Procedure Turn Question

the400kid

the400kid

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
131
Display Name
Display name:
FLAAV8R
One thing that still has me confused are those situations where you approach the IAF directly head on, in front of you. Taking the RNAV RWY 10 approach into Caldwell, NJ (KCDW), if I'm coming from the west and flying a heading of 96 directly to WOKPU, is executing the procedure turn still required? If so, what purpose does it actually serve other than waste time and fuel?
 
Whenever a holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn is depicted, it is mandatory unless you are:

  • On an NoPT route, or
  • Receiving vectors to final, or
  • Already in the holding pattern at the depicted altitude, or
  • Cleared "straight in" for the approach by ATC.
If you are "coming from the west and flying a heading of 96 directly to WOKPU," you are not on an NoPT route, not receiving vectors to final, and not already in the holding pattern at the depicted altitude. At that point, the question is whether the controller said, "Cleared for the RNAV 10 approach" or "Cleared straight in for the RNAV 10 approach". In the latter case, you proceed direct to WOKPU and then continue straight in to HILKI. If the former, it is likely the controller just forgot the magic words, and you should ask the controller if you are "cleared straight in" or if you have to perform the course reversal -- then you do whichever the controller tells you to do.

Note that the controller is not authorized to clear you "straight in" unless you are arriving at the Intermediate Fix within 90 degrees of the next segment course, so if you arrive at WOKPU on a course of 330 or something like that, don't bother asking, because the controller cannot approve it, and you are going to have to do the course reversal. Whatever you do, do not assume that the controller erred and that you can skip the course reversal without meeting one of those four conditions -- that can cause big trouble. See the March 2010 edition of ASRS Callback of how bad things happen when controllers or pilots make assumptions on this issue.
 
Ron Levy said:
Whenever a holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn is depicted, it is mandatory unless you are:

  • On an NoPT route, or
  • Receiving vectors to final, or
  • Already in the holding pattern at the depicted altitude, or
  • Cleared "straight in" for the approach by ATC.
Click to expand...
This. You're talking to NY Approach when you get this approach and they have you on radar. A lot of times the procedure turn is necessary because you are out of their radar and they can't clear you straight in. Generally, if you're in some podunk airport in the middle of no where, you'll be expected to do the full approach.
 
It's also possible you might need the procedure turn to lose some altitude from the enroute enviroment.
 
Ron Levy said:
Whenever a holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn is depicted, it is mandatory unless you are:

  • On an NoPT route, or
  • Receiving vectors to final, or
  • Already in the holding pattern at the depicted altitude, or
  • Cleared "straight in" for the approach by ATC.
If you are "coming from the west and flying a heading of 96 directly to WOKPU," you are not on an NoPT route, not receiving vectors to final, and not already in the holding pattern at the depicted altitude. At that point, the question is whether the controller said, "Cleared for the RNAV 10 approach" or "Cleared straight in for the RNAV 10 approach". In the latter case, you proceed direct to WOKPU and then continue straight in to HILKI. If the former, it is likely the controller just forgot the magic words, and you should ask the controller if you are "cleared straight in" or if you have to perform the course reversal -- then you do whichever the controller tells you to do.

Note that the controller is not authorized to clear you "straight in" unless you are arriving at the Intermediate Fix within 90 degrees of the next segment course, so if you arrive at WOKPU on a course of 330 or something like that, don't bother asking, because the controller cannot approve it, and you are going to have to do the course reversal. Whatever you do, do not assume that the controller erred and that you can skip the course reversal without meeting one of those four conditions -- that can cause big trouble. See the March 2010 edition of ASRS Callback of how bad things happen when controllers or pilots make assumptions on this issue.
Click to expand...

This is why all GPS approaches should be a TAA. Most would assume, me included, that a straight-in is approved because it would be kinda foolish to retrace your path.

This is one of those areas were you can get into arguments about what's correct vs what's smart.
 
"The holding pattern maneuver is completed when the aircraft is established on the inbound course after executing the appropriate entry. If cleared for the approach prior to returning to the holding fix, and the aircraft is at the prescribed altitude, additional circuits of the holding pattern are not necessary nor expected by ATC. If pilots elect to make additional circuits to lose excessive altitude or to become better established on course, it is their responsibility to so advise ATC upon receipt of their approach clearance."

Which essentially means that you do not have to commence the hold in your case.
 
sgenie said:
"The holding pattern maneuver is completed when the aircraft is established on the inbound course after executing the appropriate entry. If cleared for the approach prior to returning to the holding fix, and the aircraft is at the prescribed altitude, additional circuits of the holding pattern are not necessary nor expected by ATC. If pilots elect to make additional circuits to lose excessive altitude or to become better established on course, it is their responsibility to so advise ATC upon receipt of their approach clearance."

Which essentially means that you do not have to commence the hold in your case.
Click to expand...
No, It doesn't. Since none of the four conditions apply, the maneuver is required, and by the first sentence quoted from the AIM, the maneuver is not completed until you cross the fix the second time. The second sentence in the AIM quote above covers only the situation where you have already entered the hold without having received the approach clearance, i.e., the third of my listed conditions above. The third sentence covers only the situation where you want to do additional circuits, i.e., cross the fix more than twice. So, as regards this situation, when cleared for the approach before reaching the fix the first time, you must cross the fix twice and only twice unless one of those four conditions exists, in which case you must cross the fix once and only once. Anything else requires specific ATC approval.

The result of all this is that as long as everyone follows the rules, there is never any question about how many trips around the pattern the pilot will do, so the pilot need not guess what the controller wants, and the controller need not guess what the pilot will do.
 
sgenie said:
"The holding pattern maneuver is completed when the aircraft is established on the inbound course after executing the appropriate entry. If cleared for the approach prior to returning to the holding fix, and the aircraft is at the prescribed altitude, additional circuits of the holding pattern are not necessary nor expected by ATC. If pilots elect to make additional circuits to lose excessive altitude or to become better established on course, it is their responsibility to so advise ATC upon receipt of their approach clearance."

Which essentially means that you do not have to commence the hold in your case.
Click to expand...

Your definition applies to once you're established in the hold, not for somone coming from the west direct WOKPU. Unless they meet the four requirements like Rob laid out, the OP would be required to do the reversal.

The whole situation is resolved by saying to ATC "we'll be requesting the straight in."
 
Lol! I knew Ron would be along shortly. We go through this every 6 months. We need Roncachamp to complete the thread.
 
I agree with what Ron says. However, I say it differently to emphasize the point that if it is charted, you start from the premise it is mandatory. The rule is that if a PT or HILPT is depicted on the approach chart, it is mandatory unless one of the four exceptions Ron listed are present. Just because you don't think it is necessary isn't relevant. Of course, in a case like this, if there is any confusion between the pilot and the controller, 91.123 requires the pilot to clear it up.

If I were west of WOKPU and cleared direct to WOKPU, cleared RNAV RWY, 10 approach, I would clarify with the controller that I was required to fly the course reversal with the stated clearance and request a straight in instead.
 
ARFlyer said:
This is why all GPS approaches should be a TAA.
Click to expand...

Alas, most of the recent TAA approaches now require a course reversal for the"downwind" 180 sector because the T legs have been removed because of the new (overly restrictive in my view) RNAV criteria.
 
John Collins said:
I agree with what Ron says. However, I say it differently to emphasize the point that if it is charted, you start from the premise it is mandatory. The rule is that if a PT or HILPT is depicted on the approach chart, it is mandatory unless one of the four exceptions Ron listed are present. Just because you don't think it is necessary isn't relevant. Of course, in a case like this, if there is any confusion between the pilot and the controller, 91.123 requires the pilot to clear it up.

If I were west of WOKPU and cleared direct to WOKPU, cleared RNAV RWY, 10 approach, I would clarify with the controller that I was required to fly the course reversal with the stated clearance and request a straight in instead.
Click to expand...

Wow, I didn't expect so many differing responses. That in and of itself tells me that 50% of the community is confused about the maneuver.

Under the circumstances, I would play it say and simply ask the controller for confirmation whether sh/e expects the course reversal. Better safe than sorry.
 
aterpster said:
Alas, most of the recent TAA approaches now require a course reversal for the"downwind" 180 sector because the T legs have been removed because of the new (overly restrictive in my view) RNAV criteria.
Click to expand...

Can you supply an approach of this type as an example?
 
the400kid said:
Can you supply an approach of this type as an example?
Click to expand...

I recall this one, because it was the first application of these more restrictive criteria. This was three or four years ago. So, there are many like this one now. There are also some new TAAs that have Y legs, so they are still 360 degrees NoPT. But, coming from the wrong direction the turn onto a Y leg is worse than what they supposedly wanted to prevent.

The below application is far more common than the Y configuration:

KRPXRNAVRwy25_zps6ee97514.jpg
 
the400kid said:
One thing that still has me confused are those situations where you approach the IAF directly head on, in front of you. Taking the RNAV RWY 10 approach into Caldwell, NJ (KCDW), if I'm coming from the west and flying a heading of 96 directly to WOKPU, is executing the procedure turn still required?
Click to expand...

According to the AIM, yes. 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." There is nothing in the FARs, or in logic, which supports that advisory. Note that immediately prior to that statement the AIM says; "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course." Go figure.

If so, what purpose does it actually serve other than waste time and fuel?
Click to expand...

What positive purpose does it serve to require a maneuver that puts an aircraft in exactly the same point in space it occupied a few minutes earlier? None.
 
Ron Levy said:
Note that the controller is not authorized to clear you "straight in" unless you are arriving at the Intermediate Fix within 90 degrees of the next segment course, so if you arrive at WOKPU on a course of 330 or something like that, don't bother asking, because the controller cannot approve it, and you are going to have to do the course reversal. Whatever you do, do not assume that the controller erred and that you can skip the course reversal without meeting one of those four conditions -- that can cause big trouble. See the March 2010 edition of ASRS Callback of how bad things happen when controllers or pilots make assumptions on this issue.
Click to expand...

Note that in the opinion of the FAA chief counsel pilots must adhere to instructions that controllers are not authorized to issue.
 
jordane93 said:
You're talking to NY Approach when you get this approach and they have you on radar. A lot of times the procedure turn is necessary because you are out of their radar and they can't clear you straight in. Generally, if you're in some podunk airport in the middle of no where, you'll be expected to do the full approach.
Click to expand...

Why would being out of radar contact make the procedure turn necessary?
 
the400kid said:
Wow, I didn't expect so many differing responses. That in and of itself tells me that 50% of the community is confused about the maneuver.
Click to expand...

In the last half dozen years or so prior to mandatory retirement from ATC I made it a point, when traffic was not a factor, to exclude the words "straight-in" from clearances for approaches like this. I didn't count the clearances, but I'd estimate it was well over one hundred. No pilot ever elected to take a lap, and I recall only one time when a pilot asked if that was to be straight-in.

Under the circumstances, I would play it say and simply ask the controller for confirmation whether sh/e expects the course reversal. Better safe than sorry.
Click to expand...

There is no traffic situation that is resolved by having an aircraft fly a PT/HILPT when it's not necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course. If traffic needs to be sequenced, and radar is not available to do that job, then the first aircraft is going to be cleared for the approach straight-in* and following aircraft are going to be issued holding.

*unless the controller forgets to include it.
 
Ron Levy said:
Whatever you do, do not assume that the controller erred and that you can skip the course reversal without meeting one of those four conditions -- that can cause big trouble. See the March 2010 edition of ASRS Callback of how bad things happen when controllers or pilots make assumptions on this issue.
Click to expand...

Looking at the first case in the Callback (SBA VOR 25), there was confusion whether a procedure turn at KWANG should have been made. This appears to be a situation I've never been exposed to before because I don't see a procedure turn at KWANG. If approaching from the east along the 250 radial, what's the procedure turn?
 
the400kid said:
Looking at the first case in the Callback (SBA VOR 25), there was confusion whether a procedure turn at KWANG should have been made. This appears to be a situation I've never been exposed to before because I don't see a procedure turn at KWANG. If approaching from the east along the 250 radial, what's the procedure turn?
Click to expand...

Read it again. The clearance was direct ZACKS. That's the FAF (as well as IAF), not an IF.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
Read it again. The clearance was direct ZACKS. That's the FAF (as well as IAF), not an IF.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

I see where my confusion was, I thought it direct to ZACKS from KWANG.

Nevertheless, where is the a procedure turn at ZACKS heading inbound?
 
Since the 2010 Call Back article, 7110.65 has been amended to include these instructions for controllers:

c. Except for visual approaches, do not clear an aircraft direct to the FAF unless it is also an IAF, wherein the aircraft is expected to execute the depicted procedure turn or hold-in-lieu of procedure turn.
Click to expand...

In the cited case, a straight in clearance via direct to the IAF/FAF is not permitted and furthermore, it is my opinion that minimum altitude permitted should not be below the PT minimum of 3000 MSL I do not believe that a controller should ever clear an aircraft to fly a segment below the charted altitude.
 
John Collins said:
Since the 2010 Call Back article, 7110.65 has been amended to include these instructions for controllers:



In the cited case, a straight in clearance via direct to the IAF/FAF is not permitted and furthermore, it is my opinion that minimum altitude permitted should not be below the PT minimum of 3000 MSL I do not believe that a controller should ever clear an aircraft to fly a segment below the charted altitude.
Click to expand...

But if the controller does send an aircraft direct to the FAF and clears it for a straight-in approach the pilot cannot fly the course reversal, so sayeth AIM 5-4-9.a. and the opinion of the FAA chief counsel.
 
roncachamp said:
But if the controller does send an aircraft direct to the FAF and clears it for a straight-in approach the pilot cannot fly the course reversal, so sayeth AIM 5-4-9.a. and the opinion of the FAA chief counsel.
Click to expand...

Agree, but the clearance should not be accepted by the pilot.
 
roncachamp said:
The conventional wisdom is that pilots are unable to discern between proper and improper ATC clearances/instructions.
Click to expand...

That is why airplanes crash into mountains when they are cleared to maintain at or above 2000 until established on an approach segment.
 
the400kid said:
Wow, I didn't expect so many differing responses. That in and of itself tells me that 50% of the community is confused about the maneuver.
Click to expand...
You've got all the controllers and all the professional instrument instructors in agreement. That ought to tell you something.
Under the circumstances, I would play it say and simply ask the controller for confirmation whether sh/e expects the course reversal. Better safe than sorry.
Click to expand...
You can't go wrong with that attitude.
 
I am confused as to why this is difficult.:dunno: Unless a condition to avoid the turn exists, the turn is mandatory regardless how little sense it makes. If this applies, you are likely talking to ATC, so why not clarify it on the spot, "Hey, did y'all want me to make this turn or not? I'd rather not", simple and effective.
 
the400kid said:
Wow, I didn't expect so many differing responses. That in and of itself tells me that 50% of the community is confused about the maneuver.
Click to expand...
Frankly I don't see this 50%, I see one lone voice in opposition, plus he/she is a newcomer (post #1) to the forum with no established 'credentials', so to speak.

I put your scenario to the test - I set it up on my G1000 simulator and assuming pilot's navigation (no vectors to final) it flew the hold pattern - once, and this thing knows how to do it 'legal'.
 
olasek said:
I put your scenario to the test - I set it up on my G1000 simulator and assuming pilot's navigation (no vectors to final) it flew the hold pattern - once, and this thing knows how to do it 'legal'.
Click to expand...
The Garmin GPS's have the 90-degree rule programmed in for approaches with a holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn at the IAF or IF. If you're arriving within 90 degrees of the approach course, when you load the approach, they will ask if you want to do the course reversal or not ("YES OR NO?"). This gives you a hint to ask for a "straight in" approach if the controller hasn't cleared you for it already, and reminds you to do the reversal if you aren't getting cleared "straight in". If you're outside that hemisphere, they will automatically load the course reversal by themselves, and you'll have to manually intervene to remove it.
 
Someone at work today (a fellow controller/pilot) told me something interesting. The FAA allows ATC to use the 90 degree intercept on RNAV/GPS approaches because authorized GPS equipment notifies pilots when to initiate the turn to final. Executed properly, a pilot should roll out of the turn established on final.

When in doubt, just ask.
 
MarkZ said:
Someone at work today (a fellow controller/pilot) told me something interesting. The FAA allows ATC to use the 90 degree intercept on RNAV/GPS approaches because authorized GPS equipment notifies pilots when to initiate the turn to final. Executed properly, a pilot should roll out of the turn established on final.
Click to expand...
Wally or John can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's why the FAA allows the 90 degree intercept. Those systems will do turn anticipation and roll out properly on course with a lot greater intercept angles than 90 degrees. I think it's more an issue of ensuring you don't intercept the succeeding leg too close to the next fix to make the next step-down.
When in doubt, just ask.
Click to expand...
Always a good idea when dealing with ATC.
 
Ron Levy said:
Wally or John can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's why the FAA allows the 90 degree intercept. Those systems will do turn anticipation and roll out properly on course with a lot greater intercept angles than 90 degrees. I think it's more an issue of ensuring you don't intercept the succeeding leg too close to the next fix to make the next step-down.
Click to expand...

There are complex geometric rules in the present criteria that did not exist two, or so, years ago. And, they are for reasons such as you state.

But, the 90 degree limit is absolute, regardless of distance. The FAA got this hair up you know where even more recently than the implementation of the present RNAV criteria. 120 degrees worked just fine for many years. Turn anticipation handles 120 just fine given sufficient length for the roll out.

120 degrees is still fine for VOR/NDB/ILS. But not for RNAV. The logic of the FAA on this one is zip. The result will be less flexibility in both procedure design and flight operations.

Where it creates an insurmountable issue then an arrival hold is supposed to be the solution (a de facto course reversal, if you will). But, "whose on first" comes into that equation. FAA policy is that arrival holds cannot be part of the procedure unless requested by the affected ATC facility. This, or course, makes no sense at all given the circumstances.
 
olasek said:
Rather than starting a new thread ...I just want to make sure... in the following approach.... my understanding is I don't have to do the hold pattern when starting approach at OCURO (IAF).

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1411/09287R26.PDF
Click to expand...

Following up on banjo, the fact that the holding pattern you ask about it is depicted with a light line rather than a bold line answers your question...when executing an instrument approach it is the bold black lines that you should follow.

Bob Gardner
 
In fact, not only are you not required to execute a course reversal there, you are not even permitted to do that without specific additional ATC approval, since there is no course reversal depicted on that approach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top