What is the difference between a PT and a HILPT?

[Eibwen]

OK, So I am having trouble figuring out the difference since the actual flight procedure seems identical.

For example RNAV (GPS) X Rwy 27 @ KYKM has a HILPT on the plate. Let's say I am given "fly direct OPISE, cleared for approach" from somewhere in the northwest. I'd fly over OPISE and probably fly a teardrop entry - fly outbound on 124 for 1 minute, turn left to go inbound, intercept and continue the approach at OPISE inbound. Standard tear-drop.

Compare to ILS or LOC Rwy 16 @ KONP. In this case say I am inbound from the southeast and am given "direct BUHRS, cleared for approach". I fly to BUHRS, turn outbound to 342, fly for 2 minutes, left to 297, fly for 1 minute, right to 117, intercept and continue inbound on the approach. Again ... just another standard tear drop flying the barb as charted.

In both cases I flew over a fix and flew a teardrop course reversal to reorient inbound. What I fly is the same other than a charted PT gives me a specific course to fly while a HILPT allows me to choose how I want to reverse course as long as I remain in the protected area and initiate the entry procedure over the hold fix.

These two procedures often get presented as something dramatically different. And the "traditional procedure turn" is often described as "providing a bit more flexibility". As I read it the PT is actually more restrictive - giving me an charted course for all three legs of the entry procedure. A HILPT allows me to essentially pick what I want.

What am I missing here? What's the point of a PT instead of a HILPT since both assume a reversal maneuver performed on the same side of the Final Approach Course?

 

[Eibwen]

Also, to be clear, I recognize that there are differences. This is semi-rhetorical. A charted PT prescribes a certain procedure. An HILPT prescribes another procedure. The confusion comes from this idea that a HILPT is somehow MORE restrictive. I see them as either the same or the exact opposite. And that leads me to wonder what I might be missing.

Thanks any and all.

 

[RussR]

The confusion comes from this idea that a HILPT is somehow MORE restrictive.

I don't know where you're hearing that. It's certainly not something I have ever thought or taught.

 

[dmspilot]

Also, to be clear, I recognize that there are differences. This is semi-rhetorical. A charted PT prescribes a certain procedure. An HILPT prescribes another procedure. The confusion comes from this idea that a HILPT is somehow MORE restrictive. I see them as either the same or the exact opposite. And that leads me to wonder what I might be missing.

Thanks any and all.

The PT usually gives you 10 miles whereas a HILPT is much smaller. Also you are not required to do a 45/180/45 PT, you can do any reversal you want so long as it's on the correct side. So yes a HIL could be seen as more restrictive.

 

[Eibwen]

I don't know where you're hearing that. It's certainly not something I have ever thought or taught.

Things like this from IFR Magazine - https://www.ifr-magazine.com/technique/procedure-turn-basics/

"The type of course reversal used depends on the constraints and objectives of the procedure. When a HILPT or teardrop is used, it must be flown exactly as charted. The traditional procedure turn, however, provides a bit more flexibility for both the designer and the pilot, so it’s our primary focus here."

To me, saying an HILPT must be flown "exactly as charted" is confusing in itself. An entry into a HILPT is very clearly more open to the discretion of the pilot. We can enter with a parallel, or a tear drop or an 80/260 or 45/180 or whatever we want. We just need to perform it on the protected side.

 

[Eibwen]

The PT usually gives you 10 miles whereas a HILPT is much smaller. Also you are not required to do a 45/180/45 PT, you can do any reversal you want so long as it's on the correct side. So yes a HIL could be seen as more restrictive.

This seems backwards unless I have things reversed in my own mind. A HILPT is actually the procedure that allows me to choose how I want to enter the procedure/hold - or in this case simply reverse course. A PT is the one that charts specific courses for an outbound and inbound portion of the teardrop.

The procedures I reference in the OP show this. The HILPT at YKM just shows a racetrack course. The PT at ONP charts specific courses for the reversal.

 

[midlifeflyer]

One is in the shape of a holding pattern. The other is not. That’s about it for the difference.

 

[dmspilot]

A PT is the one that charts specific courses for an outbound and inbound portion of the teardrop.

Well, there is a difference between what's on the chart and what you're required to do. The chart provides headings, not courses, and they are provided for convenience, not a requirement. A wise pilot would adjust them in strong winds just like with an outbound leg of a hold.

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

 

[TCABM]

From the flexibility side of the house, in addition to the course reversal (if required), one thing most HILPT gives you is the option to do another lap for descent to the inbound altitude segment if necessary.

 

[RussR]

To me, saying an HILPT must be flown "exactly as charted" is confusing in itself. An entry into a HILPT is very clearly more open to the discretion of the pilot. We can enter with a parallel, or a tear drop or an 80/260 or 45/180 or whatever we want. We just need to perform it on the protected side.

Well I disagree with IFR Magazine's opinion. In either case you can get turned around pretty much however you want. And to me, the standardized entries of a holding pattern are easier and require fewer turns than a PT anyway.

Also, there is no "protected side". Both sides are protected. The proper term is "holding side".

 

[Feh]

A Procedure turn can be flown in the form of a castrated hold (the barbed arrow turn with an inbound/outbound heading on a IAP chart) and generally doesn't have a fix, or it can also be flown like a full hold procedure with an entry pattern around a fix or navaid.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The confusion comes from this idea that a HILPT is somehow MORE restrictive. I see them as either the same or the exact opposite. And that leads me to wonder what I might be missing.

You can fly a holding pattern or teardrop as a PT for when he barbed PT is depicted, but you can’t fly a barbed PT when a holding pattern or teardrop is depicted.

 

[midlifeflyer]

This seems backwards unless I have things reversed in my own mind. A HILPT is actually the procedure that allows me to choose how I want to enter the procedure/hold - or in this case simply reverse course. A PT is the one that charts specific courses for an outbound and inbound portion of the teardrop.

The 45-180 headings in the barbed PT is an example. Not a requirement.

turn outbound to 342, fly for 2 minutes, left to 297, fly for 1 minute, right to 117

You do not have to fly those headings (although most probably do). Find the paragraph in the AIM that talks about this. It even gives examples of the other choices. Treating it as a racetrack or the “80-260” are other options pilots have used. Just make the turn away from the inbound course line on the barbed side and stay within the stated distance.

I don’t think in terms of one being more or less restrictive than the other anyway. Just different course reversal methods.

 

[Clip4]

Also, to be clear, I recognize that there are differences. This is semi-rhetorical. A charted PT prescribes a certain procedure. An HILPT prescribes another procedure. The confusion comes from this idea that a HILPT is somehow MORE restrictive. I see them as either the same or the exact opposite. And that leads me to wonder what I might be missing.

Thanks any

Generally, the protected area of a HILPT may be smaller than a standard PT and due to descent rate limitations you may find maximum and minimum altitudes published on HILPT that you don’t find on PTs.

Note the feeder from ALS.

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2407/00018IL2.PDF

 

[DoubleD]

No real difference seems to me. HILPT seems better adapted to the visual displays on today's nav screens. Maybe that's why they have replaced PT's on GPS approaches.

 

[RussR]

No real difference seems to me. HILPT seems better adapted to the visual displays on today's nav screens. Maybe that's why they have replaced PT's on GPS approaches.

PTs have never* been permitted on GPS approaches.

* "Never" being the extent of my knowledge, which in this case is the criteria that went into effect in 1995 (FAAO 8260.38A) That's pretty much the beginning of GPS approaches, so I don't think saying "never" is too presumptuous. The first set of GPS criteria actually came out in 1993, but I never worked with that regulation and I can't find it online (8260.38 with no "A").

 

[Clip4]

No real difference seems to me. HILPT seems better adapted to the visual displays on today's nav screens. Maybe that's why they have replaced PT's on GPS approaches.

The 10 mile limit for a PT is provided on today’s (and yesterdays) nav screens.

 

[DoubleD]

The 10 mile limit for a PT is provided on today’s (and yesterdays) nav screens.

But the HILPT gives you a magenta line to follow all the way. The best entry is obvious from the display. No doubt the HIL depiction makes the course reversal simpler than the "old" PT.

 

[Clip4]

But the HILPT gives you a magenta line to follow all the way. The best entry is obvious from the display. No doubt the HIL depiction makes the course reversal simpler than the "old" PT.

Maybe if you are low time instrument pilot and need step by step directions and a magenta line vs flying the HSI.

 

[MauleSkinner]

No doubt the HIL depiction makes the course reversal simpler than the "old" PT.

Personally, I have lots of doubts about that.

 

[DoubleD]

What am I missing here? What's the point of a PT instead of a HILPT since both assume a reversal maneuver performed on the same side of the Final Approach Course?

This was the original question. I've speculated on why PTs have disappeared from GPS approaches. Haven't heard a convincing explanation.

 

[MauleSkinner]

This was the original question. I've speculated on why PTs have disappeared from GPS approaches. Haven't heard a convincing explanation.

As @RussR indicated, they were probably never there to disappear, but a HILPT has options for arriving at the fix from any direction, and therefore is probably (as depicted) better suited to Area Navigation.

 

[chemgeek]

But the HILPT gives you a magenta line to follow all the way. The best entry is obvious from the display. No doubt the HIL depiction makes the course reversal simpler than the "old" PT.

Doesn't the magic box also show a magenta line for the standard 45 degree PT? It's been so long since I've seen one--I see a lot of GPS HILPTs now.

 

[RussR]

Doesn't the magic box also show a magenta line for the standard 45 degree PT? It's been so long since I've seen one--I see a lot of GPS HILPTs now.

Sure it does, if you load an ILS (for example) with a PT.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Doesn't the magic box also show a magenta line for the standard 45 degree PT? It's been so long since I've seen one--I see a lot of GPS HILPTs now.

It does.

 

[Eibwen]

Well I disagree with IFR Magazine's opinion. In either case you can get turned around pretty much however you want. And to me, the standardized entries of a holding pattern are easier and require fewer turns than a PT anyway.

Also, there is no "protected side". Both sides are protected. The proper term is "holding side".

I'm trying to figure out if there is some glaring gap in my knowledge that I am just not seeing. What do you mean "the standardized entries ( ... ) are easier and require fewer turns..."? A PT as charted is effectively the same series of turns one would use as for a parallel hold entry. Fly outbound from a fix for a minute, turn to an appropriate heading, fly away from the inbound course for a minute, turn around and find the inbound, turn and fly inbound.

Or I skipped something critical in some book somewhere and I'm a dummy. =) Entirely possible.

Maybe this gets frustrating for anyone trying to answer. I'm really not being argumentative. Just trying to understand why these two things are seen as totally different. It's the same series of turns with times/distances as noted on the specific procedure plate. This arises because of notes like the following from Everything Explained for the Professional Pilot:

 

[Eibwen]

To put it another way, I am told I "MUST do it as published" for an HILPT - a procedure for which I am given broad discretion in terms of how I reverse course and enter the hold, and am ALSO told that a basic charted Procedure Turn provides more discretion in how I reverse course and may be essentially identical in times/distances/headings as some of the HILPT entry options ... which is ... ambiguous and contradictory ... to me.

All of which leaves me with a "I must be missing something" feeling.

 

[Eibwen]

And last post for a minute: if this is simply a matter of a PT being (usually) based on a turn-to-intercept AWAY from the FAF as opposed to TOWARD the FAF for a hold entry then I can accept that as the distinction of note and show myself (sheepishly) out the back...

 

[midlifeflyer]

To put it another way, I am told I "MUST do it as published" for an HILPT - a procedure for which I am given broad discretion in terms of how I reverse course and enter the hold, and am ALSO told that a basic charted Procedure Turn provides more discretion in how I reverse course and may be essentially identical in times/distances/headings as some of the HILPT entry options ... which is ... ambiguous and contradictory ... to me.

All of which leaves me with a "I must be missing something" feeling.

I don't know if you are missing anything or not.

The HILPT and barbed PT are two of the three types of course reversals published on approach plates.

○ A HILPT is a course reversal which you "must" treat as a holding pattern with the time/length specified.​

○ A barbed PT is a course reversal which allows you the "discretion" to do anything you want to reverse course so long as you make the turn away from the course line on the barbed side and remain within the length limit.​

That's what they are. Period. No hidden meanings. Whether one personally feels one or the other is easier or gives more leeway or is the result of a vast right/left wing conspiracy is a personal assessment. Other than being a little anal, I see no reason to care what your personal assessment is nor any reason why you should care about mine or anyone else's.

 

[flyingron]

And last post for a minute: if this is simply a matter of a PT being (usually) based on a turn-to-intercept AWAY from the FAF as opposed to TOWARD the FAF for a hold entry then I can accept that as the distinction of note and show myself (sheepishly) out the back...

Eh? Most hold-in-loos (and teardrops) head away from the FAF. It's the inbound course that heads through the IAF (or whatever fix it's based on) toward the FAF.

 

[MauleSkinner]

To put it another way, I am told I "MUST do it as published" for an HILPT - a procedure for which I am given broad discretion in terms of how I reverse course and enter the hold, and am ALSO told that a basic charted Procedure Turn provides more discretion in how I reverse course and may be essentially identical in times/distances/headings as some of the HILPT entry options ... which is ... ambiguous and contradictory ... to me.

All of which leaves me with a "I must be missing something" feeling.

Since you used (and highlighted) the word “more”…
A HILPT allows you to do:
Teardrop entry
Parallel entry
Teardrop entry.

The barbed PT allows you to do:
Teardrop entry HILPT
Parallel entry HILPT
Teardrop entry HILPT
Teardrop procedure turn
45-180-45 procedure turn
80-260 procedure turn
Amoeba procedure turn
Probably a few others that I can’t think of (or describe).

That appears to meet the definition of “more” very clearly.

 

[RussR]

Since you used (and highlighted) the word “more”…
A HILPT allows you to do:
Teardrop entry
Parallel entry
Teardrop entry.

The barbed PT allows you to do:
Teardrop entry HILPT
Parallel entry HILPT
Teardrop entry HILPT
Teardrop procedure turn
45-180-45 procedure turn
80-260 procedure turn
Amoeba procedure turn
Probably a few others that I can’t think of (or describe).

That appears to meet the definition of “more” very clearly.

The teardrop/parallel/direct entries are not required, they are merely recommended. So you can enter a HILPT using a 80-260 or 90-270 or amoeba turn or pretty much whatever else you want as well.

 

[flyingron]

The teardrop/parallel/direct entries are not required, they are merely recommended. So you can enter a HILPT using a 80-260 or 90-270 or amoeba turn or pretty much whatever else you want as well.

Right. Fly to the fix. Turn outbound somehow. Then turn inbound on the approach course. It's still more restricted than the normal (barbed) PT.

 

[RussR]

Right. Fly to the fix. Turn outbound somehow. Then turn inbound on the approach course. It's still more restricted than the normal (barbed) PT.

I guess you could consider it more restricted by distance, but for both a PT and a HILPT you:
1. cross the fix
2. turn around somehow, staying on the barbed side or the holding side
3. get established on the inbound course

Step 2 in either case seems equally as flexible to me.

In practice, though, for non-training flying, how many variations are actually used? In either case, if you load the procedure into your GPS/FMS, it's going to direct you to do either the standard PT or the standard hold entry. I'll bet most people just let it do its thing. So the "flexibility" is far more illusory than practical.

 

[flyingron]

There's no fix in the barbed PT. You can commence it anywhere as long as you stay within the distance (typically 10 miles) specified.

 

[RussR]

There's no fix in the barbed PT. You can commence it anywhere as long as you stay within the distance (typically 10 miles) specified.

I don't understand what you mean. Of course there's a fix. There's always a PT fix. It's the fix you have to stay within 10 nm of.

MUTTS is the PT fix. If that missed approach hold was a HILPT instead, you could do pretty much all the same things to get turned around.