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.