Procedure turn question

[wind_shear]

Hey all, another question about feeder routes and procedure turns. Reference this approach. UAO LOC RWY17. What would be the correct way to fly the full procedure from the UBG feeder to LUTZZ at 9.8DME. Once reaching LUTZZ intercept and track the loc outbound and then begin the PT or after crossing LUTZZ roll right into the PT and begin your left turn to a heading of 037 for 1 minute. https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2103/05722L17.PDF


Thanks

 

[luvflyin]

Hey all, another question about feeder routes and procedure turns. Reference this approach. UAO LOC RWY17. What would be the correct way to fly the full procedure from the UBG feeder to LUTZZ at 9.8DME. Once reaching LUTZZ intercept and track the loc outbound and then begin the PT or after crossing LUTZZ roll right into the PT and begin your left turn to a heading of 037 for 1 minute. https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2103/05722L17.PDF


Thanks

What’s ‘correct’ is you must do your maneuver on the side indicated by the Barb and remain with 10 NM. Joining the Localizer outbound for about a minute and then do the right to 037 then a 180 degree turn left to 217 and then join the Localizer inbound thing would be a typical way of doing it. Turning to 037 right at LUTZZ and then turning left to 217, then the Localizer inbound could make it kinda hard to get down. You can’t leave 3100 until established inbound. You could be pretty close to LUTZZ doing it that way. FWIW I’d probably just turn left to about 020, fly out bound for a minute or two and then turn left and intercept the Localizer in bound. Kinda like a ‘teardrop’ thang. Headings and minutes outbound adjusted some maybe depending on winds and how fast I was flying.

 

[EdFred]

Is Newberg actually a feeder though? Looks like just a crossing radial to me.

 

[bbchien]

Ed Fred is correct. Newburg is not an IAF. Those crossing radials are for LOC stepdowns...

 

[dmspilot]

Ed Fred is correct. Newburg is not an IAF. Those crossing radials are for LOC stepdowns...

Then why does the 063 radial have a partial bold arrow and an altitude of 4000? Looks like a chart error to me.

Furthermore unless I am not looking close enough I only see one IAF on the approach (at Battleground) so the depiction of a procedure turn doesn't make sense.

It seems like LUTZZ was meant to be an IAF but it's not labeled as such.

 

[luvflyin]

Is Newberg actually a feeder though? Looks like just a crossing radial to me.

The line starts out as Bold. Thin bold, but bold. It has an Altitude and a Distance. It’s a Feeder. It also identifies the FAF as a crossing Radial. LUTZZ is an IAF. The GovChart makers boo boo’d. Jepp got it right

 

[luvflyin]

Then why does the 063 radial have a partial bold arrow and an altitude of 4000? Looks like a chart error to me.

Furthermore unless I am not looking close enough I only see one IAF on the approach (at Battleground) so the depiction of a procedure turn doesn't make sense.

It seems like LUTZZ was meant to be an IAF but it's not labeled as such.

Yup. See above

 

[luvflyin]

Ed Fred is correct. Newburg is not an IAF. Those crossing radials are for LOC stepdowns...

FIDOV is a Stepdown fix. LUTZZ is an FAF. Yeah, ya step down so to speak at an FAF. But ‘stepdown’ is a defined type of Fix. FIDOV is an Intersection and a DME Fix. There should be a DME or ‘Dual Nav’ Required for FIDOV Note on this Approach.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I don't understand the confusion. UBG R063 and 4000 to intercept the Localizer the IAF at LUTZZ. Turn left. Fly outbound and descend to 3600. Make the PT in the east side and reintercept the Localizer inbound. descend to 2600.

 

[midlifeflyer]

FIDOV is a Stepdown fix. LUTZZ is an FAF. Yeah, ya step down so to speak at an FAF. But ‘stepdown’ is a defined type of Fix. FIDOV is an Intersection and a DME Fix. There should be a DME or ‘Dual Nav’ Required for FIDOV Note on this Approach.

Why? There are two sets of minimums. If you don't have a way if identifying FIDOV you just have higher minimums.

 

[EdFred]

When I was looking at the approach on my phone it was so small that you couldn't see the bolded portion. But why is it (LUTZZ) not labeled as an initial approach fix?

 

[dss91]

Why? There are two sets of minimums. If you don't have a way if identifying FIDOV you just have higher minimums.

How would one be able to identify LUTZZ but not be able to identify FIDOV? If one is flying with a single NAV, the only way I can think of to begin timing would be to have UGB be tuned in standby and monitor for the intersection of the localizer course and UGB once established inbound, therefore you could identify FIDOV the same way? Or is it assumed since you would be past the FAF that you would use timing only and not attempt cross radials?

 

[midlifeflyer]

When I was looking at the approach on my phone it was so small that you couldn't see the bolded portion. But why is it (LUTZZ) not labeled as an initial approach fix?

That's a good question. BTG Is the only IAF on this approach. That's true in the regulatory source document as well. Might just be an error.

 

[midlifeflyer]

How would one be able to identify LUTZZ but not be able to identify FIDOV? If one is flying with a single NAV, the only way I can think of to begin timing would be to have UGB be tuned in standby and monitor for the intersection of the localizer course and UGB once established inbound, therefore you could identify FIDOV the same way? Or is it assumed since you would be past the FAF that you would use timing only and not attempt cross radials?

Good question. My practical answer is the same as yours. With single nav, I don't see a huge problem with flipping back and forth to identify an intersection enroute or on an initial or intermediate approach segment (BTDT as both a non-instrument pilot and instrument trainee). But I would not do that on a LOC-based FAS.

Not sure but I think I've seen dual navs as a requirement only when both need to be simultaneously received.

 

[aterpster]

When I was looking at the approach on my phone it was so small that you couldn't see the bolded portion. But why is it (LUTZZ) not labeled as an initial approach fix?

Charting error. Look at the Jepp chart post above.

Here is source:

 

[flyingron]

I reported it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Charting error. Look at the Jepp chart post above.

Here is source:
View attachment 95655

Interesting. So they don't identify a fix as an IAF in the "Terminal Routes" section if it's identified in the PT section? I never noticed that before.

 

[wind_shear]

I was pretty sure the correct procedure after LUTZZ would be to intercept and track the loc outbound and than do the PT. I guess what I'm getting caught up on is not knowing if that will always be the case with a feeder? will you always go from the feeder and intercept the loc/vor and track outbound and than begin the pt? (if doing full procedure) reference this approach PWA VOR RWY 35R. IFI feeder at 3300 and 27.8 DME to DICKH, intercept and track the PWA 168r outbound begin PT after a minutes or so. obviously after crossing DICKH you can drop down to 3000 and so on after establish inbound. Also shouldn't there be NOPT noted from the IRW feeder? or am i missing something?

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2103/00739V35R.PDF

 

[penaltyvectors]

Fly outbound and descend to 3600.

Where are you getting 3600 from? Wouldn’t it be 4000 on the feeder, 3100 outbound, and 2600 inbound?

 

[wind_shear]

Where are you getting 3600 from? Wouldn’t it be 4000 on the feeder, 3100 outbound, and 2600 inbound?

This is correct. He probably made a typo

 

[luvflyin]

Why? There are two sets of minimums. If you don't have a way if identifying FIDOV you just have higher minimums.

Why? There are two sets of minimums. If you don't have a way if identifying FIDOV you just have higher minimums.

It’s required for Intersections inside the FAF used as Stepdowns. Here’s an example. The example below is not also a DME Fix like the one we’ve been talking about. DME is not required for the LOC RWY 17. I think they are still supposed to Chart the Dual Nav required for the Stepdown Fix lest someone without DME try to single Nav it. I ain’t betting a whole paycheck on it though.

 

[luvflyin]

Interesting. So they don't identify a fix as an IAF in the "Terminal Routes" section if it's identified in the PT section? I never noticed that before.

What would they put in the COURSE AND DISTANCE and ALTITUDE columns if it was up there? And the FROM and TO. From LUTZZ to LUTZZ

 

[luvflyin]

I reported it.

Let us know what the response is. I wonder if they'll just fix it and cut the NOTAM or send it up the food chain.

 

[luvflyin]

I was pretty sure the correct procedure after LUTZZ would be to intercept and track the loc outbound and than do the PT. I guess what I'm getting caught up on is not knowing if that will always be the case with a feeder? will you always go from the feeder and intercept the loc/vor and track outbound and than begin the pt? (if doing full procedure) reference this approach PWA VOR RWY 35R. IFI feeder at 3300 and 27.8 DME to DICKH, intercept and track the PWA 168r outbound begin PT after a minutes or so. obviously after crossing DICKH you can drop down to 3000 and so on after establish inbound. Also shouldn't there be NOPT noted from the IRW feeder? or am i missing something?

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2103/00739V35R.PDF

You seem to think the PT starts where the Barb is. The PT starts at the IAF and ends at the FAF. The entire thing is an Initial Approach Segment. Only exception I know of is an Approach where the IAF is on the airport and there is no FAF. On these the Final Approach Segment begins when intercepting the Approach Course inbound. There aren't very many of these. Read AIM 5-4-9. If you don't have one, get it here: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/index.html

EDIT: I think there are some that begin at the IAF and end at an IF.

 

[Palmpilot]

I was pretty sure the correct procedure after LUTZZ would be to intercept and track the loc outbound and than do the PT. I guess what I'm getting caught up on is not knowing if that will always be the case with a feeder? will you always go from the feeder and intercept the loc/vor and track outbound and than begin the pt? (if doing full procedure) reference this approach PWA VOR RWY 35R. IFI feeder at 3300 and 27.8 DME to DICKH, intercept and track the PWA 168r outbound begin PT after a minutes or so. obviously after crossing DICKH you can drop down to 3000 and so on after establish inbound. Also shouldn't there be NOPT noted from the IRW feeder? or am i missing something?

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2103/00739V35R.PDF

My understanding is that if a PT is depicted, you are required to fly it unless you're on a route marked NoPT, ATC instructs you to fly straight-in, or you were given vectors to final. Maybe the lack of "NoPT" on the IRW feeder is an error. Making a 170 degree turn to get established outbound on the PT seems like a bit much.

 

[wind_shear]

You seem to think the PT starts where the Barb is. The PT starts at the IAF and ends at the FAF. The entire thing is an Initial Approach Segment. Only exception I know of is an Approach where the IAF is on the airport and there is no FAF. On these the Final Approach Segment begins when intercepting the Approach Course inbound. There aren't very many of these. Read AIM 5-4-9. If you don't have one, get it here: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/index.html

EDIT: I think there are some that begin at the IAF and end at an IF.

Not quite sure i follow. The PT can begin once you've crossed the IAF and have course guidance outbound. only requirement is to remain within 10nm of the PT fix. Also, I believe the Initial approach segment ends at the IF or if the IF is not depicted than it would end once you are established inbound on the final approach course which would be the intermediate approach segment ending at the FAF, unless as you mentioned if there was no FAF depicted than the final approach segment would begin once establish inbound on the final approach course

 

[wind_shear]

My understanding is that if a PT is depicted, you are required to fly it unless you're on a route marked NoPT, ATC instructs you to fly straight-in, or you were given vectors to final. Maybe the lack of "NoPT" on the IRW feeder is an error. Making a 170 degree turn to get established outbound on the PT seems like a bit much.

That was my thought exactly!

 

[luvflyin]

My understanding is that if a PT is depicted, you are required to fly it unless you're on a route marked NoPT, ATC instructs you to fly straight-in, or you were given vectors to final. Maybe the lack of "NoPT" on the IRW feeder is an error. Making a 170 degree turn to get established outbound on the PT seems like a bit much.

It could be about Altitude. Sometimes PT's are there to allow for descent so the Final Approach isn't to steep. Not just getting aligned inbound. Yeah, not much difference between 3000 and 2800 but it's kinda a short final. I'll give it a toss up that that's it or Charting error

 

[luvflyin]

Not quite sure i follow. The PT can begin once you've crossed the IAF and have course guidance outbound. only requirement is to remain within 10nm of the PT fix. Also, I believe the Initial approach segment ends at the IF or if the IF is not depicted than it would end once you are established inbound on the final approach course which would be the intermediate approach segment ending at the FAF, unless as you mentioned if there was no FAF depicted than the final approach segment would begin once establish inbound on the final approach course

The PT begins at the IAF. Positive Course Guidance is not needed until inbound. Have you read AIM 5-4-9 yet?

 

[midlifeflyer]

This is correct. He probably made a typo

Story of my life.

 

[midlifeflyer]

You seem to think the PT starts where the Barb is.

Not quite sure i follow. The PT can begin once you've crossed the IAF and have course guidance outbound.

I think you are just misunderstanding each other a bit. @Windshear, I think your comments, especially the one about course guidance, can be read as suggesting that you need to go as far as the the (not-to-scale barb) before turning. I'm pretty sure I know what you meant, but still, you do not need positive course guidance
outbound past LUTTZ before commencing the reversal. Example: UBG to LUTTZ. Teardrop entry to a racetrack pattern. No course guidance until inbound.

 

[flyingron]

Let us know what the response is. I wonder if they'll just fix it and cut the NOTAM or send it up the food chain.

They usually fix the charts when I report things like this.
Amusingly, I went back and noted that something I reported previously (failure to remove a transition area around an airport that had all the approaches deleted) was sitting there with a "don't complain to us about, it write these guys" message. Sure enough, it wasn't fixed yet, so I had to write the other department.

 

[wind_shear]

I think you are just misunderstanding each other a bit. @Windshear, I think your comments, especially the one about course guidance, can be read as suggesting that you need to go as far as the the (not-to-scale barb) before turning. I'm pretty sure I know what you meant, but still, you do not need positive course guidance
outbound past LUTTZ before commencing the reversal. Example: UBG to LUTTZ. Teardrop entry to a racetrack pattern. No course guidance until inbound.

I never said anything about flying all the way to the barb before starting the PT. You're suggesting to not intercept and track the loc outbound at LUTZZ? and to just start your 45/180 PT at LUTZZ? Isn't that the complete opposite of what your posted earlier? I'm not trying to be rude.. just trying to make sure we're all on the same page

 

[aterpster]

Interesting. So they don't identify a fix as an IAF in the "Terminal Routes" section if it's identified in the PT section? I never noticed that before.

Because the course reversal fix is always an IAF and always in the profile, it is "hard wired" into Line 1 of the PV on the 8260-3 (or -5).

 

[aterpster]

EDIT: I think there are some that begin at the IAF and end at an IF.

Usually the case with RNAV. In this case it is at the IAF/FAF, which is typical for ILS or LOC.

 

[luvflyin]

I never said anything about flying all the way to the barb before starting the PT. You're suggesting to not intercept and track the loc outbound at LUTZZ? and to just start your 45/180 PT at LUTZZ? Isn't that the complete opposite of what your posted earlier? I'm not trying to be rude.. just trying to make sure we're all on the same page

Well, ya kinda implied you thought the PT began at the Barb when you said "...Once reaching LUTZZ intercept and track the loc outbound and then begin the PT ..." And you still seem to be implying it with your continued reference to the 45/180, "...just start your 45/180 PT..." I to am not trying to be rude, snarky or critical of you. You genuinely seem interested in learning and am trying to help. A PT is the only instance I know of where following the Bold Black line as depicted is not required. It is very common that folk don't quite get this at first. Please read AIM 5-4-9. I'm on your side.

 

[wind_shear]

Well, ya kinda implied you thought the PT began at the Barb when you said "...Once reaching LUTZZ intercept and track the loc outbound and then begin the PT ..." And you still seem to be implying it with your continued reference to the 45/180, "...just start your 45/180 PT..." I to am not trying to be rude, snarky or critical of you. You genuinely seem interested in learning and am trying to help. A PT is the only instance I know of where following the Bold Black line as depicted is not required. It is very common that folk don't quite get this at first. Please read AIM 5-4-9. I'm on your side.

I think we are misunderstanding each other. Yes the aim mentions "the point at which the turn may be commenced and the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of the pilot (limited by the charted remain within xx NM distance) " I feel like most of us would fly the full procedure such as:

 

[midlifeflyer]

I never said anything about flying all the way to the barb before starting the PT. You're suggesting to not intercept and track the loc outbound at LUTZZ? and to just start your 45/180 PT at LUTZZ? Isn't that the complete opposite of what your posted earlier? I'm not trying to be rude.. just trying to make sure we're all on the same page

No to both.

I said I didn't think you meant all the way to the barb. And I said "teardrop entry for a racetrack," not 45/180.

from the AIM:

On U.S. Government charts, a barbed arrow indicates the maneuvering side of the outbound course on which the procedure turn is made. Headings are provided for course reversal using the 45 degree type procedure turn. However, the point at which the turn may be commenced and the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of the pilot (limited by the charted remain within xx NM distance). Some of the options are the 45 degree procedure turn, the racetrack pattern, the tear-drop procedure turn, or the 80 degree ↔ 260 degree course reversal. Racetrack entries should be conducted on the maneuvering side where the majority of protected airspace resides. (Emphasis added)​

 

[midlifeflyer]

Because the course reversal fix is always an IAF and always in the profile, it is "hard wired" into Line 1 of the PV on the 8260-3 (or -5).

Thanks. I guess I never really looked closely enough to notice that.

 

[luvflyin]

I think we are misunderstanding each other. Yes the aim mentions "the point at which the turn may be commenced and the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of the pilot (limited by the charted remain within xx NM distance) " I feel like most of us would fly the full procedure such as:

Doing that is just fine. I agree that is what most pilots would do. The whole thing is the PT. It begins at LUTZZ