Procedure Turn

Keep in mind this is with a GPS approach. Not something I would
try with a VOR or NDB.


"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

[consider an approach] in which the IAF and the FAF were the same
waypoint.
With no altitude difference until crossing the FAF inbound. So approaching
at a
right angle what's the difference (well other than the technical legal
issue)
if you turn left and go around the track .. or turn right and start
decending?


One difference I see is the time and space to get established on the final
approach. If you turn right and start descending, you cannot be
established on
the final approach course until you are past the FAF. If you turn left
and go
around the hold, you can become established before the FAF.

Whether you are a good enough pilot to make a good approach becoming
established after the FAF is a different question, and one I won't
address.
But there is a difference in this case making the choice to turn right not
a
no-brainer.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Keep in mind this [(turn directly onto final)] is with a GPS approach. Not
something I would
try with a VOR or NDB


Matters not. GPS is not magic.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:06:29 GMT, "Otis Winslow"
wrote:

Keep in mind this is with a GPS approach. Not something I would
try with a VOR or NDB.

You have a GPS approach with the FAF and the IAF are collocated, and there
is a hold in lieu at this fix?

What approach is that? Around here, I've not seen a standalone GPS
approach where the FAF and IAF are collocated.

On the GPS approaches around here, there is frequently a central IAF fix
with a hold-in-lieu. But there is also a large NoPT segment. There are a
number of published approaches which should but do not yet have the NoPT
information charted, but they are supposed to be. SFQ was recently changed
in this manner by NOTAM through the intervention of Wally Roberts.

If you've got an example like that, we really ought to try to have it
changed.


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

The official rule is that unless there is a note allowing the
exception of a PT (i.e. 'NoPT'), a procedure turn is required.

Is this official rule stated clearly anywhere? The only mention of "procedure
turn" I find in Part 91 is in 91.175(j), which says when you may NOT do a PT.
The AIM discusses procedure turns in 5-4-8 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. The procedure turn is not required when the symbol "No PT"
is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to the final approach course is provided, when
conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure turn is not authorized. The
hold in lieu of procedure turn is not required when RADAR VECTORING to the
final approach course is provided or when "No PT" is shown.

But what's the definition of a "course reversal"? If you're already within a
few degrees of being established inbound, is a course reversal necessary? If
so, why?

Barry

"Barry" wrote in message
...

Here's a real-world scenario that I've encountered:

VOR 22 approach to GED (Georgetown, DE):

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/publis...s/00935V22.PDF

Coming from the northeast, on the 057 radial inbound to ATR (Victor 308),
Dover Approach says "cross Waterloo at 3000, cleared for the VOR 22
approach".
Since my course is now 237, I'm only three degrees off the final approach
course of 234. There's no "No PT" sector shown, and the charted hold in
lieu
of a PT would put me on the 033 radial, with a 23 degree turn at the FAF.
Obviously it makes no sense to do a turn in the hold, and Dover didn't
expect
me to, but some people would claim it's required. Is Dover doing anything
contrary to 7110.65?


Nope.

Otis Winslow wrote:

Keep in mind this is with a GPS approach. Not something I would
try with a VOR or NDB.

What is the qualifier with GPS that, in your mind, makes cutting corners with
GPS okay, but not with VOR or NDB?

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:06:29 GMT, "Otis Winslow"
wrote:

Keep in mind this is with a GPS approach. Not something I would
try with a VOR or NDB.

You have a GPS approach with the FAF and the IAF are collocated, and there
is a hold in lieu at this fix?

Apparently, the gentlemen is of limited clues. ;-) GPS approaches that have
course reversals have them at the intermediate fix, not the FAF.

Barry wrote:

The official rule is that unless there is a note allowing the
exception of a PT (i.e. 'NoPT'), a procedure turn is required.

Is this official rule stated clearly anywhere? The only mention of "procedure
turn" I find in Part 91 is in 91.175(j), which says when you may NOT do a PT.
The AIM discusses procedure turns in 5-4-8 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. The procedure turn is not required when the symbol "No PT"
is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to the final approach course is provided, when
conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure turn is not authorized. The
hold in lieu of procedure turn is not required when RADAR VECTORING to the
final approach course is provided or when "No PT" is shown.

But what's the definition of a "course reversal"? If you're already within a
few degrees of being established inbound, is a course reversal necessary? If
so, why?

Barry

Letter of Legal Interpretation:

Nov. 28, 1994

Mr. Tom Young, Chairman
Charting and Instrument Procedures Committee
Air Line Pilots Association
535 Herndon Parkway
Herndon, VA 22070

Dear Mr. Young

This is a clarification of our response to your letter of August 23, 1993. In that
letter you
requested an interpretation of Section 91.175 of the Federal Aviation Regulation
(FAR) (14 CFR
Section 91.175). You address the necessity of executing a complete Standard
Instrument
Approach Procedure (SIAP) in a non-radar environment while operating under
Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR). Our response assumes that each of the specific scenarios you pose
speaks to a flight
conducted under IFR in a non-radar environment.

Section 91.175(a) provides that unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator,
when an
instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each person operating an
aircraft, except a
military aircraft of the United States, shall use a standard instrument approach
procedure
prescribed for the airport in Part 97.

First you ask whether an arriving aircraft must begin the SIAP at a published
Initial Approach
Fix (IAF). A pilot must begin a SIAP at the IAF as defined in Part 97. Descent
gradients,
communication, and obstruction clearance, as set forth in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal
Instrument Approach Procedures (TERPs), cannot be assured if the entire procedure
is not flown.
You also ask whether a Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) arc initial approach
segment
can be substituted for a published IAF along any portion of the published arc. A
DME arc cannot
be substituted for a published IAF along a portion of the published arc. If a
feeder route to an IAF
is part of the published approach procedure, it is considered a mandatory part of
the approach.
Finally, you ask whether a course reversal segment is optional "when one of the
conditions of
FAR section 91.175(j) is not present." Section 91.175(j) states that in the case
of a radar vector to
a final approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an
approach for which the
procedures specifies "no procedure turn," no pilot may make a procedure turn
unless cleared to
do so by ATC.

****Section 97.3(p) defines a procedure turn, in part, as a maneuver prescribed
when it is necessary
to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on a intermediate or final approach
course. A SIAP
may or may not prescribe a procedure turn based on the application of certain
criteria contained
in the TERPs. However, if a SIAP does contain a procedure turn and ATC has cleared
a pilot to
execute the SIAP, the pilot must make the procedure turn when one of the
conditions of Section
91.175(j) is not present.****

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Patricia R. Lane,
Manager,

Airspace and Air Traffic Law Branch, at (202) 267-3491.
Sincerely,
/s/
Patricia R. Lane
for Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations Division

Aeronautical Information Manual:

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. The procedure turn is not required when the symbol "No PT" is
shown, when RADAR VECTORING to the final approach course is provided, when
conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure turn is not authorized. The
hold in lieu of procedure turn is not required when RADAR VECTORING to the final
approach course is provided or when "No PT" is shown. The altitude prescribed for
the procedure turn is a minimum altitude until the aircraft is established on the
inbound course. The maneuver must be completed within the distance specified in
the profile view.

Letter of Legal Interpretation [snipped]

These things are useless. You ask the FAA a question, and they quote the rules
at you as if they were self-evident if only you knew what they were.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 06:05:28 -0700, wrote:

Apparently, the gentlemen is of limited clues. ;-) GPS approaches that have
course reversals have them at the intermediate fix, not the FAF.

That was why I asked for specifics regarding the SIAP. By the way, that
should more properly read "stand-alone" GPS approaches, shouldn't it?


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