Procedure Turn

That language isn't clear to you? It is clear to me.

The real question: How did you come about getting established inbound at
the proper altitude without busting some other requirement of the
procedure?

Bravo8500 wrote:

I'm pretty sure this question has been asked, but I can't seem to find
it. My question deals with a typical approach with a procedure turn
before the FAF, could be an NDB, VOR, GPS, etc. I know what the
purposes are. 1) Provide course reversal and 2) allow altitude loss
from the arrival altitude to the procedure turn altitude. My question
is, am I expected to make the turn it if I'm already established on
the inbound course and am already at the correct altitude.

I don't think the AIM is very clear.

From the following paragraph, I read that it is ...

5-4-8. Procedure Turn
a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in
lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver.

However, from this entry a few lines down, I wonder ...
b. Limitations on Procedure Turns.
...
2. When a teardrop procedure turn is depicted and a course reversal is
required, this type turn must be executed.

"When a course reversal is required" ??? And even in the first
paragraph it says "when it is necessary to perform a course reversal"

I'm thinking I don't have to. I know this situation doesn't happen
that often but when it does, I don't really have the answer, I suppose
I would have to ask the controller.

I appreciate your input.

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
. 158...

Is there any hazard in failing to do a PT when one is depicted?


This question comes up periodically from a purely theoretical viewpoint.
When someone asks it, I like to ask how they came to be established on the
inbound course at the correct altitude. If they've been cleared direct to a
fix from a distant point they must be in radar contact and a little vector
to the FAC should be available. If they're not on a direct clearance they
must be on a valid nonradar route that happens to be aligned with the FAC,
which would have the characteristics of a NoPT segment.

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

Next question. Does anybody actually do this? Assuming that you were
already established on the FAC and didn't need to lose any altitude,
does anybody actually do a PT just because a literal reading of the regs
says you're supposed to?

"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
...

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.


Could you expand on that a bit?

I recall making a GPS approach to an airport just outside a Class C. It had
a holding pattern in lieu of a PT. I hit the FAF and went for the runway.
The
approach controller said "Nxxxxx .. I take it you're not doing a PT" Me:
"Nope ..
just gonna go straight in". Him: "Ok" Me: (about a minute later) "Nxxxxx has
the
runway in sight .. cancel my IFR .. have a nice day" Him: "IFR Cancelled ..
you too ..
see ya".

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news

"Brad Z" wrote in message
news:OWHfc.49669$rg5.131276@attbi_s52...

Seriously though, I don't really know. Some will also suggest that
it doesn't matter if you are below radar coverage because they
can't see you.


What would they do if you were above radar coverage and they did see you?

"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
.. .

I recall making a GPS approach to an airport just outside a Class C. It
had
a holding pattern in lieu of a PT. I hit the FAF and went for the runway.
The
approach controller said "Nxxxxx .. I take it you're not doing a PT" Me:
"Nope ..
just gonna go straight in". Him: "Ok" Me: (about a minute later) "Nxxxxx
has
the
runway in sight .. cancel my IFR .. have a nice day" Him: "IFR Cancelled
...
you too ..
see ya".


What approach was that?

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" said:
When someone asks it, I like to ask how they came to be established on the
inbound course at the correct altitude. If they've been cleared direct to a
fix from a distant point they must be in radar contact and a little vector
to the FAC should be available. If they're not on a direct clearance they

Are you saying you can't be cleared direct to a navaid unless you're in
radar contact? Why not?


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they can be
yours too."

Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" said:
When someone asks it, I like to ask how they came to be established on the
inbound course at the correct altitude. If they've been cleared direct to a
fix from a distant point they must be in radar contact and a little vector
to the FAC should be available. If they're not on a direct clearance they

Are you saying you can't be cleared direct to a navaid unless you're in
radar contact? Why not?


Check the qualifier "from a distant point." You must be in radar contact to be cleared
to a VOR or NDB unless within the ground nav facility's operational service volume.

In the case of GPS waypoints, you must be in radar contact for a direct clearance
regardless of distance.

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

Are you saying you can't be cleared direct to a navaid unless you're in
radar contact?


Pretty much, not if the navaid is beyond altitude and distance limitations.



Why not?


The short answer is because them is the rules, see paragraphs 4-1-1 and
4-1-2 of FAA Order 7110.65 at this link:

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0401.html

A more useful answer is navaid reliability. Sure, VOR reception is
line-of-sight, and we all know they can be received at distances greater
than indicated in the table. But the further you get from any given navaid
the closer you may be getting to another navaid using the same frequency, so
limits have to be set. Those limits can be relaxed when you're in radar
contact because ATC can nudge you back on course if you stray.

I'm wondering. If you're already at the proper altitude and on the
localizer, why not? You can make a procedure turn any way you want to if
you stay on the protected side and inside protected airspace, so why can't
you say you've already made your procedure turn?

Rod
"Bravo8500" wrote in message
om...
I'm pretty sure this question has been asked, but I can't seem to find
it. My question deals with a typical approach with a procedure turn
before the FAF, could be an NDB, VOR, GPS, etc. I know what the
purposes are. 1) Provide course reversal and 2) allow altitude loss
from the arrival altitude to the procedure turn altitude. My question
is, am I expected to make the turn it if I'm already established on
the inbound course and am already at the correct altitude.

I don't think the AIM is very clear.


From the following paragraph, I read that it is ...

5-4-8. Procedure Turn
a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in
lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver.

However, from this entry a few lines down, I wonder ...
b. Limitations on Procedure Turns.
...
2. When a teardrop procedure turn is depicted and a course reversal is
required, this type turn must be executed.


"When a course reversal is required" ??? And even in the first
paragraph it says "when it is necessary to perform a course reversal"

I'm thinking I don't have to. I know this situation doesn't happen
that often but when it does, I don't really have the answer, I suppose
I would have to ask the controller.

I appreciate your input.