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

"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.

"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

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

"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

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.

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.

Well, required in the sense of geometry or what? If you have to turn
around, you have to turn around. And since the procedure turn =shape=
is not usually prescribed (except that it happens on one side of the
course) it's just a sexy u-turn.

They are specifically
telling you the procedure turn exists for the sole purpose of reversing
course;

Not quite. As you quoted:

"A procedure turn
is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course
reversal..."

It doesn't say "only when it is necessary", and the quote does not imply
it's the =sole= purpose of the PT.

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.

The PT is actually more complex in this case, but it occurs at a higher
altitude (the same altitude really, but not commencing a descent) than
the maneuvering to proceed inbound. It's also further from the MAP (the
same distance really, but you will be flying away from the airport, not
towards it, so you are further away in time).

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"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

"Darrell S" wrote in message
news:ytloe.568$qr.464@fed1read06...
If, after evaluating that the altitude/heading that your arrival ends up
at the IAF/FAF will not require a procedure turn for alignment or altitude
considerations, the best solution would be to advise ATC that you wish to
make a straight in approach rather than fly the published procedure turn.
If that is not practical you should advise ATC that you plan to make the
published procedure turn. Either decision should be passed on to ATC for
traffic separation and aircraft control. (it also has the benefit of
helping insure ATC won't file some procedural violation against you).

Not necessarily. According to the FARs and the AIM, the only way ATC can
exempt you from an otherwise required PT is if they vector you to final.
Otherwise, the regs apparently call for you to execute the PT; and (as
discussed in another thread here recently) you must comply with the regs
even if ATC gives you a clearance that is contrary to the regs.

--Gary

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