GPS IAP - turn required or not?

GravityHater

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Posts
1,168
Total Time
3000
http://s5.tinypic.com/k028mh.jpg

see pic with HILPT depicted. This is an actual approach with the details removed.
After passing the IAF, with the clearance as depicted, is a turn required or not?

AIM and PCG always seem to be confounding to me when I don't have my attorney there to decipher!

Click on pic once to make bigger.
 

deadstick

Pucker Factor: HIGH
Joined
Jul 27, 2002
Posts
706
Total Time
e^x
I'd say yes because the T is not there to get you established earlier. Don't T's have this HILPT at the top for this scenario and NoPT on the two legs? Afterall, it DOES appear to be a HILPT -- bold -- and the clearance was direct to and not "Fly heading 140 until established..."
 

midlifeflyer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2003
Posts
2,047
Total Time
some
As depicted and described, the HILPT is required. The lack of a NoPT routing ("T" or not) answers the question from a reg standpoint.

But I betcha the controller is expecting you to go straight in. Might even think that you are on "pseudo vectors" even though the words "direct IAF" instead of the magic words "fly heading ###" are being used.

One of the attempts to clarify this is the Note in AIM 5-4-9:

==============================
When ATC is radar vectoring to the final approach course or to the intermediate fix, ATC may specify in the approach clearance "CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN (type) APPROACH" to ensure the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is not to be flown. If the pilot is uncertain whether the ATC clearance intends for a procedure turn to be conducted or to allow for a straight-in approach, the pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC
==============================

Folks still argue about whether this allows ATC to clear you straight in generally or in very specific situations. Either way, in a situation that appears (don't know if any relevant information was deleted from the original chart) as conducive for a straight in as this one, I'd sure ask if I were cleared straight in so that ATC and I were on the same page.
 

Lynxman

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Posts
747
Total Time
....
Do it and be on the safe side along with a query to ATC.
 

EMcx2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 7, 2001
Posts
66
Total Time
A Bit
91.175.j Limitation on Procedure Turns.

In the case of a radar vector to a final approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach for which the procedure specifies "No PT" no pilot may make a procedure turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.
 

Lynxman

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Posts
747
Total Time
....
But his clearance didn't have any vectors in it. Is cleared to XYZ IAF considered a radar vector? I though it needed to have a heading to be considered a vector?
 

pilotyip

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
13,629
Total Time
14000
If the PT is not part of the approach, the GPS may automatically sequence to next point after starting your PT. The use of the OBS button may be needed to suspend the approach sequence.
 

AC560

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Posts
1,184
Total Time
750
But his clearance didn't have any vectors in it. Is cleared to XYZ IAF considered a radar vector? I though it needed to have a heading to be considered a vector?
The technical letter of the FAR says that if you are told "Cleared direct IAF; Cleared XXX approach" you should do the hold. Better judgment would suggest querying the controller.

The only two FAR's really worth following to the letter are 91.13 and 91.3, everything else is just guidance. People spend far to much time trying to pick these things apart.
 

midlifeflyer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2003
Posts
2,047
Total Time
some
The only two FAR's really worth following to the letter are 91.13 and 91.3, everything else is just guidance. People spend far to much time trying to pick these things apart.
The number of certificates suspended or revoked for violations of other provisions of Part 91, with the most common for IFR pilots probably being 91.123, would suggest that this statement is a wee bit misleading.
 

ackattacker

Client 9
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
2,125
Total Time
hah!
Here's another example of the above, real chart:

http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0903/02146RY24R.PDF


I guarandamtee you that when you are coming in from the Northeast direct WABOX the controllers do NOT want you to do a procedure turn.

Weirdly, when flown on a Garmin GPS it actually *asks you* if you want to do the procedure turn or not. Seems even the Jepessen database people don't know what to make of it.
 

deadstick

Pucker Factor: HIGH
Joined
Jul 27, 2002
Posts
706
Total Time
e^x
Weirdly, when flown on a Garmin GPS it actually *asks you* if you want to do the procedure turn or not. Seems even the Jepessen database people don't know what to make of it.
Because, when you go direct, to that fix, you are suppose to fly the HILPT. It's just doing what it's programmed to do.
 

deadstick

Pucker Factor: HIGH
Joined
Jul 27, 2002
Posts
706
Total Time
e^x
Weirdly, when flown on a Garmin GPS it actually *asks you* if you want to do the procedure turn or not. Seems even the Jepessen database people don't know what to make of it.
Because, when you go direct, to that fix, you are suppose to fly the HILPT. It's just doing what it's programmed to do.
 

ackattacker

Client 9
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
2,125
Total Time
hah!
My point was, if the GPS "knows" you're supposed to fly the HILPT, why does it give you the option of not doing it? Most approaches, when you go direct a fix that requires a PT the GPS will insert the PT automatically and it's up to you to do in and delete it if you want. Not so on this approach.
 
Top