Interesting GPS approach at KMTV

W. Stewart

W. Stewart

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
268
Location
NC
Display Name
Display name:
W. Stewart
I saw this approach today, and thought it was interesting in that it did not have any alignment procedures at the IAF (no T-shaped feeders, or sectors marked "no PT", or a holding pattern depicted).

Martinsville, VA KMTV. RNAV(GPS) RW30

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1310/05648R30.PDF

I would like to hear the opinions of some folks on here what they would do if they were approaching the IAF from the West/North sectors.

Would you:

A: use the hold depicted for the Missed Approach hold to reverse course?

B: fly to ULAKE and turn towards the inbound course in whatever the shortest direction is?

C: sorta fly past ULAKE in a wide sweeping circle to intersect the inbound course prior to flying over ULAKE?


Wells
 
Since there is no depicted course reversal (the holding pattern as depicted is solely for missed approach holding), assuming I was cleared direct ULAKE coming from any direction (the controller's only legal option IAW 7110.65 other than to give you vectors to final, in which case the question would not arise), I would proceed direct to ULAKE, cross ULAKE, and then turn in the shortest direction to intercept and track the course from ULAKE to UBWAY. Nothing else complies with the approach as published and your clearance. Notice that there is a "Procedure Turn NA" note in the profile view to confirm this.
 
W. Stewart said:
I saw this approach today, and thought it was interesting in that it did not have any alignment procedures at the IAF (no T-shaped feeders, or sectors marked "no PT", or a holding pattern depicted).

Martinsville, VA KMTV. RNAV(GPS) RW30

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1310/05648R30.PDF

I would like to hear the opinions of some folks on here what they would do if they were approaching the IAF from the West/North sectors.

Would you:

A: use the hold depicted for the Missed Approach hold to reverse course?

B: fly to ULAKE and turn towards the inbound course in whatever the shortest direction is?

C: sorta fly past ULAKE in a wide sweeping circle to intersect the inbound course prior to flying over ULAKE?
Click to expand...

D: be vectored to the FAC.
 
Coming from the NW through east, I'd consider getting a clearance to ENTUK or LEAKS and to ULAKE from there.

(edited: somehow got the IAF wrong the first time).
 
Last edited:
I would either get vectors to the final approach course or consider flying to an airway to end up joining V143, then to ULAKE. Don't look at approach procedures in isolation without considering the nearby airway structure. ULAKE is on V143. The hold at ULAKE is a missed approach hold and not a HILPT, so if you want to use it to perform a course reversal, ask ATC for permission.
 
John Collins said:
I would either get vectors to the final approach course or consider flying to an airway to end up joining V143, then to ULAKE.
Click to expand...
Why would you not just go direct ULAKE and turn in the shortest direction to intercept and fly the leg from ULAKE to UBWAY? Should be a piece of cake with any IFR approach GPS.
 
Ron Levy said:
Since there is no depicted course reversal (the holding pattern as depicted is solely for missed approach holding), assuming I was cleared direct ULAKE coming from any direction (the controller's only legal option IAW 7110.65 other than to give you vectors to final, in which case the question would not arise), I would proceed direct to ULAKE, cross ULAKE, and then turn in the shortest direction to intercept and track the course from ULAKE to UBWAY. Nothing else complies with the approach as published and your clearance. Notice that there is a "Procedure Turn NA" note in the profile view to confirm this.
Click to expand...

The maneuver you describe fits the definition of procedure turn.
 
Ron Levy said:
Why would you not just go direct ULAKE and turn in the shortest direction to intercept and fly the leg from ULAKE to UBWAY? Should be a piece of cake with any IFR approach GPS.
Click to expand...

ULAKE is in Victor 143. The airway meets TERPs alignment requirements in both directions.

End of case, design wise.
 
Jepp chart:

JeppMTVRNAV30_zps6a421060.jpg
 
midlifeflyer said:
Interesting the Jepp chart does not contain the "Procedure Turn NA" reminder that the FAA chart does. Guess Jepp thinks the pilots who use them are knowledgeable enough to not need it.
Click to expand...

They never have.
 
John Collins said:
I would either get vectors to the final approach course or consider flying to an airway to end up joining V143, then to ULAKE. Don't look at approach procedures in isolation without considering the nearby airway structure. ULAKE is on V143. The hold at ULAKE is a missed approach hold and not a HILPT, so if you want to use it to perform a course reversal, ask ATC for permission.
Click to expand...

aterpster said:
ULAKE is in Victor 143. The airway meets TERPs alignment requirements in both directions.

End of case, design wise.
Click to expand...

What they said. I'd file to end up on V143/V136/V258 to arrive at ENTUK from the North, or LEAKS from the South via V20 or V143, and you basically have your classic GPS T to ULAKE.

 
Last edited:
jkgoblue said:
Where are these reporting points? I can't seem to find them on any STAR or chart.
Click to expand...
I got the wrong fix for the IAF and subsequently picked the wrong fixes to shoot for. It should have been ENTUK and LEAKS prior to ULAKE.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
What they said. I'd file to end up on V143/V136/V258 to arrive at ENTUK from the North, or LEAKS from the South via V20 or V143, and you basically have your classic GPS T to ULAKE.
Click to expand...
Well, if you are (as the OP said) somewhere northwest of MTV, you can certainly do that, but you're going at least 18 miles out of your way to do so. If I can get direct ULAKE from where I am and save those 18 miles back down V143 from ENTUK, you bet your sweet bippy I'll take that, and then when I reach ULAKE, make a 210-225 degree turn to intercept the segment from ULAKE to UBWAY. Please feel free to call me on 122.75 so I can order for you and have your lunch waiting when you land.
 
Ron Levy said:
Not any definition of a procedure turn I've ever seen in any FAA publication, but you may have your own definition which I've never heard of.
Click to expand...

It fits the definition below, which appears in the Pilot/Controller Glossary, an FAA publication. I'm quite sure you've seen it, even if you do not understand it.


PROCEDURE TURN− The maneuver prescribed
when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish
an aircraft on the intermediate approach segment 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, unless otherwise restricted,
the point at which the turn may be commenced and
the type and rate of turn are left to the discretion of the
pilot.
 
roncachamp said:
It fits the definition below, which appears in the Pilot/Controller Glossary, an FAA publication. I'm quite sure you've seen it, even if you do not understand it.


PROCEDURE TURN− The maneuver prescribed
when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish
an aircraft on the intermediate approach segment 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, unless otherwise restricted,
the point at which the turn may be commenced and
the type and rate of turn are left to the discretion of the
pilot.
Click to expand...
Did you read the part I boldfaced? With none of that specified on this procedure, it is not a "procedure turn" as the FAA defines it.
 
Ron Levy said:
Did you read the part I boldfaced?
Click to expand...

Yup.

With none of that specified on this procedure, it is not a "procedure turn" as the FAA defines it.
Click to expand...

PROCEDURE TURN− The maneuver prescribed
when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish
an aircraft on the intermediate approach segment 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, unless otherwise restricted,
the point at which the turn may be commenced and
the type and rate of turn are left to the discretion of the
pilot.
 
roncachamp said:
PROCEDURE TURN− The maneuver prescribed
when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish
an aircraft on the intermediate approach segment 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, unless otherwise restricted,
the point at which the turn may be commenced and
the type and rate of turn are left to the discretion of the
pilot.
Click to expand...

The maneuver is neither prescribed, nor are the course, direction, distance and minimum altitudes specified. By the strictest definition, what Ron described is not a procedure turn. It's a course reversal.

Just like on IAPs, where a route line doesn't show a distance, altitude and heading, it's not a feeder route to the IAF.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
The maneuver is neither prescribed, nor are the course, direction, distance and minimum altitudes specified. By the strictest definition, what Ron described is not a procedure turn. It's a course reversal.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call such a use of a non-HILPT holding pattern as a course reversal. I would call it use of an arrival hold for alignment purposes. More often that not use of an arrival holding pattern does not reverse course.

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1310/09509R9.PDF

And, sometimes even a HILPT doesn't represent a course reversal, per se:

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1310/00018R20.PDF
 
aterpster said:
I wouldn't call such a use of a non-HILPT holding pattern as a course reversal. I would call it use of an arrival hold for alignment purposes. More often that not use of an arrival holding pattern does not reverse course.

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1310/09509R9.PDF

And, sometimes even a HILPT doesn't represent a course reversal, per se:

http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1310/00018R20.PDF
Click to expand...

Ron didn't advocate flying the "non-HILPT holding pattern" at all. He said:

Ron said:
...assuming I was cleared direct ULAKE coming from any direction (the controller's only legal option IAW 7110.65 other than to give you vectors to final, in which case the question would not arise), I would proceed direct to ULAKE, cross ULAKE, and then turn in the shortest direction to intercept and track the course from ULAKE to UBWAY.
Click to expand...

I'm envisioning a teardrop turn of some sort back to ULAKE, headed inbound.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Ron didn't advocate flying the "non-HILPT holding pattern" at all. He said:
Originally Posted by Ron
...assuming I was cleared direct ULAKE coming from any direction (the controller's only legal option IAW 7110.65 other than to give you vectors to final, in which case the question would not arise), I would proceed direct to ULAKE, cross ULAKE, and then turn in the shortest direction to intercept and track the course from ULAKE to UBWAY.​


I'm envisioning a teardrop turn of some sort back to ULAKE, headed inbound.
Click to expand...
Is "any direction" covered under TERPS, or just if via an airway?

dtuuri
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Ron didn't advocate flying the "non-HILPT holding pattern" at all. He said:



I'm envisioning a teardrop turn of some sort back to ULAKE, headed inbound.
Click to expand...

I was responding to your previous post, in which you stated, "By the strictest definition, what Ron described is not a procedure turn. It's a course reversal."
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Ron didn't advocate flying the "non-HILPT holding pattern" at all. He said:



I'm envisioning a teardrop turn of some sort back to ULAKE, headed inbound.
Click to expand...
Since you'd be departing from your cleared route, you'd need to coordinate that with ATC. Otherwise, you'd be going a lot farther southeast of ULAKE than they would normally protect for the approach as published.
 
dtuuri said:
Is "any direction" covered under TERPS, or just if via an airway?
Click to expand...
Now that I think about it, this came up in a discussion with AFS-400 a few years ago, and they said controllers were not permitted to send you direct to the IAF if there was no course reversal and the turn on would be more than 120 degrees, but I'm not sure what they are actually supposed to do in that situation. I do know for sure that the turn limit for entering at the IF is 90 degrees, but ULAKE is labeled as an IAF.
 
Ron Levy said:
Now that I think about it, this came up in a discussion with AFS-400 a few years ago, and they said controllers were not permitted to send you direct to the IAF if there was no course reversal and the turn on would be more than 120 degrees, but I'm not sure what they are actually supposed to do in that situation. I do know for sure that the turn limit for entering at the IF is 90 degrees, but ULAKE is labeled as an IAF.
Click to expand...

TERPs is 120. See chapter 2.

In any case AFS-400 doesn't decide what controllers are allowed to do. AFS-420 certainly does have (imperfect be it) input into air traffic procedures.
 
Last edited:
aterpster said:
No. The RNAV 12 is.
Click to expand...
I don't see how a TAA on the other side of the airport helps Cap'n Ron make a U-turn at ULAKE, especially if he's at 3000'. I think he has to come from V143 or get to the BALES NDB via a feeder and make the LOC RWY 30 approach instead.

dtuuri
 
NoHeat said:
Why don't they just put "RADAR required" on this plate?
Click to expand...

Because although it offers more flexibility, it is not required to use the procedure which connects to the airway infrastructure. Very few approaches require radar. One local approach KUZA RNAV RWY 20 has the note: Radar required. It is required because there are no feeders or IAF on the procedure and the approach overlays the new long runway at KCLT. A clearance for this approach is rare, but I have gotten it once on my request. Traffic has to be pretty quiet at Charlotte.
 
NoHeat said:
Why don't they just put "RADAR required" on this plate?
Click to expand...

Because it is tied to an airway so it would be incorrect to add the note "Radar Required." That note is not supposed to be used unless there are no other options or it's a major airport where ATC doesn't want certain approaches tied to the en route structure. (Lost Comm is less likely at a major air carrier airport because the users are very well equipped in most cases).

There is nothing wrong whatsoever with the approach at issue provided the pilot has the low-altitude en route chart out as should be the case.
 
This is a portion of the GSO MVA map. Note the localizer is on the video map. That is identical to the RNAV 30 final approach course so GSO could vector to final if they so chose:

MTVMVAs_zpsa5dc8a54.jpg
 
aterpster said:
TERPs is 120. See chapter 2.

In any case AFS-400 doesn't decide what controllers are allowed to do. AFS-420 certainly does have (imperfect be it) input into air traffic procedures.
Click to expand...
I know that. They coordinated their answer with ATO. Nevertheless, that's a controller issue, not a pilot issue, and pilots are not responsible for knowing what controllers are allowed to do.

So, if I was cleared direct to ULAKE and nothing further was said, upon arrival at that fix, I would not do anything but turn in the shortest direction to intercept the ULAKE-UBWAY segment inbound. I would definitely not turn southeast without coordinating that with ATC.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
I know that. They coordinated their answer with ATO. Nevertheless, that's a controller issue, not a pilot issue, and pilots are not responsible for knowing what controllers are allowed to do.

So, if I was cleared direct to ULAKE and nothing further was said, upon arrival at that fix, I would not do anything but turn in the shortest direction to intercept the ULAKE-UBWAY segment inbound. I would definitely not turn southeast without coordinating that with ATC.
Click to expand...

Another option is to refuse the clearance.
 
Ron Levy said:
...pilots are not responsible for knowing what controllers are allowed to do.

So, if I was cleared direct to ULAKE and nothing further was said, upon arrival at that fix, I would not do anything but turn in the shortest direction to intercept the ULAKE-UBWAY segment inbound.
Click to expand...
So, you'd rely on that clearance for terrain avoidance?

dtuuri
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top