No "NoPT" marking on a straight-in feeder route - how to explain?

Clip4 said:
Radar/Communications might be why this is designed like it is. ULW is under Indy approach and RID is under Columbus approach.

Edit: in a yearvits likey the VOR approach will be deleted, there are not many VORs left serving satelite airports.
Click to expand...

In that case, it should be an arrival hold, not a HILPT.
 
Strangely, the other approach to this runway does have a procedure turn. NDB RWY 27 The PT in that NDB approach is shown within a couple of miles of the hold in the VOR/GPS approach. You'd think if they can show a PT in the NDB approach, they could show one in the VOR/GPS as well.
 
Last edited:
Captain said:
So....if the 'new' course is the exact same as the 'old' course can you really call it a 'course reversal'?

Seriously, do you people hear yourselves?
Click to expand...

You turn 180, fly 2-5 miles (1minute) and turn 180. Actually its two course reversals.
 
Clip4 said:
When you look at it, its a GPS approach with VOR overlay and a feeder route. The VOR portion will be deleted in the near future.
Click to expand...

There is no provision for overlaying an RNAV IAP on a VOR approach.

Further, an RNAV IAP must have an intermediate segment of at least 6 miles length.
 
Last edited:
aterpster said:
I think it is phisss poor design.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you agree with my initial thought.

1. They could have designated RID as an IAF then charted NoPT after RID.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought.

2. The could have designed a 6 mile intermediate segment, and still made RID as the IAF.
Click to expand...
Only problem there might be finding a VOR cross-radial to use for the IF. Using a DME fix would make that route "DME REQUIRED".
 
aterpster said:
There is no provision for overlaying an RNAV IAP on a VOR approach.
Click to expand...
There are, however, GPS approaches (as opposed to RNAV(GPS) approaches) overlaid on VOR and NDB approaches. But I think the FAA is trying to get away from that.
 
roncachamp said:
Meaning you'd take a lap, I assume. Do you believe some bad thing might happen if you did not?
Click to expand...
Well, some controllers seem to think so, else they would not have filed an ASRS when it happened. See the March 2010 ASRS Callback cover story. Doing a course reversal when you are required not to, and not doing one when you are required to, are both bad enough things that NASA and the FAA felt it appropriate to remind all of us to do exactly what we're required to do and nothing else in this area.
 
roncachamp said:
Then why take the lap?
Click to expand...
Why carry your registration certificate? Why not fly on the first of the month the day after your annual expires? Why fly IFR only with an instrument rating?


Because it's the law. And that should be enough for any pilot with any sense of responsibility.
 
Ron Levy said:
Well, some controllers seem to think so, else they would not have filed an ASRS when it happened. See the March 2010 ASRS Callback cover story.
Click to expand...

None of those reports were filed by controllers.

Doing a course reversal when you are required not to, and not doing one when you are required to, are both bad enough things that NASA and the FAA felt it appropriate to remind all of us to do exactly what we're required to do and nothing else in this area.
Click to expand...

Taking a lap when a course reversal is not required is also a potentially bad thing, yet the boneheads that write the AIM say it is required when the controller does not include "straight in" with the approach clearance.
 
Ron Levy said:
Why carry your registration certificate? Why not fly on the first of the month the day after your annual expires? Why fly IFR only with an instrument rating?


Because it's the law. And that should be enough for any pilot with any sense of responsibility.
Click to expand...

But it's not the law, as the "requirement" appears only in advisory materials.
 
roncachamp said:
None of those reports were filed by controllers.



Taking a lap when a course reversal is not required is also a potentially bad thing, yet the boneheads that write the AIM say it is required when the controller does not include "straight in" with the approach clearance.
Click to expand...

I read several ASRS reports filed by controllers when a pilot flew the PT as they were supposed to, but the controller didn't expect it.

If the course reversal is such a bone head maneuver, then the controller who doesn't want or expect it has to merely utter two words "straight in". Not understanding the rule is one thing, but for the life of me, understanding the rule and the pilot not requesting straight in or the controller not issuing the appropriate clearance is either lazy or has a problem with authority. The rule is clear, the remedy is simple and clear.
 
John Collins said:
I read several ASRS reports filed by controllers when a pilot flew the PT as they were supposed to, but the controller didn't expect it.

If the course reversal is such a bone head maneuver, then the controller who doesn't want or expect it has to merely utter two words "straight in". Not understanding the rule is one thing, but for the life of me, understanding the rule and the pilot not requesting straight in or the controller not issuing the appropriate clearance is either lazy or has a problem with authority. The rule is clear, the remedy is simple and clear.
Click to expand...
This. Whether it's legally required is really not the most important point. The main thing is that everyone needs to be on the same page. Whatever you (the pilot) or you (the controller) has to do to make sure that both of you are on the same page, to me is worth the (very slight) extra effort.
 
John Collins said:
I read several ASRS reports filed by controllers when a pilot flew the PT as they were supposed to, but the controller didn't expect it.

If the course reversal is such a bone head maneuver, then the controller who doesn't want or expect it has to merely utter two words "straight in".
Click to expand...

Right. Now tell me what happens if the controller forgets to include those words when there's traffic following in sequence.
 
roncachamp said:
Right. Now tell me what happens if the controller forgets to include those words when there's traffic following in sequence.
Click to expand...

First, the pilot will be told belatedly to follow some new instruction to avoid a problem. Second, the controller will get re-trained for screwing up.
 
John Collins said:
First, the pilot will be told belatedly to follow some new instruction to avoid a problem.
Click to expand...

A problem caused by an erroneous entry in the AIM.

Second, the controller will get re-trained for screwing up.
Click to expand...

The screw-up being forgetting to include two words that are made necessary only by the boneheads that write the AIM.
 
John Collins said:
First, the pilot will be told belatedly to follow some new instruction to avoid a problem. Second, the controller will get re-trained for screwing up.
Click to expand...
Hopefully "first" won't be the accident that kills the pilot (who is the only person at risk) and "second" won;t be the firing of the controller (who is safe and sound on the ground) for refusing to follow the Controller's Handbook (see the example at 4-8-1) just because he feels his own rules are superior to his employer's.
 
azure said:
This. Whether it's legally required is really not the most important point. The main thing is that everyone needs to be on the same page. Whatever you (the pilot) or you (the controller) has to do to make sure that both of you are on the same page, to me is worth the (very slight) extra effort.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Being on the same page is #1.

But in terms of "required" here's what the Controller's Handbook says. It's an example of proper ATC communications in the case of an depicted HILO:

==============================
If a hold in lieu of pattern is depicted and a straight-in area is not defined (e.g.," No PT” indicated at the fix), the aircraft must be instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn."Cleared direct CENTR, maintain at or above three thousand until CENTR, cleared straight-in R-NAV Runway One Eight approach.”
==============================
 
Fortunately the problem won't be caused by a controller who claimed he would deliberately refuse to issue those two words to make a point.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Agreed. Being on the same page is #1.

But in terms of "required" here's what the Controller's Handbook says. It's an example of proper ATC communications in the case of an depicted HILO:

==============================
If a hold in lieu of pattern is depicted and a straight-in area is not defined (e.g.," No PT” indicated at the fix), the aircraft must be instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn."Cleared direct CENTR, maintain at or above three thousand until CENTR, cleared straight-in R-NAV Runway One Eight approach.”
==============================
Click to expand...

Why would a controller want a pilot to execute a procedure turn where a course reversal is not required?
 
midlifeflyer said:
Agreed. Being on the same page is #1.

But in terms of "required" here's what the Controller's Handbook says. It's an example of proper ATC communications in the case of an depicted HILO:

==============================
If a hold in lieu of pattern is depicted and a straight-in area is not defined (e.g.," No PT” indicated at the fix), the aircraft must be instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn."Cleared direct CENTR, maintain at or above three thousand until CENTR, cleared straight-in R-NAV Runway One Eight approach.”
==============================
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what I understood the current ATC procedural guidance to be. The thing is, personally, I don't even want to be in a situation where there's a straight-in area defined and I'm clearly in the right to do the HILPT (or not do it, depending on which area I'm approaching from), but the controller sees something different on his screen for whatever reason and is expecting me to do something else. If I'm approaching within 5 degrees of the line separating the two areas, I generally confirm what I'm about to do with the controller. If we were on the same page already and my using the extra bandwidth annoys him a little, that's better than surprising him and maybe getting a number to call (or worse).
 
azure said:
Yes, that's what I understood the current ATC procedural guidance to be. The thing is, personally, I don't even want to be in a situation where there's a straight-in area defined and I'm clearly in the right to do the HILPT (or not do it, depending on which area I'm approaching from), but the controller sees something different on his screen for whatever reason and is expecting me to do something else. If I'm approaching within 5 degrees of the line separating the two areas, I generally confirm what I'm about to do with the controller. If we were on the same page already and my using the extra bandwidth annoys him a little, that's better than surprising him and maybe getting a number to call (or worse).
Click to expand...

No argument from me, I try to always makes sure the controller and I are on the same page. The rule, however, does serve a purpose, in that it is clear from the guidance provided in the AIM and the .65. A more complex rule that leaves the issue to each individual pilot or controller for interpretation is a worse situation than one that is easily understood and followed by both the controller and pilot leaving both an option for issuing or requesting the straight in.
 
azure said:
Yes, that's what I understood the current ATC procedural guidance to be. The thing is, personally, I don't even want to be in a situation where there's a straight-in area defined and I'm clearly in the right to do the HILPT (or not do it, depending on which area I'm approaching from), but the controller sees something different on his screen for whatever reason and is expecting me to do something else. If I'm approaching within 5 degrees of the line separating the two areas, I generally confirm what I'm about to do with the controller. If we were on the same page already and my using the extra bandwidth annoys him a little, that's better than surprising him and maybe getting a number to call (or worse).
Click to expand...
Amen! I make it clear to my IR trainees that in situations like this, if they have even the slightest suspicion that the controller may be expecting them to do what they are about to do, they should, as it says in 91.123(a), "immediately request clarification from ATC." Further, as Captain "Smilin'" Sam Hubbard wrote in the night orders book for OOD's aboard USS Kitty Hawk back in 1975, "If you're not sure whether or not to call me -- call me. The presence of any doubt at all in your mind is sufficient to justify the call."

Also, even if the controller tells you to go straight in, if you think you need the course reversal to get yourself set up properly, just tell the controller that you are unable to go straight in and need the course reversal. They get paid plenty to sort out the ramifications of that, so worry about yourself alone, not the other folks in the sky or on the ground when making that decision.
 
Last edited:
We've been trying to convince Steven of the PT requirement for what, a year now? It's futile. Just let it go.
 
Ron Levy said:
Controllers forgetting to say what they need to say to properly communicate what they want done is how pilots get killed. You're retired from controlling now, right?
Click to expand...

Just be thankful he wasn't retained to train future controllers.
 
Clip4 said:
Just be thankful he wasn't retained to train future controllers.
Click to expand...

1. I doubt his wife would leave suburban Green Bay to live in Oklahoma.

2. He would have had an interview from the ATC Academy in Oklahoma City. I doubt he would have made it very far through that process.

3. He likely wouldn't have even tried because he refuses to conform for numerous reasons, known and unknown.

Having said that I have no doubt he did a good job at GRB, a fairly low traffic radar facility and tower. He has never told us whether he was an approach or local (tower) controller. From remarks he has made over the years I suspect he was a tower controller.
 
aterpster said:
1. I doubt his wife would leave suburban Green Bay to live in Oklahoma.

2. He would have had an interview from the ATC Academy in Oklahoma City. I doubt he would have made it very far through that process.

3. He likely wouldn't have even tried because he refuses to conform for numerous reasons, known and unknown.

Having said that I have no doubt he did a good job at GRB, a fairly low traffic radar facility and tower. He has never told us whether he was an approach or local (tower) controller. From remarks he has made over the years I suspect he was a tower controller.
Click to expand...

Well, despite the fact Steven won't yield on the PT requirement, I'll say he has generally provided accurate info on the ATC side of the house.

If he's been at GRB for awhile I would think he was facility rated???
 
So that's it eh? The herd has decided a race track is required to get on a course that you're already on.

Super. Ya'll have fun with that.
 
Captain said:
So that's it eh? The herd has decided a race track is required to get on a course that you're already on.

Super. Ya'll have fun with that.
Click to expand...

The herd didn't decide it, the FAA did. Now, if you have a respected publication that states the rest of us are wrong, post it. None of you guys who have expressed the PT is not requried option has produced anything in support.
 
Clip4 said:
The herd didn't decide it, the FAA did. Now, if you have a respected publication that states the rest of us are wrong, post it. None of you guys who have expressed the PT is not requried option has produced anything in support.
Click to expand...
I thought the reason we haven't heard much from Captain is because he read the first few paragraphs from the first link in your post below. Maybe he missed it? :dunno:

Clip4 said:
http://jeppesen.com/download/aopa/sep99aopa.pdf

http://jeppesen.com/download/aopa/jun99aopa.pdf
Click to expand...

dtuuri
 
Velocity173 said:
Well, despite the fact Steven won't yield on the PT requirement, I'll say he has generally provided accurate info on the ATC side of the house.

If he's been at GRB for awhile I would think he was facility rated???
Click to expand...

I agree he can be informative and helpful at times. I will hasten to add on some issues neither is the case.

His biggest fault is he loves to obscure an issue when he is no longer the king of the mountain on a particular issue.

This goes back years.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top