procedure turns revisited

wrote:

Sam Spade wrote:


The August 4, 2005, Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) revision to
paragraph 5-4-9a, Procedure Turn, has generated pilot comments that
indicate the text may be misleading and could possibly cause deviation
from the requirements of 14 CFR Part 91.175(j).


I'm still missing something here. 91.175 doesn't say when you have to
do a procedure turn, just when you can't. The erroneous AIM doesn't
conflict with 91.175 as far as I can tell.

Read it as you choose.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

I fail to see it as a real world problem.

Let me give you an example.

Take the VOR/DME-31 approach to PAO.
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0606/09216VD31.PDF Its got a holding
pattern-shaped procedure turn at the SJC VOR and the final approach fix
5 miles past the VOR. And no feeder routes or other IAFs.

ATC (Northern California TRACON) is really allergic to the procedure
turn because it conflicts with their favorite SID out of San Jose and
delays departures. But they are also not too good about vectoring
airplanes onto the final approach course. They frequently say "proceed
direct to the San Jose VOR, cross the VOR at 3000 ft, cleared for the
approach." And then they will chew you out if you try and do the
procedure turn. Sometimes they clear you for the "straight-in
approach" still without vectors.

Now you might be arriving at the SJC VOR on a radial that is nearly
aligned with the final approach course, or you might be arriving at a
90 degree or greater angle. ATC never wants the procedure turn done,
but the AIM says it should always be done. That is a real-world
problem.

Pilots have complained, and some controllers are good about providing
vectors, but some still get lazy about it and leave the pilot in a
strange situation. Sometimes the controller will instruct the pilot to
intercept the final approach course without a clearance for the
approach, then will issue the clearance after the VOR has passed. Now
is that RADAR vectoring? Not really. But you've skipping the
procedure turn anyway.

Peter

Sam Spade wrote:
wrote:

Sam Spade wrote:


The August 4, 2005, Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) revision to
paragraph 5-4-9a, Procedure Turn, has generated pilot comments that
indicate the text may be misleading and could possibly cause deviation
from the requirements of 14 CFR Part 91.175(j).


I'm still missing something here. 91.175 doesn't say when you have to
do a procedure turn, just when you can't. The erroneous AIM doesn't
conflict with 91.175 as far as I can tell.

Read it as you choose.

But why do you choose it one way and not the other? Is there another
regulation out there, or just 91.175?

wrote in message
ups.com...

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

I fail to see it as a real world problem.

Let me give you an example.

Take the VOR/DME-31 approach to PAO.
http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0606/09216VD31.PDF Its got a holding
pattern-shaped procedure turn at the SJC VOR and the final approach fix
5 miles past the VOR. And no feeder routes or other IAFs.

ATC (Northern California TRACON) is really allergic to the procedure
turn because it conflicts with their favorite SID out of San Jose and
delays departures. But they are also not too good about vectoring
airplanes onto the final approach course. They frequently say "proceed
direct to the San Jose VOR, cross the VOR at 3000 ft, cleared for the
approach." And then they will chew you out if you try and do the
procedure turn. Sometimes they clear you for the "straight-in
approach" still without vectors.

Now you might be arriving at the SJC VOR on a radial that is nearly
aligned with the final approach course, or you might be arriving at a
90 degree or greater angle. ATC never wants the procedure turn done,
but the AIM says it should always be done. That is a real-world
problem.

Pilots have complained, and some controllers are good about providing
vectors, but some still get lazy about it and leave the pilot in a
strange situation. Sometimes the controller will instruct the pilot to
intercept the final approach course without a clearance for the
approach, then will issue the clearance after the VOR has passed. Now
is that RADAR vectoring? Not really. But you've skipping the
procedure turn anyway.


It may be a real world problem, but it's not the problem I presented.

Clearance for the approach while proceeding direct to SJC VOR is clearance
for the procedure turn, there's no basis for ATC to chew anyone out.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

It may be a real world problem, but it's not the problem I presented.

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?

Clearance for the approach while proceeding direct to SJC VOR is clearance
for the procedure turn, there's no basis for ATC to chew anyone out.

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).

Now let me ask a question. What if ATC clears you direct to the VOR
and then clears you for the "straight-in" approach? Isn't the
controller's instruction in conflict with the AIM? Who wins,
hypothetically speaking (say you can't contact him for clarification)?

In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

But following a SIAP doesn't necessarily mean having to do the
procedure turn. There's a lot of interpretation there. For instance
you can have multiple IAFs and therefore you won't fly all the initial
segments published, only the one pertinent to the direction from which
you are arriving. How does the 91.175(a) paragraph above imply a
different rule for the procedure turn?

What about FAR 97.3(p):
Procedure turn means the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final
approach course.

Doesn't that say that its not always necesary?


I don't know why this issue is continually raised here. I fail to see it as
a real world problem. The issue is whether or not a PT is required when
approaching the destination and you're already aligned or nearly aligned
with the FAC. But how did you come to be in that position? If you're on a
direct route you should be in radar contact as radar monitoring is required
to operate off airways beyond usable navaid limits. If you're in radar
contact then radar vectors to the approach should be available and a PT
wouldn't be required.

Unless you lose comm. That's the only circumstance where this issue
really rears its ugly head.

Case in point: suppose I'm flying from Catalina to Fullerton.
(http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0606/05136VA.PDF) The clearance is V21 SLI
direct. In practice they always vector you straight in. But if you
lose comm, technically you're required to fly to SLI, turn 178 degrees
(or 182), fly outbound for the PT, turn 180 degrees again to go back to
SLI (where you just came from) and then fly the approach.

I once flew this route and asked a controller what I should actually do
in this situation. His response was that it had never happened, they
had never thought about it, and that they'd probably expect me to just
fly the approach straight in.

Welcome to the real world.

rg

wrote:
Sam Spade wrote:

wrote:


Sam Spade wrote:



The August 4, 2005, Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) revision to
paragraph 5-4-9a, Procedure Turn, has generated pilot comments that
indicate the text may be misleading and could possibly cause deviation

from the requirements of 14 CFR Part 91.175(j).


I'm still missing something here. 91.175 doesn't say when you have to
do a procedure turn, just when you can't. The erroneous AIM doesn't
conflict with 91.175 as far as I can tell.


Read it as you choose.


But why do you choose it one way and not the other? Is there another
regulation out there, or just 91.175?

I choose ro read it the same way the industry and FAA charting folks
read it over and over at the semi-annual Aeronautical Charting Forum
held in Washington, DC.

The other regulation is the fact that the IAP is issued under Part 97,
and when a course reversal is specificed on that regultory form, and the
arrival is to that course reversal segment rather than a terminal route
designated "NoPT," the course reversal is a mandatory part of the
procedure set forth by the Part 97 regulation for that IAP. 91.175(j)
is the only regulation that trumps the course reversal component of the
Part 97 regulation for any given IAP, and 91.175(j) makes its three
exceptions clear. One of those three exceptions, an NoPT intitial
approach segment, is also set forth on the Part 97 regulation for the
IAP. Your copy of the Part 97 regulation is either a NACO or Jeppesen
approach chart. The official regulation is on either an FAA Form 8260-3
or 8260-5, and inacted by reference in the Federal Register, just like
any amendment to an FAR.

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.

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

Unless you lose comm. That's the only circumstance where this issue
really rears its ugly head.

Case in point: suppose I'm flying from Catalina to Fullerton.
(http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0606/05136VA.PDF) The clearance is V21 SLI
direct. In practice they always vector you straight in. But if you
lose comm, technically you're required to fly to SLI, turn 178 degrees
(or 182), fly outbound for the PT, turn 180 degrees again to go back to
SLI (where you just came from) and then fly the approach.

I once flew this route and asked a controller what I should actually do
in this situation. His response was that it had never happened, they
had never thought about it, and that they'd probably expect me to just
fly the approach straight in.

Welcome to the real world.


I'd consider real world radio failure in IMC to be an emergency and use my
emergency authority to ignore any technical requirement to fly to SLI, turn
178 degrees (or 182), fly outbound for the PT, turn 180 degrees again to go
back to SLI (where I just came from) and then fly the approach.

In article .com,
wrote:

Now let me ask a question. What if ATC clears you direct to the VOR
and then clears you for the "straight-in" approach? Isn't the
controller's instruction in conflict with the AIM? Who wins,
hypothetically speaking (say you can't contact him for clarification)?

I had almost exactly this same situation happen the other day with NY
Approach. We were coming into White Plains (HPN) from the north, IFR.
Controller gave us something like, "direct FARAN, cleared ILS-16". FARAN's
not an IAF, the route from FARAN inbound is not marked NoPT, we hasn't
giving us vectors. By strict interpretation of the rules, he gave us a bum
clearance. On the other hand, not only did I know that he wanted us to fly
the approach straight-in, but there was no practical reason why anything
else would make any sense, so we did it.

The bottom line is that the AIM just hasn't caught up with real life.