IAP from a Hold

[A Squared]

H2OK9,

If you take a look at my previous post, you'll see that I clarified that I was speaking about Non-radar procedures. Yes, if you're receiving radar services from Portland approach and they've vectored you for final, the procedure turn isn't required, in fact it isn't even allowed. I tend to look at things from a non-radar perspective as that's what I fly in mostly. If I'd paid a little more attention to the approach chart, I would have seen that you'd be working with approach and I would have seen your perspective on the issue. Having said that, everything I have posted is true in a non-radar environment. You've repeatedly stated that the procedure turn is not a required part of the approach procedure. It is not clear to me whether you beleive that this is true in all cases, or you mean that it is not required in the case of radar vectors. If you mean the latter, yes, radar vectors relieves you of the requirement to fly the procedure turn, this is stated in 91.175. If you mean the former then that's not correct. The procedure turn is not optional in a non radar environment. This is stated very clearly in the legal opinion at the link above.

You wrote:

>>>>>check your far 91.175 there is nothing that says you have to do a procedure turn.

No, it doesn't specifically require the procedure turn in so many words. It does however require that you "shall use a standard instrument approach procedure....", and the chief counsel's opinion clarifies that this means the entire approach, including a procedure turn if it is a part of the approach. If you have not read the legal ruling, I would encourage you to do so. It is worded very clearly and leaves no doubt that the FAA does not consider procedure turns to be optional.
If you take this identical approach, and put it someplace in Wyoming where ATC doesn't provide radar services, or, if Portland Approach and Seattle Center were unable to provide radar services at Hillsboro for some reason (fire in the facility, terrorist attack on the radar sites, whatever) you would be required to fly the procedure turn, regardless of your direction of flight.

Is it clear to you what I'm sayng now? Sorry for if I was unclear earlier.


regards.

 

[A Squared]

Flydog,

Read my previous post, hopefully that will clear up some of the confusion about what is being said.

>>>>>I still don’t understand where the AIM requires that one execute a procedure turn for course reversal when its not required when flying in from the South.

Ok, first, the AIM can’t "require" anything, as the AIM isn’t regulatory. 91.175 requires you to fly an instrument approach procedure, and the FAA’s Chief Counsel has ruled that this means flying the procedure turn, if depicted.

>>>>The published hold is the ONLY protected airspace at the IAF.

No this is not true, you have to look at how the approaches are designed. Anytime a procedure turn starts at an IAF, there is protected airspace sufficient to turn from any inbound course to intercept the outbound course for the procedure turn. The approach is designed this way because, regardless of the direction you are coming from, you are expected to turn outbound on the procedure turn. This protected airspace is called the entry zone. If you have a copy of the TERPS, you can see the entry zone in figure 5 in Chapter 2.

>>>No other procedure is authorized for course reversal other than the hold regardless of wether it is used for a missed approach or not. Any other type of turn is not shown therefore not authorized.

No, not true, like I said, a procedure turn at an IAF is designed with protected airspace provided for turning from any inbound enroute course to the outbound course for the procedure turn. This turn is not depicted because it cannot possibly be depicted for all possible inbound enroute courses.

>>>>>I asked several pilots including check airmen and experienced Captains and nobody would elect to fly back outbound just to execute a procedure turn.

Yes, and if they are getting radar vectors they would be correct, if they were in a non radar environment, they would be incorrect.

I know experienced captains who knowingly disregard the regulations, and ones who violate the regulations out of ignorance. I’ve known check airmen to be wrong on occasion. Don’t be fooled into thinking that because someone outranks you they are correct.

regards

 

[avbug]

A Squared,

You shouldn't need to clarify that, because that has been clear from the first of this thread.

Over and over we have discussed the fact that absent the criteria spelled out in 91.175(j), a proceedure turn is required. We have seen a reference from the AIM stating that the proceedure turn is a required maneuver. We know that simply because the approach is "straight in," the requirement for a proceedure turn is NOT abated.

I think this is an important point. While this particular approach may generally be conducted in a radar environment, there is always the potential that it may be required under radar blackout. It's also important to understand that any similiar approach in another area, as you pointed out, that doesn't have radar coverage (specifically radar vectors), does require a proceedure turn.

The direction from which the arriving aircraft comes is NOT relevant. The fact that an aircraft comes from the south is not relevant, any more than it coming from the north. If this approach included an IAF south of Newberg, such as on an arc, then course reversal would not be required at Newberg. However, no other IAF is available, and absent the specific exceptions identified in 91.175(e) and elsewhere, the proceedure turn is a REQUIRED maneuver, and MUST be flown.

A good example is Jackson, WY. Consider the VOR approach in there, approaching from the South. Jackson VOR is the IAF, much like the approach into Hillsboro. Pilots have been violated for attempting to pick up the radial inbound, south of the VOR, and track it without a proceedure turn. It's a required maneuver. People have also been killed there. Absent radar vectors (not just a radar environment), or a specific NoPT direction, or a timed approach from a holding fix, the proceedure turn must be flown.

A common misunderstanding is that one need only fly the proceedure turn for the purposes of course reversal. Some folks believe that if you're basically headed in the right direction, they might as well continue. That's not out of the realm of common sense, but it's wrong. The proceedure turn is required, not recommended, or not just a good idea if one needs to get turned around a bit. Course reversal is a requirement for becomming established on the inbound course, and in the absence of radar vectors to the final approach course and the other aforementioned criteria (repeatedly mentioned I might add), it must be executed...even if one is headed in the "right" direction to begin with.

One may be headed in the right direction, but one is not established, because one cannot become legally established on the published proceedure without flying it. As the proceedure turn is a required maneuver to fly that proceedure, one is not established without executing the proceedure turn (unless one of the criteria is met to excuse the turn). It's that simple.

Calling Portland approach, or ATC, doesn't excuse this fact; it's a function of the criteria for establishing the approach. Even a call to the writers of TERPS won't change that fact. If the folks in Portland regularly vector traffic to final from the south at Hillsboro, then that's great; the proceedure turn isn't required, and we established this fact a long time ago. If that doesn't happen, and someone arrives from the south (cleared direct Newberg for the VOR DME approach), then the proceedure turn is required.

Absent vectors to final, this approach was designed without an exemption for a proceedure turn.

 

[BrokenWing]

Maybe I missed the original question; I thought the question was - if you're in the holding pattern and cleared for the approach, do you need to execute the procedure turn. The answer would be no.

First off, the holding pattern depicted is a missed approach holding pattern and has nothing to do with the arrival. If you flew the initial approcah to the full miss and then were given clearance for another approach, you could intercept final from the holding pattern.

Since there is no procedural track for the procedure turn, the type of course reversal is left to the discretion of the pilot. In this case, the holding pattern is on the same side of the procedure turn and would suffice as a course reversal.

 

[avbug]

BW,

a racetrack reversal at the site of the holding pattern would suffice in lieu of a more orthodox proceedure turn, however, the holding pattern itself does not suffice. The hold still does not establish one inbound, although it's close. One would need to alter the inbound course such that one is tracking inbound to Newberg on the 166 radial.

The hold places the user tracking inbound to newberg on the 183 radial, and does not accomplish the purpose of the course reversal. Evidently the designers of the approach intended for the user to be established inbound on the 166 radial prior to crossing the VOR and commencing a descent.

Therefore, as the origional question asked may one begin the approach out of the depicted hold, the answer is no. One may begin the approach by modifying that hold into a course reversal, but not from the charted missed approach hold.

 

[BrokenWing]

Agree. My thought was exactly that; on your inbound leg, intercept the final appraoch course and you would be legal.

 

[H2OK9]

You guys are right and approach in hillsboro is wrong! As for A Squared's faa chief councel stating that you must fly a procedure turn. where does it say that in the FAR's I don't care what a chief councel says, if it is the law than put it in the far. This also happens to be below radar coverage so consider it non radar. I like the last couple of posts, We can what if forever but the original question was about hillsboro not jacksons hole, or any other hole. it's hillsboro. Fellas, it's been fun but I can not continue this madness, fly it however you like, just let me know if you're in the area so I can stay clear.
by the way app control for that area is 503-493-7500

 

[A Squared]

OK H2Odog,

slow down there, take a deep breath, it seems that you’re getting pissed off and not listening to what is being said. Yes, the original question was about the missed approach hold at Hillsboro, but the discussion branched out into a lot of other issues (as discussions often do) If you wish to remove yourself from the discussion that’s fine. There’s a couple of things you should know though.


>>>>>As for A Squared's faa chief councel (sic) stating that you must fly a procedure turn. where does it say that in the FAR's I don't care what a chief councel (sic) says, if it is the law than put it in the far.

The fact that you say "I don’t care what a chief counsel says" indicates pretty clearly that you don’t understand the importance of what the chief counsel says. When the FAA’s chief counsel issues an interpretation or an opinion on what a regulation means, that is the interpretation that the FAA will use in an enforcement action against you.

I’m going to repeat this, because it’s important, and you seem not to understand it:

If a fed starts an enforcement against you because you failed to fly a procedure turn, it is exactly that interpretation of 91.175 that they will consult when they decide whether you have violated 91.175. It is the same for any regulation. If the Chief Counsel has issued an opinion on a regulation, that is the interpretation that the enforcement branch is required to abide by. If the Chief Counsel says you have to fly the entire procedure, including the procedure turn if depicted, that’s exactly what you have to do to be legal. Now, someone may point out that the Chief Counsel’s opinion may be overruled by an NTSB judge or other judge. Yes, this is true, but this opinion has not been overturned. The thing to keep in mind is that if you get it overturned on appeal to the NTSB, your certificate has ALREADY been suspended at that point, and you are fighting to get it back. I really don’t think you want to be in that position. It is in your best interests to care what the Chief Counsel says.


>>>>> You guys are right and approach in hillsboro is wrong!

No, I’m not saying that Approach is wrong. I wasn’t a party to your conversation, so I can’t comment on exactly what was said. You may have gotten an incomplete explanation, or you may have missed the significance of something your contact said. Fom your earlier post you were told: they will give you, "cross vor at or above you proceed on course of 346 and may begin to decend after the vor and continue with no procedure turn.

Yes, this is all correct in the context of being vectored for final. If you are being vectored for final, the controller is required by the controller handbook to word your clearance like this "You are X miles from the Newberg VOR, Fly heading XXX, maintain 3000 feet until established on a published portion of the approach, cleared VOR/DME approach" If your approach clearance is issued in this format you are receiving vectors for final. Receiving vectors for the final approach course is an essential element to skipping the procedure turn legally, the person you spoke to may not have explained this to you.

Another thing that you may not understand, and is important in this discussion, is that a controller may not release you from the requirements of the regulations. Regardless of what you are cleared to do, it is your job to comply with the regulations. The controller issues clearances based on whether it creates traffic conflicts, not whether something is legal. In many cases they may not be aware of requirements in the regulations. This is stated pretty clearly in the Controllers Handbook, and it’s another thing that every pilot should understand

2. Approach clearances are issued based on known traffic. The receipt of approach clearance does not relieve the pilot of his/her responsibility to comply with applicable Parts of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations and the notations on instrument approach charts which levy on the pilot the responsibility to comply with or act on an instruction .

Just because a controller clears you to do something, doesn’t mean that it’s legal to do it.


regards

 

[H2OK9]

A-Squared,

Don't miss understand me, I'm not pissed at all, I actually think it's funny how guys like you have all the answers but don't think outside the box. I appreciate your answers but I still don't see anywhere in the far 91.173 or where ever, that it states I must do a procedure turn as part of an approach. See YAAAAAA!

 

[avbug]

Waterdog,

Don't make the assumption that because you don't see it spelled out in 14 CFR 91, that it's not a requirement. There are a great many things we do that aren't spelled out there, but are required non the less.

The AIM is not regulatory, but is a compilation of data, information, and regulation in a convenient source. As we have already discussed, AIM Para 5-4-8(a) clearly states "The proceedure turn or hold in lieu of a proceedure turn is a required maneuver." Make no mistake, unless the criteria identified in 91.175(j) exist, the proceedure turn IS a required maneuver.

You should understand that instrument approach proceedures are regulatory by nature in accordance with 14 CFR 97, and are established by TERPS criteria. The designer of an approach proceedure determines if a proceedure turn is required for the specific proceedure. When charted with a proceedure turn, if cleared for the approach, the pilot MUST fly the proceedure turn unless the proceedure has been amended.

If Hillsboro clears you for the approach, and doesn't ammend the proceedure, and you fail to fly the proceedure turn, and the specific items detailed in 91.175(j) do not exist, then you are in violation and are subject to enforcement action. Period. End of story. Violations have been upheld on this on a number of occasions.

You would do well to seek to understand the administrative legal system a little better. You should know that you are bound by the legal interpretations issued by the FAA chief counsel. These define exactly how the Administrator defines the regulation, are binding in court, and will be used against you in enforcement action. This is fact.

Legal interpretations clarify the law. Legal interpretations are binding as law, and are regulatory in nature as these specify the specific requirements of the Administrator on each point covered.

Waterdog, I will refer you to another legal interpretation by Mr. Byrne, also clarifying the stand on proceedure turns. The petitioner asked several things which have been deleted for non-relevence. This particular interpretation is dated November 3, 1993, and specifically addresses the requirement for executing a proceedure turn when is is part of the proceedure.

November 3, 1993
Dear Mr. Young:

This is in response to your letter of August 23, 1993, in which you request an interpretation of Section 91.175 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) (14 CFR Section 91.175).


Finally, you ask whether a course reversal segment is optional "when one of the conditions of FAR section 91.175(j) is not present." Section 91.175(j) states that 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 procedure turn," no pilot may make a procedure turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.

Section 97.3(p) defines a procedure turn, in part, as a maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach course. A SIAP may or may not prescribe a procedure turn based on the application of certain criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Approach Procedures (TERPs). 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 regardless of the limitations set forth in Section 91.175(j).

Under Section 91.123(a), a pilot may not deviate from an ATC clearance except in an emergency or unless an amended clearance has been obtained. Accordingly, if a pilot does not wish to execute a published course reversal procedure, he may request ATC for an authorization to deviate from the published approach procedure. In the absence of such an authorization, a pilot may not consider the published course reversal procedure optional.

If a pilot is uncertain whether a particular approach procedure is mandatory or optional, Section 91.123(a) requires him to immediately request a clarification from ATC.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Patricia R. Lane, Manager, Airspace and Air Traffic Law Branch, at (202) 267-3491.

Sincerely,

Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations Division


Part II with a second legal interpretation follows...

 

[avbug]

Again, Waterdog, this isn't optional. This isn't simply nice advice. This is the representation of the direction of the Administrator, who oversees all regulatory matters dealing with civil aviation in the United States. This is mandated by an act of congress (Federal Aviation Act of 1958, and ammendments thereto), and the legal counselor speaks for the Administrator whom congress has designated for the position. It IS binding, like it or not.

The following interpretation further clarifies the matter, and is dated July, 1977. The specific references to Part 91 have changed slightly in enumeration, but the interpretation of the need for a proceedure turn when charted, and as discussed thus far, is valid, and IS binding.

You'll eventualy learn that much of the regulation isn't available by simply reading one passage or subparagraph. A complete understanding of the regulation under which we operate, and by which we are bound, involves referring to several different subparagraphs which are inter related. This legal interpretation helps clarify those relationships.

The gist of it is simple. When a proceedure turn is included in a proceedure, it is part of the proceedure. The pilot doesn't simply get to decide that if he is aligned closely enough, he can skip it. The designer of the approach makes the decision as to weather it's required. If it's shown as part of the procedure, it's required. It's that simple. 14 CFR 91.123 provides the regulatory basis by which the requirement to fly the complete proceedure is established. ATC may ammend the proceedure in accordance with 91.175(j); in fine, under such conditions, a pilot may NOT execute a proceedure turn unless authorized to do so.

ATC may not haphazardly modify the proceedure. If ATC is unable or unwilling to provide radar vectors to the final approach course, but instead clears the flight direct Newberg, cleared the proceedure, the full proceedure must be flown. The proceedure is regulatory, and when cleared for the proceedure, it must be flown as depicted. In such areas as can be ammended by ATC, the pilot must fly the proceedure as cleared. This is NOT an option.

July 25, 1977

Robert E. Little, Jr., Esquire

Dear Mr. Little:

We have reviewed your letter dated April 28, 1977, in which you requested an interpretation concerning whether, when depicted on an approach chart, a procedure turn is required under all circumstances in executing an IFR approach or it is permissive and subject to the pilot's judgment as to the need for the maneuver. Our conclusion is essentially as discussed with you on the phone on May 17, 1977.

In your letter, you indicated that during the first leg of an IFR training flight from Tipton Army Air Field, Fort Meade, Maryland to Westminster Airport (EMI), you were radar vectored to Federal Airway V-265 and thereafter maintained an altitude of 3,000 feet. Approximately 4 miles south of Westminster VORTAC you obtained the following Air Traffic Control (ATC) clearance:

"Army 295, radar service terminated 4 miles south of Westminster VOR, cleared for the VOR approach at Westminster, maintain 3000 feet until crossing the VOR."

You indicated that "for training purposes" you executed a procedure turn during the approach but concluded, after discussion with your instructor pilot, that the procedure turn was not required under the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). You stated that you considered the following factors:

"(1) Our course was 11 to the right of the final approach course depicted on the plan view of the Westminster VOR Runway 36 approach;

(2) We were only 500 feet above the minimum procedure turn altitude; and

(3) We had approximately 4 minutes and 30 seconds to lose approximately 1500 feet at a rate of approximately 330 feet per minute after crossing the EMI VOR."

According to your letter, your subsequent research into the matter and inquiries of various FAA personnel into the correctness of your conclusion did not provide a satisfactory answer.

As you discovered, "procedure turn," as a symbol or term used in Part 97 of the FARs, is defined in Section 97.3(p) as follows:

"(p) Procedure Turn means the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach course. The outbound course, direction of turn, distance within which the turn must be completed, and minimum altitude are specified in the procedures. However, the point at which the turn may be commenced, and the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of the pilot."

Pertinent paragraphs of Section 91.116 "Takeoff and landing under IFR; General" provide as follows:

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator (including ATC), each person operating an aircraft shall, when an instrument letdown to an airport is necessary, use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed for that airport in Part 97 of this chapter.

(h) Limitations on procedure turns. In the case of a radar initial approach to a final approach fix or position, or a timed approach from a holding fix, or where the procedure specifies "NOPT" or "FINAL", no pilot may make a procedure turn unless, when he receives his final approach clearance, he so advises ATC.

Paragraph (a) of Section 91.75 "Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions" states in pertinent part as follows:

(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance, except in an emergency, unless he obtains an amended clearance. ... If a pilot is uncertain of the meaning of an ATC clearance, he shall immediately request clarification from ATC."

Accordingly, under Section 91.116, Part 97 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) are regulatory and, unless otherwise authorized (such as by an ATC clearance to the contrary), a pilot is required to execute an IFR approach in accordance with the SIAP prescribed in Part 97. As you know, the substance of SIAPs is reflected on "approach plates" or other flight information available for use in the cockpit.

Particular SIAPs may prescribe a procedure turn that is mandatory, permissive, or prohibited depending on the application of criteria contained in the U.S. Standards for Terminal Instrument Approach Procedures (TERPs). The TERPs are used by the FAA in developing SIAPs for particular regulatory approaches at particular airports. However, ATC may "authorize" a deviation from the prescribed procedure when it determines that a different approach procedure is appropriate. Accordingly, a pilot may request ATC for authorization to deviate from a prescribed procedure turn, if it is prescribed as mandatory or, if it is prescribed as permissive, he may request an approach clearance with or without the described procedure turn.

Thus, if you accepted the indicated ATC clearance, under the FARs, you were requested to maintain an altitude of 3000 feet on the inbound course until crossing the VOR and then to execute the prescribed (SIAP) VOR approach at Westminster. Since the (SIAP) VOR approach prescribes a mandatory procedure turn as part of that procedure, the procedure turn (as described) is required.

Further, please note that if a pilot is uncertain whether the IFR approach procedure for which he obtained ATC clearance requires or only permits a procedure turn, he is required under Section 91.75(a) to immediately request clarification from ATC.

You correctly noted that the discussion of procedure turns in Advisory Circular 90-1A is neither regulatory nor interpretive of the regulation. Advisory circulars, as their title suggests, are intended to provide information, suggestions and other guidance.

If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,
NEIL R. EISNER
NEIL R. EISNER
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations & Enforcement Division

 

[A Squared]

H20K9,

You have been told repeatedly how the regulatory requirement to fly the procedure turn is derived, yet still you insist that it doesn't exist. At this point it seems you only wish to beleive what you believe and have no interest in considering the reality.

Here is how it is required:

1) Part 91.175(a) states in part that you "...shall use a standard instrument approach procedure..."

2) The FAA's Office of Chief Counsel has on three occasions issued interpretations which state clearly that "...shall use a SIAP..." means to use the *entire* SIAP, including a procedure turn, if specified.


3) The FAA's Chief Counsel is charged with, and authorized to issue binding interpretations of CFR Title 14.

If you put 1,2, and 3 together, there is your requirement. If you honestly do not believe that statements 1,2, or 3 are correct, I'd be happy to discuss that, but just repeating "it's not required by the regulations" is not productive. You've been shown over and over exactly how and where it is required by the regulations. If you chose to ignore this, that is your choice. It has nothing to do with "thinking outside the box"

If you were subject to a certificate action for not flying a procedure turn (and yes, it does happen) the Letter of Investigation, and the notice of suspension of your certificate would quote the relevant portion of 91.175, and it would quote the Chief Counsel's legal interpretaion. If you were subject to this enforcement, how effective do you think your arguments would be against the enforcement division?

" I still don't see anywhere in the far 91.173 or where ever, that it states I must do a procedure turn"

They will show you 91.175(a) and the official legal interpretaion of 91.175(a)

"I don't care what a chief councel (sic) says"

Oh yeah? It doesn't matter whether you care, the enforcement division cares, and they're the ones who are going to suspend your certificate.

"I talked to someone at Portland Approach and they said it wasn't required"

Really? does the unwritten opinion of a some approach controller overrule the official legal interpretaion issued by the Office of Chief Counsel?


"I was thinking outside the box"

That won't impress them any more than "I don't care what a chief councel (sic) says"


Instead of trying to personalize this discussion with insults like;

" just let me know if you're in the area so I can stay clear."

or

"I actually think it's funny how guys like you have all the answers but don't think outside the box"

why don't you try addressing the arguments which have been presented by myself and Avbug?

I would like to hear why you consider the Chief Counsel's interpretation irrelevant or invalid.


regards

 

[Checks]

H2O,

Who was your CFII? I want to slap him silly.

 

[Timebuilder]

Let me put one more log on this fire.

As stated above, the ATC facilities normally clear pilots to fly direct to the VOR in their "radar environment".

Here comes the question.

If no magnetic bearing is specified in the clearance, does that clearance constitute a "radar vector" and therefore relieve the pilot of flying the procedure turn? Doesn't a "vector" require a direction in which to fly?

 

[avbug]

TB,

A radar vector, by definition (according to the Pilot/Controller Glossary) is the "provision of navigational guidance to aircraft in the form of specific headings based on the use of radar."

Vector is defined as "a heading issued to an aircraft to provide nagivational guidance by radar."

If radar coverage provides for a given area, vectors may not assumed to be given until specific headings are assigned, based on the use of that radar.

In consideration of the present subject, the presence of radar does not alleviate the requirement to fly the proceedure turn when published. Specifically radar vectors to the final approach course must be given to qualify for relief from this requirement.

 

[Timebuilder]

Your answer leads me to believe that the procedure being used by those ATC facilities mentioned above is non-standard, and possibly illegal.

Is that a fair conclusion?

 

[H2OK9]

well boys this is getting quite fun!
Let me retract my last, I do care what the chief counsel states and I appreciate your imputs and I agree that a procedure turn is part of the SIAP. Sorry if I offended you! Now, that being said, and I am open to learning everyday. I am answering the original question on the missed approach after you have entered the hold. which takes the place of the procedure turn to bring your craft back on course to the vor for shooting the approach.
Now my other question to you is this...If you are coming in from the south and you are cleared for the approach, are you saying you reach the vor then turn back out towards the left (I assume since that is where the hold is) then track back on the outbound course to do the procedure turn back in? I agree that if you come from the north you need to P-turn to have a course reversal, but everyone that I ask, and there are many, and we are all flying pt 121, they all have the same answer as I. Now maybe we're wrong, but it doesnt make sense to me that you would turn back out just to turn back in. Sorry if I require the "simple" explanation but I do appreciate all of your imputs.

 

[avbug]

Waterdog,

The simple answer is yes, you must fly the full proceedure. Again, this depends on the conditions of your clearance. If you are given radar vectors to the final approach course, you may not execute a proceedure turn unless given a clearance to do so. If, however, you are simply cleared for the approach, then you must fly the full proceedure.

The question you have appears to be why one needs to reverse course to become established, if one appears to be flying straight in. It's a good question, and the basis for the confusion here, too. The short and simple answer is because the designers of the approach elected to make it so.

There are several airways that feed Newberg, which represents the IAF for this approach. Overheading Newberg at MEA, one will still be 600' above the initial altitude for the approach (3,000), assuming you arrive on V-500 (the lowest MEA of all the arriving airways). If you happen to be arriving from the south on V-287, which is the 183 degree radial on which the proceedure turn is conducted, the MEA is 3,600.

TERPS specifies that among the criteria for establishing a hold in lieu of a proceedure turn, the minimum holding altitude may not be more than 300' above the inbound crossing altitude for the fix. In this case, if arriving at the MEA, the initial altitude over the fix is 600' above the fix. I cannot tell you why the designers elected to require a proceedure turn, but they did. If a hold meets specific descent gradient criteria for each category of authorized aircraft, the proceedure turn may be eliminated. Evidently that's not the case here.

ATC may provide authorization to execute the proceedure straight in, using radar vectors, and the small (r) on the approach plate indicates that they have this capability. Lacking this capability, chances are that they are unable to provide you with a MVA, seeing as they wouldn't be able to see you on radar, and you are stuck with flying the full proceedure.

It's worth noting that a hold is depicted in alignment with the final approach course, on the low altitude enroute chart. A descent in this hold after crrossing the IAF (Newberg) may be used to reverse course, as previously discussed. It's also worth noting that for whatever reason, this hold is NOT depicted on the approach chart.

Another important point is the issue of course reversal. We are told in a number of locations that a proceedure turn is used when it is necessary to reverse course to become established on the proceedure. However, in this case, it looks for all intents and pruposes as though arriving on the airway has us pretty well established. Again, the short answer is that it's the designers of the approach that get to decide what's established, and what's not. Evidently, using all the criteria for this approach, they decided that a proceedure turn would be required after crossing the IAF in order to become established.

Almost certainly the reason for this is required altitude loss. I can only state that as guesswork and a matter of opinion, without seeing the data upon which the approach is predicated.

You seem to know this approach well; it suggests that you fly it often. When you do so, how do you normally conduct it?

 

[172driver]

Anyone remember the acronym HARPT for times when a PT is not required?


H=hold in lieu
A=arc
R=radar vectors
P=no PT
T=teardrop

 

[H2OK9]

well here we go with round four. not that I don't beleive you guys but I want clerification here. I talk to the fed's that work with our airline and they say negative on the procedure turn unless you need to make a course reversal. As for the guy that want's to "slap my CFII", go ahead, he teaches at the United Airlines Training Dept. He agree's with me also.