Indeed it is a "silly TERPs thing," also known as lazy design. TERPs maps attached. Note the feeder from from FST on both 19 and 23. FST could have been made an IAF with a step-down fix to accommodate NoPT. The highest terrain is less than 5,500 feet. But, they didn't, and ATC cannot waive straight-in, nor can the pilot. The only options would be VTF or direct-to-the-IF in accordance with the AIM directives. Neither is likely to happen at this location.
Let us know if you find something. I think "Proceed direct Fort Stockton, cleared straight in GPS Runway 19 approach" would be a valid clearance. Paragraph 4-8-1 of the ATC handbook gives an example. From anywhere else north of E38, it would require radar.
YMMV.
Don’t you use highlighters?
That means I have to maintain 10,000 until the IF then descend at 500 feet per mile. I don't think so.
I wouldn’t accept it in a jet, but it’s less than 1000 fpm in a 170 at cruise speed...closer to 800-850 at approach speeds.
The difference is that from Ft Stockton it is all on published routes.
Enlighten me, please. Where do controllers get authority to approve straight-ins in non radar environments where the pilot is navigating on a published route, i.e., bold course to procedural track?
The fact the feeder for the NDB IAP is 7,500 seems to indicate that radio or radar coverage aren't factors.
I'm looking at the examples given in 4-8-1 of the ATC handbook (7110.65X) in terms of course and intercept (less than 90 degrees).
The descent gradient is excessive for NoPT. They could have placed a waypoint between FST and the IA/IAF, designated it as IAF, and made the transition form FST NoPT. And, the altitude at FST should be compatible with the airway MEAs, to the extent possible. In that case FST could be the IAF.
Angle yes, altitude no. Remember that we are dealing with 3 dimensions and straight in vs PT is not only about direction.
They didn't use the first team for this airport.
That paragraph and the associated figure talk about "intercepts". Isn't that radar vectoring lingo?
"May" do something doesn't exclude other things. 4-8-1.a. Says what to do when Radar coverage exists. Now, if it started with "Only when adequate..." I'd agree with you.
It says "Must" not "May". "...must begin at an initial approach fix (IAF) or an intermediate fix (IF) if there is not an IAF." This isn't a case where there is no IAF (that happens where the enroute structure delivers right to an IF).
If you're referring to para:
Why would it? I just showed that the only way a controller can "want" the pilot not to do a HILPT is when being vectored, otherwise the pilot MUST begin the approach at an IAF if one exists, which it does in this case.
Answered.
If the IF exists where no IAF exists there shouldn't be a HILPT, since it's an initial segment maneuver. At other places with an IAF and HILPT, if there's no radar, my reading of the rules is pilots must follow the procedural track. With radar, ATC can, within the specified vectoring limits, bypass a procedure turn or HILPT. Can a pilot ask for a waiver? Sure, but it's asking to break the rules (91.175(a)). Can ATC waive that rule? Yes, under 91.175(i) or(j), i.e., via radar vectors. Without radar would a benevolent individual controller grant a straight-in request? Probably, but it doesn't make it right in my view.
From a practical, reasoning point of view it might seem to be no different if following a vector or navigating the same track with onboard navigation. To me, it's only the monitoring aspect that allows vectored aircraft to bypass the HILPT. When the pilot is doing the navigation, the approved SIAP needs to be followed. Where I confess to a lack of clarity is how WAAS might change the rules as I see them, if at all.
That may be our difference in a nutshell. For me, monitoring is about being off airway* with your only real protection being the MVA, not something applicable to published routes. So I simply don't see the connection you do to to the "is a PT required?" question.
Thank you!
I always thought and was taught that if it’s bold you got to fly it. Unless directed by ATC. If there is a question I will ask ATC if they expect me to fly the procedure turn. They will usually come back with and up to me (at their direction) but if I didn’t ask I would be expected to fly it.