Approach to an LOM/IAF with PT (not vectors to final)

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...
Jim, I like your idea on reading back for a straight-in.

Still doesn't make it legal, though

The thing
about doing a turn around the hold is that it seems to me to defeat the
whole purpose for the PT. As I understand it, the approaches have you
do this so that you are well-established on the SDF/ILS *before* you get
to the LOM. In this case, the PT or hold serves to destablize your
track and decrease safety. At least, that is how I see it.

Agreed. What's safe is not always legal, and what's legal is not always
safe


-Sami

Jim wrote:

Another option. You could use the hold for a course reversal. "Roger
Minneapolis, cleared for the SDF 2, direct NEPCO, we'd like to do a lap
in
the hold rather than the procedure turn." This would be a little
quicker
because the holding fix is NEPCO. Right turn outbound, right turn
inbound,
straight in and land.

The readback is meant to clarify the situation. In Sami's situation, it was
slightly confusing because he was first given a clearance direct from his
present position to the outer marker, then given a radio hand off before he
was even on a published portion of the approach, this in my mind leads me to
think the controller intended to clear him straight in but for some reason
didn't say the words, thus, I would give the read back that included the
words "straight in". If the controller says "read back correct", then I'd
be cleared straight in, which even though there is not a NoPT on the chart,
would be legal because it follows the clearance. Normally in this area,
once we descend below radar coverage, Minneapolis will request that we
"report procedure turn inbound" and then report the IAF before giving us a
radio handoff to a CTAF on a non-towered airport.

The turn in the hold is only an option that I brought up because it is a
legal form of course reversal. Not the best idea for establishing you on
the final approach path, I'll agree, but may be useful to either loose
altitude or get turned around and headed inbound in the least amount of
time.

BTW Sami, is that Mooney still for sale at ISW? Any idea of the real asking
price?

Jim

The hold is for the missed approach. If the designer of the approach had
intended to use the hold as a course reversal method, he/she would have
designed it that way. If you have not been advised that you are being
vectored for the approach, substituting a lap in the hold for a procedure
turn doesn't make it any more legal than omitting the PT altogether.
Besides, ATC can't rewrite the approach procedure, especially if they can't
see you.

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Another option. You could use the hold for a course reversal. "Roger
Minneapolis, cleared for the SDF 2, direct NEPCO, we'd like to do a lap in
the hold rather than the procedure turn." This would be a little quicker
because the holding fix is NEPCO. Right turn outbound, right turn
inbound,
straight in and land.
--
Jim Burns III

Remove "nospam" to reply


"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...
The Approach in question is SDF RWY 2 at KISW. I was coming in from the
south, nearly lined up with the inbound course of 021 degrees. I was in
touch with ATC. The LOM/IAF is called NEPCO. The ATC asked if I wanted
"direct NEPCO." I said yes. Within about 10 miles of the airport, the
controller said that frequency change was approved. I believe I was out
of radar contact by this time (radar coverage in the area is spotty).

1. Since there is no "NO PT" indicated on the chart, does that mean that
I am required to do a 180 deg turn when I reach NEPCO so I can track
outbound (201), then do a PT, then come back? That seems a little odd
to me.

2. If so, and I am assuming it is, should I have positioned myself to
approach NEPCO at an intercept that did not require a 180 deg turn to
get to the outbound course? Maybe come at it from the east?

3. Suppose that when I reach NEPCO (IAF), I am below the cloud deck.
Assume that I have switched over to unicom frequency at that point. Is
it permissible to abort the IFR approach and turn inbound for a visual
approach. Presumably, you would have to ask ATC permission to do this.
What if you can not raise ATC on the radio? Can you go visual on your
own?

-Sami
N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 02:28:15 GMT, "Brad Z" wrote:

The hold is for the missed approach. If the designer of the approach had
intended to use the hold as a course reversal method, he/she would have
designed it that way. If you have not been advised that you are being
vectored for the approach, substituting a lap in the hold for a procedure
turn doesn't make it any more legal than omitting the PT altogether.

There may be a semantic issue here. I agree that the charted holding
pattern is for the missed approach. However, at least in the US, on this
approach the type of procedure turn is up to the pilot. So there would be
nothing wrong with executing a "racetrack" procedure turn, which would be
the same as the charted holding pattern.


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

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

There may be a semantic issue here. I agree that the charted holding
pattern is for the missed approach. However, at least in the US, on this
approach the type of procedure turn is up to the pilot. So there would be
nothing wrong with executing a "racetrack" procedure turn, which would be
the same as the charted holding pattern.

"Racetrack" is an obsolete term left over from the lighted-aiway days. The
holding rules are pretty well spelled out. Racetrack patterns used to have 2
minute legs in the 1940s and 50s.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 07:07:00 -0700, wrote:

"Racetrack" is an obsolete term left over from the lighted-aiway days. The
holding rules are pretty well spelled out. Racetrack patterns used to have 2
minute legs in the 1940s and 50s.

Today it is synonymous with a holding pattern type procedure turn, and can
be executed (with legs restricted to not more than the PT distance), when
the PT depiction does not require a specific type of course reversal to be
flown as charted.


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

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...
The Approach in question is SDF RWY 2 at KISW. I was coming in from the
south, nearly lined up with the inbound course of 021 degrees. I was in
touch with ATC. The LOM/IAF is called NEPCO. The ATC asked if I wanted
"direct NEPCO." I said yes. Within about 10 miles of the airport, the
controller said that frequency change was approved. I believe I was out
of radar contact by this time (radar coverage in the area is spotty).

Yep, if you heard anything along the lines of "Vectors for the approach" in
your clearance, this whole discussion is moot.


1. Since there is no "NO PT" indicated on the chart, does that mean that
I am required to do a 180 deg turn when I reach NEPCO so I can track
outbound (201), then do a PT, then come back? That seems a little odd
to me.

According to the rules, yes, and technically ATC expects you to follow the
rules. More than likely, however, your controller expected you to continue
inbound without flying the PT. You could clarify the situation by
indicating that upon reaching the LOM you would be making a right turn to
track the FAC outbound for the published course reversal. This would likely
be replied with a "N12345 roger, report PT inbound" or something similar.

There is nothing in the AIM that makes an NoPT exception when you're already
set up on the FAC in non-vectoring situations. If you're not on a
transition with a NoPT note, or some other circumstance noted on the
approach procedure that excludes flying the PT, the PT must be flown.


2. If so, and I am assuming it is, should I have positioned myself to
approach NEPCO at an intercept that did not require a 180 deg turn to
get to the outbound course? Maybe come at it from the east?

Not necessary. Whatever is the most direct and allowable means of reaching
NEPCO is fine.


3. Suppose that when I reach NEPCO (IAF), I am below the cloud deck.

1) cancel IFR
2) Request Visual or Contact Approach
3) Land, assuming you meet the requirements of 91.175c

Assume that I have switched over to unicom frequency at that point. Is
it permissible to abort the IFR approach and turn inbound for a visual
approach. Presumably, you would have to ask ATC permission to do this.

Unless you're NORDO, you're required to contact ATC anytime you deviate from
a clearance.

What if you can not raise ATC on the radio? Can you go visual on your
own?

You're NORDO in VFR, just land, and cancel IFR on the ground.


-Sami
N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III

Brad Z wrote:

"Yep, if you heard anything along the lines of "Vectors for the approach" in
your clearance, this whole discussion is moot.


And, if the vector rules had been properly applied, he would have been given a
distance from the LOM when he received his final intercept heading, or when he
received his approach clearance.

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in
:

1. Since there is no "NO PT" indicated on the chart, does that mean that
I am required to do a 180 deg turn when I reach NEPCO so I can track
outbound (201), then do a PT, then come back? That seems a little odd
to me.

NoPT means you cannot do a procedure turn without specific authorization
from ATC. You continue straight in. No means no.

3. Suppose that when I reach NEPCO (IAF), I am below the cloud deck.
Assume that I have switched over to unicom frequency at that point. Is
it permissible to abort the IFR approach and turn inbound for a visual
approach. Presumably, you would have to ask ATC permission to do this.
What if you can not raise ATC on the radio? Can you go visual on your
own?

Why would you do that? Presumably the approach leads to the airport, so
following the localizer or approach guidance will be the shortest route to
the airport. Once you have the airport in sight, you can maneuver as
necessary to land if you have to circle to a different runway.

Have you had no instrument training? All this should have been covered in
detail in any instrument instruction.

--
Regards,

Stan

NoPT means you cannot do a procedure turn without specific authorization
from ATC. You continue straight in. No means no.


"NoPT" is "Nope" speled by the FAA.