Holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn

Because not all of the information on the flight plan form is seen by ATC. If the PIC name is not intended to be part of the strip, then putting it in the remarks behind the pilot's back is giving ATC more information then they need to have.

Maybe "privacy violation" isn't the right way to describe it. But it is certainly not appropriate IMHO for FF to give information to ATC or anyone else that is not required by law, and without the pilot's knowledge.
 
Could've gotten his name from a simple N number search online. Not sure why they'd go that far to find out though. Must be bored.
 
Ron Levy said:
For example of the sort of problems that would arise from that situation, see the .
Click to expand...

I see no problems there caused by skipping an unnecessary course reversal. What problems do you imagine there might be?
 
Ron Levy said:
It's stated clearly in 91.123 that you must follow any clearance issued. If you are cleared for a published approach, you must fly that approach as published or you are not following your clearance. There are no "options" involved other than by the explicit exceptions in the regulations.
Click to expand...

It's clearly stated in 97.3 that "Procedure turn means the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach course. The outbound course, direction of turn, distance within which the turn must be completed, and minimum altitude are specified in the procedure. However, the point at which the turn may be begun, and the type and rate of turn, is left to the discretion of the pilot."

It is clear that skipping a course reversal where it is not necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach course is not a violation of 91.123. Well, it should be clear.
 
roncachamp said:
It's clearly stated in 97.3 that "Procedure turn means the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach course. The outbound course, direction of turn, distance within which the turn must be completed, and minimum altitude are specified in the procedure. However, the point at which the turn may be begun, and the type and rate of turn, is left to the discretion of the pilot."

It is clear that skipping a course reversal where it is not necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach course is not a violation of 91.123. Well, it should be clear.
Click to expand...
I think you get tripped up by the word "prescribed". Not that I'm in the mood to argue with you, but for others new to the scene, when a PT is prescribed--it needs to be done. It's prescribed because it was considered "necessary". Only the manner in which it's done is left to the pilot to decide.

dtuuri
 
Ron Levy said:
On this approach, the controller is not authorized to issue a "straight in" clearance -- see the new change to 7110.65 for details, but the short story is that there is no fix at least three miles before the FAF for you to cross. In addition, this would require you be /G. The closest they could do is give you vectors to final and establish you on the 004 radial inbound outside the final approach gate at an appropriate altitude, not issue a "straight in" and let you do it all on your own.

That said, I've seen plenty of controllers issue a "straight in" clearance in this sort of situation even though it is not authorized (especially on the VOR-B at Queen City), and whether you choose to accept that clearance is up to you.
Click to expand...

But the Office of the Chief Counsel via the Karas letter has taken the position that "pilots flying in controlled airspace must comply with all ATC instructions, regardless of whether the pilot is flying VFR or IFR, in accordance with § 91.123(b)." It doesn't matter if the instruction is one that ATC is not authorized to issue, it doesn't matter if compliance with the instruction will require the pilot to violate another regulation, the only exception is an emergency.
 
roncachamp said:
It's clearly stated in 97.3 that "Procedure turn means the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach course. The outbound course, direction of turn, distance within which the turn must be completed, and minimum altitude are specified in the procedure. However, the point at which the turn may be begun, and the type and rate of turn, is left to the discretion of the pilot."

It is clear that skipping a course reversal where it is not necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach course is not a violation of 91.123. Well, it should be clear.
Click to expand...

I have to agree that the requirement for conducting a procedure turn should be clear. We all are entitled to our opinion on what is clear or not clear, however, our opinion is superseded by the FAA General Counsel's opinion on this specific subject.

From the Nov. 28,1994, Mr. Tom Young General Counsel Opinion:

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 tum 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.
Click to expand...
 
roncachamp said:
But the Office of the Chief Counsel via the Karas letter has taken the position that "pilots flying in controlled airspace must comply with all ATC instructions, regardless of whether the pilot is flying VFR or IFR, in accordance with § 91.123(b)." It doesn't matter if the instruction is one that ATC is not authorized to issue, it doesn't matter if compliance with the instruction will require the pilot to violate another regulation, the only exception is an emergency.
Click to expand...

I don't believe a clearance to disregard a course-reversal constitutes an instruction.
 
Dean V said:
While the FAA is playing publishing catch up, they need to include "straight in" in the pilot controller glossary.
Click to expand...

From the P/CG:


STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH IFR− An instrument
approach wherein final approach is begun without
first having executed a procedure turn, not
necessarily completed with a straight-in landing or
made to straight-in landing minimums.
(See LANDING MINIMUMS.)
(See STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH VFR.)
(See STRAIGHT-IN LANDING.)

STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH VFR− Entry into the
traffic pattern by interception of the extended runway
centerline (final approach course) without executing
any other portion of the traffic pattern.
(See TRAFFIC PATTERN.)

STRAIGHT-IN LANDING− A landing made on a
runway aligned within 30 of the final approach
course following completion of an instrument
approach.
(See STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH IFR.)
 
gismo said:
On both legs of my flight home from Pontiac Michigan yesterday I had controllers greet me with my first name. The first time that happened I thought maybe one of the controllers here was working at Detroit center and happened to recognize my N# but I was told that my name was on their flight strips. What's with that? I had filed via duats with Foreflight and according to the controller at Chicago center my name was in the remarks on the strip. I checked and it was NOT in the remarks section of the flight plan form on FF. Anyone else experienced this? It was kinda fun and spooky at the same time.
Click to expand...

It's been that way for years. I forget what trips it exactly, something like the person being filed as PIC being other than the person named in the account.
 
dtuuri said:
I think you get tripped up by the word "prescribed". Not that I'm in the mood to argue with you, but for others new to the scene, when a PT is prescribed--it needs to be done. It's prescribed because it was considered "necessary". Only the manner in which it's done is left to the pilot to decide.
Click to expand...

Why is it considered "necessary" when upon completing of the PT the aircraft is in exactly the same point in space that it was in a few minutes earlier? If the manner in which it's done is truly left to the pilot to decide then the decision not to do it must also be left to the pilot.
 
John Collins said:
I have to agree that the requirement for conducting a procedure turn should be clear. We all are entitled to our opinion on what is clear or not clear, however, our opinion is superseded by the FAA General Counsel's opinion on this specific subject.

From the Nov. 28,1994, Mr. Tom Young General Counsel Opinion:

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 tum 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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Which means a procedure turn must be flown whenever the aircraft has not been vectored to a final approach course or fix, is not executing a timed approach from a holding fix, or is not on a route for which the procedure specifies “No PT,” even when the controller includes "straight-in" as part of the approach clearance because no condition of Section 91.175(j) is present.
 
roncachamp said:
Why is it considered "necessary" when upon completing of the PT the aircraft is in exactly the same point in space that it was in a few minutes earlier?
Click to expand...
You'd have to ask the person who approved the approach procedure. "Mine's not to reason why..."

roncachamp said:
If the manner in which it's done is truly left to the pilot to decide then the decision not to do it must also be left to the pilot.
Click to expand...
If you don't do it, you're illegal. Now, one thing I would observe that's always a characteristic of a procedure turn is that at some point during the maneuver the aircraft passes through the opposite heading of the inbound course. If your "maneuver", say a little wing-wiggle, doesn't do that, it can't be a procedure turn.

dtuuri
 
roncachamp said:
I see no problems there caused by skipping an unnecessary course reversal. What problems do you imagine there might be?
Click to expand...
The ones described in the article which apparently you have not read, so here's the link again:
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/cb/cb_363.pdf
In any event, the regulations and FAA interpretations of those regulations are clear -- when it's depicted, you must do it, unless one of the exceptions exist, in which case you must not do it. Deviate at your own risk.
 
roncachamp said:
It is clear that skipping a course reversal where it is not necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach course is not a violation of 91.123. Well, it should be clear.
Click to expand...
Only to you. Nobody else in the FAA agrees with you, including Flight Standards and the Chief Counsel, so please stop telling folks it's OK.
 
roncachamp said:
But the Office of the Chief Counsel via the Karas letter has taken the position that "pilots flying in controlled airspace must comply with all ATC instructions, regardless of whether the pilot is flying VFR or IFR, in accordance with § 91.123(b)." It doesn't matter if the instruction is one that ATC is not authorized to issue, it doesn't matter if compliance with the instruction will require the pilot to violate another regulation, the only exception is an emergency.
Click to expand...
Like I said, if you think it's unsafe, tell the controller so and don't do it. That's the "emergency" exception in 91.123(b) and your authority as PIC in 91.3(b).
 
dtuuri said:
If you don't do it, you're illegal. Now, one thing I would observe that's always a characteristic of a procedure turn is that at some point during the maneuver the aircraft passes through the opposite heading of the inbound course. If your "maneuver", say a little wing-wiggle, doesn't do that, it can't be a procedure turn.
Click to expand...

Your observation is not consistent with the definition of procedure turn from Part 97.
 
As I pilot, I've never "prescribed" a procedure turn. And I wasn't aware controllers did either. I thought "prescribing" a PT is done by the charting office using TERPS criteria.

OTOH, I personally have no difficulty with a "straight in" clearance from a controller that's clearly stated.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
The ones described in the article which apparently you have not read, so here's the link again:
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/cb/cb_363.pdf
In any event, the regulations and FAA interpretations of those regulations are clear -- when it's depicted, you must do it, unless one of the exceptions exist, in which case you must not do it. Deviate at your own risk.
Click to expand...
Scenario #3 I noticed the transposed SOLCO vs SOCLO. Since I could not find SOLCO on the chart, I figured it was a typo. Can I assume that all the IAPs have been vetted in a way that eliminates phoenetically similar fixes?
 
Jaybird180 said:
Scenario #3 I noticed the transposed SOLCO vs SOCLO. Since I could not find SOLCO on the chart, I figured it was a typo. Can I assume that all the IAPs have been vetted in a way that eliminates phoenetically similar fixes?
Click to expand...
No. Just around here, we've got two pronounced "ricky," including RICKE and RIKKE (IIRC on the spellings) plus RIKME.
 
So,...what does it mean when it says "when a course reversal is necessary." ?
Anybody?
 
Ron Levy said:
The ones described in the article which apparently you have not read, so here's the link again:
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/cb/cb_363.pdf
In any event, the regulations and FAA interpretations of those regulations are clear -- when it's depicted, you must do it, unless one of the exceptions exist, in which case you must not do it. Deviate at your own risk.
Click to expand...

The article does not describe any problems caused by skipping an unnecessary course reversal. You obviously believe it does, so please just copy and paste the pertinent language from each scenario where you see a problem.
 
Ron Levy said:
Only to you. Nobody else in the FAA agrees with you, including Flight Standards and the Chief Counsel, so please stop telling folks it's OK.
Click to expand...

By what manner were you able to determine the position of everyone else in the FAA on this subject?
 
Ron Levy said:
Like I said, if you think it's unsafe, tell the controller so and don't do it. That's the "emergency" exception in 91.123(b) and your authority as PIC in 91.3(b).
Click to expand...

The pilot thinking it to be unsafe does not necessarily constitute an emergency. If it did a pilot could decline any instruction he did not like.
 
Ron Levy said:
We're talking GPS, not navaids, so that exception does not apply.
Click to expand...

Direct routes within NAVAID limits are okay for aircraft without GPS but not those that do have GPS? I don't see where this discussion became limited to GPS. Can you point it out for me?
 
midlifeflyer said:
As I pilot, I've never "prescribed" a procedure turn. And I wasn't aware controllers did either. I thought "prescribing" a PT is done by the charting office using TERPS criteria.

OTOH, I personally have no difficulty with a "straight in" clearance from a controller that's clearly stated.
Click to expand...

If the prescription for a PT is required by TERPS criteria it would seem unwise to allow a controller to deny the PT by specifying "straight-in".
 
If it's greater than a 90 degree intercept, it's "necessary."
 
nosehair said:
So,...what does it mean when it says "when a course reversal is necessary." ?
Anybody?
Click to expand...
When it's published as part of the approach, and you're not:
  1. Getting vectors to final, or
  2. Already holding at the fix at the depicted altitude, or
  3. On an NoPT route, or
  4. Cleared "straight in" by the controller
 
roncachamp said:
The pilot thinking it to be unsafe does not necessarily constitute an emergency. If it did a pilot could decline any instruction he did not like.
Click to expand...
Big difference between not liking and being unsafe. Ask Chris Eden.
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/3932.pdf
Any time you say it's not safe to disobey an ATC instruction, you are subject to further review. Generally, they do not second-guess pilots unless it's obviously bogus, as it was in Mr. Eden's case, but if that happens, you're toast (e.g., Mr. Eden's revocation). So when I was at 3000 MSL about 3 miles east of ENO VOR and the controller cleared me "straight in" on this approach:
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1306/05365V27.PDF
...I politely declined to attempt a 600 ft/nm descent gradient to make the 1200 MSL altitude at ENO (the FAF). And when I spoke to the facility manager the next day, he agreed that I did the right thing and his controllers would be briefed not to do that again. OTOH, when the controller got me established on the ETX VOR 283 radial about 3 miles west of ETX at 3000 MSL and cleared me "straight in" for this approach:
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1306/05171VB.PDF
...I was happy to comply without thinking twice about whether or not that clearance was "authorized" by 7110.65.

It's all about good judgment on the part of the PIC.
 
roncachamp said:
Direct routes within NAVAID limits are okay for aircraft without GPS but not those that do have GPS? I don't see where this discussion became limited to GPS. Can you point it out for me?
Click to expand...
Where it says in 7110.65 that these "straight in" procedures are limited to advanced RNAV aircraft, and the only way to navigate to these fixes is with advanced RNAV equipment. Yes, we know that not all advanced RNAV equipment relies on GPS, but the restriction is the same for them, too.

I suppose in theory that if the fix more than 3 miles up the final approach course from the FAF is a VOR, a non-GPS aircraft could navigate direct to that navaid, but a) that's not authorized in 7110.65, and b) it would be a very rare and possibly non-existent case (although if you can show us one, please do).
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
When it's published as part of the approach, and you're not:
  1. Getting vectors to final, or
  2. Already holding at the fix at the depicted altitude, or
  3. On an NoPT route, or
  4. Cleared "straight in" by the controller
Click to expand...

Yeah, this. I really don't understand how this could be confusing. If you don't have the "big four" then you do it. That's instruments 101.
 
azure said:
Because not all of the information on the flight plan form is seen by ATC. If the PIC name is not intended to be part of the strip, then putting it in the remarks behind the pilot's back is giving ATC more information then they need to have.

Maybe "privacy violation" isn't the right way to describe it. But it is certainly not appropriate IMHO for FF to give information to ATC or anyone else that is not required by law, and without the pilot's knowledge.
Click to expand...

The FAA is entitled to have all of the information you put on a flight plan, and ATC is an FAA function. (I'm not saying that ATC needs to have the information, however.)

I do think it could be regarded as a violation of privacy for ATC to use pilots' names over the radio. If Foreflight can't be persuaded to change their ways, perhaps controllers should be instructed not to do that.
 
Velocity173 said:
Yeah, this. I really don't understand how this could be confusing. If you don't have the "big four" then you do it. That's instruments 101.
Click to expand...
Apparently it confuses Steven. If anyone other than him has any further questions on this, I'll be happy to answer, but I will not be responding further to him.
 
Wow. I've only been flying approaches for many decades and I never knew it was so complicated.
( for the cognitively impaired that was sarcasm)
 
Ron Levy said:
Big difference between not liking and being unsafe. Ask Chris Eden.
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/o_n_o/docs/Aviation/3932.pdf
Any time you say it's not safe to disobey an ATC instruction, you are subject to further review. Generally, they do not second-guess pilots unless it's obviously bogus, as it was in Mr. Eden's case, but if that happens, you're toast (e.g., Mr. Eden's revocation). So when I was at 3000 MSL about 3 miles east of ENO VOR and the controller cleared me "straight in" on this approach:
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1306/05365V27.PDF
...I politely declined to attempt a 600 ft/nm descent gradient to make the 1200 MSL altitude at ENO (the FAF). And when I spoke to the facility manager the next day, he agreed that I did the right thing and his controllers would be briefed not to do that again. OTOH, when the controller got me established on the ETX VOR 283 radial about 3 miles west of ETX at 3000 MSL and cleared me "straight in" for this approach:
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1306/05171VB.PDF
...I was happy to comply without thinking twice about whether or not that clearance was "authorized" by 7110.65.

It's all about good judgment on the part of the PIC.
Click to expand...

The point is thinking it is unsafe is not the exception.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top