To PT or not to PT

[luvflyin]

Was doing the ol’ what if on a flight to Oshkosh and found this Approach
https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2102/05319VA.PDF

Below a screen shot of the surrounding area on the Enroute Chart on Foreflight with the pertinent airways displayed in blue and the OSH Feeder in magenta. Note says NoPT when arriving via the airways. 3000 to MDA of 1520 in 1.3 miles is kinda steep. OSH Feeder requires PT, airways don’t. ???

 

[aterpster]

Seems a tad screwed up to me.

 

[Plano Pilot]

Request one lap in the holding pattern at DLL VOR to give you time to get down and be better aligned.

 

[aterpster]

Request one lap in the holding pattern at DLL VOR to give you time to get down and be better aligned.

The descent gradient is still awful. 860 feet per mile. At 90 knots that is 1,300 fpm.

 

[PaulS]

I suspect the MVA is lower in this area than the moca.

 

[Plano Pilot]

If you do the holding pattern correctly on the inbound leg you can start down to 2100. That gives you 1 minute to lose 900 feet by DLL, a little steep. After DLL you have 1.3 miles to lose 580 feet, a lot better.

 

[luvflyin]

If you do the holding pattern correctly on the inbound leg you can start down to 2100. That gives you 1 minute to lose 900 feet by DLL, a little steep. After DLL you have 1.3 miles to lose 580 feet, a lot better.

That holding pattern is the Missed Approach Hold. The thing to do would be request the PT. You could use that hold as a ‘template’ to do a ‘racetrack’ instead of the Barb. Within 10 NM is the limit on far out you can go, not one minute.

 

[luvflyin]

The descent gradient is still awful. 860 feet per mile. At 90 knots that is 1,300 fpm.

Chart says NoPT, let’s stick with that for just a minute. Seems that 3000 straight in would exceed the limits to construct the Approach that way. Can you recall if that’s so.

 

[aterpster]

Chart says NoPT, let’s stick with that for just a minute. Seems that 3000 straight in would exceed the limits to construct the Approach that way. Can you recall if that’s so.

The final segment descent gradient criteria have changed. Not simple like it used to be. Russ would be the best person to assess this IAP. Used to be that descent gradient had to be calculated from the FAF to the MDA for circling minimums.

 

[luvflyin]

The final segment descent gradient criteria have changed. Not simple like it used to be. Russ would be the best person to assess this IAP. Used to be that descent gradient had to be calculated from the FAF to the MDA for circling minimums.

Paging @RussR .

 

[TWD87]

Can someone help me understand the "Procedure NA for arrival on OSH VORTAC airway radials 165 CW 212". Is this saying that you cannot use the OSH feeder route if you are arriving to OSH on those radials? For whatever reason I'm struggling to understand this one and think I have this one all wrong.

 

[luvflyin]

Can someone help me understand the "Procedure NA for arrival on OSH VORTAC airway radials 165 CW 212". Is this saying that you cannot use the OSH feeder route if you are arriving to OSH on those radials? For whatever reason I'm struggling to understand this one and think I have this one all wrong.

That's about if you arrive at OSH on V63-191 or V9-341, the angle to the turn outbound on the Feeder radial, 242, might cause a radius of turn that could take you outside the protected airspace for the 242 radial. Could happen with fast airplanes. The speed limit during that turn would be 250 knots.

 

[dtuuri]

Can someone help me understand the "Procedure NA for arrival on OSH VORTAC airway radials 165 CW 212". Is this saying that you cannot use the OSH feeder route if you are arriving to OSH on those radials?

There are other airports in the area with similar notes. Maybe the airspace is tight and approaching OSH at a big angle strays too far during the turn to intercept the course? As to the NoPT note, I think it's a misprint and should also be "Procedure NA".

 

[Clip4]

The descent gradient is still awful. 860 feet per mile. At 90 knots that is 1,300 fpm.

Thats why is is a circle to land.

 

[luvflyin]

Thats why is is a circle to land.

Yeah. But you should have a reasonable chance to get down to the MDA before the MAP

 

[Captain Bubba]

Chart says NoPT, let’s stick with that for just a minute. Seems that 3000 straight in would exceed the limits to construct the Approach that way. Can you recall if that’s so.

400' per NM from the FAF to TCH is the limit for a straight in approach. That's why it's a VOR-A. My guess is the way they intend for you to fly this approach to land on rwy 19 is after the FAF fly at or above the circling minimums and remain there until you are in a position to land while remaining within the circling radius appropriate to the approach category you belong. This will allow faster aircraft to make a descent rate of less than 1,000' per minute.

Even if I didn't have GPS and wanted to land on 19 that's not the way I'd do it. I'd fly the LOC RWY 1 and circle to 19. That one has the inverted C meaning for category C you'd have a 2.8nm circling radius.

 

[Captain Bubba]

Yeah. But you should have a reasonable chance to get down to the MDA before the MAP

Not in a category C aircraft on rwy 19 as you'd have to exceed 1,000fpm, which isn't reasonable.

 

[Plano Pilot]

That holding pattern is the Missed Approach Hold. The thing to do would be request the PT. You could use that hold as a ‘template’ to do a ‘racetrack’ instead of the Barb. Within 10 NM is the limit on far out you can go, not one minute.

Yes it is the holding pattern for the missed. If you are established on the inbound radial of the holding pattern, which is the same the inbound radial as the approach, so start down.

One minute is my usual time on the outbound leg of a holding pattern so that is what I used. I am guessing ATC does not want you to go too far north and get into the MOA about 7 miles north of the VOR.

 

[Captain Bubba]

Yes it is the holding pattern for the missed. If you are established on the inbound radial of the holding pattern, which is the same as the inbound radial as the approach, so start down.

The problem is that holding pattern is for the missed approach, not any inbound segment. You can't use it for a hold-in-lieu of PT.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The problem is that holding pattern is for the missed approach, not any inbound segment. You can't use it for a hold-in-lieu of PT.

True...but you can fly your procedure turn as a holding pattern on the protected side of the final approach course that just happens to look exactly like it.

 

[Plano Pilot]

The problem is that holding pattern is for the missed approach, not any inbound segment. You can't use it for a hold-in-lieu of PT.

If you are established on inbound leg of the holding pattern you are on the inbound leg of the approach. So why not start down if you are cleared for the approach?

 

[Captain Bubba]

True...but you can fly your procedure turn as a holding pattern on the protected side of the final approach course that just happens to look exactly like it.

Except you'd be in quasi-legal territory at best. A PT or hold-in-lieu of PT is a course reversal maneuver. If you are not doing it for that purpose I don't think you'd have a good answer to the FAA's, "Captain, what were you thinking?" question.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Except you'd be in quasi-legal territory at best. A PT or hold-in-lieu of PT is a course reversal maneuver. If you are not doing it for that purpose I don't think you'd have a good answer to the FAA's, "Captain, what were you thinking?" question.

One of the purposes of a PT is actually to lose altitude. The other purpose is to get aligned with the final approach course. Those are the two things you would be doing in this case, and if ATC clears you to do so, the Captain’s response would be “I was complying with my clearance.”

 

[Captain Bubba]

One of the purposes of a PT is actually to lose altitude. The other purpose is to get aligned with the final approach course. Those are the two things you would be doing in this case, and if ATC clears you to do so, the Captain’s response would be “I was complying with my clearance.”

That's not what AIM 5-4-9 says. It does specifically say, "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." Furthermore I'm not sure why you'd even want to roll your own approach procedure as you wouldn't be able to descend below 3000 until you are established on the inbound approach course anyway. The MEA is already 3000, so what purpose would that serve even if you were confident you had a good answer to the aforementioned question?

 

[Plano Pilot]

That's not what AIM 5-4-9 says. It does specifically say, "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." Furthermore I'm not sure why you'd even want to roll your own approach procedure as you wouldn't be able to descend below 3000 until you are established on the inbound approach course anyway. The MEA is already 3000, so what purpose would that serve even if you were confident you had a good answer to the aforementioned question?

How are you "rolling your own approach" if you are established on the inbound leg of an holding pattern that is the same of the approach? The inbound leg of the holding pattern is the same as the inbound leg of the approach course. The altitude of the inbound leg is 2100 so start down once you are on it.

By the way most PT's allow you to lose altitude and get you aligned with the approach once you are inbound.

 

[farmrjohn]

That's not what AIM 5-4-9 says. It does specifically say, "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." Furthermore I'm not sure why you'd even want to roll your own approach procedure as you wouldn't be able to descend below 3000 until you are established on the inbound approach course anyway. The MEA is already 3000, so what purpose would that serve even if you were confident you had a good answer to the aforementioned question?

This article explains the various "techniques" for flying a procedure turn, one of which sure looks like a holding pattern. https://tinyurl.com/zrnrawyr

 

[MauleSkinner]

Furthermore I'm not sure why you'd even want to roll your own approach procedure as you wouldn't be able to descend below 3000 until you are established on the inbound approach course anyway. The MEA is already 3000, so what purpose would that serve even if you were confident you had a good answer to the aforementioned question?

It’s not “rolling your own approach procedure”, it’s flying a published approach procedure.

I’m not sure why you’d want to stay at 3000 feet to the FAF if the proscribed altitude at the FAF is 2100. Sounds to me like you’re the one “rolling your own procedure”.

you might ask Wally for some of his old articles on why procedure turns exist.

 

[Captain Bubba]

This article explains the various "techniques" for flying a procedure turn, one of which sure looks like a holding pattern. https://tinyurl.com/zrnrawyr

As I understood it the question or assertion was not can you do a ratetrack pattern for a procedure turn but whether or not you can use the depicted missed approach hold as a "template" for your procedure turn. In my mind this raises two questions.

The first question is it legal? If you are doing a direct or teardrop entry you wouldn't be established outbound prior to starting the procedure turn. This makes the legality of such a maneuver questionable, and by questionable I mean the, "Captain, what were you thinking?" question and I don't think I'd have a good answer.

That leaves the parallel entry option which raises the second question of why would you want to do it that way? The way most people are going to do procedure turns where a PT track isn't depicted is to do either a 45/180 or a 80/260 turn. In both cases if you're smart you're making the first turn outbound because it gives you more time to get established. That's exactly the opposite of a parallel entry where you're making a 225 degree turn inbound with a 45 degree intercept with a lot less distance to get established. Assuming you're able to perform that remarkable feat of aviation while losing altitude as suggested and hopefully getting configured at the same time, you now immediately are faced with a tricky circle to land. Mess any of that up and you're back to the "Captain, what were you thinking?" question, or worse.

The suggestion was that would be a good way to lose altitude, but I can't say I agree with that either. For one thing as previously stated, the MEA is 3000 so there's no reason why you couldn't be at that altitude before the IAF. But let's say you weren't do to poor planning on your part or a controller who wanted to give you a slam dunk. Is the best option for that really to perform a parallel entry HILO PT at the FAF? If I need to lose altitude I'm going to use as much of my 10nm space as I can where I can lose altitude both outbound and inbound. This effectively gives me over 20nm of space as opposed to a 1 minute hold which gives me less than 5nm.

It may just be because I'm naturally stupid, but I can't find a good way to make that work, and I've done a helluva lot of full procedure approaches over the years.

 

[Captain Bubba]

It’s not “rolling your own approach procedure”, it’s flying a published approach procedure.

I’m not sure why you’d want to stay at 3000 feet to the FAF if the proscribed altitude at the FAF is 2100. Sounds to me like you’re the one “rolling your own procedure”.

you might ask Wally for some of his old articles on why procedure turns exist.

Either you didn't carefully read what I wrote or my rural Oklahoma education prevented me from communicating it well. I said you can't descend below 3000 until you're established inbound which is what the procedure prescribes. I didn't say you can't descend below 3000 until you're at the FAF. In other words you can't descend below 3000 while you are in the procedure turn, regardless of how you choose to do it.

 

[luvflyin]

Not in a category C aircraft on rwy 19 as you'd have to exceed 1,000fpm, which isn't reasonable.

That’s my point

 

[MauleSkinner]

Either you didn't carefully read what I wrote or my rural Oklahoma education prevented me from communicating it well. I said you can't descend below 3000 until you're established inbound which is what the procedure prescribes. I didn't say you can't descend below 3000 until you're at the FAF. In other words you can't descend below 3000 while you are in the procedure turn, regardless of how you choose to do it.

If you don’t do a procedure turn, when are you planning to descend from 3000?

 

[Captain Bubba]

If you don’t do a procedure turn, when are you planning to descend from 3000?

I've said it two different times in two different ways. Not until you are established inbound. The only thing else I know to do is draw a picture, but I have to warn you my artwork is worse than my prose. Fortunately Jeppesen already has one.

 

[Palmpilot]

And in case it hasn't been mentioned, 91.175(j) says that if you're coming in on a route that says "No PT," you can't fly the procedure turn without an ATC clearance to do so. However, there's nothing to stop you from requesting clearance to do so.

 

[Captain Bubba]

And in case it hasn't been mentioned, 91.175(j) says that if you're coming in on a route that says "No PT," you can't fly the procedure turn without an ATC clearance to do so. However, there's nothing to stop you from requesting clearance to do so.

That's true, but in the case in question the chart only says no PT if you are approaching Dells from the north.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I've said it two different times in two different ways. Not until you are established inbound. The only thing else I know to do is draw a picture, but I have to warn you my artwork is worse than my prose. Fortunately Jeppesen already has one.

So what makes flying a procedure turn as shown in this profile view per ATC clearance “quasi legal territory at best”?

 

[asicer]

If you do the holding pattern correctly on the inbound leg you can start down to 2100. That gives you 1 minute to lose 900 feet by DLL, a little steep. After DLL you have 1.3 miles to lose 580 feet, a lot better.

What if you go missed? Trying again means you now have to lose 1200 feet to DLL...

 

[Captain Bubba]

So what makes flying a procedure turn as shown in this profile view per ATC clearance “quasi legal territory at best”?

Your question sounds a bit loaded.

I wasn't talking about flying the procedure turn as depicted on the plate. I was referring to flying the depicted missed approach hold as the course reversal. I described in great detail above why I thought so. I also described why I thought it was a bad idea even if one could construe it as legal.

 

[dmspilot]

There are other airports in the area with similar notes. Maybe the airspace is tight and approaching OSH at a big angle strays too far during the turn to intercept the course? As to the NoPT note, I think it's a misprint and should also be "Procedure NA".

Agree, the note as written makes no sense. And the link to the IFP Document for this approach links to the wrong approach (RNAV 19).

 

[Captain Bubba]

What if you go missed? Trying again means you now have to lose 1200 feet to DLL...

Yep. Assuming you want to try again the same approach you went missed from. Personally I'd need a pretty good reason to try the same approach I'd just went missed from. Better pilots than me have died trying that. Trying to intercept the final approach course from a one minute hold at the FAF while losing 900' after you've established inbound all while getting configured is a pretty good recipe for going missed on any approach, much less a circle to land.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Your question sounds a bit loaded.

I wasn't talking about flying the procedure turn as depicted on the plate. I was referring to flying the depicted missed approach hold as the course reversal. I described in great detail above why I thought so. I also described why I thought it was a bad idea even if one could construe it as legal.

My question is not loaded. You said it wasn’t legal, but flying the holding pattern as a PT complies 100% with the profile view, as well as the lateral requirements.

While I also disagree that it’s a “bad idea”, that has no bearing on the legality, which you in no way disproved. Your assumption of some need to be “established outbound” prior to starting the PT doesn’t meet any legal criteria that I’m aware of.