Legal or not?

[Eric]

If you are flying an "NDB or GPS Rwy 10" approach with the NDB (IAF) on the field, do you have to fly the procedure turn? If you can establish yourself on the final approach course at minimum vectoring altitude and determine that you are within 10 miles (easily done with todays GPS's), is there any reason to fly to the NDB turn around and re-establish yourself on the final approach course you were just on? Or, can you just let down to MDA?

 

[moving2vegas]

procedure turn???

"If you can establish yourself on the final approach"

Assuming your in actual IFR conditions, ATC has never allowed me to do my own thing & navigate to the final course. But that's me. As to your question, if a procedure turn is depicted I believe ATC is expecting you to perform it. The exceptions are if "no pt turn req" is depicted from your IAF, ATC is giving you vectors, or ATC waived the turn. The second part of your question: "is there any reason to fly to the NDB turn around?" Same as the reasons to fly any procedure turn. Standardizes ATC/ pilot procedures, ensures aircraft and terrain separation, creates a more stable approach, gives pilot a place to burn excess airspeed and altitude, yada yada yada.

 

[A Squared]

Eric,

No, it is not legal. If there is a procedure turn depicted, you must fly it. THe FAA's office of chief counsel has issued an interpretation which states this very clearly.

 

[liv'n_on_credit]

No PT??

I did an approach one time like that.

I was about 20 miles northwest of the airport, IFR, planning on the NDB 15 approach. I was planning on doing the entire approach... go to the NDB, do a 180, go back several miles from where I just was, then turn around and go all the way back to the airport. But just for sh-ts and giggles, I asked ATC if I could just intercept the inbound course, he said, "Sure, that's fine with me." I asked him if I was required to do any procedure turns anyway since I was pretty much already lined up with the inbound course. He said that normally yes, I have to do whatever is published unless there is a NoPT there. But he said that since I had his permission, this time I was O.K.

He let me know when I was about 10 miles away, so I could descend because I didn't have a GPS or any way of knowing how far from the NDB I was.

 

[deadstick]

Re: No PT??

He let me know when I was about 10 miles away, so I could descend because I didn't have a GPS or any way of knowing how far from the NDB I was.

That is why normally you can't do this. You don't have range info on the ADF. What Do you do after passing the IAF? Turn intercept the outbound and fly it for 2 or so minutes. Even if you're doing 120 kts over the ground, you are still only 4 nm from the field. Where/when you descend to the MDA it critical. Many CFIT accidents have come from missing step-down points (kind of a parallel).

 

[upncoming]

Okay-

I guess I'm missing something here, but this is really pretty simple:

if you're being vectored for the approach, then you do not need to do the PT (this assumes that ATC has you at an acceptable altitude and is bringing you around to intercept the final) - I've done this many times on a NDB, hasn't anyone else?

if you are doing the full approach, then you have to do the PT (this assumes you did not hear something like "expect vectors" and you did not request vectors, etc.)

 

[profile]

ATC cannot waive the PT requirement, except by radar vector. The fact that they cleared you for it doesn't make it legal, either. They will clear you for about anything you ask for on the assumption that YOU know what is legal for you. It is not their responsibilty. If you ask for a right turn straight into the nearest mountain they can approve that legally also, but that doesn't mean that YOU are legal or safe.

Incidentally, if you ask for xxx heading to intercept, that is NOT considered a vector and ATC has no responsiblity for your terrain clearance or the legality of what you are doing.

 

[deadstick]

Here's another way of looking at it:

Where's the FAF?

 

[nosehair]

Well, here's my take on it. You don't have to do a PT if you are established on the final approach course AND, and this is a big AND, you are truly ESTABLISHED and READY for FINAL DESCENT.
The legal counsel interpretation uses the same language as in the TERPS, " A procedure turn is used when course reversal is necessary". Legal interpretations, of neccesity, will always use the legal language necessary to avoid liability for the idiot who will take what I am saying as an excuse to scream-in on final when he is not really ready.
When you have to navigate to the FAF and make a course change, then you should do it in the prescribed manner. We know it will get us down in a safe condition. When I am IMC in an unknown environment, I will do the PT, but when I am in awell known environment, and I can somehow track to an intercept point, and can get the airspace clearance(I have to get a clearance for the airspace track to the final approach course intercept - not to the IAF) then I am going to proceed to the IAF complying with all procedures from the PT to the IAF, and then start my final descent. I don't think that's illegal or unsafe. The PT is for when a course reversal is necessary. But I won't ask legal is it legal.

 

[501261]

You have to fly the PT

You have to fly the procedure turn. It’s not a matter of if can you get in without doing it, there are a number of other factors involved. For instance ATC might have just cleared someone for a departure with the expectation that you will do the procedure turn.

It seems a lot of us are confusing getting a radar vector and not doing the PT, or shooting a visual, as meaning it Ok to not do the PT at other times.

IFR is IFR the world over so even though it might make sense that you don’t have to do the PT, because you can identity “Aunt Bessie’s house” as the FAF and make a straight in, that won’t work in Isla de Pascua, Chile.