comanchepilot
En-Route
and before you got to SAPPE you asked for a vector and ATC gave it to you!
Does not matter when they gave it to you!
Procedure Turn or Not KPWM ILS 29 from CDOGG1 Arrival
- Thread starter taters
- Start date
- Status
and before you got to SAPPE you asked for a vector and ATC gave it to you!
Does not matter when they gave it to you!
I agree on the current rules (and I don't think they are hard to understand), but given the amount of confusion out there on both sides on this topic (the Callback is proof...), I wonder whether that rule should be changed to something that reduces the chance of misunderstanding. This issue seems to be that the current rule produces a lot of situations where the PT intuitively seems superfluous, but is still required.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,761
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Holding in lieu of a PT is part of the approach just like the approach course it self. By not doing it you are not complying with the SIAP. Part 97.3 NoPT-means no procedure turn required. So it's common sense if it doesn't say NoPT or the examples we gave above you MUST do it. Otherwise why would they bother putting NoPT on approach plates? Just like a TAA on a GPS they state NoPT and if you want to do it, it requires approval from ATC.
That's really the problem here. Plenty of controllers (ASRS callback) don't realize that we HAVE to do it and then they chew out a pilot for doing it. I think most controllers look at this like an arrival holding pattern that they clear us for. It's not, it's a form of a procedure turn that is "necessary" to get us reversed back in for the approach. Also just because you get a radar vector in the pattern doesn't mean you're exempt as well. The vector must be to final. Just like in the ASRS callback, if you're given direct or in this case established on an RNAV Arrival the vector exemption goes out the window. Taters, both you and your Captain did the correct thing.
That's really the problem here. Plenty of controllers (ASRS callback) don't realize that we HAVE to do it and then they chew out a pilot for doing it. I think most controllers look at this like an arrival holding pattern that they clear us for. It's not, it's a form of a procedure turn that is "necessary" to get us reversed back in for the approach. Also just because you get a radar vector in the pattern doesn't mean you're exempt as well. The vector must be to final. Just like in the ASRS callback, if you're given direct or in this case established on an RNAV Arrival the vector exemption goes out the window. Taters, both you and your Captain did the correct thing.
Last edited:
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
Bad advice. Language such as that cited from the AIM is directive, the failure of which to follow can result in enforcement action under whatever regulation chief counsel considers pertinent, if push comes to shove.
dell30rb
Final Approach
I would agree that as originally instructed, flying the HILPT is necessary. It is in black, and the only NoPT route listed on the plate does not apply.
That said I would expect vectors to intercept the localizer before reaching SAPPE. But if ATC did not give any, i'd assume they wanted me to fly the HILPT
That said I would expect vectors to intercept the localizer before reaching SAPPE. But if ATC did not give any, i'd assume they wanted me to fly the HILPT
roncachamp
Final Approach
Negative. A straight-in approach in situation #3 required a turn of over 90°, I'd have flown the HILPT.
John Collins
En-Route
I agree except that there are too many controllers like the one posting here that don't know the rule and assume otherwise. So it is still a good idea to clarify this with the controller.
roncachamp
Final Approach
What was the phraseology used by ATC in issuing that vector?
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
It is poor design and coordination between the STAR and the IAP. The alignment and altitude are acceptable for straight-in. But, the pilot is not suppose to work TERPs during flight.
The solution would have been to add YAAKK to the IAP chart as an IAF with NoPT.
roncachamp
Final Approach
By "the current rules" are you referring to the AIM or the FARs? Let's look at what the regulations have to say on the matter:
That's it. That's the only time "procedure turn" is mentioned in Part 91, and "course reversal" does not appear at all. There are those that believe a procedure turn is legally required whenever one of the cases in 91.175(j) does not apply, but there is nothing in the FARs that supports that belief.
Here's what Part 97 has to say on procedure turns:
That's it. There's nothing that could reasonably be interpreted to mean a procedure turn is required when it is not necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach course and one of the conditions in § 91.175(j) does not apply.
The AIM states, in paragraph 5-4-9.a; "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." But the AIM also states, under Flight Information Public Policy:
If you believe what the AIM says in paragraph 5-4-9.a is correct, you must believe what the AIM says in the policy statement is incorrect.
roncachamp
Final Approach
You say the AIM is directive, the AIM says it isn't. Which am I to believe?
Any idea what regulation the chief counsel would consider pertinent if I was to skip the displayed HILPT on an approach where a course reversal was not needed and I hadn't been cleared straight-in?
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
The problem is that if the pilot gets to make up his/her own mind as to whether or not to fly the course reversal without specific guidance on point, we get just what happened in the Callback articles. There must be clear and precise direction on whether or not to fly it, and right now we have that -- if a course reversal is depicted, it's mandatory unless one of those four conditions is present.
It may seem inconvenient on some occasions, but it leaves no discretion to the pilot and thus no chance for misunderstanding or confusion if the pilot does as the rules say to do. The problems arise when the pilot assumes the controller wants something other than what the rules or the controller have said, or the controller assumes the pilot will do something other than what the rules or the controller have said.
And please, folks -- don't listen to roncachamp. His advise on this will get you a bust on an IR ride or a violation if observed by Flight Standards. Just do what is published in the FAR's and AIM and you'll be fine.
Last edited:
roncachamp
Final Approach
What's the reason in creating the STAR if aircraft are to be vectored for the approach? What's the reason for the KAYCC-YOMON-YAAKK-SAPPE segments if the HILPT must be flown? If it had been made direct to SAPPE from KAYCC there'd be no doubt that the course reversal must be flown and three miles would be saved.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
91.123(a), 91.175(a), and possibly 91.13. The procedure is regulatory (part of Part 97 of the FARs) and the course reversal is part of the procedure. The AIM gives you certain conditions where the FAA says you can skip the reversal, but unless so authorized specifically, failure to fly the reversal once cleared for the approach is failing to fly the procedure as published, and that is a regulatory violation.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Actually, the problem is the folks writing the AIM are not familiar with the FARs.
roncachamp
Final Approach
I don't think any inflight TERPS work is needed to understand the alignment and altitude are acceptable for straight-in. All those Basic T RNAV approaches make that pretty clear.
roncachamp
Final Approach
And that would be a violation of what, specifically?
But the FARs and AIM are not in agreement on this matter, that's why confusion exists.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
I'm done responding to roncachamp. Anyone uncertain of this can ask AFS-420 or the Chief Counsel's office -- they'll tell you what Wally, John, and I have said.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,761
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
So tell me this roncachamp, if a procedure turn is never required then why have NoPT on approach plates? If it's my option to do one then something (NoPT) telling me it's not required would be a waste. If it is an option like you say then as a controller how would you know if a pilot is doing one or not? Some guys would be doing them and some not without telling you. That's the problem we have with ATC right now. They see some guy doing the procedure turn (because he's required) and then they jump all over him for not telling ATC (which he's not required to do). It would be chaos trying to figure out who's doing one and who isn't if they left it optional.
Do you have an instrument rating?
Do you have an instrument rating?
Last edited:
Captain
Final Approach
Seems to me the rational is sort of like an MEL. The bias is it has to be there and working unless its specifically listed as not. Procedure turn is the same. The bias is you do it unless its specifically stated that you don't.
A bias the other way would lead to confusion...except it appears we still have that. Go figure.
A bias the other way would lead to confusion...except it appears we still have that. Go figure.
roncachamp
Final Approach
§ 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. However, except in Class A airspace, a pilot may cancel an IFR flight plan if the operation is being conducted in VFR weather conditions. When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC.
How is that regulation violated when the clearance does not mention the HILPT?
§ 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.[/QUOTE]
Where's the violation? From Part 97:
There's nothing in Part 97 that says when a course reversal must be flown. The definition of Procedure Turn, "the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach course", supports my position much better than yours. Clearly, it is not necessary to reverse direction in the situation we're discussing.
§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
Nonsense. If there is some danger in not flying the HILPT that danger is there even when cleared straight-in.
Nothing in the FARs supports that position.
Captain
Final Approach
Roncachamp,
I know you know this...but the way IAPs are built its like flying down a funnel. The protected airspace gets narrower and narrower. The procedure turn keeps you above obstacles in protected airspace while you align yourself with the funnel.
To simply elect to not do the procedure turn and turn in you are going to fly outside the funnel and not be in position to descend...or worse, you are going to descend into unprotected airspace.
I have to believe your are wrong on this as what you are saying is dangerous and taken literally people would die doing as you suggest. I don't care what the AIM says or what the FARs say, it's always against the rules to crash.
I know you know this...but the way IAPs are built its like flying down a funnel. The protected airspace gets narrower and narrower. The procedure turn keeps you above obstacles in protected airspace while you align yourself with the funnel.
To simply elect to not do the procedure turn and turn in you are going to fly outside the funnel and not be in position to descend...or worse, you are going to descend into unprotected airspace.
I have to believe your are wrong on this as what you are saying is dangerous and taken literally people would die doing as you suggest. I don't care what the AIM says or what the FARs say, it's always against the rules to crash.
roncachamp
Final Approach
But a procedure turn is required at times, and I'm confident nobody here claimed otherwise. Having NoPT on published routes that don't require a course reversal reduces confusion among pilots. Examine what Wally wrote in post #50:
It is poor design and coordination between the STAR and the IAP. The alignment and altitude are acceptable for straight-in. But, the pilot is not suppose to work TERPs during flight.
The solution would have been to add YAAKK to the IAP chart as an IAF with NoPT.
The question is, given that the YAAKK to SAPPE eliminates the need for a course reversal, why isn't that segment depicted on the plate as a NoPT route? Doing so would have eliminated all the confusion.
(BTW, one does not have to examine a great many IAPs to conclude the folks that design them have little understanding of flying or of ATC.)
If radar coverage is adequate I'd see him.
And the pilot is required to fly the PT even when a course reversal is not needed because the AIM says so and the AIM is regulatory, right?
I don't think your understanding is shared by as many pilots as you may believe. This is not the first time this issue has been raised. For a few years now I've made it a point to not add "straight-in" to approach clearances for similar IAPs when traffic was not a factor. Like Basic T RNAV approaches where the aircraft is cleared via the center IAF, which has a HILPT, from the side away from the airport. So far nobody has opted for the course reversal, and I don't recall anyone asking for clarification of the clearance.
Yes.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
I've been to more than one charting forum where this issue was discussed. I don't recall ever having seen Steve at one of those.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
Cite please where it states it is not directive?
roncachamp
Final Approach
In the Flight Information Public Policy statement.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,761
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
OK what cases is it required then? No one is saying the arrival route to SAPPE eliminates the need for a course reversal. We're saying unless he gets a clearance for a straight in he'd have to do the reversal because there is no NoPT depicted. This approach isn't flawed because the arrival doesn't say NoPT. If I was proceeding direct to SAPPE from that side I'd still have to do the procedure turn.
So what proof do you have to say the guys designing approaches aren't pilots or former controllers. In the Army only the most experienced (instructors) pilots attend TERPs class.
Before an aircraft gets to SAPPE I would hope the controller would already know what the pilot is doing without observing it on radar first. They way they could plan arrivals behind them. In this case the controller should automatically assume the required HILPT without any verbal exchange. As a controller the only thing I'd say is "report PT inbound." Then the pilot would come back with "Oh I'd like to do the straight in." Baam, "cleared straight in approach."
I would say the only instrument rated pilot on this forum that agrees with your view on this matter is yourself.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
Cite the specific language. I fail to see anything on that page about the AIM not being directive.
Exactly True,
A situation where you do something that ATC doesn't expect could be a serious safety event, not to mention the action that he suggested would get you an UNSAT in the check environment. Thats really the point of this post...showing how ATC gave us a clearance that meant us doing something we knew he probably didn't expect. A small clarification took care of it, but its a good example of a situation that could easily get pilots and ATC drawing swords..
Again, Just because the AIM isnt regulatory... doesn't mean you cant wind up with a number to call or a letter in your mailbox....just sayin.
Last edited:
roncachamp
Final Approach
In cases where it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach course. Using the KPWM ILS or LOC RWY 29 as an example, it's required when cleared for the approach via the ENE feeder route.
Some of us are saying that. I think you used "need" where you mean "required". I say it's not needed or required. Wally says it's not needed but is required.
This approach is flawed because it doesn't display the YAAKK to SAPPE segment as a NoPT route as it should.
I base it on approaches that could have been designed with much better utility for pilots and controllers but were not.
Why would the controller make that assumption? From the P/CG:
Nothing there suggests pilots will execute a PT when it's not necessary to reverse direction to establish an aircraft on the intermediate approach segment or final approach course.
I believe I'm also the only instrument rated pilot participating in this discussion who has an extensive background in ATC. Coincidence? No matter, this is not the first time I've been the only sane man in the asylum.
Last edited:
roncachamp
Final Approach
I would suggest that the PT should be conducted as published UNLESS the aircraft is inbound via V268. The STAR only permits the pilot to proceed as far as SAPPE, nothing more. At that point, he is either cleared for the ILS 29 or not. Given the controller has good SA and there are no other traffic holding over SAPPE, he should continue with a straight in approach ONLY if cleared for the straight in or vectors to final (which is irrelevant given the STAR in use). UNDER ALL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES THE PILOT SHOULD FLY THE APPROACH AS PUBLISHED. The 4 mins that aircraft is in the hold could be the difference between going missed or not had another aircraft on 29 received LUAW instructions for that runway.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Perhaps we should all call and tell them to collectively get their **** together.
Ron has a point. You're right about what they WANT but they haven't codified it properly.
Instead of us all relying on people who have time to fart around with this stuff all day who get to be "experts" in interpreting their BS, why don't they just FIX it and put it in the FAR?
Or call the AIM regulatory and get it over with.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
That sound directive to me.
aterpster
En-Route
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
- Display Name
Display name:
aterpster
They can't. A NPRM would have to be issued for any change, with the 45 day comment period, etc.
Same for ACs, directive or "advisory."
"You want me to fly this procedure turn or you just want to give me vectors to final?"
roncachamp
Final Approach
Then your understanding of the word is flawed.
denverpilot
Tied Down
roncachamp
Final Approach
They can't call the AIM regulatory but they can treat it as such?
- Status