IAP from a Hold

[puddlejumper]

"Straight-In Approach?"

H2OK9 said:

if you're coming in from the north you need to do a course reversal thus the PT which can be preformed any way you like so long as your alt is correct and you turn on the side of the barb. If you're coming in from the south there is no need for a turn since a PT is only to reverse course to get you lined up.

Forgive me for I don't have my AIM on the road with me today, but I seem to remember something about a "straight-in" approach clearance. Along with a NoPT, radar vectors, cleared "straight-in" would get you out of having to do a PT if your position and altitude allowed for it.

I routinely ask (and maybe I'm being a dork) for a straight-in whenever my route of flight, the IAF and the final are all pretty well lined up. Does that sound familiar to y'all?

-PJ

 

[A Squared]

I should clarify that the procedure turn is an absolute requirement for a non-radar environment. If you are receiving radar vectors it's a different story.

 

[H2OK9]

sorry A Squared, You, my friend, are wrong.
You do not need to do a procedure turn if you are coming in from the south! the turn is only in the need of a course reversal such as coming to Hillsboro Airport from the north. IF you disagree, you need to get up to Oregon el' pronto cause them boys up there have been doing it that way for years! check your far 91.175 there is nothing that says you have to do a procedure turn. Once again a procedure turn is only designed in the need of a course reversal! If you are coming in from the south into Hillsboro airport, you do not need a course reversal. you fly to the vor and begin your decent

 

[H2OK9]

Buschpilot you sure stirred up the hornets nest here!
Ok A Squared, I used a life line and did the phone a friend. called tracon in portland, they know this app, inside and out. and I called hillsboro twr as well, same answer from both experts.

NO prodedure turn is required if you are flying in from the south, they will give you, "cross vor at or above 3000'" you proceed on course of 346 and may begin to decend after the vor and continue with no procedure turn. YOU can however, hit the vor, racetrack back around to the left (where the hold is depicted) and fly outbound on the R-166 to do a procedure turn if you want the practice and if there is no transition that says "Straigh In" or the controller doesn't specify. This is direct from the horses mouth folks.
fly safe!

 

[flydog]

I agree with H2OK9 on this one

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

If I am to understand Avbug's interpretation once crossing the IAF after being cleared out of the hold and for the approach I need to make a course reversal ??? of my own choosing since no PT is illustrated when flying northbound, intercept the radial outbound, do another procedure turn to intercept the course inbound and complete the approach.

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

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

 

[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...