GPS Approach question

[ackattacker]

I guess the follow up question to:is "Would Guam Center give you a non-vectored approach clearance that brings you to WABOX?" Maybe there is some reason that they would not.

They would and the do. I usually negotatiate a clearance that I'm more comfortable with (such as direct HAGIX), but you feel kind of silly when you see the 747's go direct WABOX then straight in.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It does seem strange. Especially that the feeder is not a NoPT segment. Really, it makes no sense at all for you to be able to fly NoPT with a 90° turn at CIBOL but not with an 11° turn when coming in on the feeder.

I've gotten curious enough to look at the FAA publications - some kind of an implied straight in area when coming in from the "correct" side of the T, but I've seen nothing that specifically takes it out of the general rule.

 

[Spinplate]

ask the Feds (each one) at the FSDO and they will probably have different answers themselves

 

[blimpguy]

I'm going to take another stab at this one. AIM paragraph 5-4-9 b.3. (Procedure Turn): "When a holding pattern replaces a procedure turn, the holding pattern must be followed, except when radar vectoring is provided or when NoPT is shown on the approach course." It goes on, but that seems to address the question.

 

[ackattacker]

I'm going to take another stab at this one. AIM paragraph 5-4-9 b.3. (Procedure Turn): "When a holding pattern replaces a procedure turn, the holding pattern must be followed, except when radar vectoring is provided or when NoPT is shown on the approach course." It goes on, but that seems to address the question.

Never been vectored onto a GPS approach out here. You are in radar contact at GUM, and most of the way into ROP. They could do it if you asked, I suppose.

I doubt that the feds are going to come after your certificate either way. But it does seem that skipping the procedure turn, while common practice, is not technically correct unless radar vectors are provided or you come in on one of the two NoPT routes.

I fly RNAV approaches in this fashion and I stand by it...I am a CFII and I teach it that way. I wouldn't be scared to defend myself to the FAA for it, but you have to make up your own mind.

I feel for you... but I'd be scared to defend myself about this. What would be your argument? I'm afraid common sense is not a legal argument. The AIM wording clearly indicates that you need "NoPT" to skip the PT.

Does anyone have any Jeppessen "Chart Clinic" articles that maybe address this?

 

[dhc8fo]

I would reference the FARs definition of a procedure turn, as I stated....

Procedure turn means the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach course.

Found in 14 CFR 97....97.3

If I don't need to reverse my direction because I am already established, then no turn for me.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I would reference the FARs definition of a procedure turn, as I stated....

Procedure turn means the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach course.

Found in 14 CFR 97....97.3

If I don't need to reverse my direction because I am already established, then no turn for me.

That answer doesn't work. The definition is nice, but it's the TERPS guys, not the pilot, who gets to decide "when it is necessary." It's one of those old arguments, but It's been fairly well established that "on course, on altitude and on airspeed" is =not= an exception to the general requirement for doing a depicted procedure turn. If the PT is there, you have to do it unless one of the three conditions in 91.175(j) is present.

Clearly, though, this PT is unnecessary and just makes no sense if coming in, so there has to be something else there

 

[dhc8fo]

91.175(j) says that I have to be cleared to do a prcedure turn and that I can't if I am not....

So I am coming in from the east on this Guam approach when ATC clears me to the IAF and then clears me for the approach...unless they tell me that I am cleared for the procedure turn (in which case they would ask me to report established procedure turn inbound, which they wouldn't since I am already on final), I am NOT doing a PT.

Sorry, I stick to my guns on this one. You can pick apart the FARs all day long and find a piece here and there to justify a differing position on many issues.

I believe the intention of all approaches is some sort of cohesion and a high element of safety. What is safe about spinning in a PT, IMC, at night, when it isn't necessary or required because you are already established on the final course??

 

[midlifeflyer]

I agree the chart is silly but I won't argue with you about a regulation that has been clearly interpreted to require the PT in this situation. If you're interested in what FAA Legal has said about it, I'd be glad to post the opinion.

That aside, I was thinking that the "something else" was an "implied" TAA for the straight-in side of a basic T. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case. The AIM discussion seems to negate that theory:

==============================
The published procedure will be annotated to indicate when the course reversal is not necessary when flying within a particular TAA area; e.g., "NoPT." Otherwise, the pilot is expected to execute the course reversal under the provisions of 14 CFR Section 91.175. The pilot may elect to use the course reversal pattern when it is not required by the procedure, but must inform air traffic control and receive clearance to do so. (See FIG 5-4-1 and FIG 5-4-2). [AIM 5-4-5.d.2(b)]
==============================

But maybe there is something somewhere else.

The other possibility is, even though, it seems to be widespread, maybe it is, after all, just a charting error.

 

[dhc8fo]

Yes, I am curious to read what you have about it. Maybe it will change my mind, but I doubt it (old and crusty in my ways and all).