How to do an unnecessary procedure turn?

[luvflyin]

I would have thought this procedure would have been replaced with a HILPT. Usually you only see procedure turn barbs when the navaid is on airport.

There’s hundreds of Procedure Turns that start at off airport fixes/navaids. Why make an HILPT if it’s not needed. Usually the only reason they are is some obstructions that would interfere with going out 10 NM. If you want to do the ‘equivalent’ of an HILPT, you’re more than welcome to. Just do it on the ‘barb side.’

 

[flyingron]

But getting to the approach in question, there's a regular (barbed) procedure turn. The hold depicted at the IAF is for the missed approach. Yes you must make the procedure turn in this case unless getting vectors to final. Even if you arrive on the 232 radial.

However, since it's a barbed depiction of the PT you can do anything you want on that side of the course. You could use the coincidentally depicted hold for that as near as I can tell.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

Remember, you can always ask the ATC controller. "Can I get a straight in?" The worst thing that will happen is the controller telling you they can't approve that. Communication with ATC solves most PT questions.

 

[FastEddieB]

Not sure what you're getting at. I was saying that the trend was toward favoring HILPTs with vanilla procedure turns being less common.

Sorry. I thought that when you said “Usually you only see procedure turn barbs when the navaid is on airport.” I took it to mean usually you only see procedure turn barbs when the navaid is on airport.

Which is still not true. Unless you meant something different.

 

[dmspilot]

Sorry. I thought that when you said “Usually you only see procedure turn barbs when the navaid is on airport.” I took it to mean usually you only see procedure turn barbs when the navaid is on airport.

Which is still not true. Unless you meant something different.

Did the English language change such that the word "usually" means "always"?

 

[FastEddieB]

Try that image search.

Many, many approaches without the navaid on the field still have a procedure turn. Maybe even a majority.

But I’ll admit that “usually you only see...” is a strange construct and I suppose open to interpretation.

 

[PPC1052]

However, I also want to say it doesn't matter because you should still be at altitude to maintain automatic obstacle clearance and shouldn't be descending til in the procedure turn/inbound anyways.

Not necessarily true. If you get, "proceed direct PEASE, maintain 5000, cleared for the VOR-A", you would fly at 5000 feet to the VOR, turn to the outbound radial, once established on the outbound radial, you would descend to 3000 before you do the procedure turn.

 

[aterpster]

Remember, you can always ask the ATC controller. "Can I get a straight in?" The worst thing that will happen is the controller telling you they can't approve that. Communication with ATC solves most PT questions.

He can't clear you for a straight-in unless he vectors you to final. I doubt he can do that with this procedure because it is probably not on his video map. Having said that he might say "cleared as requested." That doesn't mean it's legal or even safe from a descent gradient standpoint.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

He can't clear you for a straight-in unless he vectors you to final. I doubt he can do that with this procedure because it is probably not on his video map. Having said that he might say "cleared as requested." That doesn't mean it's legal or even safe from a descent gradient standpoint.

Just curious, what is the FAR would you be breaking if you did go straight in?

 

[Wheels]

Just curious, what is the FAR would you be breaking if you did go straight in?

If you were cleared for an approach that had a mandatory procedure turn and you decided to go straight in without making the turn you would be in violation of 91.123.

§91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.
(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

If you were cleared for an approach that had a mandatory procedure turn and you decided to go straight in without making the turn you would be in violation of 91.123.

§91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.
(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory.

Great! And help me out here while I put all the puzzle pieces together. So if someone asks the controller “hey man can I go straight in” and the controller says anything other than “I need you to do the procedure turn” you aren’t breaking any Fars? That was my question to Astro and he said that you’d still be breaking FARS.

 

[aterpster]

Just curious, what is the FAR would you be breaking if you did go straight in?

Part 97.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

"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."
So if you cross an IAF- ((1) Initial approach is the segment between the initial approach fix and the intermediate fix or the point where the aircraft is established on the intermediate course or final approach course). In this case the IAF is the VOR and you can establish inbound without it being necessary to reverse direction, AND the controller told you to go straight in or "proceed as requested". I'm failing to see how that is breaking a law.

Reading part 97, its dead clear that a procedure turn is prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish oneself on either the intermediate or FINAL approach course. This particular situation it can be determined the plane can go from the IAF and establish on the final approach course without course reversal.

As I said before, its best to clarify with the controller here because if the controller is expecting you to go inbound and you do a u turn, they are going to ask what you are doing.

In the real world, I'd be asking for a straight in if im at around 3000', If they want me to cross at 5000' I'm going to ask them to do the procedure turn. That VOR is 2 fixes in one, there is one where the next course goes outbound and another where it goes inbound, should be clear to both you and the controller which of those two you are crossing

 

[MauleSkinner]

Great! And help me out here while I put all the puzzle pieces together. So if someone asks the controller “hey man can I go straight in” and the controller says anything other than “I need you to do the procedure turn” you aren’t breaking any Fars? That was my question to Astro and he said that you’d still be breaking FARS.

There's always

§91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.
(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United States military aircraft.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Just curious, what is the FAR would you be breaking if you did go straight in?

91.175(a). That's the one which requires you to "use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97." Implicit in that is a requirement to do what the chart says, and explicit in guidance and official interpretation (such as this 1994 one) is that this includes a depicted procedure turn unless one of the conditions in 91.175(j) exists.

And yes, you are not the only one to argue that pilots, not the chart designers, get to "prescribe" procedure turns. As Wally said, this argument has been going on for a few decades. The practical bottom line is, just like going below minimums or using a handheld GPS to shoot approaches, no harm usually means no foul. So long as you and ATC are on the same page. ATC might well clear straight in on this one, treating "direct PSM" as a pseudo vector (notice the Legal interpretation talks about a non-radar environment). But that's about deciding it's ok to break it, rather than about what the rule is.

 

[aterpster]

Not necessarily true. If you get, "proceed direct PEASE, maintain 5000, cleared for the VOR-A", you would fly at 5000 feet to the VOR, turn to the outbound radial, once established on the outbound radial, you would descend to 3000 before you do the procedure turn.

As soon as you begin the turn over

91.175(a). That's the one which requires you to "use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97." Implicit in that is a requirement to do what the chart says, and explicit in guidance and official interpretation (such as this 1994 one) is that this includes a depicted procedure turn unless one of the conditions in 91.175(j) exists.

And yes, you are not the only one to argue that pilots, not the chart designers, get to "prescribe" procedure turns. As Wally said, this argument has been going on for a few decades. The practical bottom line is, just like going below minimums or using a handheld GPS to shoot approaches, no harm usually means no foul. So long as you and ATC are on the same page. ATC might well clear straight in on this one, treating "direct PSM" as a pseudo vector (notice the Legal interpretation talks about a non-radar environment). But that's about deciding it's ok to break it, rather than about what the rule is.

Neither pilots, nor chart designers, decide on course reversals. The procedures designers in OKC develop the procedures, then prescribe it on an official FAR 97 form, which is noticed in the federal register as an amendment to Part 97.

Attached are the two regulatory source documents for 3B4. Note that the RNAV procedure has three IAFs and one feeder fix (PSM). Any of these four fixes are fixes from which the approach may commence. Note on the VOR-A source there are no terminal routes so Line 1 controls. (PSM-procedure turn-PSM, etc.) Line 1 makes PSM the sole IAF, Line 3 makes PSM the FAF.

 

[PPC1052]

As soon as you begin the turn over

I am dense, and not picking up the qualification you are making. Are you saying as soon as you begin the turn toward the outbound radial, you can start descending from 5000 to 3000 in my hypothetical clearance?

 

[FastEddieB]

You must be established on a published leg before descending. IOW, needle centered outbound.

I think.

 

[aterpster]

I am dense, and not picking up the qualification you are making. Are you saying as soon as you begin the turn toward the outbound radial, you can start descending from 5000 to 3000 in my hypothetical clearance?

The procedure turn area is divided into two areas, the entry zone and the maneuvering zone. (TERPs attached.) If there is a restriction on altitude until completing the entry, it would be noted in the profile of the IAP, such as the 10,000 entry zone restriction at Livingston, Montana. Since there is no such restriction on the VOR-A you are free to descend to 3,000 during the procedure turn entry. (Livingston profile view in attachment below TERPs for PT.)

 

[jaybee]

Jeebus Christmas...

This procedure can be flown without a GPS and without RADAR guidance.

If that were the case then station passage is the only way to know where you are in space other than dead reckoning...

As Wally said, if you were coming from the south and cleared "proceed direct PEASE, maintain 5000, cleared for the VOR-A" then

1. you would stay at 5000 until station passage (now you know where you are in space...)
2. then you can use the holding pattern as a procedure turn (because a racetrack IS a procedure turn as Bob said)
3. you can then descend to 3000 (because you passed the station and are on the "protected" side indicated by the barb)
4. once established on the inbound course you can descend to 1500
5. once you pass the station again it is now an IAF and you can descend to 720

PS - Its not UNECESSARY(post title) in fact it might even be life saving...

 

[PPC1052]

The procedure turn area is divided into two areas, the entry zone and the maneuvering zone. (TERPs attached.) If there is a restriction on altitude until completing the entry, it would be noted in the profile of the IAP, such as the 10,000 entry zone restriction at Livingston, Montana. Since there is no such restriction on the VOR-A you are free to descend to 3,000 during the procedure turn entry. (Livingston profile view in attachment below TERPs for PT.)

Thanks. I think I understand now. Although, isn't the altitude restriction for MODOC at Livinston at or below 10,000?

 

[PPC1052]

You must be established on a published leg before descending. IOW, needle centered outbound.

I think.

That was my assumption in my first post. But I think Aterpster has set me straight. No need to be established outbound before descending to 3000 on the VOR-A 3B4 approach. So, as soon as you pass the IAF, you can descend to 3000 and start your turn to intercept the outbound radial at the same time.

 

[FastEddieB]

So, as soon as you pass the IAF, you can descend to 3000 and start your turn to intercept the outbound radial at the same time.

That goes against what I remember being taught, and then went on to teach. That being on a published portion of the approach was necessary to descend to the depicted minimum altitude for that portion. And in the turn, you may be on the holding side, and you may have a minimum sector altitude, but not be on a published portion of the approach.

All with the caveat I have not flown IFR in over a decade, nor necessarily kept up with the finer intricacies. But if I can find something supporting my position, I’ll post it here.

 

[PPC1052]

That goes against what I remember being taught, and then went on to teach. That being on a published portion of the approach was necessary to descend to the depicted minimum altitude for that portion. And in the turn, you may be on the holding side, and you may have a minimum sector altitude, but not be on a published portion of the approach.

All with the caveat I have not flown IFR in over a decade, nor necessarily kept up with the finer intricacies. But if I can find something supporting my position, I’ll post it here.

I certainly see no downside to getting established on the outbound before descending, and that was my initial thought as to what was required. If you find something, I would like to see it. Thanks.

 

[FastEddieB]

Let’s see if this supports me:

91.175 (i)
“When operating on an unpublished route or while being radar vectored, the pilot, when an approach clearance is received, shall, in addition to complying with Sec. 91.177, maintain the last altitude assigned to that pilot until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC. After the aircraft is so established, published altitudes apply to descent within each succeeding route or approach segment unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC.”

(Bolded mine)

I really think if you began descent after crossing the VOR but before established on course outbound, you would be in violation, and probably flunk a checkride as well.

 

[aterpster]

Thanks. I think I understand now. Although, isn't the altitude restriction for MODOC at Livinston at or below 10,000?

You're right. Either they did it wrong or it's for some reason I don't understand. Check KJAC ILS Y Runway 19. I'm not good at reading FAA charts.

 

[aterpster]

I certainly see no downside to getting established on the outbound before descending, and that was my initial thought as to what was required. If you find something, I would like to see it. Thanks.

Let’s see if this supports me:

91.175 (i)
“When operating on an unpublished route or while being radar vectored, the pilot, when an approach clearance is received, shall, in addition to complying with Sec. 91.177, maintain the last altitude assigned to that pilot until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC. After the aircraft is so established, published altitudes apply to descent within each succeeding route or approach segment unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC.”

(Bolded mine)

I really think if you began descent after crossing the VOR but before established on course outbound, you would be in violation, and probably flunk a checkride as well.

Then, that examiner of DPE needs some more training. Perhaps Russ will chime in.

 

[FastEddieB]

Then, that examiner of DPE needs some more training. Perhaps Russ will chime in.

That's possible. It may have been changed or reinterpreted. But that language looks pretty clear to me, though I guess it depends on what "segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure" means.

 

[jaybee]

Let’s see if this supports me:

91.175 (i)
“When operating on an unpublished route or while being radar vectored, the pilot, when an approach clearance is received, shall, in addition to complying with Sec. 91.177, maintain the last altitude assigned to that pilot until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC. After the aircraft is so established, published altitudes apply to descent within each succeeding route or approach segment unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC.”

(Bolded mine)

I really think if you began descent after crossing the VOR but before established on course outbound, you would be in violation, and probably flunk a checkride as well.

Or Instrument approach procedure

Procedure turn is part of the procedure

 

[PPC1052]

I guess it depends on what "segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure" means.

That's exactly the question I was thinking to myself.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

This is a really good thread

 

[PPC1052]

If there is a restriction on altitude until completing the entry, it would be noted in the profile of the IAP

One more question, does it matter which way you turn after crossing PEASE to go outbound, given that there is no altitude restriction at PEASE in the profile view on the approach plate? Obviously, if you are coming from the south and then you turn to the right after station passage, you are essentially entering the published hold. Maybe stated a little differently, is the reason you can descend related to the protected area for the published hold on the south side of the radial?

 

[Radar Contact]

I doubt he can do that with this procedure because it is probably not on his video map.

I guess it depends on the facility. At our facility all of our approaches (to include VOR) have their own video map we can toggle up easily.

I agree, if you are coming in for what seems the straight in just ask the controller if you can get clearance for the straight-in. On this VOR approach it will result in a legal intercept vector to the final and an alt to maintain till established and clearance. I will always ask on initial vectors assuming most want the straight-in unless it is a training flight.

 

[aterpster]

One more question, does it matter which way you turn after crossing PEASE to go outbound, given that there is no altitude restriction at PEASE in the profile view on the approach plate? Obviously, if you are coming from the south and then you turn to the right after station passage, you are essentially entering the published hold. Maybe stated a little differently, is the reason you can descend related to the protected area for the published hold on the south side of the radial?

You have to turn outbound on the barbed (PT) side.

 

[RussR]

Then, that examiner of DPE needs some more training. Perhaps Russ will chime in.

I agree with Wally in that once you cross the PT fix (the NAVAID in this case), you are now within the published entry area of the PT and can descend to the published PT altitude. Since there is no requirement you fly the depicted 45/180 pattern, you are free to commence with whatever style of "PT" you like, as long as you do it on the depicted side of the course and stay within 10 nm. And, if that's true, then there's no explicit requirement for you to even fly that outbound course.

However, I also agree with @FastEddieB that it may likely surprise the DPE, and would take a very well-informed applicant to be able to explain this, and that's not an argument I'd want to get into on a checkride. Safer to just wait until established on the outbound course.

 

[aterpster]

I guess it depends on the facility. At our facility all of our approaches (to include VOR) have their own video map we can toggle up easily.

I agree, if you are coming in for what seems the straight in just ask the controller if you can get clearance for the straight-in. On this VOR approach it will result in a legal intercept vector to the final and an alt to maintain till established and clearance. I will always ask on initial vectors assuming most want the straight-in unless it is a training flight.

I presume you would provide a heading and state it is for vectors to final.

 

[aterpster]

That's possible. It may have been changed or reinterpreted. But that language looks pretty clear to me, though I guess it depends on what "segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure" means.

Attached is the pertinent page from the 2017 FAA IPH:

 

[aterpster]

Thanks. I think I understand now. Although, isn't the altitude restriction for MODOC at Livinston at or below 10,000?

My brain unfaded. When a PT says "at or below" it's because the designer didn't want to use the largest of three procedure turn templates. Another example is the KALW ILS Y Runway 20.

 

[RussR]

You're right. Either they did it wrong or it's for some reason I don't understand. Check KJAC ILS Y Runway 19. I'm not good at reading FAA charts.

Looking at the surrounding terrain, that maximum altitude is likely because above 10,000 MSL, a larger PT template is used. This larger PT template would raise the PT altitudes. Publishing that maximum entry altitude allowed the developer to use the template size for 6000-10000 MSL. Ref: 8260.3D, para 2-4-5 and associated figures and tables.

Edit - nevermind!

 

[FastEddieB]

Attached is the pertinent page from the 2017 FAA IPH:

Well, I stand corrected! Is this a (relatively) new interpretation, or did I have it wrong for all these years?