When do you have to fly a procedure turn?

MauleSkinner said:
There's also the teardrop procedure turn, so we'd have to add an additional letter into the acronym to make it work.

Basically, just do the procedure turn unless the chart or the controller tell you not to. The only one that's not exceptionally clear is Timed Approaches from a holding fix, but the holding fix is probably going to be the procedure turn fix, so you've been doing the procedure turn for the entire time you've been holding.
Click to expand...

Yeah. AIM 5-4-9 a. 4. is the reference for the Teardrop course reversal procedure. Although while it would be intuitive that when you are in the stack for Timed Approaches, when you get to the bottom of the stack and get your Approach Clearance you would just go straight in, I can see why it should be still on the list of things from which you don't do a PT. Scenario. You've been given detailed holding instructions at the fix because there is not a Charted Holding Pattern there. There is however a PT that starts from that Fix. Pilot could say "well, there's nothing hear that says NoPT, I wasn't vectored to final so..." I'll bet you its happened at least once upon a time, hence the rule.
 
midlifeflyer said:
But then you screw up the mnemonic! What the heck is NORT? Besides, since being cleared straight in by ATC requires at least an IF, the "O" is also technically incorrect as a statement of the rule. So you gotta find another letter for that too. Maybe NIRT, with the I standing for "cleared straight in to an IF" ?

But that doesn't sound that good and, as we all know a mnemonic is more important that what it is supposed to represent! What are you thinking messing with it?

:D :D :D
Click to expand...

Fine. It starts with "Scenarios where course reversal is not required. Now we got SNORT:D
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
Yeah. AIM 5-4-9 a. 4. is the reference for the Teardrop course reversal procedure. Although while it would be intuitive that when you are in the stack for Timed Approaches, when you get to the bottom of the stack and get your Approach Clearance you would just go straight in, I can see why it should be still on the list of things from which you don't do a PT. Scenario. You've been given detailed holding instructions at the fix because there is not a Charted Holding Pattern there. There is however a PT that starts from that Fix. Pilot could say "well, there's nothing hear that says NoPT, I wasn't vectored to final so..." I'll bet you its happened at least once upon a time, hence the rule.
Click to expand...
Very probably. The thing that most people forget, though, is a PT depicted with the "standard" 45-degree procedure can be flown as a holding pattern (or teardrop, or 80-260, or...), so that would actually be adding a procedure turn after the procedure turn that they've been flying.
 
,
luvflyin said:
Fine. It starts with "Scenarios where course revesal is not required. Now we got SNORT:D
Click to expand...
How about:

Fly a procedure turn unless:
Advised by ATC,
Reversal not required by chart, or
Timed approaches from a holding fix.

:cool:
 
MauleSkinner said:
Very probably. The thing that most people forget, though, is a PT depicted with the "standard" 45-degree procedure can be flown as a holding pattern (or teardrop, or 80-260, or...), so that would actually be adding a procedure turn after the procedure turn that they've been flying.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's that. The description of all that in the AIM uses the term 'racetrack pattern.' I think it's very deliberate it says that instead of holding pattern. And getting back to the Scenario in post #41, that same may pilot may analyze it like this, assuming he even knows all about racetrack patterns and not having to fly 'the barb' as depicted. I'm in this holding pattern and I just got cleared for the Approach (remember this is the guy who assumes he must do the PT), the PT starts at the fix, I can't just pick it up in the middle as a racetrack out here. I gotta get to the fix and then do the PT.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone here actually been issued a timed approach from a holding fix? How long ago and where?

I have this idea that they are extremely rare these days, but I have no actual data to support that - just that I’ve never received such a clearance.
 
StevieTimes said:
It's probably already been stated; but this is from my notes:

WHEN NOT NECESSARY
-when being radar vectored in
-when making a timed approach from a holding fix
-when the IAF states "NoPT"
-when holding pattern used instead
Click to expand...


This whole acronym is not necessary:

-when being radar vectored in -- AND the controller states "cleared straight in approach."

-when making a timed approach from a holding fix -- Huh? You're already in a hold. That is your course reversal and procedural track.

-when the IAF states "NoPT" -- Really? NoPT means "No procedure turn is authorized," not "No procedure turn is required."

-when holding pattern used instead -- See that big fat black line? Yeah, "instead" is self explanatory.
 
RussR said:
Has anyone here actually been issued a timed approach from a holding fix? How long ago and where?

I have this idea that they are extremely rare these days, but I have no actual data to support that - just that I’ve never received such a clearance.
Click to expand...

Yep. Stockton, CA, 1979. Non-RADAR environment. Had to make compulsory position reports, too! (Man, that sucked!!!)
 
RussR said:
Has anyone here actually been issued a timed approach from a holding fix? How long ago and where?

I have this idea that they are extremely rare these days, but I have no actual data to support that - just that I’ve never received such a clearance.
Click to expand...

Yes. Many moons ago, 1978. Santa Barbara, SBA. I'm sure they are rare nowadays.
 
IK04 said:
This whole acronym is not necessary:

-when being radar vectored in -- AND the controller states "cleared straight in approach."
Click to expand...
No. No need for the "AND." Radar vectors to the final approach course does not require those extra words. "OR" would be correct.
 
midlifeflyer said:
No. No need for the "AND." Radar vectors to the final approach course does not require those extra words. "OR" would be correct.
Click to expand...

OK. So, the clearance would be "fly heading xxx, maintain 2,000 until established on the final approach course, cleared approach?"
 
luvflyin said:
"Controller lost his nuts for a second." What happened next? Did he relax, say disregard, anything to indicate he was wrong? This was a problem and a few years ago there were mandatory briefings throughout ATC about this reminding Controllers of the rule and that the 'logic check' didn't apply. You could have been literally straight in from the ESE to AMRTN and unless you were cleared for a 'straight in' approach, you do the HILPT.
Click to expand...
I agree. If it’s a bold line you fly it. Unless cleared not to or feeding off a NoPT route.
 
When you are cleared for the full approach you'll do the PT, otherwise if you're on vectors no-need to do a PT UNLESS you request it

Lil quiz for ya...how many types of PT are there anyhow? :)
 
I think I made the acronym because I was trying to memorize those; why, I'm not sure. I guess for some reason I thought that question would show up on the written or the oral.

Hey, if we can't make up acronyms in aviation, where CAN we? :)
 
StevieTimes said:
I think I made the acronym because I was trying to memorize those; why, I'm not sure. I guess for some reason I thought that question would show up on the written or the oral.

Hey, if we can't make up acronyms in aviation, where CAN we? :)
Click to expand...
You did good! Trouble is, acronyms are like underwear. You shouldn't show 'em in public. That's a lesson I wish the FAA would learn.
 
RussR said:
Has anyone here actually been issued a timed approach from a holding fix? How long ago and where?

I have this idea that they are extremely rare these days, but I have no actual data to support that - just that I’ve never received such a clearance.
Click to expand...
Perhaps KHLN on occasion.
 
StevieTimes said:
I think I made the acronym because I was trying to memorize those; why, I'm not sure. I guess for some reason I thought that question would show up on the written or the oral.
Click to expand...
Regurgitation for a test is a decent reason to make one up so long as you can remember what it stands for and, for the oral, understand what it means. Some DPEs are into acronyms and mnemonics.

True story: My first student went to the FBO on checkride day. Going through the aircraft logs, he discovered something no one had. Although the 100 hour inspections were appropriately logged, they had missed the last annual. The plane was out of annual for a few months. He showed it to me and (after getting a different airplane)I said, "Great! Don't forget to tell the DPE what happened. It is a great example of understanding airworthiness requirements."

He passed the test with "flying" colors. I called the DPE for a debriefing on how my student did. His first comment? "I can't believe he didn't know TOMATO FLAMES." Not how to consider the question of required equipment - he knew that. But the misleading acronym!

The DPE is in prison now.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Regurgitation for a test is a decent reason to make one up so long as you can remember what it stands for and, for the oral, understand what it means. Some DPEs are into acronyms and mnemonics.

True story: My first student went to the FBO on checkride day. Going through the aircraft logs, he discovered something no one had. Although the 100 hour inspections were appropriately logged, they had missed the last annual. The plane was out of annual for a few months. He showed it to me and (after getting a different airplane)I said, "Great! Don't forget to tell the DPE what happened. It is a great example of understanding airworthiness requirements."

He passed the test with "flying" colors. I called the DPE for a debriefing on how my student did. His first comment? "I can't believe he didn't know TOMATO FLAMES." Not how to consider the question of required equipment - he knew that. But the misleading acronym!

The DPE is in prison now.
Click to expand...
For expecting TOMATO FLAMES he SHOULD be in prison!
 
I don't think I have actually been taught TOMATO FLAMES, but I'm curious: What's misleading about it?
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't think I have actually been taught TOMATO FLAMES, but I'm curious: What's misleading about it?
Click to expand...

It's misleading because it's incomplete, but taught as if it's the be-all, end-all of day VFR required equipment. So we have a ton of pilots who, when asked if something is required for flight, can parrot back about flaming tomatoes without understanding that that's but one piece of the puzzle. Rather, they need to be taught about the AFM equipment list, TCDS, STCs, ADs and other things which make it a little more involved than just TOMATO FLAMES.
 
Sounds similar to GOOSE A CAT, which is the one I was taught.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't think I have actually been taught TOMATO FLAMES, but I'm curious: What's misleading about it?
Click to expand...
RussR said:
It's misleading because it's incomplete, but taught as if it's the be-all, end-all of day VFR required equipment. So we have a ton of pilots who, when asked if something is required for flight, can parrot back about flaming tomatoes without understanding that that's but one piece of the puzzle. Rather, they need to be taught about the AFM equipment list, TCDS, STCs, ADs and other things which make it a little more involved than just TOMATO FLAMES.
Click to expand...
Bullseye.

I used to do a periodic survey on this, going back to the pre-forum Usenet days. I would choose a piece of equipment, the stall warning for example, and ask whether you can fly if it is inop. Invariably someone, sometimes even a CFI, would say, "It's not in TOMATO FLAMES, so you are good to go."

The problem is that the acronym elevates 91.205 to an area of prominence it doesn't deserve. It's really only one of at least 5 sources of required equipment information. If there is any regulatory starting point,it is 91.213(d) for aircraft without a MEL (another poorly taught concept - way too many pilots think their Cessna 172 equipment list is a MEL),.

If you can stand to read my rant on the subject, here's Stop Goosing Cats and Burning Tomatoes. Keep in mind I wrote it 15 years ago.
 
So for the more visual learners out there, Mark's message is that this:
maxresdefault.jpg


is really this:

Flerken-tentacles-Captain_Marvel_Vol_8-1024x540.jpg
 
luvflyin said:
They probably do them there and at TWF. Helena and Twin Falls are the only two Non Radar Approach Towers left in the US
Click to expand...
Forgot about TWF. I believe HLN is scheduled for a beacon interrogator.
 
What's all this silliness I hear about stand-alone DME stations with GPS fixes co-located? Some new trickery to lower the approach minima?
 
IK04 said:
What's all this silliness I hear about stand-alone DME stations with GPS fixes co-located? Some new trickery to lower the approach minima?
Click to expand...
No. To provide DME/DME geometry to the airlines and high-end biz jets when the GPS sats are either turned off or jammed over a large area.
 
luvflyin said:
Don’t throw away them KNS-80’s
Click to expand...

Those weren't DME-DME, they were VOR-DME. I don't know of anything that did DME-DME in small piston GA.

Speaking of DME-DME, how does it disambiguate between the two points that are generated by specific distances from two stations? :dunno:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Those weren't DME-DME, they were VOR-DME. I don't know of anything that did DME-DME in small piston GA.

Speaking of DME-DME, how does it disambiguate between the two points that are generated by specific distances from two stations? :dunno:
Click to expand...
I believe that different DME stations operate on different frequencies.
 
Palmpilot said:
I believe that different DME stations operate on different frequencies.
Click to expand...
I think he was referring to the fact that when you draw two intersecting circles (arcs), you often end up with two points instead of just one and without any other information you can't tell which one you're on.
 
asicer said:
I think he was referring to the fact that when you draw two intersecting circles (arcs), you often end up with two points instead of just one and without any other information you can't tell which one you're on.
Click to expand...
Good point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top