A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old October 6th 05, 07:06 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

Where does it state that the determination as to when a course reversal is
necessary is to be made by the pilot?


Where does it state when a course reversal is necessary at all?



By regulation we are required to fly a SIAP as published when it is
necessary, and the SIAP is regulatory by inclusion by reference into 14
CFR 97.


I don't think anybody disputes that, but you're saying we are also required
by regulation to fly a SIAP as published when it is NOT necessary. Yet you
can't cite any regulation that says that.



If the SIAP includes a procedure turn, without qualification as to how one
is approaching that point (i.e. NoPT routings), then it becomes regulatory
by virtue of the above.


Alright, here's a real world example for you. You're flying AWI123 from
KORD to KGRB, Chicago departure puts you in the east departure track on a
360 heading and hands you off to Chicago Center. Around the Kenosha, WI,
area Chicago Center tells you to proceed direct to GRB VORTAC. Down the
road a piece you're handed off to Green Bay approach. At GRB the ILS RWY 36
approach is in use, and the approach controller notices you're present track
will intercept the localizer about fifteen miles from DEPRE, the LOM/IAF.
On initial contact you're told "descend and maintain 3,000 join the runway
36 localizer". About three minutes later you hear the same instruction
issued to EGF456. When you're about five miles from DEPRE the approach
controller says "AWI123 cleared ILS runway three six contact tower one one
eight point seven." When you reach DEPRE will you continue towards the
runway or will you start a procedure turn?

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...s/00873I36.PDF


  #102  
Old October 6th 05, 07:35 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

91.3(a)?


Works for me.



OK, so say you're flying AVX V21 SLI FUL. Fullerton ATIS says the VOR-A
is in use. Then you lose comm. What would you do and why?


It's IMC. I'd track the 020 radial out of SLI, fly the approach and land
because doing anything else is nutty.


  #103  
Old October 6th 05, 07:40 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

91.3(a)?


But you need to be in an emergency situation to deviate from the other
rules of Part 91. I try to not allow my SIAP's deteriorate to that point
:-))


FAR 91.3(a) says nothing about an emergency situation.


  #104  
Old October 6th 05, 08:24 PM
rps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In response to Steven McNicoll's scenario:

It wasn't clear to me from the scenario you wrote whether I'd be
arriving from the north or elsewhere. If from the north, I'd have to
fly the published PT because a course reversal is necessary. So, upon
arriving DEPRE, I'd continue south on the localizer for about 1.5
minutes, and fly any type of PT to the west of the localizer. Upon
returning to the localizer, I'd follow the glideslope down.

If I'm approaching from the south (which is probably what you meant)
and hadn't already arrived at GRB VORTAC before being cleared for the
ILS, I'd join the localizer and:
1) when I'm within 10 nm of DEPRE, descend to 2700 and inform approach
that I'm "leaving 3000 for 2700"; and
2) capture and follow the glide slope.

In my opinion, the PT is unnecessary because there is no course
reversal. Some would probably argue that you've been given radar
vectors because your prior instruction was direct GRB VORTAC.

In this northbound scenario, let's say you weren't cleared to 3000, and
were still at an en route altitude, suppose 6000, when approach clears
you for the ILS. You'd have to lose altitude fast. I still wouldn't
do the PT. I'd instead opt to descend in a holding pattern at DEPRE
(which is an IAF) down to 2200 (or capture glideslope northbound when
south of DEPRE on an inbound leg of the hold). Of course, I'd let
approach (or tower, as appropriate) know what I'm doing so that ATC is
not surprised. If they need the airspace for someone else, they'd let
me know. Doing so also keeps me closer to the airport in case
something goes wrong when I'm descending. I think you could opt to do
a PT instead, but how would you know when to begin the PT if you're
approaching from the south and don't have a GPS?

  #105  
Old October 6th 05, 08:30 PM
Ron Garret
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...

Where does it state that the determination as to when a course reversal is
necessary is to be made by the pilot?


Where does it state when a course reversal is necessary at all?



By regulation we are required to fly a SIAP as published when it is
necessary, and the SIAP is regulatory by inclusion by reference into 14
CFR 97.


I don't think anybody disputes that, but you're saying we are also required
by regulation to fly a SIAP as published when it is NOT necessary. Yet you
can't cite any regulation that says that.



If the SIAP includes a procedure turn, without qualification as to how one
is approaching that point (i.e. NoPT routings), then it becomes regulatory
by virtue of the above.


Alright, here's a real world example for you. You're flying AWI123 from
KORD to KGRB, Chicago departure puts you in the east departure track on a
360 heading and hands you off to Chicago Center. Around the Kenosha, WI,
area Chicago Center tells you to proceed direct to GRB VORTAC. Down the
road a piece you're handed off to Green Bay approach. At GRB the ILS RWY 36
approach is in use, and the approach controller notices you're present track
will intercept the localizer about fifteen miles from DEPRE, the LOM/IAF.
On initial contact you're told "descend and maintain 3,000 join the runway
36 localizer". About three minutes later you hear the same instruction
issued to EGF456. When you're about five miles from DEPRE the approach
controller says "AWI123 cleared ILS runway three six contact tower one one
eight point seven." When you reach DEPRE will you continue towards the
runway or will you start a procedure turn?

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/...s/00873I36.PDF


I don't think that's a very good example because (one could argue)
you're being radar vectored to the approach, which is specifically cited
in the AIM as one of the situations where a PT is not needed.

rg
  #106  
Old October 6th 05, 08:32 PM
Mark Hansen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 10/6/2005 10:51, Ron Garret wrote:

In article ,
Mark Hansen wrote:

On 10/6/2005 08:23, Ron Garret wrote:

In article ,
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

OK, so say you're flying AVX V21 SLI FUL. Fullerton ATIS says the VOR-A
is in use. Then you lose comm. What would you do and why?


Being more familiar with Jepp charts, and having to rely on NACO charts for
that approach, perhaps I am missing some subtlety.

But assuming a non-emergency situation, not getting into the discussion of
what to do at SLI if you're ahead of your ETA, and also assuming IMC, I
would maintain the V21 MEA of 4000' until reaching SLI. At SLI I would
execute a racetrack type procedure turn on the SE side of the final
approach course, descending to 2600'. Passing SLI inbound I would cross
BWALT at or above 1500' and then continue my descent to the MDA and land if
I met the requirements of 91.175 and the runway were clear.

As to why? I would do that because that's how that SIAP is charted

No, it isn't. There is no "racetrack type procedure turn" on the chart.
There is a hold that is part of the missed approach. And if you fly
that hold so as to end up at SLI inbound then you've flown it in the
wrong direction.


I think Ron said he wasn't as familiar with the government charts.


There are two Rons in play here :-) Ron G. (that's me) is looking at a
government chart.


Thanks, but I wasn't confused about that. ;-)


However, if you look at the chart, the procedure turn is indicated
with the Barb, pointing 155 degrees. You can see, also, that if you
use AIBAS IAF, no procedure turn is necessary.


True, but you're not coming from ALBAS. You're coming in on V21.


My point was that *if you were using ALBAS*, you would not need the
procedure turn. According to the SIAP, if you're using the VOR as
the IAF, you would need to use the procedure turn.

(As
an aside, doesn't it make intuitive sense that, from a TERPS point of
view, if no procedure turn is required from ALBAS that none should be
required coming from V21?)


Victor 21 is not a feeder route for the approach. If it was, it would
be charted as such. So you may be able to argue your point with the
procedure designers...


When you hit the VOR, you turn outbound for the procedure turn, 200
degrees. During the outbound leg (and the procedure turn) you can
begin your descent to 2600'. You should time it such that you are
at 2600' before you get back to the VOR.

Note that you need to remain within 10NM of the VOR during the turn,
so you can go outbound quite a log way (to aid in the descent) before
actually beginning the physical turn.


I presume you mean turn to a 200 heading, not turn 200 degrees.


Yes, you can because I said "Turn, 200 degrees" instead of "turn 200 degrees",
which wouldn't make any sense anyway...

Sorry it wasn't clear.

V21 is
on a 202 heading. You would be turning 178 degrees or 182 degrees
depending on which way you made the turn. Now...


Right, because V21 is not a feeder route...


Do you really turn to a 200 heading, or do you turn to intercept the SLI
200 radial? Those are not the same maneuver.


You intercept the radial, of course...


Do you turn left or right and why?


You turn toward the protected side of the procedure area, which is to
the southeast.


At what point are you "established on the outbound leg", when you reach
a 200 heading, or when you are established on the SLI 200 radial?


I'll bet you can answer that one yourself ;-)



Finally, suppose you flew this Byzantine procedure... by the time you
got to the actual procedure turn (which, I note in passing, would be
your SECOND course reversal) you would be in almost exactly the same
spot as you were just minutes ago when you were on V21. Why is it safe
to descend now but not then?



What is the MEA on the victor airway (I don't have it here...) Something
like 4000'? They aren't going to change the MEA of the airway just to
satisfy an approach (or at least they didn't in this case). So, you'll
be approaching the VOR at 4000' ... much to high to begin the approach.

Now if you look at the feeder route from AIBAS, it has a minimum
altitude of 2600'. This is exactly what you want. If you don't want
to do the PT, use this IAF rather than the VOR.

Note that WILMA requires a PT because it is not aligned within 30
degrees of the FAC...

Now, if they created a fix somewhere out on V21, and wrote a feeder
route from that fix, then you could. Effectively, you've be flying
V21 to the fix, then initiating the SIAP from there. However, they
didn't, so you can't ;-)

That gets in to why the designers set up the approach this way, which
I don't know. As a pilot using the procedure, I need only to interpret
the chart. I don't really have to understand the "whys" behind it.


rg



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA
  #107  
Old October 6th 05, 08:40 PM
rps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I forgot to mentiond that I'd hold south of DEPRE, left turns.

  #108  
Old October 6th 05, 09:32 PM
Ron Rosenfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 16:37:34 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

So make your case


I've already made my case. You may reread it and the references until you
understand it, or choose to disagree.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
  #109  
Old October 6th 05, 09:40 PM
Ron Rosenfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 08:23:29 -0700, Ron Garret
wrote:

No, it isn't. There is no "racetrack type procedure turn" on the chart.
There is a hold that is part of the missed approach. And if you fly
that hold so as to end up at SLI inbound then you've flown it in the
wrong direction.


Huh? On the NACO chart I am looking at there is a barb on R-200 from SLI
with 155°/335° on it. To the best of my knowledge, that indicates that the
type of procedure turn is up to the pilot.

Perhaps you are not aware that a racetrack pattern is one of the allowable
types of procedure turns. Review your IFR materials and you will discover
that it is.

To be more precise, I would turn right at SLI to a heading that will allow
me to track parallel to the inbound 020° course so that, with wind
correction, when I turn inbound I will be established on the FAC INBOUND to
SLI.

Other methods are acceptable, but you asked what *I* would do. You could
also, (and I probably would in mountainous terrain without GPS), continue
the right turn at SLI until intercepting R-200, and then do a 45° PT on the
SE side. But the choice of PT type is up to the pilot, in this instance.

And your correct about the MEA statement. I meant to type "descend *from*
the MEA" and not "*to* the MEA".


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
  #110  
Old October 6th 05, 09:46 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"rps" wrote in message
ups.com...

In response to Steven McNicoll's scenario:

It wasn't clear to me from the scenario you wrote whether I'd be
arriving from the north or elsewhere.


KGRB is about 150 miles north of KORD.



If from the north, I'd have to
fly the published PT because a course reversal is necessary. So, upon
arriving DEPRE, I'd continue south on the localizer for about 1.5
minutes, and fly any type of PT to the west of the localizer. Upon
returning to the localizer, I'd follow the glideslope down.

If I'm approaching from the south (which is probably what you meant)
and hadn't already arrived at GRB VORTAC


I included a link to the approach plate, it shows the VORTAC to be about
five miles NNW of the field.



before being cleared for the
ILS, I'd join the localizer and:
1) when I'm within 10 nm of DEPRE, descend to 2700 and inform approach
that I'm "leaving 3000 for 2700"; and
2) capture and follow the glide slope.


If you begin descent when ten miles from DEPRE you've busted your altitude.
The last instruction was "descend and maintain 3,000, join the runway 36
localizer", approach clearance was issued at five miles from DEPRE.



In my opinion, the PT is unnecessary because there is no course
reversal. Some would probably argue that you've been given radar
vectors because your prior instruction was direct GRB VORTAC.


Those making that argument would be wrong. If you're on your own navigation
direct to a fix you're not being vectored, you're being vectored when you're
on an assigned heading.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question A Lieberman Instrument Flight Rules 18 January 30th 05 05:51 PM
Required hold? Nicholas Kliewer Instrument Flight Rules 22 November 14th 04 02:38 AM
more radial fans like fw190? jt Military Aviation 51 August 28th 04 04:22 AM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM
IFR in the 1930's Rich S. Home Built 43 September 21st 03 01:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.