GPS Approach question

[midlifeflyer]

Stay tuned. I hear there's a NOTAM coming...

 

[dhc8fo]

5-4-9

A procedure turn is not required when an approach can be made directly from a specified intermediate fix to the final approach fix. In such cases, the term "NoPT" is used with the appropriate course and altitude to denote that the procedure turn is not required...."

The IAF, CIBOL, is also the IF. If you are cleared direct to CIBOL from the east and can become established by CIBOL, then the above applies. This is what I have been referring to. You will not find "NoPT" next to any IAF that is in direct alignment with the FAF. That isn't how it works.

Got something else you'd like looked at?

Since I am pretty much a professional, I will not comment to that statement as I would love to....except to say that you seem to be a bit of a smarta$$. I am willing to alter my perception with the right information and so far I haven't seen it. At this point, anything from a punk like you won't do much for me either so hopefully someone with a little more, shall we say, salt, will help me out if required.

 

[CFIse]

Stay tuned. I hear there's a NOTAM coming...

Yeh - but it's not going to help this discussion to add NoPT to the transition route.

The advocates seem to believe that whereever they come from, if they can be "established" on something then they don't need to do a PT.

People believe what they believe - what can you do!

 

[midlifeflyer]

The advocates seem to believe that whereever they come from, if they can be "established" on something then they don't need to do a PT

Not necessarily. Get past the obvious nonsense of saying things like

the term "NoPT" is used with the appropriate course and altitude to denote that the procedure turn is not required...."

to support the argument that if the term NoPT is =not= used the procedure turn is still not required.

dhc's point that

You will not find "NoPT" next to any IAF that is in direct alignment with the FAF.

is an interesting point. Not necessarily IAFs, but the concept that, TAA aside, if you are on a =published= approach segment that is aligned in direction and altitude with the final approach course (like the BAGBY feeder on the GUM 26L approach), you do not need to do a PT. It's pretty obvious that it =shouldn't= be needed.

The "charting error" idea doesn't completely convince me. The practice of leaving the "NoPT" off in cases of relatively direct alignment is pretty widespread. Take a look at this one: http://naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0508/05766V14.PDF VOR 14 at Broken Bow, NE, not exactly a hotbed of high traffic concentration. Yet we have a feeder route from BOKKI intersection aligned with the final approach course at PT-inbound altitude, but no "NoPT" noted.

~~~ Edit~~~
Ah. I'm wrong. The PT for the VOR =14= is needed. The approach assumes you don't have DME, so, even coming in on the feeder, the PT is there for altitude loss.

But the aligned/on altitude approach segment is still an interesting and logical one. Just nothing to support it. And a whole bunch that says the exact opposite.
~~~~~~~~~

 

[ackattacker]

5-4-9

You will not find "NoPT" next to any IAF that is in direct alignment with the FAF. That isn't how it works.

It's certainly true that you will find plenty of IAF's lined up with the FAF that don't have "NoPT". But do they also have procedure turns? If they don't, then of course you go straight in... if they DO, then the PT is required. I'm hoping someone else can come with more examples of approach charts like those out here. Otherwise, it does seem to be anomalous.

 

[ackattacker]

~~~ Edit~~~
Ah. I'm wrong. The PT for the VOR =14= is needed. The approach assumes you don't have DME, so, even coming in on the feeder, the PT is there for altitude loss.

Which raises another interesting point. The VOR 14 approach is made assuming you don't know your distance. Which is why, if you're radar vectored onto it, the controller always gives you your distance from the fix so you know you're legal and safe to descend (i.e. withing 10 nm). Then you can go straight in.

If you're not radar vectored you have to stay at 4400 until you cross the VOR, because presumably you don't really know where you are until that point. Many non-precision approaches are built this way.

But when you DO have DME information (but you're not radar vectored), you can be established on course, with full awareness of your position, but you still can't go straight in. The approach doesn't allow for it, as tempting as it may be. You would feel pretty stupid doing the procedure turn, but at least you can understand why it was designed that way. But presumably, if the approach was designated a VOR/DME approach then they would have allowed a straight in.

With GPS approaches, you ALWAYS know exactly where you are. You have the ability to "vector" yourself anywhere you want to go with perfect situational awareness. You don't need to cross the fix to establish your position and determine that you are safe to descend. If the approach is built properly, there should never be a need to execute a procedure turn (particularly one in which no altitude is lost or direction changed). But this is all "should be".

 

[CFIse]

Not necessarily. Get past the obvious nonsense of saying things like to support the argument that if the term NoPT is =not= used the procedure turn is still not required.

Wow - you are obviously in need of an argument since you're now arguing with a person who supports your position.

dhc's point that is an interesting point.
[/QUOTE}

dhc's point is very worrying since the way he phrased his statement he appears to believe that NoPT is associated with an IAF, whereas it is actually associated with a route - a distinct difference.

It's pretty obvious that it =shouldn't= be needed.

I've never argued, and I don't think you have, that going straight in isn't perfectly safe. The question is - is it legal - and I don't believe it is based on the FAA's publications and the the letters of interpretation.

There are lots of things in aviation that are legal but not safe, and plety of things that are safe but not legal. In the end you have to strive to find things that are both legal and safe - but it's folly to believe they are the same thing.

 

[DC8 Flyer]

It's certainly true that you will find plenty of IAF's lined up with the FAF that don't have "NoPT". But do they also have procedure turns? If they don't, then of course you go straight in... if they DO, then the PT is required. I'm hoping someone else can come with more examples of approach charts like those out here. Otherwise, it does seem to be anomalous.

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0506/05187I35L.PDF

Coming from the south east or sout west I could easily Vector my self to this ILS. HISER is a Compass Locator and IGFK has DME. I still have to do the PT though, if Im not being radar vectored.

 

[nosehair]

I'll chime in here on this one. Midlife is familiar with my take on the "when is a PT required" question. Everyone is missing the essential ingrediant. The AIM explains and describes a Procedure Turn with the opening statement: "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course." Look at that statement. Don't read anymore(yet). Is a course reversal necessary? No? Then why does everyone think it is always required whether you need it or not? The next sentence in the AIM (after *when necessary*) says: "The procedure turn is a required maneuver." THAT (I think) is what everyone sees as a stand alone statement. But it follows the definition of "when necessary".
That's how I see it. When a course reversal is necessary, the prescribed procedure turn as depicted shall be used.
Midlife's reprint of the legal opinion says nothing to me. It just quotes the above definitions. "When a course reversal is necessary, you shal use the prescribed maneuver". The legal opinion never specifically says, "You must do a PT even when you are established on the final approach course". Doesn't say that. It is in strict government legal speak which says nothing, but quotes the regulation.
The legal opinion will be on an individual case-by-case. Did you need to make a course reversal?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Wow - you are obviously in need of an argument since you're now arguing with a person who supports your position.

Of course, you probably noticed that I ended up arguing with myself in that post. I should have deleted it instead of editing it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'll chime in here on this one. Midlife is familiar with my take on the "when is a PT required" question. Everyone is missing the essential ingrediant. The AIM explains and describes a Procedure Turn with the opening statement: "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course." Look at that statement. Don't read anymore(yet).

Thanks. Between the two of us we'll at least get the parameters of the argument down.

My point, which I think is backed up by the FAR, AIM, and legal opinions is that (1) a definition of a phrase is not a legal statement of it's effect on our conduct, so you can't "just stop there," and, far more importantly, (2) the TERPS guys, not you and I, get to decide when "it is necessary" by putting it in, leaving it out, and specifically showing NoPT sectors.

 

[nosehair]

(1) a definition of a phrase is not a legal statement of it's effect on our conduct, so you can't "just stop there,"

...and likewise, you can't just read the second sentence, "a procedure turn is required", by itself, either. They both go together. Like this, in human speak: "If a course reversal (or alignment) is required, the direction of the turn is depicted by the barbed arrow, or holding pattern, or other bold line as depicted". When the approach chart shows "NoPT", that means we (the TERPS guys) have determined that the course is closely aligned enough that a course reversal is and should not be required, so we will depict it as such so that you must request a PT if you need one. 91.175(j) and the AIM language on NoPT all spell out conditions under which you SHALL NOT make a PT except when requested. It DOES NOT say "EXCEPT under these conditions, YOU SHALL ALWAYS make a PT even when you are aligned."

Mark, I'm not making this up, I'm reading *in context*, all the language I can find on the subject and cannot find a definitive statement that says you must do a PT even when you don't need to make a course reversal. The legal opinion does not answer that question.

 

[ackattacker]

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0506/05187I35L.PDF

Coming from the south east or sout west I could easily Vector my self to this ILS. HISER is a Compass Locator and IGFK has DME. I still have to do the PT though, if Im not being radar vectored.

I don't think it's quite the same thing. This approach doesn't have a seperate IAF and FAF. Also, at a bare minimum it only required an ILS and an ADF, so the approach has to assume that you don't have DME and therefore cannot safely descend until you cross the IAF "outbound". GPS approaches don't have to make that assumption.

 

[DC8 Flyer]

I don't think it's quite the same thing. This approach doesn't have a seperate IAF and FAF. Also, at a bare minimum it only required an ILS and an ADF, so the approach has to assume that you don't have DME and therefore cannot safely descend until you cross the IAF "outbound". GPS approaches don't have to make that assumption.

Its showing a point though. The FAR/AIM doesnt specify between GPS and Ground Based approaches when having to do PTs. Just because a GPS approach gives you the bigger picture doesn't mean you can just start doing straight in approaches when you want to (I know thats not what youre saying).

You bring up a good point about knowing where you are more with a GPS, the same is true with the GFK ILS35L, if I have DME, I know exactly where I am using DME and the LOM. Same thing with GPS. So by your logic if I am properly equipped I should be able to skip the procedure turn and "vector" my self to final. But we both know that isnt true, so why would it be with a GPS approach?

Nosehair brought up a good point about course reversal being required only when you have to get established on the intermediate or final course. Remeber established means on course and altitude. So I may be on the final course going the right way but I'm 1000' high because of the MEA or MSA or ATC, etc. I would then have to use a PT to loose that altitude and become established.

 

[midlifeflyer]

******** FDC NOTAMs ********
!FDC 5/6452 GUM FI/T GUAM INTL, AGANA, GUAM
RNAV (GPS) RWY 24R ORG-B ...
TERMINAL ROUTE:
BAGBE TO WABOX: BAGBE NOW DESIGNATED AS (IAF).
ADD NOTE: NOPT.

!FDC 5/6451 GUM FI/T AGANA INTL, AGANA, GUAM
RNAV (GPS) RWY 24L ORIG-B ...
TERMINAL ROUTE:
BAGBE TO CIBOL: BAGBE NOW DESIGNATED AS (IAF).
ADD NOTE: NOPT.

!FDC 5/6450 GUM FI/T GUAM INTL, AGANA, GUAM
RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 6L ORIG-C ...
TERMINAL ROUTE:
PULEE TO OBALE: PULEE NOW DESIGNATED AS (IAF).
ADD NOTE: NOPT.

!FDC 5/6449 GUM FI/T GUAM INTL, AGANA, GUAM
RNAV (GPS) RWY 6R ORIG-B ...
TERMINAL ROUTE: PULEE TO DALPE: PULEE NOW DESIGNATED AS (IAF).
ADD NOTE: NOPT.

!FDC 5/6447 GUM FI/T GUAM INTL, AGANA, GUAM
RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 6L ORIG ...
TERMINAL ROUTE:
PULEE TO OBALE: PULEE NOW DESIGNATED AS (IAF)
ADD NOTE: NOPT ALTERNATE MINIMUMS: ALL CATS STANDARD.

Although, nosehair and dhc would say its redundant (in fact dhc would say it doesn't ecven exist)

 

[midlifeflyer]

Mark, I'm not making this up, I'm reading *in context*, all the language I can find on the subject and cannot find a definitive statement that says you must do a PT even when you don't need to make a course reversal. The legal opinion does not answer that question.

I think

==============================
However, if a SIAP does contain a procedure turn and ATC has cleared a pilot to execute the SIAP, the pilot must make the procedure turn when one of the conditions of Section 91.175(j) is not present.
==============================

is pretty clear.

On the other hand, show me one thing from the FAA that suggests that a PT is always optional - which is what I think the argument ultimately comes down to. If you say that's not a fair reading of the argument, show me the FAA documents 9even unofficial ones) that set out the parameters for the exercise of the pilot's options.

 

[nosehair]

show me one thing from the FAA that suggests that a PT is always optional -

..."when a course reversal is necessary"...

That is a part of the SAIP. When the pilot determines that a course reversal is necessary to align himself with the final approach course, then he must do it in accordance with the SAIP.

The conditions of "NoPT" are conditions under which it is NOT the pilots option. He must get clearance to do a PT under those conditions. The rule does not say, "Under all other conditions, you shall do a PT." It says you must follow the SAIP. Following the SAIP does not mean specifically "Do the PT", it means "IF you must do a course reversal, do the PT."

I don't think there is a case of a pilot being violated for not doing a PT when he was reasonably aligned on course and continued straight-in, do you?

Mark, let me explain a little about my thinking. First, I do not, and have not, flown a lot of unfamiliar, actual instrument approaches. Most of my experience is in a training or local familiar approach environment where I know when I am in a safe environment so that a continuation straight-in without a PT is not in any way a "bet" on my rightness of suggesting that a PT is determined by the pilot. It is always very obvious that a PT is not needed, and is probably not expected by the local controllers. Additionally, I don't normally teach this as a routine. Training is usually limited to "standardized" conditions, and standardly, I train to be able to execute an approach anywhere based on chart knowledge, and that is not local familiar knowledge.

If I am in a strange environment, or do not have that warm fuzzy feeling about "on-course""on-altitude""on-speed""landing-checks-complete", then a course reversal may become necessary and I am not suggesting to compromise safety in any way. But when you know you are established on final approach, and the wx is rapidly deteriorating, and think you must "do the PT anyway", I think that is a compromise of safety.

...

 

[puddlejumper]

"Cleared For The Straight-In Approach"

I seem to remember the ATC-Pilot Glossary including the phrase: "Cleared For The Straight-In Approach" Is that still the case Mark?

I used to fly into Camden County, NJ (19N) a lot. http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0508/05496VB.PDF Coming up from the south over SBY, ATC would always clear me direct to VCN. DTK of 020 or so. I would get them to descend me to 2100' and then clear me for the approach. To avoid the PT, I would request the "straight-in approach" and confirm no PT was expected. They'd almost always say, "yeah sure, whatever" and I would do my thing. I guess that would fall under being radar-vectored, but being cleared to an IAF too. I'd like to see the "straight-in" clearance brought back if it's not that commonly used.

-PJ

 

[midlifeflyer]

I seem to remember the ATC-Pilot Glossary including the phrase: "Cleared For The Straight-In Approach" Is that still the case Mark?

It's still in the Glossary:

==============================
STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH IFR - An instrument approach wherein final approach is begun without first having executed a procedure turn, not necessarily completed with a straight-in landing or made to straight-in landing minimums.
==============================

BTW, I do think that there is still an open question floating around about it being okay for ATC to clear straight in even where a PT is mandatory.

The problem with the 1994 opinion is that it starts off talking about a non-radar environment. Although the 'unless it meats a 91.175 exception' ends up getting pretty global, you can choose to read it in that context and go back to a 1977 opinion where the FAA says that ATC can authorize exactly what you described.

From ATC input, it's pretty clear that as far as ATC is concerned, they'd rather you continue straight in. And, pretty obviously, since it would probably be ATC that would complain if you did it a way they didn't want, you are probably fine as a practical matter. (nosehair, no, I don't know of a single enforcement case in which the issue has come up. Since ATC wants you to go ahead, they probably won't gripe so it would likely take an accident for the issue to come up.) Of course the same could be said for a VFR flight entering Class B without a clearance. If ATC expected you to but just didn't say so, you'd have a violation no one would prosecute.)

And I think that ATC may well be taught that it's ok. Problem is that there is absolutely nothing in the regs or AIM that says so. You can play with "when necessary" all you want, but it says that a PT is "prescribed" when necessary; it doesn't say "a PT is flown when the pilot decides it's necessary." The the AIM section follows with a series of circumstances in which it's is not mandatory =for the pilot=, none of which are "when the pilot thinks it's safe." Think of how simple it would be to make it clear.

 

[nosehair]

You can play with "when necessary" all you want, but it says that a PT is "prescribed" when necessary; it doesn't say "a PT is flown when the pilot decides it's necessary."

There! There it is! "A PT is prescribed when necessary." Who do you think is responsible for determining "when necessary"? Not the pilot? Are you implying that the fact that a PT is shown on the SIAP that it is necessary?
Well, they show a missed approach. Is that necessary? Sometimes. The pilot decides. They show minimum altitudes. Is it necessary to descend to those altitudes? If you want to get the best chance of breaking out, yes...but, the pilot decides. If you need to make a course reversal to establish yourself on final, how do you do that? Well, the SIAP shows the side of the final approach course to make the reversal on, but how do you do it?..the pilot decides.
All through the material we read about how to do stuff, options are given about what, why, and how to do stuff,...and I can't get a good feeling about the material saying "The pilot decides how much fuel to put on..." It is an ASSUMPTION....an obvious conclusion.

If you would read what a course reversal is in the AIM or the FAA instrument flying handbook without,*repeat*, without the pre-conceived idea that a PT must be flown *except* for the conditions under which is is *prohibited* from being flown, maybe it would click.

You say,"think how easy it would be to make it clear". It is clear to me. But even if it was not, that is not the road to go down. There are way, way too many regs that are not clear, and no bureaucrat is going to stick his neck out and change to be more clear for the likes of you and me.

 

[midlifeflyer]

There! There it is! "A PT is prescribed when necessary." Who do you think is responsible for determining "when necessary"? Not the pilot?

No.

==============================
Main Entry: pre·scribe
Pronunciation: pri-'skrIb
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): pre·scribed; pre·scrib·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin praescribere to write at the beginning, dictate, order, from prae- + scribere to write -- more at SCRIBE
intransitive senses
1 : to lay down a rule : DICTATE
2 [Middle English, from Medieval Latin praescribere, from Latin, to write at the beginning] : to claim a title to something by right of prescription
3 : to write or give medical prescriptions
4 : to become by prescription invalid or unenforceable
transitive senses
1 a : to lay down as a guide, direction, or rule of action : ORDAIN b : to specify with authority
2 : to designate or order the use of as a remedy
- pre·scrib·er noun
==============================

So far, I have never prescribed a procedure turn by any of those defintions. The TERPS people do that.

 

[Geronimo4497]

Check out the GPS 27 into PDK. I shot this this past weekend and when I asked the ATL controller if anyone ever does the procedure turn he replied 'NO'. Why in the world would they draw in a procedure turn when there is a 24 radar equipped approach control not more than 20 miles away? This is not just a VOR overlay, either. The VOR course is 277 inbound, vs the GPS inbound course of 268.


Beats me, any thoughts?

 

[DC8 Flyer]

Check out the GPS 27 into PDK. I shot this this past weekend and when I asked the ATL controller if anyone ever does the procedure turn he replied 'NO'. Why in the world would they draw in a procedure turn when there is a 24 radar equipped approach control not more than 20 miles away? This is not just a VOR overlay, either. The VOR course is 277 inbound, vs the GPS inbound course of 268.


Beats me, any thoughts?

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0506/00469R27.PDF

If you are coming into this airport and ATC is too busy to vector you, they might just say "Cleared direct Geyel, clear GPS 27 Approach". Keep in mind that you DONT have to do a procedure turn IF there is a holding pattern in lieu of a procedure turn published. So, if you can enter the "hold" via direct entry, no nead to reverse directions.

Just keep altitude in mind, your MSA might keep you up too high to allow a normal descent from the IAF to the FAF to the MDA/DH, so if you need to make a turn to loose altitude, get the OK from ATC first.

 

[pilotots]

Check out the GPS 27 into PDK. I shot this this past weekend and when I asked the ATL controller if anyone ever does the procedure turn he replied 'NO'. Why in the world would they draw in a procedure turn when there is a 24 radar equipped approach control not more than 20 miles away? This is not just a VOR overlay, either. The VOR course is 277 inbound, vs the GPS inbound course of 268.


Beats me, any thoughts?

But you shot the Vis approach into PDK anyway so what's the difference? And yes you can get vectored onto a GPS approach. AIM1-1-19 O 6
I was wrong.