Procedure turn required?

"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

Yossarian wrote:
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.

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).

--

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

"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

"Jose" wrote in message
...
Well, required in the sense of geometry or what?

Yes, in the sense of geometry.

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.

The *inbound* turn is usually not prescribed. The outbound leg is required
to be flown along the depicted route. In the case of the example here, that
requires a greater than 130 degree right-hand turn from the transition
route.

You only get to make up your turn on the way back in.

If the procedure allowed one to simply fly a standard-rate right-hand turn
after crossing the VOR, to return to the inbound leg, I might not have as
big an issue with the idea that the procedure turn is required. That's
still more complex, but it's reasonably efficient, does result in one being
established on the inbound course earlier, and is much less likely to wind
up with the airplane outside protected airspace (because there's a lot less
maneuvering going on).

But it doesn't. It requires that one first turns outbound, gets established
on the outbound course, and only then reverses course (again) to come back
inbound.

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.

It's the introductory sentence to the entire section on procedure turns. I
don't think it's a stretch *at all* (as opposed to some of my other
interpretations) to believe that they are describing *exactly* why a
procedure turn exists.

Pete

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".

Since it's such a nice day, I'm going to quibble. Where is it written that
you have to track the inbound course when outbound? IOW (I sense that you
fly in the Northwest, specifically western Washington), if I am coming from
the west to shoot the ILS into Paine, and my outbound turn over RITTS takes
me east of the extended runway/localizer, I am perfectly justified in flying
parallel to the localizer if I want to....the protected airspace is plenty
wide. I have seen dozens of instrument students work themselves into a
frenzy trying to get established outbound on the inbound, if you catch my
drift (no-wind conditions g).

Bob Gardner

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Jose" wrote in message
...
Well, required in the sense of geometry or what?

Yes, in the sense of geometry.

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.

The *inbound* turn is usually not prescribed. The outbound leg is
required to be flown along the depicted route. In the case of the example
here, that requires a greater than 130 degree right-hand turn from the
transition route.

You only get to make up your turn on the way back in.

If the procedure allowed one to simply fly a standard-rate right-hand turn
after crossing the VOR, to return to the inbound leg, I might not have as
big an issue with the idea that the procedure turn is required. That's
still more complex, but it's reasonably efficient, does result in one
being established on the inbound course earlier, and is much less likely
to wind up with the airplane outside protected airspace (because there's a
lot less maneuvering going on).

But it doesn't. It requires that one first turns outbound, gets
established on the outbound course, and only then reverses course (again)
to come back inbound.

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.

It's the introductory sentence to the entire section on procedure turns.
I don't think it's a stretch *at all* (as opposed to some of my other
interpretations) to believe that they are describing *exactly* why a
procedure turn exists.

Pete

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
Since it's such a nice day, I'm going to quibble. Where is it written that
you have to track the inbound course when outbound?

IMHO, that's in the definition of "procedure turn" (97.3(p)). "The outbound
course, direction of turn, distance within which the turn must be completed,
and minimum altitude are specified in the procedure". Note that they say
"outbound course", not "outbound heading". To me, this means you are
required to fly exactly that course (inasmuch as you are required to fly the
procedure turn at all).

I don't disagree that there are situations in which it's perfectly safe to
parallel the outbound course. Your example at KPAE is a fine one.

But if someone believes that the regulations require the full procedure to
be flown even when no course reversal is actually necessary for the
approach, they darn well better believe that the regulations require flying
the outbound *course* as depicted, rather than just the outbound heading.
That seems much more explicitly stated than the presumed requirement to fly
the full procedure.

Pete

Lots of posters are spouting ideas, regs, AIM citations, etc. but have not
looked at the approach plate. So lets do that.

1st... What is your flight plan route? Wilma is NOT part of the approach.
It is a feeder for the airport.

2nd... If you filed to Wilma, then the airport and went lost communications
and were IFR you would have to fly to an IAF and then commence the approach.
ATC would expect you to fly to Seal Beach and fly the procedure turn.

3rd... If you are under ATC control, they would likley either vector you to
final or tell you to fly to Seal Beach and then intercept final and probably
tell you to to that at 1500 feet so you would be in the proper postion to
descend to MDA for the circle to land.



"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"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

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 22:50:57 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

To me, this means you are
required to fly exactly that course

Yes, but "course" only refers to "The intended *direction* of flight in the
horizontal plane measured in degrees from north." It does not refer to a
particular ground track.

On the other hand, there are "Some procedure turns are specified by
procedural track. These turns must be flown exactly as depicted."


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