Procedure Turn or Not KPWM ILS 29 from CDOGG1 Arrival

[Palmpilot]

That would be correct for an RNAV IAP provided the controller complies with all the requirements set forth in the 7110.65 and AIM for a straight-in from an IF. In this case the IAP is an ILS so a straight-in would require a vector to final in accordance with Chapter 5 of the 7110.65.

I think the AIM is misleading on that point. The section on procedure turns, 5-4-9, says "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" [Emphasis added]. I'm aware of the fact that the requirements for beginning an approach at an IF are mentioned elsewhere in the AIM, but there is no cross reference or other mention of it in the section on procedure turns.

In addition, although I can't find it right now, my recollection is that the AIM section on beginning an RNAV approach at an IF does not actually say that an RNAV approach is the only circumstance in which ATC can instruct a pilot to do it. I'm not saying that makes it OK; I'm just saying that it is likely to be misleading for pilots who aren't well versed on the rules for controllers.

 

[Velocity173]

That would be correct for an RNAV IAP provided the controller complies with all the requirements set forth in the 7110.65 and AIM for a straight-in from an IF. In this case the IAP is an ILS so a straight-in would require a vector to final in accordance with Chapter 5 of the 7110.65.

Having said all of that, this particular instance is an example of lousy melding of a STAR with an ILS IAP. An NoPT initial segment should have been added to make the STAR an operational advantage rather than a road block.

I don't think I'm understanding this correctly. Are you saying in the rwy 29 approach the arrival should have a NoPT which would allow the pilot to do a straight in? Also are you saying the controller cannot clear the aircraft for a straight in from this current arrival depiction?

 

[aterpster]

I don't think I'm understanding this correctly. Are you saying in the rwy 29 approach the arrival should have a NoPT which would allow the pilot to do a straight in? Also are you saying the controller cannot clear the aircraft for a straight in from this current arrival depiction?

Yes I am. It is 90 degrees and meets descent gradient requirements. It is a screw up and an FDC NOTAM is being process at present.

On the second, the answer is no. That can be done only for an RNAV IAP at the present time. The only method for an ILS for straight-in in the case in point is for vectors to final.

 

[Velocity173]

Yes I am. It is 90 degrees and meets descent gradient requirements. It is a screw up and an FDC NOTAM is being process at present.

On the second, the answer is no. That can be done only for an RNAV IAP at the present time. The only method for an ILS for straight-in in the case in point is for vectors to final.

So the controller in this case was wrong by clearing Taters for the straight in?

 

[John Collins]

So the controller in this case was wrong by clearing Taters for the straight in?

In my understanding the controller was authorized to clear the aircraft straight-in because the waypoint was an IAF. Had it been solely an IF and not also an IAF, then except for RNAV or GPS approach, it isn't currently permitted.

 

[taters]

Please explain how logic and your training lead to that interpretation of the regulations.

Ronachamp....since you clearly appear to have all the answers here please enlighten us



So your on a fed observed line check landing PWM ...
Coming in on the CDOGG1 Arrival .
"maintain at or above 3000 until SAPPE, cleared ILS 29 "

What would you do Ronachamp? I need to know so I can know what to do next time.

 

[aterpster]

In my understanding the controller was authorized to clear the aircraft straight-in because the waypoint was an IAF. Had it been solely an IF and not also an IAF, then except for RNAV or GPS approach, it isn't currently permitted.

Where do you see the authority for that?

That would seem to be an end run around 7110.65, 5-9-1 and 5-9-2 with the attendant limitation of a 30 degree intercept angle to the final approach course at the distance involved.

Also, it is debatable that the fix is an IAF except when it is crossed for the course reversal. Otherwise it is an IF.

 

[roncachamp]

I did ATC for 8 yrs and if I did it in your haphazard way I would have been fired.

What facilities during what years? Why only eight years? Did you get fired?

Nobody that knows what he's talking about would describe my methods as haphazard.

Your lack of control in this situation is almost like the vision of Free Flight. While I agree with the principles of Free Flight it doesn't cover this situation in the present day. Watching a random PT unfold is no different than watching an aircraft assume his own route without telling ATC. Who cares if there isn't any traffic at the time? It's just poor lazy controlling, plan and simple.

Nonsense. The "lack of control" is no different than clearance for the option with no other pattern traffic.

You just simply can't get around the definition of NoPT. That means it's not required.

What's to get around? We're not talking about a NoPT route.

Once again, if it's never required anyway there's no point in posted it on a plate. Your reference to the note in 5-4-9 actually supports this. "Not require by the procedure" is NoPT. If there's no NoPT indicated then common sense suggests it's required by the procedure.

Why would the pilot be uncertain whether the ATC clearance intends for a PT to be conducted on a NoPT route? "Not required by the procedure" means there's no need to reverse course.

What makes me laugh is your own 7110.65 clarifies it. You must clear him for a straight in if you don't want him to do a PT. I don't care how you try and warp that sentence from the 7110.65, it means the aircraft WILL do the PT if you don't give him a straight in.

We've been over this. I don't have to clear him for a straight-in when I don't care if he makes a PT and no pilot has yet made a PT when I've cleared him that way.

You site regulations but then you give your asumptions of when you believe as a controller they should do a PT. "I believe a course reversal is required when it's necessary to reverse course." Just like the controller assumed in ASRS # 2. Well he's less than 90 degrees it shouldn't be required right? Yeah show me that in the regs. Obviously the 7110.65 doesn't care if he's less than 90 degrees because the example given shows maybe a 60 degree offset and it still has the controller issuing a straight in in order to prevent the aircraft from doing the required PT.

We've been over this too, review message #51.

You also haven't acknowledged the fact that the PT is part of the SIAP. If I'm direct that fixed and get cleared for the approach I have to do it as depicted. That is regulatory. And while the AIM not being regulatory matters, It mirrors the regs.

If the AIM mirrored the FARs we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It just provides a different way of defining why a PT is required. If you can't understand the definitions of NoPT, HILPT, the requirement to adhere to an approach procedure, and the common sense guidance that the AIM provides, well then I'm sorry. It sure seems like we have a lot of professional instrument pilots and controllers here that disagree with you.

I understand all of those definitions, I'm trying to help you understand them. The problem is you're trying to teach when you should be trying to learn.

 

[roncachamp]

Ronachamp....since you clearly appear to have all the answers here please enlighten us



So your on a fed observed line check landing PWM ...
Coming in on the CDOGG1 Arrival .
"maintain at or above 3000 until SAPPE, cleared ILS 29 "

What would you do Ronachamp? I need to know so I can know what to do next time.

I'd do as I said in message #33, start a left turn as I approached SAPPE and intercept the localizer.

 

[roncachamp]

That would seem to be an end run around 7110.65, 5-9-1 and 5-9-2 with the attendant limitation of a 30 degree intercept angle to the final approach course at the distance involved.

Those apply only to vectors to the approach.

 

[Velocity173]

Forget it Steve. You can try and warp all the definitions to try and fit your view but there hasn't been a single person that's supported you in this. You have some of the most experienced professional pilots around trying to explain this requirement. I guess your experience gives you some sort of special wisdom us rookies can't attain.

I was an approach/tower controller in the military for only 8 yrs because I wanted something more exciting. I joined the Army and flew over 1,200 combat hrs in two different wars.

Good luck and good day.

 

[Everskyward]

From the Instrument Procedures Handbook.

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/instrument_procedures_handbook/media/CH-05.pdf

 

[taters]

I'd do as I said in message #33, start a left turn as I approached SAPPE and intercept the localizer.

Then I hope you like the color pink.....and I'd bet your more than familiar with it....I can only imagine how you'd probably argue....

 

[taters]

Emmit from the jeppessen advisory board called me back today...he said the FAA nav source document requires the PT as we all have discussed...he indicated a Nopt will be suggested to the FAA for both fixes and to watch NOTAMS in the coming days

 

[roncachamp]

Then I hope you like the color pink.....and I'd bet your more than familiar with it....I can only imagine how you'd probably argue....

I assume you mean argue that starting a left turn as I approached SAPPE and intercepting the localizer is entirely proper. That shouldn't be hard to imagine, I'd make the same cogent argument I've made here.

 

[aterpster]

Emmit from the jeppessen advisory board called me back today...he said the FAA nav source document requires the PT as we all have discussed...he indicated a Nopt will be suggested to the FAA for both fixes and to watch NOTAMS in the coming days

Indeed the Jeppesen nav database complies with the regulatory requirements by including the HILPT. It wouldn't if NoPT were there to be coded.

This is the NOTAM that is supposed to be issued today:

ADD CHART NOTE at SAPPE: NoPT for arrival on CDOGG ARRIVAL.

 

[aterpster]

I'd do as I said in message #33, start a left turn as I approached SAPPE and intercept the localizer.

If on the STAR you would have to be flying RNAV to the localizer inbound, here are the legs you would be required to fly unless you modified the flight plan. It would take you right around that HILPT.

I guess those folks at Jeppesen and Garmin are about as clueless as the FAA folks at AFS-420.

 

[aterpster]

Issued today:

!FDC 2/3044 (KPWM A0804/12) PWM FI/T IAP PORTLAND INTL JETPORT, PORTLAND, ME. ILS OR LOC RWY 29, AMDT 3... ILS RWY 29 (SA CAT I), AMDT 3... ILS RWY
29 (SA CAT II), AMDT 3... RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, AMDT 2... ADD NOTE AT SAPPE:
NOPT FOR ARRIVAL ON CDOGG AND SCOGS ARRIVAL.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Issued today:

!FDC 2/3044 (KPWM A0804/12) PWM FI/T IAP PORTLAND INTL JETPORT, PORTLAND, ME. ILS OR LOC RWY 29, AMDT 3... ILS RWY 29 (SA CAT I), AMDT 3... ILS RWY
29 (SA CAT II), AMDT 3... RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, AMDT 2... ADD NOTE AT SAPPE:
NOPT FOR ARRIVAL ON CDOGG AND SCOGS ARRIVAL.

Good work, folks!

 

[roncachamp]

Emmit from the jeppessen advisory board called me back today...he said the FAA nav source document requires the PT as we all have discussed...he indicated a Nopt will be suggested to the FAA for both fixes and to watch NOTAMS in the coming days

Of course the source document requires the PT, aircraft on the ENE feeder route have to turn around at SAPPE. When ya gotta turn around ya gotta have a PT. If the ENE feeder didn't exist the ILS RWY 29 would look much like the ILS RWY 11; none of the routes to the localizer require aircraft to turn around, no PT.

 

[aterpster]

Of course the source document requires the PT, aircraft on the ENE feeder route have to turn around at SAPPE. When ya gotta turn around ya gotta have a PT. If the ENE feeder didn't exist the ILS RWY 29 would look much like the ILS RWY 11; none of the routes to the localizer require aircraft to turn around, no PT.

In that case there was no need for the just-issued NOTAM and the Jeppesen/Garmin RNAV database showing the STAR connected to the 29 ILS was bad coding.

These folks need your services to get them to understand this stuff.

 

[roncachamp]

In that case there was no need for the just-issued NOTAM and the Jeppesen/Garmin RNAV database showing the STAR connected to the 29 ILS was bad coding.

The purpose of these STARs is to provide transition from the enroute environment to the approach. A STAR that requires a course reversal at the IAF is poorly designed.

These folks need your services to get them to understand this stuff.

Absolutely.

 

[aterpster]

The purpose of these STARs is to provide transition from the enroute environment to the approach. A STAR that requires a course reversal at the IAF is poorly designed.

Thus, the reason for the NOTAM.

 

[roncachamp]

Thus, the reason for the NOTAM.

The reason for the NOTAM is confusion among some pilots as to when a course reversal is required. Arrival via either of the STARs never required a course reversal.

 

[dukeblue219]

Nonsense. The "lack of control" is no different than clearance for the option with no other pattern traffic.

Except that "cleared for the option" is an explicity given clearance authorizing the pilot to make the decision himself based on the knowledge that there is not conflicting traffic.

I suppose that a controller could give a "maintain 3000 until ABCDE, cleared ILS 29, option for the reversal" clearance, but it would be rather silly. If the pilot was just "cleared ILS 29" in this case he certainly must do the PT, just as he cannot do the PT if he was cleared straight-in (or NoPT, etc). Otherwise he is either violating the IAP or the controller's instruction.

There is not supposed to be any ambiguity about it. The pilot cannot just assume that ATC is allowing him to make the decision to NoPT, nor should ATC just wait to see what he does, whether or not ATC thinks "it will be ok."

To be clear, as an instrument rated pilot you better believe I'm doing the PT unless I know for sure I don't have to. And by "don't have to" I'm mean because language on the IAP or a controller's instruction, not because I felt a reversal was unnecessary. I would just ask "Approach, N12345, request straight in GPS 29."

 

[vontresc]

So my take on this after 6 flippin pages is. Just ask the damn controller to clarify.

 

[Palmpilot]

Forget it Steve. You can try and warp all the definitions to try and fit your view but there hasn't been a single person that's supported you in this. You have some of the most experienced professional pilots around trying to explain this requirement. I guess your experience gives you some sort of special wisdom us rookies can't attain.

I was an approach/tower controller in the military for only 8 yrs because I wanted something more exciting. I joined the Army and flew over 1,200 combat hrs in two different wars.

Good luck and good day.

The trouble with this idea that Steven is alone in his view is that plenty of pilots have written (in other threads) about controllers acting surprised by pilots flying procedure turns in circumstances where the AIM says they are required. That tells us that there is a need for further clarification in the controllers' manual, the AIM, and/or the regulations.

 

[roncachamp]

There is not supposed to be any ambiguity about it.

And yet there is.

The pilot cannot just assume that ATC is allowing him to make the decision to NoPT, nor should ATC just wait to see what he does, whether or not ATC thinks "it will be ok."

Why not? What downside do you see if that decision is left to the pilot when traffic is not a factor?

To be clear, as an instrument rated pilot you better believe I'm doing the PT unless I know for sure I don't have to. And by "don't have to" I'm mean because language on the IAP or a controller's instruction, not because I felt a reversal was unnecessary. I would just ask "Approach, N12345, request straight in GPS 29."

To date, in the situation I've described, no pilot has elected to do the course reversal, I don't recall anyone asking for a straight-in, and all of them have survived the experience.

 

[Palmpilot]

So my take on this after 6 flippin pages is. Just ask the damn controller to clarify.

Good advice, but note that there are some circumstances mentioned in this thread (e.g., on non-RNAV approaches) where controllers are giving straight-in instructions that they allegedly shouldn't be giving.

 

[aterpster]

The reason for the NOTAM is confusion among some pilots as to when a course reversal is required. Arrival via either of the STARs never required a course reversal.

Are you speaking for AeroNav Services now?

The folks who issued the NOTAM do not agree whatsoever with your assessment.

 

[roncachamp]

The folks who issued the NOTAM do not agree whatsoever with your assessment.

The wording of the NOTAM suggests that they do.

 

[SCCutler]

The wording of the NOTAM suggests that they do.

Well, you’re close, Steven - Issuance of the NOTAM shows that they believe a PT should not be required when the specified feeder routes are used; upon issuance of the NOTAM, pilots can rely upon that bit of common-sense without fear of reprisal.

Prior to its issuance, a pilot arriving from any route other than those labeled “NoPT” and electing not to execute the PT, while not receiving radar vectors, would be subject to enforcement action.

 

[Velocity173]

The trouble with this idea that Steven is alone in his view is that plenty of pilots have written (in other threads) about controllers acting surprised by pilots flying procedure turns in circumstances where the AIM says they are required. That tells us that there is a need for further clarification in the controllers' manual, the AIM, and/or the regulations.

It seems like controllers are the only ones confused by the wording in the FARs,7110.65 and the AIM. Every experienced IFR pilot on this forum saw no ambiguity in handling the situation. Since this thread started I've asked several friends who fly for a living and they all said yes, it's required.

The fact is a lot of controllers don't know the AIM or even the FARs. My primary responsibilities were to know the 7110.65, local SOPs, memorize airspace within 100 miles and approaches within my airspace. We had a FAR/AIM in the radar room covered in dust because it was more of reference for rare cases. I was one of the few guys who read it and that was mostly because I was working on my PPL at the time.

The controller in case # 2 is quite indicative of how controllers view the HILPT. They see it as something they have to clear you for or something a pilot has to request. Both untrue. I also believe a possible misconception exists where controllers think if the aircraft is on less than a 90 degree intercept a HILPT isn't required either. Also untrue.

I think the references we've made make it quite clear that HILPT is required. What I think is ironic now is that this arrival will have a NoPT depicted allowing aircraft to do a straight in but yet the controller can't clear the aircraft for a straight in because it's a non RNAV approach???

 

[jesse]

The reason for the NOTAM is confusion among some pilots as to when a course reversal is required. Arrival via either of the STARs never required a course reversal.

Now you're just getting ridiculous It's pretty clear that without the NOTAM the procedure turn is indeed required.

The purpose of the NOTAM isn't to teach pilots the rules - it's to correct their error.

 

[Palmpilot]

The purpose of the NOTAM isn't to teach pilots the rules - it's to correct their error.

I presume you mean the procedure designer's error, not the pilots'?

 

[jesse]

I presume you mean the prodedure designer's error, not the pilots'?

Correct -- error in the sense that they could make it no procedure turn required but didn't. I guess I'd call that lack of a feature not an error.

So the NOTAM adds a feature they didn't originally add but could have

 

[jason]

Now you're just getting ridiculous It's pretty clear that without the NOTAM the procedure turn is indeed required.

The purpose of the NOTAM isn't to teach pilots the rules - it's to correct their error.

At this point it seems as if you're just trolling. There is no ambiguity here. Without a NoPT notation the HILPT is required. Just because you've "observed many pilots skip course reversals in similar situations" does not mean that it was ok. Just because you didn't give them a number to call doesn't mean that somebody that actually understands the regulations wouldn't.

I used to love having you chime into these threads because I wanted to hear opinions on things from the other side of the radio. But if you're willing to sit here and willingly tell pilots to break the rules in order to avoid admitting that you were wrong...then everything that you say is now tainted in my eyes.

Good lord. Just admit when you're wrong.

 

[Palmpilot]

It seems like controllers are the only ones confused by the wording in the FARs,7110.65 and the AIM. Every experienced IFR pilot on this forum saw no ambiguity in handling the situation. Since this thread started I've asked several friends who fly for a living and they all said yes, it's required.

From what I've seen, pilots who don't fly for a living understand that it's required too. For example:

http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=67010

The fact is a lot of controllers don't know the AIM or even the FARs. My primary responsibilities were to know the 7110.65, local SOPs, memorize airspace within 100 miles and approaches within my airspace. We had a FAR/AIM in the radar room covered in dust because it was more of reference for rare cases. I was one of the few guys who read it and that was mostly because I was working on my PPL at the time.

That's why I'm wondering if it's spelled out explicitly in the 7110.65. There are enough controllers who seem unaware of the requirement, that it seems like it needs to be.

 

[taters]

The wording of the NOTAM suggests that they do.

Id sure like to hear the explanation on that....
Did you actually read the NOTAM?..that like telling people 2+2=6

 

[taters]

The reason for the NOTAM is confusion among some pilots as to when a course reversal is required. Arrival via either of the STARs never required a course reversal.

This is absurd........go down with your ship... I agree with above...You are clearly trolling.