Holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn

M

mxalix258

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
77
Display Name
Display name:
mxalix258
My instructor asked me the other day, if I am doing an approach with a HPILPT, but I am established on the inbound course prior to the fix, could proceed straight in? My answer was Yes, but I wasn't sure. He then asked if I was 30 degrees off course, could I proceed straight in after the fix? I wasn't sure, and he said anytime it was considered a "direct-entry" I could proceed straight in.

I wasn't sure if that made sense, so I wanted to ask you guys. If within the 70 degrees that could be considered a direct entry, do I assume that I will just go straight in?

Also, what would the controller say in this type of situation? "Go direct XYZ and proceed straight in"? or would it be assumed?

I know it can be fairly important to be on the same page with the controller on intent to hold or not, so I just want to be sure of what the proper procedure is.

Thanks!
 
mxalix258 said:
My instructor asked me the other day, if I am doing an approach with a HPILPT, but I am established on the inbound course prior to the fix, could proceed straight in? My answer was Yes, but I wasn't sure. He then asked if I was 30 degrees off course, could I proceed straight in after the fix? I wasn't sure, and he said anytime it was considered a "direct-entry" I could proceed straight in.

I wasn't sure if that made sense, so I wanted to ask you guys. If within the 70 degrees that could be considered a direct entry, do I assume that I will just go straight in?

Also, what would the controller say in this type of situation? "Go direct XYZ and proceed straight in"? or would it be assumed?

I know it can be fairly important to be on the same page with the controller on intent to hold or not, so I just want to be sure of what the proper procedure is.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
The answer is "it depends". The first thing to consider is what the approach chart says. If there's a "NoPT" label on the transition or intermediate leg you're flying (or the sector of a TAA) you're expected to skip the HILPT, otherwise under certain conditions ATC can approve or assign a straight in but you shouldn't just skip it on your own.
 
The HILPT is required unless you are in a TAA sector or on a published route that is marked NoPT on the approach plate, are being given vectors to final, or are cleared straight in by ATC.
 
azure said:
The HILPT is required unless you are in a TAA sector or on a published route that is marked NoPT on the approach plate, are being given vectors to final, or are cleared straight in by ATC.
Click to expand...

Required by what?
 
Dean V said:
AIM 5-4-9a, 91.175 (a) and (j).
Click to expand...

AIM 5-4-9.a. says; "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course." That makes sense, but we're discussing the situation where the aircraft is already established on the inbound course so a course reversal is not necessary. The next sentence of that paragraph is a bit of a puzzler; "The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart, unless cleared by ATC for a straight-in approach. It's required when not necessary?

91.175(a) says nothing about course reversals. 91.175(j) says when they are prohibited, not a word on when they are required.
 
Dean V said:
91.175(a) says you must use a standard instrument approach procedure. There are instrument procedures where PTs are depicted and some where PTs are not. When PTs are depicted, they are required as part of the procedure (91.175a) unless (j) is applicable. I agree the FAA does a poor job in the communication.
Click to expand...

So if not vectored, not on a timed approach from a holding fix, and not on a NoPT route, a depicted PT must be flown even when a controller includes "straight-in" as part of the clearance?
 
Dean V said:
AIM 5-3-8, 5-4-9a, 91.175 (a) and (j).
Click to expand...
The answer to the OP's question is there, after a number of attempts to clarify it.

A PT is required when depicted on the approach chart unless it fits into (a) one of the 91.175 categories where a PT is not permitted or (b) you are cleared "straight in" by your approach controller.

The "optional PT" that mxalix258's CFI argues for, where a pilot simply decides on his own that he doesn't need it and ignores it doesn't even make sense. From a regulatory standpoint, "this rule applies unless the pilot decides it shouldn't" makes no sense.And from an operational standpoint, neither does "do what you want on an instrument flight plan without being on the same page as ATC."
 
Dean V said:
Yes, the controller should advise the pilot he is being vectored prior to issuing a SI clearance. Although we both know that is not application.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about instances where the aircraft has been vectored.
 
mxalix258 said:
Also, what would the controller say in this type of situation? "Go direct XYZ and proceed straight in"? or would it be assumed?!
Click to expand...
If you are not being vectored to the final approach course and are not cleared via a NoPT routing, you would be looking for ATC to say "straight in" as part of the instructions. If you don't hear it and think straight in makes sense, ask for it.

The problem has been around for years, with pilots for the most part knowing what the rule requires them to do and controllers thinking that a "pseudo-vector" direct to the FAF suffices without more. The solution has never been for one to try to change the other's mind; just to make sure we are both on the same page by communicating.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The answer to the OP's question is there, after a number of attempts to clarify it.

A PT is required when depicted on the approach chart unless it fits into (a) one of the 91.175 categories where a PT is not permitted or (b) you are cleared "straight in" by your approach controller.

The "optional PT" that mxalix258's CFI argues for, where a pilot simply decides on his own that he doesn't need it and ignores it doesn't even make sense. From a regulatory standpoint, "this rule applies unless the pilot decides it shouldn't" makes no sense.And from an operational standpoint, neither does "do what you want on an instrument flight plan without being on the same page as ATC."
Click to expand...

From a regulatory standpoint, it's never stated when a PT is required, only when it is prohibited.
 
Last edited:
This was already discussed a couple months ago. First, it's covered in the FAA Instrument Procedures Handbook. Second, the FAA issued an amendment that was effective on June 3, clarifying the "straight-in" phraseology requirement in 4-8-1 in the .65.
 
Okay, I think I understand. So given this approach:

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1306/05877VA.PDF

If I am coming in from the north, and established on the 004* radial, and the controller says:

1) Cessna 124 cleared for the VOR-A approach into culpepper, frequency change approved

even though I'm flying straight in, with this clearance I should execute the approach with the HILPT

2) Cessna 123 cleared straight in VOR-A, frequency change approved

after passing the IAF, I should continue straight in on the approach

Right?
 
mxalix258 said:
Okay, I think I understand. So given this approach:

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1306/05877VA.PDF

If I am coming in from the north, and established on the 004* radial, and the controller says:

1) Cessna 124 cleared for the VOR-A approach into culpepper, frequency change approved

even though I'm flying straight in, with this clearance I should execute the approach with the HILPT

2) Cessna 123 cleared straight in VOR-A, frequency change approved

after passing the IAF, I should continue straight in on the approach

Right?
Click to expand...

Correct. Realize also that the straight in approach clearance has nothing to do with the circling mins for this particular approach. You're simply doing an approach without doing an HILPT first.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The answer to the OP's question is there, after a number of attempts to clarify it.

A PT is required when depicted on the approach chart unless it fits into (a) one of the 91.175 categories where a PT is not permitted or (b) you are cleared "straight in" by your approach controller.[
Click to expand...
100% correct.

The "optional PT" that mxalix258's CFI argues for, where a pilot simply decides on his own that he doesn't need it and ignores it doesn't even make sense. From a regulatory standpoint, "this rule applies unless the pilot decides it shouldn't" makes no sense.And from an operational standpoint, neither does "do what you want on an instrument flight plan without being on the same page as ATC."
Click to expand...
For example of the sort of problems that would arise from that situation, see the
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/cb/cb_363.pdf
Click to expand...
.

To summarize, when an HPILPT is depicted, it must be flown (i.e., you must cross the fix twice and only twice before continuing) unless one of the following four conditions exist, and if they do, it most not be flown (i.e., you must cross the fix only once again):
  1. You are on a NoPT route.
  2. You are on vectors to final.
  3. You are already in the hold at the depicted holding altitude.
  4. ATC clears you "straight in".
Note that ATC's authority to issue "straight in" clearances to GPS-equipped aircraft was recently expanded, so you may now get such clearances in situations where it was not authorized before. I've got an article in work for IFR Refresher on that.
 
roncachamp said:
From a regulatory standpoint, it's never stated when a PT is required, only when it is prohibited.
Click to expand...
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.
 
mxalix258 said:
Okay, I think I understand. So given this approach:

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1306/05877VA.PDF

If I am coming in from the north, and established on the 004* radial, and the controller says:

1) Cessna 124 cleared for the VOR-A approach into culpepper, frequency change approved

even though I'm flying straight in, with this clearance I should execute the approach with the HILPT
Click to expand...
Correct.

2) Cessna 123 cleared straight in VOR-A, frequency change approved
Click to expand...
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.
 
mxalix258 said:
Okay, I think I understand. So given this approach:

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1306/05877VA.PDF

If I am coming in from the north, and established on the 004* radial, and the controller says:

2) Cessna 123 cleared straight in VOR-A, frequency change approved

after passing the IAF, I should continue straight in on the approach

Right?
Click to expand...
Do you really want that? The MSA implies you'll be at 4,000' or higher, but the PT altitude is 2,900'. This is a VOR-A, i.e., no DME, approach. Luckily it's long enough you might pull it out, but is accepting such a thing a habit you want to be in?

dtuuri
 
mxalix258 said:
Okay, I think I understand. So given this approach:

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1306/05877VA.PDF

If I am coming in from the north, and established on the 004* radial, and the controller says:

1) Cessna 124 cleared for the VOR-A approach into culpepper, frequency change approved

even though I'm flying straight in, with this clearance I should execute the approach with the HILPT

2) Cessna 123 cleared straight in VOR-A, frequency change approved

after passing the IAF, I should continue straight in on the approach

Right?
Click to expand...

The first clearance requires the HILPT to be flown.

The second clearance used to be a bad idea that controllers would sometimes issue. Now their current guidance explicitly doesn't permit it.

From JO 7110.615 effective June 3, 2013:

c. Except for visual approaches, do not clear an aircraft direct to the FAF unless it is also an IAF, wherein the aircraft is expected to execute the depicted procedure turn or hold-in-lieu of procedure turn.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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 recent chief counsel opinion says that we have to follow the controller's instructions, and does not mention any exception for instructions that the pilot believes are not authorized in 7110.65.
 
Palmpilot said:
But the recent chief counsel opinion says that we have to follow the controller's instructions, and does not mention any exception for instructions that the pilot believes are not authorized in 7110.65.
Click to expand...
You are correct, as long as the pilot thinks it's not unsafe, and the issue of whether or not it is authorized by 7110.65 is not relevant if the PIC thinks it's unsafe to do what the clearance says. That is why I said "whether you choose to accept that clearance is up to you." If a controller issues a clearance which I think is unsafe, I'll use that "unable" word and if needed explain why, and I won't care what 7110.65 says.

IOW, if a controller tells me to turn left heading 230 and that goes straight into a thunderstorm, or to climb and maintain 9000 when the ice starts above 8000, even if it's properly phrased and authorized by 7110.65, it ain't happening. OTOH, if I'm VFR in Class E space and the controller says "maintain at or above 3500" and there's no safety reason not to do it, I'm doing it without worrying about whether or not 7110.65 specifically authorizes that controller to issue that instruction.

So, if I'm at 5000 10 miles west of East Texas VOR headed north and the controller says "turn right 080, join the East Texas 283 radial, maintain 3000 until established, cleared straight in VOR-B approach," and I see no safety reason not to do it (my biggest concern probably being whether or not I can be down to 3000 before ETX), I'll accept that clearance, join the 283 radial, fly it to ETX, and continue straight in for the final segment, and have a clear conscience as I do it.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like you have your priorities in the correct order.
 
What's more important about the new changes, I think, is that they can now clear you direct to any of the fixes after the IAF, prior to the FAF, not just IF's. That's not just on RNAV approaches, either.
 
Just get VTF and not worry about it.
 
Dean V said:
True, but if you filed /U, I doubt you will get such a clearance.
Click to expand...
Probably not, but controllers these days sometimes assume everyone's /G and don't check before they clear. IIRC, your equipment suffix does not show on the scope, only on the strip so it's not as obvious to the controller as pilots might think.
 
There are other requirements for being cleared direct to a step down fix between the IF and the FAF. The aircraft must be RNAV equipped. Most important, the angle to the step down can't exceed 30 degrees. I am not sure how much utility this will have as the controller has to essentially do the same work the would for vectors to final in getting the aircraft into position to be able to clear it direct to the fix.
 
Velocity173 said:
Just get VTF and not worry about it.
Click to expand...
Sure - if it's available.

My favorite IFR cross country was exactly that: my student figured he's get VTF. Controller cleared him to an IAF and for the approach. Student asked for VTF. Center informed him radar coverage wasn't available at that altitude.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Sure - if it's available.

My favorite IFR cross country was exactly that: my student figured he's get VTF. Controller cleared him to an IAF and for the approach. Student asked for VTF. Center informed him radar coverage wasn't available at that altitude.
Click to expand...
If radar monitoring is not available, those off-route direct-fix clearances inside the IAF aren't, either.
 
Ron Levy said:
Probably not, but controllers these days sometimes assume everyone's /G and don't check before they clear. IIRC, your equipment suffix does not show on the scope, only on the strip so it's not as obvious to the controller as pilots might think.
Click to expand...

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.
 
mxalix258 said:
Okay, I think I understand. So given this approach:

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1306/05877VA.PDF

If I am coming in from the north, and established on the 004* radial, and the controller says:

1) Cessna 124 cleared for the VOR-A approach into culpepper, frequency change approved

even though I'm flying straight in, with this clearance I should execute the approach with the HILPT

2) Cessna 123 cleared straight in VOR-A, frequency change approved

after passing the IAF, I should continue straight in on the approach

Right?
Click to expand...

Can you imagine why ATC might prefer clearance 1 over clearance 2?
 
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...
Only time I've ever had a controller other than at my home 'drome do that was when I had my name in the remarks block (have to do that when my IR trainees use DUATS -- can't change the pilot's name in the name block).
 
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...
I've never heard of that and it is VERY strange. Assuming it wasn't some controller who recognized your tail number playing a prank, it sounds as if FF inserted your name into the remarks on DUATS before submitting the flight plan on your behalf. It might be worth emailing them for an explanation. That sounds like a highly undesirable feature if it's true, even a violation of your privacy.

Do you have your FF account configured with your DUATS account info? If not, then it uses a FF DUATS account to file your flight plan. This is just total wild speculation, but maybe in that case it uses a field that ends up in the remarks box to identify your flight plan. Strange, though, that it would use your name in text form for that purpose.
 
I don't see how it could be considered a violation of privacy when the flight plan form requires the pilot's name in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top