GPS Approach question

[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.