turn. As Jose noted, there may also be an altitude issue. I'm simply talking about the example you provided, in which the transition altitude is already low enough to allow for entry over the FAF at a normal approach inbound altitude, and where the maneuvering required in order to complete the procedure turn is at least as complex (and thus potentially dangerous) as that required to simply proceed inbound on the approach from the transition route. Pete |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The AIM is not regulatory, but it is directive.
The regulatory source is the Part 97 document for any particular IAP. If there is a course reversal initial approach segment and NoPT is not on a segment leading to the course reversal segment then by inference the course reversal is required. In cases where alignment seems to make it unnecessary it may be an issue of descent gradient. It other cases, it may be poor procedure design and pilots have a duty to provide feedback to the FAA in such cases. If you check through the minutes of previous FAA Aeronautical Charting Forums you can find that the AIM language cited was done in a couple of steps to try to make clear what is implied by the individual amendment to Part 97 for any particular SIAP. The reason the course reversal is required in the cited case at KFUL is because going straight in from V-64 requires a course change entering the final approach segment that well exceeds the maximum course change at the FAF of 30 degrees permitted for VOR IAPs. Like it or not that is the criteria. Keep in mind that TERPs is simplistic criteria in the sense that it tries to make one size fit all in most aspects of IAP construction. Peter Duniho wrote: "Yossarian" wrote in message 7.142... AIM 5-4-9 a. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver. I'm going to have to equivocate on the phrase "is a required maneuver". You'll note that the very first sentence reads (in part) "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course reversal..." The AIM is, of course, not regulatory. So if it claims that the procedure turn is a required maneuver, it must be referring to some other regulation somewhere. Of course, the AIM doesn't actually provide a cross-reference, so we don't know what regulation they have in mind. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the "is a required maneuver" phrase applies only when "it is necessary to perform a course reversal". IMHO, any other interpretation is absurd. They are specifically telling you the procedure turn exists for the sole purpose of reversing course; why would it be required to fly the procedure turn when you don't need to reverse course? Executing a procedure turn in the example you give requires more maneuvering, more time, and provides no real safety improvement (and in fact, could lead to a pilot inadvertently leaving the protected airspace, and/or flying below minimum safe altitudes for the approach and surrounding area). Now, all that said, I think I've already implied I'm not an expert in this area. I certainly don't KNOW that I'm right. But I'm definitely not convinced I'm wrong either. [...] I'm betting not many people fly the procedure turn coming in from WILMA. true on that last sentence, but it's because you always get vectors. I will further bet that's not the ENTIRE reason. Where's Wally when you need him? Actually, he might not be as helpful (at least, to me) as I might have thought. Here's an interesting article that supports your interpretation of the rules: http://cf.alpa.org/internet/alp/2000/jansafety.htm However, IMHO it's an obviously absurd way to interpret the rules. It doesn't address your example directly, since the inbound course is nearly aligned with the final approach course. But it seems patently obvious to me that flying the entire procedure turn in this case is just plain wrong; it achieves nothing except to waste time and put the airplane farther away from a proper approach course. Roberts is, as the article shows, a firm believer that without radar vectors and/or other criteria mentioned in the AIM, the procedure turn is mandatory. The justification appears to be that no matter how closely aligned with the final approach course you are, if you're not EXACTLY aligned with it, you have to turn around and "try again". My understanding is that, if ever there was an expert, Roberts is it. But it's still unclear to me where his interpretation comes from. It also still seems to fly in the face of sensibility. Another well-respected aviation educator and writer, Gene Whitt, suggests that it is the pilot's discretion to fly the procedure turn or not (though, he also has no references). From his web page: http://www.whittsflying.com/Page7.38...Procedures.htm If ATC does not specifically state that you will be given radar vectors, you as PIC can decide if a procedure turn is required. Note that I am not suggesting that straight-in always implies no need to fly the procedure turn. As Jose noted, there may also be an altitude issue. I'm simply talking about the example you provided, in which the transition altitude is already low enough to allow for entry over the FAF at a normal approach inbound altitude, and where the maneuvering required in order to complete the procedure turn is at least as complex (and thus potentially dangerous) as that required to simply proceed inbound on the approach from the transition route. Pete |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ...
[...] The reason the course reversal is required in the cited case at KFUL is because going straight in from V-64 requires a course change entering the final approach segment that well exceeds the maximum course change at the FAF of 30 degrees permitted for VOR IAPs. A procedure turn requires a course change of over 130 degrees (including getting back onto the outbound course). And then of 180 degrees. You can fly the transition at the same altitude allowed for the procedure turn. How is the procedure turn better? Like it or not that is the criteria. Keep in mind that TERPs is simplistic criteria in the sense that it tries to make one size fit all in most aspects of IAP construction. Well, I can agree with that. From a practical point of view, however... It seems likely that when radar coverage is available, vectors will be given. This allows no procedure turn to be flown. If radar coverage is not available, how is anyone going to know if you've flown the procedure turn? I would think that from an enforcement point of view, the cases where a procedure turn is theoretically required, but where the pilot could ever be cited for not flying one, are pretty far and few between. From a safety point of view, not flying the procedure turn appears to be the superior approach, at least in this case. Pete |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 11:13:47 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote: It seems likely that when radar coverage is available, vectors will be given. This allows no procedure turn to be flown. If radar coverage is not available, how is anyone going to know if you've flown the procedure turn? Anyone who listens to the tapes, assuming radio coverage? At least around here whenever I'm flying a full procedure ATC always requests "report procedure turn inbound". |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A procedure turn requires a course change of over 130 degrees (including
getting back onto the outbound course). And then of 180 degrees. You can fly the transition at the same altitude allowed for the procedure turn. How is the procedure turn better? All the maneuvering is done prior to the FAF, and prior to descent. Jose -- The price of freedom is... well... freedom. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
... "Yossarian" wrote in message 7.142... AIM 5-4-9 a. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver. I'm going to have to equivocate on the phrase "is a required maneuver". You'll note that the very first sentence reads (in part) "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course reversal..." [...] I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the "is a required maneuver" phrase applies only when "it is necessary to perform a course reversal". That's certainly a clever interpretation. But I think the two sentences are more plausibly paraphrased "When we think it is necessary for you to perform a course reversal..., we prescribe a procedure turn; when we prescribe it, it's a required maneuver". If they'd intended it the other way, they'd more appropriately have said "When it is necessary to perform a course reversal.., a prescribed procedure turn is a required maneuver". IMHO, any other interpretation is absurd. They are specifically telling you the procedure turn exists for the sole purpose of reversing course; They don't actually say that's the *sole* purpose; they say "when", not "when and only when". why would it be required to fly the procedure turn when you don't need to reverse course? They may have decided, for reasons unobvious to us (or perhaps for reasons that are simply mistaken), that the turn is needed. In the vast majority of cases where there is no evident need for a procedure turn, none is prescribed. The AIM is, of course, not regulatory. So if it claims that the procedure turn is a required maneuver, it must be referring to some other regulation somewhere. Of course, the AIM doesn't actually provide a cross-reference, so we don't know what regulation they have in mind. Presumably 97.10, which incorporates the SIAPs into the FARs. The AIM, in turn, frequently elaborates aspects of the interpretation of the charts (or their interaction with ATC clearances) that are otherwise unspecified. --Gary |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In general, here is what I do. If I am being vectored, there is almost
never a procedure turn. If the controller wants you to make a course reversal, he vectors me around. So procedure turns are only for flying the full approach without vectors. If I am not aligned within 30 degrees of the final approach course outside of the FAF, then I need to do SOMETHING to get straightened out. If a procedure turn is allowed, I do that, otherwise a hold. If I am aligned with the FAF, then there is no sense in making a procudure turn or hold, so I go on in. It makes sense, it is safe and it works. So that is what I do. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com... In general, here is what I do. If I am being vectored, there is almost never a procedure turn. Yup, AIM 5-4-9a explicitly exempts vectoring situations from the PT requirement. If I am aligned with the FAF, then there is no sense in making a procudure turn or hold, so I go on in. It makes sense, it is safe and it works. So that is what I do. That does sound sensible (if you're at the prescribed altitude, as well as being aligned with the course); but I'm not sure if it's technically legal to skip the PT if the chart has a PT, unless you're being vectored or there's a NoPT designation for your IAF or feeder route. --Gary |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Procedure turn required? | Yossarian | Piloting | 85 | July 6th 05 08:12 PM |
Sports class tasking | [email protected] | Soaring | 12 | April 25th 05 01:32 PM |
Agent86's List of Misconceptions of FAA Procedures Zero for 15 Putz!!! | copertopkiller | Military Aviation | 11 | April 20th 04 02:17 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |