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

[John Collins]

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.

I guess I must be part of the herd if that means following the rules. When I disagree with the rule, I still follow it, however, I have gotten involved and challenged a few rules and done something about it.

 

[Captain]

Has anyone shown a race track to join the original course is a 'rule'?

I think not. Some posters here find some judges ruling and try to apply it themselves to all manner of things and we end up right here...with a bunch of smart people arguing that an absurd maneuver is required. It's not in regs, it's in interpretations of interpretations by PoA posters and the 'herd' swallowed it.

I'd bet an apple if you talked to the ATC with jurisdiction of said airspace they'd look at you like you were from Mars if you asked if they wanted you to do a race track while coming over RID and cleared for the approach. Otherwise the entire system breaks down with special unique procedures to be performed all over.

Some judge writes an opinion of some specific case? Doesn't effect me. Write a new reg and ill comply with that. Till then it's just lawyer masturbation and collecting fees. Lawyers don't dictate how airplanes fly. When they do I'm out.

 

[John Collins]

I have attached a summary I prepared for an ACF discussion on the issue. The ACN numbers are NASA reports prepared for me by NASA. The summary is mine. i also have the detail of the NASA reports if someone wants to review them.

View attachment ACN Summary.pdf

 

[aterpster]

Has anyone shown a race track to join the original course is a 'rule'?

I think not. Some posters here find some judges ruling and try to apply it themselves to all manner of things and we end up right here...with a bunch of smart people arguing that an absurd maneuver is required. It's not in regs, it's in interpretations of interpretations by PoA posters and the 'herd' swallowed it.

I'd bet an apple if you talked to the ATC with jurisdiction of said airspace they'd look at you like you were from Mars if you asked if they wanted you to do a race track while coming over RID and cleared for the approach. Otherwise the entire system breaks down with special unique procedures to be performed all over.

Some judge writes an opinion of some specific case? Doesn't effect me. Write a new reg and ill comply with that. Till then it's just lawyer masturbation and collecting fees. Lawyers don't dictate how airplanes fly. When they do I'm out.

First, let me say the approach at issue is very poorly designed. Nonetheless it is a regulation issued under FAR Part 97. The issue isn't either ATC or pilot interpretations. This particular approach should have been challenged by local users a long time ago.

I'll step you through a more complex approach procedure and prove to you it is a federal regulation issued under 14 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97.

FAR Part 91.175 requires you to fly any approach procedure issued under Part 97 in is entirety unless you are vectored onto final by ATC, vectored to intercept a segment prior to the IF by ATC, or cleared direct to the IF (RNAV) by ATC in accordance with policy established in the AIM and 7110.65.

Following is the RNAV 34 for KRDD. First I show the chart. The segments from BEIRA and HOMAN require that the course reversal by flown. The segments from RBL and EVEMY require that the course reversal not be flown, as indicated by "NoPT" (which is a regulatory term).

Next, I show the Part 97 regulatory source document, which tells you (via the chart maker) which segments require the course reversal, and which do not permit the course reversal.

Finally, I show the entry into the federal register, which made this approach procedure a federal rule:

 

[Captain]

1st, don't think I didn't notice the effort you put into that post. Photo shopped screen shots don't make themselves and they go along way to making your point understood.

With that said, the dots aren't connecting for me. Your post was about an approach to KRDD. Looking at the approach you provided I'm thinking the way I'd fly that approach from any of the IAF's or feeder routes is how we all agree it should. (No turn from EVEMY and RBL and turns for the other two).

The OP was about KUWL (I think) with a straight in feeder. Unless I'm missing it I don't see how what you posted changes the UWL approach to require a turn.

 

[Clip4]

1st, don't think I didn't notice the effort you put into that post. Photo shopped screen shots don't make themselves and they go along way to making your point understood.

With that said, the dots aren't connecting for me. Your post was about an approach to KRDD. Looking at the approach you provided I'm thinking the way I'd fly that approach from any of the IAF's or feeder routes is how we all agree it should. (No turn from EVEMY and RBL and turns for the other two).

The OP was about KUWL (I think) with a straight in feeder. Unless I'm missing it I don't see how what you posted changes the UWL approach to require a turn.

Ok, look at this approach. http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1309/06866L36.PDF

When the designer doest want a procedure turn, they don't depict a PT. When they depict a PT it is maditory unless the 4 exceptions are applicable.

 

[Captain]

The hold is depicted because its the IAF. ATC could clear you from anywhere to ECONO and the PT applies. Over RID its straight in, no PT required.

This whole thing reminds me of a rule we used to have. The rule was 'no intersection departures'. So I ride along with a new instructor and ATC gave him a 11,000' runway but an intersection leaving over 10,000'. The instructor, sighting his 'rule' declined it and instead took off of a 4,200' runway.

I guess the point is things need to make a modicum of sense. Like the DA being below the runway, you'd not fly to it anyway, right?

 

[Clip4]

The hold is depicted because its the IAF. ATC could clear you from anywhere to ECONO and the PT applies. Over RID its straight in, no PT required.

This whole thing reminds me of a rule we used to have. The rule was 'no intersection departures'. So I ride along with a new instructor and ATC gave him a 11,000' runway but an intersection leaving over 10,000'. The instructor, sighting his 'rule' declined it and instead took off of a 4,200' runway.

I guess the point is things need to make a modicum of sense. Like the DA being below the runway, you'd not fly to it anyway, right?

I linked the wrong IAP, look again.

 

[aterpster]

1st, don't think I didn't notice the effort you put into that post. Photo shopped screen shots don't make themselves and they go along way to making your point understood.

With that said, the dots aren't connecting for me. Your post was about an approach to KRDD. Looking at the approach you provided I'm thinking the way I'd fly that approach from any of the IAF's or feeder routes is how we all agree it should. (No turn from EVEMY and RBL and turns for the other two).

The OP was about KUWL (I think) with a straight in feeder. Unless I'm missing it I don't see how what you posted changes the UWL approach to require a turn.

Thank you for the appreciation of my effort.

As to your point about the IAP at issue I stated:

"First, let me say the approach at issue is very poorly designed. Nonetheless it is a regulation issued under FAR Part 97. The issue isn't either ATC or pilot interpretations. This particular approach should have been challenged by local users a long time ago."

Thus, as crappy as the UWL IAP is, it is a regulation.

 

[Clip4]

Here is the part of the chief councils opinion that differs from Captain's.

"An SIAP may or may not prescribe a procedure turn based on the application of certain criteria contained inthe TERPS. However if a SIAP does contains a procedure turn and ATC has cleared the pilot to execute the SIAP, the pilot must make the procedure turn when one of the conditions in 91.175(j) is not present"

That includes the approach into UWL.

 

[Captain]

I doubt my opinion differs from the CC. Maybe, but I doubt it.

My guess is some pilot elected to do a hard 150 degree turn to final and blew off the PT depicted. ATC wasn't expecting that and separation got lost. Investigations and cert actions and an appeal and a CC sides with the controller and agrees the pilot should have done the PT.

Now people here are extrapolating that to the point where there are 4 pages of people claiming a race track is 'required' to rejoin a course you're already on. Seriously, doesn't that sound wrong and not true? Do you think you're helping the system by performing such a pointless and resource clogging maneuver?

Outside of this forum, where we talked about it in fine detail, do you think other pilots flying that approach are doing the PT? Does it sound safe if you are and they aren't?

 

[aterpster]

I doubt my opinion differs from the CC. Maybe, but I doubt it.

My guess is some pilot elected to do a hard 150 degree turn to final and blew off the PT depicted. ATC wasn't expecting that and separation got lost. Investigations and cert actions and an appeal and a CC sides with the controller and agrees the pilot should have done the PT.

Now people here are extrapolating that to the point where there are 4 pages of people claiming a race track is 'required' to rejoin a course you're already on. Seriously, doesn't that sound wrong and not true? Do you think you're helping the system by performing such a pointless and resource clogging maneuver?

Outside of this forum, where we talked about it in fine detail, do you think other pilots flying that approach are doing the PT? Does it sound safe if you are and they aren't?

I'll say it one more time: the approach is defective, nonetheless it is a rule. The local pilot users should have complained about it years ago and gotten it changed. The approach has been around since 1995.

What would I do if I were flying the approach? Request vectors to the final approach course.

 

[Dr. O]

Man, talk about a tempest in a pee pot.

The approach plate shown by the original author is clear and simple, SO:
Let me ask the 'experts', has any pilot coming from RID ever been violated for not flying the PT?
I'm betting the farm the answer is NO.

For the question as to what the CFI tells the student: Tell him that if you see a PT that makes no sense for the direction you are arriving, to call ATC and ask for the approach without the PT.
I'm betting the farm on two things:
First, no one has ever asked him before - they just fly it from RID without a PT - so he will be puzzled/confused/dazed/bewitched and bewildered (in other words, normal)
And, he will promptly clear you for the straight in approach and go back to calculating his comp time off. (hey, the important stuff always takes precedence)

 

[poadeleted20]

For the question as to what the CFI tells the student: Tell him that if you see a PT that makes no sense for the direction you are arriving, to call ATC and ask for the approach without the PT.
I'm betting the farm on two things:
First, no one has ever asked him before - they just fly it from RID without a PT - so he will be puzzled/confused/dazed/bewitched and bewildered (in other words, normal)
And, he will promptly clear you for the straight in approach and go back to calculating his comp time off. (hey, the important stuff always takes precedence)

No harm in asking, and then it's the controller's responsibility to make sure it's legal IAW 7110.65 for him/her to issue a straight-in clearance. But otherwise, you don't assume anything, and if it's there and none of the four conditions for skipping it apply (the fourth being cleared straight-in), you fly it or you're breaking the rules.

 

[Captain]

So who here can honestly say they would, without reading this thread, think to 'clarify' whether or not to do the PT if comming over RID and cleared for the approach?

What about this approach would clue you in that there are CC opinions out there or documents in 7110.whatever that say you're breaking the law if you don't do a race track and what would alert you to seek further instruction from ATC?

Does anyone here really think they'd do the PT sans this thread? I suppose the OP gets to say so, anyone else?

 

[Velocity173]

So who here can honestly say they would, without reading this thread, think to 'clarify' whether or not to do the PT if comming over RID and cleared for the approach?

What about this approach would clue you in that there are CC opinions out there or documents in 7110.whatever that say you're breaking the law if you don't do a race track and what would alert you to seek further instruction from ATC?

Does anyone here really think they'd do the PT sans this thread? I suppose the OP gets to say so, anyone else?

Yeah if cleared for the approach I'd have to do it as depicted. But as most everyone has said I'd get clearance for a straight in and solve the problem. While the approach is flawed, I don't pretend to be above the rules and do a straight in without authorization. You don't just say, well I know TERPS and this appproach is screwed up therefore I won't tell ATC I'm doing a straight in. Also, it's not like the flaw will get me killed. It's not like a DH below the surface. If somehow I forgot to request a straight in, oh well I do a lap. A whopping 2 minutes added to my flight.

Oh, unless it's IMC I would've just canceled anyway and gone straight in.

 

[poadeleted20]

I guess Captain is asking how many people do not know the rules regarding HPILPT's, and the answer based on IFR refresher training I've given over the years is "quite a few." But, of course, they do know the rules before I'm done with them.

 

[Captain]

Well you quoted me but I don't think you understood my point.

I'm saying I'd get cleared for this approach over RID and nothing in my view would alert me that a PT is required. Of course I'm discounting this thread and putting my self in the position of any random approach. I'm not asking if, given this thread, you'd fly the PT or ask for straight in... I'm asking what would make you think a PT over RID is expected or required. Please don't site a CC opinion unless you actually go through them.

 

[Clip4]

Well you quoted me but I don't think you understood my point.

I'm saying I'd get cleared for this approach over RID and nothing in my view would alert me that a PT is required. Of course I'm discounting this thread and putting my self in the position of any random approach. I'm not asking if, given this thread, you'd fly the PT or ask for straight in... I'm asking what would make you think a PT over RID is expected or required. Please don't site a CC opinion unless you actually go through them.

I still waiting on your references stating the PT is not required. Do you have anything?

 

[nosehair]

When the designer doest want a procedure turn, they don't depict a PT. When they depict a PT it is maditory unless the 4 exceptions are applicable.

The PT must be flown "as depicted", when a course reversal "is necessary" as depicted determined by the pilot.

The regulation, the only real law, starts with the phrase, "When a course reversal is necessary as.." (the course reversal must be flown as depicted).

The regulation is for pilots, not TERPS designers. The concept that this phrase applies to other than the pilot following the rule is another verbal error statement that has no basis in fact.

The Chief Counsel's ruling only repeats the regulation by saying the procedure must be flown as depicted.

Which means the PT must be flown as depicted,..if a course reversal is necessary as determined by the pilot executing the procedure.

 

[Palmpilot]

Well you quoted me but I don't think you understood my point.

I'm saying I'd get cleared for this approach over RID and nothing in my view would alert me that a PT is required. Of course I'm discounting this thread and putting my self in the position of any random approach. I'm not asking if, given this thread, you'd fly the PT or ask for straight in... I'm asking what would make you think a PT over RID is expected or required. Please don't site a CC opinion unless you actually go through them.

I don't know who expects what, but if I had never heard of CC opinions or this thread and I wanted to fly the approach straight-in, the reason I would ask for it instead of just doing it is because of this statement in the AIM:

"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. Additionally, the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is not permitted when the symbol “No PT” is depicted on the initial segment being used, when a RADAR VECTOR to the final approach course is provided, or when conducting a timed approach from a holding fix."​

 

[poadeleted20]

Well you quoted me but I don't think you understood my point.

I'm saying I'd get cleared for this approach over RID and nothing in my view would alert me that a PT is required.

Nothing? Last I looked at the chart, the HPILPT was published there, and there was no "optional" for it anywhere on the chart. What makes you think any part of a published procedure can be skipped purely at the pilots discretion?

 

[Clip4]

The PT must be flown "as depicted", when a course reversal "is necessary" as depicted determined by the pilot.

The regulation, the only real law, starts with the phrase, "When a course reversal is necessary as.." (the course reversal must be flown as depicted).

The regulation is for pilots, not TERPS designers. The concept that this phrase applies to other than the pilot following the rule is another verbal error statement that has no basis in fact.

The Chief Counsel's ruling only repeats the regulation by saying the procedure must be flown as depicted.

Which means the PT must be flown as depicted,..if a course reversal is necessary as determined by the pilot executing the procedure.

What reputable publication says that? I am asking for a reference. Surely as a CFI you can reference what you are teaching.

 

[poadeleted20]

The PT must be flown "as depicted", when a course reversal "is necessary" as depicted determined by the pilot.

Where did you see the FAA say that the necessity of a PT is "determined by the pilot"? I can't find that in any regulation, AC, AIM section, or anything else to suggest that pilots have the option to choose whether or not to fly a depicted course reversal? Either it's prohibited because one of the four above-listed conditions exist, or it's mandatory. No such thing as "pilot's discretion" for depicted course reversals stated in any FAA reg or pub.

IOW, you and Captain are seeing things which aren't there, and refusing to believe the things which are.

 

[Captain]

I still waiting on your references stating the PT is not required. Do you have anything?

You want a refrence?

RID to ECONO is a course of 291 degrees. ECONO to the MAP is 291 degrees. 291 = 291

The regulation says "when a course reversal is required". Again, 291 = 291. I can't find a refrence for that. If 291 does in fact equal 291 then I submit a course reversal IS NOT required, needed, appropriate, desired, expected, or in keeping with sound aeronautical decision making.

The hold is there because ECONO is an IAF, not for arrivals over RID. Should that feeder say NoPT? Sure. But like I said elsewhere, if a DA was misprinted 200' below the TDZE I wouldn't fly that either.

 

[nosehair]

Honestly, my reference is the plain english reading and comprehension of the simple statement of the meaning of "course reversal when necessary " as applied to the pilot.

We/you/me, all (most) of us read and apply the regs as they apply to us.
Why do you say this particular regulation is for the approach designer?

Way back before radar, pilots flew the PT when they needed to actually do a hard turn to get aligned at the FAF - or needed to slow down or go down.

Didn't matter to the controller- he couldn't clear another a/c into the approach airspace until you canceled if anyway.

Then radar came along and controllers could line'em up "radar vectored to final", and the vor airway system was streamlined with transitions labled "NoPT ", and the exceptions to the rule of the pilot making his decision on the PT showed up in the PT showed up.

Causing the current confusion.

Read the regulation, by itself, with no pre-conceived idea that the phrase "when necessary" does NOT apply to you.

They don't write "When necessary, contact ATC before entering..bla bla bla.."
Or if they do, it means it is up to the pilot to determine "when necessary".

 

[John Collins]

You want a refrence?

RID to ECONO is a course of 291 degrees. ECONO to the MAP is 291 degrees. 291 = 291

The regulation says "when a course reversal is required". Again, 291 = 291. I can't find a refrence for that. If 291 does in fact equal 291 then I submit a course reversal IS NOT required, needed, appropriate, desired, expected, or in keeping with sound aeronautical decision making.

The hold is there because ECONO is an IAF, not for arrivals over RID. Should that feeder say NoPT? Sure. But like I said elsewhere, if a DA was misprinted 200' below the TDZE I wouldn't fly that either.

Because of the way this approach is constructed, I don't believe that the feeder route from the VOR can be changed to NoPT, but I have asked for what options are available for redesigning this approach.

This is the description of the purpose of the procedure turn and of the intermediate segment of an approach as found in the Instrument Procedures Handbook (emphasis is mine).

A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed to perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold- in lieu- of- procedure turn (PT) is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart. However, the procedure turn or the hold-in-lieu-of-PT is not permitted when the symbol "No PT" is depicted on the initial segment being flown, when a RADAR VECTOR to the final approach course is provided, or when conducting a timed approach from a holding fix. The altitude prescribed for the procedure turn is a minimum altitude until the aircraft is established on the inbound course. The maneuver must be completed within the distance specified in the profile view. The pilot may elect to use the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT when it is not required by the procedure, but must first receive an amended clearance from ATC. When ATC is Radar vectoring to the final approach course, or to the Intermediate Fix as may occur with RNAV standard instrument approach procedures, ATC may specify in the approach clearance “CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN (type) APPROACH” to ensure that the pilot understands that the procedure turn or holdin-lieu-of-PT is not to be flown. If the pilot is uncertain whether ATC intends for a procedure turn or a straight-in approach to be flown, the pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC (14 CFR Part 91.123).

INTERMEDIATE APPROACH SEGMENT
The intermediate segment is designed primarily to position the aircraft for the final descent to the airport. Like the feeder route and initial approach segment, the chart depiction of the intermediate segment provides course, distance, and minimum altitude information.

The intermediate segment, normally aligned within 30° of the final approach course, begins at the IF, or intermediate point, and ends at the beginning of the final approach segment. In some cases, an IF is not shown on an approach chart. In this situation, the intermediate segment begins at a point where you are proceeding inbound to the FAF, are properly aligned with the final approach course, and are located within the prescribed distance prior to the FAF. An instrument approach that incorporates a procedure turn is the most common example of an approach that may not have a charted IF. The intermediate segment in this example begins when you intercept the inbound course after completing the procedure turn.

 

[John Collins]

Honestly, my reference is the plain english reading and comprehension of the simple statement of the meaning of "course reversal when necessary " as applied to the pilot.

We/you/me, all (most) of us read and apply the regs as they apply to us.
Why do you say this particular regulation is for the approach designer?

Way back before radar, pilots flew the PT when they needed to actually do a hard turn to get aligned at the FAF - or needed to slow down or go down.

Didn't matter to the controller- he couldn't clear another a/c into the approach airspace until you canceled if anyway.

Then radar came along and controllers could line'em up "radar vectored to final", and the vor airway system was streamlined with transitions labled "NoPT ", and the exceptions to the rule of the pilot making his decision on the PT showed up in the PT showed up.

Causing the current confusion.

Read the regulation, by itself, with no pre-conceived idea that the phrase "when necessary" does NOT apply to you.

They don't write "When necessary, contact ATC before entering..bla bla bla.."
Or if they do, it means it is up to the pilot to determine "when necessary".

Legal interpretations of the regulations by Nosehair are not binding, however the ones issued by the FAA General Counsel's Office are. Noshair apparently doesn't accept their authority in this matter.

 

[Velocity173]

How many times do we have to highlight the The procedure turn or hold- in lieu- of- procedure turn (PT) is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart.

What is soo hard to understand about that statement? It's non ambiguous, it's clear cut. By having that statement and the "big 4" that override it, that makes things predicable.

Imagine sitting on position and say hypothetically the HILPT was optional. You'd have some guys doing and others not. It would be like pilots randomly executing a circling approach in towered airspace. If it was optional, there would be no positive control and no separation planning on behalf of the controller. At a small airport with light traffic it wouldn't be a problem but at a busy airport where aircraft are lined up it would be a nightmare. To make it mandatory, allows everyone to be on the same sheet of music and allows predictable planning. Confusion exists when controllers don't know of a pilot's intentions. Take the ASRS example where the controller chewed out a pilot for doing the HILPT without getting his approval. He doesn't need it...it's already required and there is no approval or notification of doing it! By being silent, the pilot has already expressed their intentions to the controller that they are doing the required HILPT.

If for some reason you don't want to do the hold, just request a straight in. Not very hard

 

[aterpster]

Because of the way this approach is constructed, I don't believe that the feeder route from the VOR can be changed to NoPT, but I have asked for what options are available for redesigning this approach.

This is the description of the purpose of the procedure turn and of the intermediate segment of an approach as found in the Instrument Procedures Handbook (emphasis is mine).

A radial from MIE to establish a 6 mile intermediate segment would meet the fix accuracy requirements and provide a compliant procedure.

The present procedure does not comply with criteria, unless the designer made RID the IF, in which case the procedure would be NoPT and there would not be a HILPT unless it was at RID.

 

[ChrisK]

Yesterday while doing practice instrument approaches I was heading 30deg to intercept a final approach course of 340. I was given instructions to turn right to 340 for spacing. I can see Captain's point that the HPILPT is senseless, much like my right turn. I can also see Ron's point that it is more about what ATC expects you to do than what is sensible. Of course, I think that is what this thread is about.

 

[Captain]

Because of the way this approach is constructed, I don't believe that the feeder route from the VOR can be changed to NoPT, but I have asked for what options are available for redesigning this approach.

This is the description of the purpose of the procedure turn and of the intermediate segment of an approach as found in the Instrument Procedures Handbook (emphasis is mine).

You quote it and bold the second sentence that supports your view but gloss right over the first that clearly supports mine. Plus, common sense is on my side.

A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed to perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold- in lieu- of- procedure turn (PT) is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart. However, the procedure turn or the hold-in-lieu-of-PT is not permitted when the symbol "No PT" is depicted on the initial segment being flown, when a RADAR VECTOR to the final approach course is provided, or when conducting a timed approach from a holding fix. The altitude prescribed for the procedure turn is a minimum altitude until the aircraft is established on the inbound course. The maneuver must be completed within the distance specified in the profile view. The pilot may elect to use the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT when it is not required by the procedure, but must first receive an amended clearance from ATC. When ATC is Radar vectoring to the final approach course, or to the Intermediate Fix as may occur with RNAV standard instrument approach procedures, ATC may specify in the approach clearance “CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN (type) APPROACH” to ensure that the pilot understands that the procedure turn or holdin-lieu-of-PT is not to be flown. If the pilot is uncertain whether ATC intends for a procedure turn or a straight-in approach to be flown, the pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC (14 CFR Part 91.123).

Going from 291 to 291 is not a course reversal. Ergo, PT doesn't apply.

 

[Captain]

How many times do we have to highlight the The procedure turn or hold- in lieu- of- procedure turn (PT) is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart.

What is soo hard to not understand about that statement? It's non ambiguous, it's clear cut. By having that statement and the "big 4" that override it, that makes things predicable.

Imagine sitting on position and say hypothetically the HILPT was optional. You'd have some guys doing and others not. It would be like pilots randomly executing a circling approach in towered airspace. If it was optional, there would be no positive control and no separation planning on behalf of the controller. At a small airport with light traffic it wouldn't be a problem but at a busy airport where aircraft are lined up it would be a nightmare. To make it mandatory, allows everyone to be on the same sheet of music and allows predictable planning. Confusion exists when controllers don't know of a pilot's intentions. Take the ASRS example where the controller chewed out a pilot for doing the HILPT without getting his approval. He doesn't need it...it's already required and there is no approval or notification of doing it! By being silent, the pilot has already expressed their intentions to the controller that they are doing the required HILPT.

If for some reason you don't want to do the hold, just request a straight in. Not very hard

See my last post.

Btw, it seems like some of you think I'm trying to avoid seeking clarification from ATC. That is not the case. Any time I even remotely think there may be issue ill sort it out over the radio so we're all on the same page.

This is about the OPs approach where there is no change in course so nothing in my mind, I think, would flag an issue is at hand. As hard as I might try, I cannot deconflict issues with ATC if I'm not aware of them.

 

[Palmpilot]

You quote it and bold the second sentence that supports your view but gloss right over the first that clearly supports mine. Plus, common sense is on my side.



Going from 291 to 291 is not a course reversal. Ergo, PT doesn't apply.

I don't think they are glossing over the first sentence so much as interpreting it differently that you are. But even if they were ignoring it, you're no more justified in ignoring the second sentence than they would be justified in ignoring the first. BOTH sentences are there, so as you're interpreting the first sentence, there is, at best, ambiguity about the meaning, and 91.123 requires us to resolve ambiguity in clearances by asking the controller for clarification.

 

[gismo]

You quote it and bold the second sentence that supports your view but gloss right over the first that clearly supports mine. Plus, common sense is on my side.



Going from 291 to 291 is not a course reversal. Ergo, PT doesn't apply.

I'm too lazy to dig one up but I'm fairly certain there are approaches where a HILPT is indeed sensible even though the inbound course to the holding fix matches the outbound one due to terrain and descent gradient limitations. Ergo just the fact that inbound an outbound courses match does not by itself preclude the need for a trip around the hold.

I'm a little surprised you're persisting with the rather quaint notion that you are not required to follow FAA regulations that you (and I) believe to be nonsensical baring an emergency. I think pretty much everyone here agrees that flying a hold on the VOR or GPS 27 approach when coming from RID is useless and from a practical perspective a complete waste of time (other than to put a hold procedure in your logbook for currency). But the vast majority are (like me) of the opinion that until the issue is corrected officially, the only legal (and therefore correct) options are to fly the hold or get permission from ATC to skip it.

I could make a similar case WRT flying around a nearby Class B in CAVU conditions when flying directly over the primary airport would keep me away from the traffic to that airport. It would be far more convenient to go through the Class B rather than around it, in your opinion would that make it legal (without ATC permission)?

 

[Clip4]

Honestly, my reference is the plain english reading and comprehension of the simple statement of the meaning of "course reversal when necessary " as applied to the pilot.

We/you/me, all (most) of us read and apply the regs as they apply to us.
Why do you say this particular regulation is for the approach designer?

Way back before radar, pilots flew the PT when they needed to actually do a hard turn to get aligned at the FAF - or needed to slow down or go down.

Didn't matter to the controller- he couldn't clear another a/c into the approach airspace until you canceled if anyway.

Then radar came along and controllers could line'em up "radar vectored to final", and the vor airway system was streamlined with transitions labled "NoPT ", and the exceptions to the rule of the pilot making his decision on the PT showed up in the PT showed up.

Causing the current confusion.

Read the regulation, by itself, with no pre-conceived idea that the phrase "when necessary" does NOT apply to you.

They don't write "When necessary, contact ATC before entering..bla bla bla.."
Or if they do, it means it is up to the pilot to determine "when necessary".

When necceasary means as required by the chart, not what you determine is required.

 

[John Collins]

You quote it and bold the second sentence that supports your view but gloss right over the first that clearly supports mine. Plus, common sense is on my side.

Going from 291 to 291 is not a course reversal. Ergo, PT doesn't apply.

I didn't bold the first sentence, but I did quote it. If quoting a sentence so everyone and his brother could read it but not highlighting it is glossing over it, I am guilty. It does give some support for your view if read in isolation, but the second sentence absolutely abolishes it and makes it merely explanatory.

BTW, the rule is no big deal, it doesn't affect much of what you do, it may cost you or the controller a few words such as "straight in" to stay on the same page, but other than that it is not a real burden on either of you. If the procedure has a PT on the chart you have to do it, unless one of the four exceptions apply.

If you haven't had it quoted to you before, here is what the FAA General Counsel Opinion on the issue (emphasis is mine and note that I quoted but did not highlight the definition of a procedure turn):

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 AI'C has cleared a pilot to execute the SIAP, the pilot must make the procedure turn when one of the conditions of Section 91.175(i) is not present.

In this case, the procedure turn is used to establish the aircraft on the intermediate leg of this approach which is defined for this type of approach to commence after completing the procedure turn. The intermediate leg is there to allow the aircraft to configure for the final approach leg and to slow to a normal approach speed. It is required because the IAF and the FAF are at the same fix. If they were not at the same fix, then the PT would not be required as an intermediate leg could be positioned between the VOR as the IAF and the FAF and it could provide the same function.

 

[Clip4]

I didn't bold the first sentence, but I did quote it. If quoting a sentence so everyone and his brother could read it but not highlighting it is glossing over it, I am guilty. It does give some support for your view if read in isolation, but the second sentence absolutely abolishes it and makes it merely explanatory.

BTW, the rule is no big deal, it doesn't affect much of what you do, it may cost you or the controller a few words such as "straight in" to stay on the same page, but other than that it is not a real burden on either of you. If the procedure has a PT on the chart you have to do it, unless one of the four exceptions apply.

If you haven't had it quoted to you before, here is what the FAA General Counsel Opinion on the issue (emphasis is mine and note that I quoted but did not highlight the definition of a procedure turn):



In this case, the procedure turn is used to establish the aircraft on the intermediate leg of this approach which is defined for this type of approach to commence after completing the procedure turn. The intermediate leg is there to allow the aircraft to configure for the final approach leg and to slow to a normal approach speed. It is required because the IAF and the FAF are at the same fix. If they were not at the same fix, then the PT would not be required as an intermediate leg could be positioned between the VOR as the IAF and the FAF and it could provide the same function.

John, there has been more than ample references provided in this thread for an objective pilot to determine the proper procedure. To agree with Captain, Nosehair, and others, one has to disregard a CC opinion, a AIM reference, reference from Jepp., reference from the FAA Instrument handbook and basically a charting forum reference that go into great detail that the "snipers" on various web sites are incorrect.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm out of the fight.

 

[aterpster]

I decided to bring this IAP to the attention of one of the gurus in the approach design department in OKC. He said the HILPT is mandatory unless provided radar vectors to the final approach course. He also stated the approach shouldn't have been designed that way.

I suspect vectors to final are not possible due to the distance from IND's ASR antenna and the fact the procedure is almost certainly not video mapped.

My response to him was the procedure doesn't comply with criteria.

Nonetheless, controllers can waive the requirements of an approach only when authorized by the 7110.65. As we know controllers often violate FAA policy but they don't have to go to enforcement hearings.