Legal or not?

[TonyC]

I don't think luck had anything to do with the outcome of the approach, although luck probably did play into us not getting in trouble with the FAA. We knew exactly where we were and what terrain was below us. No other legal traffic could have been in that airspace during our approach. Weather that could have compromised the integrity of my airplane or dental fillings would have done so regardless of how the procedure was flown, and any new obstacles would have potentially slayed us twice had we flown the procedure turn.

You may very well have been safe - - THAT time - - and I understand your point. My point is it's not possible to always cover all the bases to make deviating from a procedure AS SAFE as following it. What if - - there I go with a "what-if" - - what if an aircraft had been cleared for takeoff in the opposite direction, i.e., directly towards you, with the expectation of you flying the procedure turn, giving them plenty of time and space - - after all, you wouldn't descend below turn completion altitude until the PT was completed, right? I just don't think it's possible to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that all of the possible hazards that could bite you while flying the "innovated" approach have been mitigated before improvising begins.

I hope I don't come across as a 'cowboy' or one with a dangerous attitude. I just think that what we did was safe although not legal.

You didn't. Not to me, anyhow. We all learn from questions like these. I just hope we all learned the right thing!

 

[Eric]

My point is it's not possible to always cover all the bases to make deviating from a procedure AS SAFE as following it.

I agree.

 

[nosehair]

Mark,
I am on the East Coast and don't have access to Colorado IAP's, but in my previous post, a very simple example is a straight line, A to B, either Airway or direct which has the IAF as the end point of the enroute segment with the MEA at or very near PT altitude, and the approach course is the same as the enroute course, as a matter of fact, I have often used the Localizer as a means of navigation from an airway to the IAF, like you see the published transition routes.
I am not trying to argue with Chief Counsel interpretations, of course; they will win every time. I have learned not to ask a government body as to the legality of certain decisions. I understand their position. If I were in such a position of authority, and I said you don't have to do the turn if you can plainly see it is unnecessary - then sombody would skip the turn when he should have done it, and I would be held responsible for his ineptitude.
As instructors, we kind of have to say and do everything like that, but we also are obligated to teach beyond the standard, or normal, because it promotes THINKING. And sometimes, if you have ever been on an approach with your gas needles bouncing on empty and you know you've been flying longer than you thought you could with the gas you thought you had - well, it's good to know what you can and cannot do, regardless of the legality.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I am on the East Coast and don't have access to Colorado IAP's,

That's okay. I can get an east coast IAP chart to look at. I'm just looking for a =real= example, not "well one would look like this if one existed."

 

[TonyC]

As instructors, we kind of have to say and do everything like that, but we also are obligated to teach beyond the standard, or normal, because it promotes THINKING.

I agree we should strive to teach above the standard (noun: 3 : something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example : CRITERION), or more correctly, the minimum standard. If we teach only the minimum required to achieve a minimum goal, we fail ourselves and our students.

However, I believe your endeavor in this vein is to teach something that is not standard (adjective: 1 a : constituting or conforming to a standard especially as established by law or custom <standard weight>). It does not conform to generally accepted and legal practices. It is your way of being innovative while appearing to demonstrate a superior knowledge of all factors considered in Standard Instrument Approach Procedure construction.

Teaching to know more than is required is a good thing. Teaching to deviate from prescribed procedures to suit your whims is not. When you say it's OK, and you have CFI behind your name, you assume responsibility for anyone who listened to and followed your "wisdom." You are no less culpable than the Chief Counsels with whom you feign to empathize.

And sometimes, if you have ever been on an approach with your gas needles bouncing on empty and you know you've been flying longer than you thought you could with the gas you thought you had - well, it's good to know what you can and cannot do, regardless of the legality.

I guess I'm lucky that I've never been on approach with my gas needles bouncing on empty. (Perhaps we see differently on some other key issues, as well.) But I DO know that such a scenario would constitute (at least in my mind) an Emergency Fuel situation, wherein all bets are off. Now if I see fit to violate standards, I document them and leave it to the FAA to decide if I made the right decision.

The fact that you got there in the first place, you didn't think Emergency Fuel, and you'd resort to a non-standard procedure to avoid the publicity paint a disturbing picture.

 

[nosehair]

aaahh, TonyC, I always get that you-should-never-have-got-there response when I use the old gas-needles-bouncing-on-empty scenario. Well, of course, we always always plan on every possible situation, and, when possible, always have plenty of fuel. I always do, because I have had some experiences which got me close to fuel exaustion. Sometimes the actual headwind is extremely stronger than forecast. This is more of a factor in a 3 hour flight in a 120 kt Cessna 172 than in youe big fast airplane. I have been in a normally radar environment in the NY/New England area when the radar went out. Controllers and pilots these days cannot function very efficiently in that "school-only" scenario, and I have found myself being held much longer than anticipated, and everyone is in an emergency situation. Calling emergency-fuel doesn't get you to the head of the line. Anyway, the point is, really, to be able to do the best you can with what you've got. This whole discussion PRESUPPOSES we are completely and totally knowledgable about our whereabouts and the saftey of the situation. I think I am stepping on some toes by implying that these things should be taken lightly. I do not take any of it lightly. I have been doing this a long, long time, more than 40 years, and I would only speak of these kinds of things among pilots I know would not go blindly into an approach without a Procedure Turn when necessary. Maybe I'm wrong to discuss this practice on this board....but it is a learning experience, so here goes anyway.

Mark, Look at the IAP for Greenville-Spartanburg Intl (GSP) in South Carolina.
Let's look a 2 of them. First, the ILS RWY 4.
You could be on V266 from Anderson VOR (AND) and at PELZE intersection get a clearance from over PELZE to the Greer LOM as shown on the published transition. You can see that the transition course is 051 and 19.5 miles on the NDB. Knowing the inaccuracy of NDB tracking, and the fact that you might find yourself on the localizer at 2800 feet as you pass Judky LOM, and if everything is good, you could request a straight-in and continue on in at glideslope intercept.
#2: Look at the ILS RWY 22. You could be on V54 coming from Spartanburg VOR(SPA) which is the 269 radial. The IAP shows a 278 radial transition with NoPT, however, you COULD do the same on the 269 radial IF everything was set and you have no trouble attaining alignment at the intersection of V54 and I-LMJ. This is in a 90 kt simple airplane.
The transitions that show NoPT are RESTRICTED from making a PT unless you specifically request it. Otherwise, these published transitions COULD result in a similar alignment, and it is your option to continue straight-in or make the PT if you are not ready.
I still maintain that the wording in the regulations which say "a course reversal when necessary" - the "when necessary" is up to the pilot. As a matter of practical experience, I would always "request" a straight-in from Approach if I am doing that, but I really don't think it would be a legal necessity. The airspace for the approach is supposed to be yours when you gety a clearance. You COULD do a fast 360 and comply with the PT requirement, so the controller is not clearing you based on an assumption that you will take 4 or 5 minutes to turn around and get lined up. Maybe that is happening in real life, and that is partially why I would always say "straight-in" when I am anticipating the absence of the PT when not on a published NoPT.
The legal wording saying you must fly the approach as depicted, to me, means courses and altitudes. If a course reversal is necessary from your inbound course to the final course, then you have to fly the turn around on the side shown by the barb. For you folks who say "depicted means flying the procedure turn", why does that not include flying the 45-225 barb as depicted?
We agree that the turn can be at any point at any rate, so I could split-S into the glideslope, huh? No, I'm kidding, of course, but just trying to "break the mold" on the "Fixed-Idea" that you MUST do the PT when it is obvious that it is not required. We are trained that way, for safety. You can do a standard approach safely anywhere in the world using these procedures. I know, I know, we do a lot of things redundantly in the interest of SAFETY, and I am not knocking that. But sometimes, an act may be totally safe when you are totally aware of the situation. Actually, I am very surprised to see so much flak on this subject. And, it has been a long time since I did any of this kind of stuff, since everything is radar vectored to final these days, and has been for such a long time now, but, back in the old no-radar days, filing to points of airway and final approach course intersections was common. And that doesn't mean the old way was better; it wasn't. Knowledge, experience, and technology has created a much better environment today, but it has also caused a loss of some ability to think for ourself.
That is all I am attempting to revive; self-awareness and control.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Let's look a 2 of them. First, the ILS RWY 4.
You could be on V266 from Anderson VOR (AND) and at PELZE intersection get a clearance from over PELZE to the Greer LOM as shown on the published transition. You can see that the transition course is 051 and 19.5 miles on the NDB. Knowing the inaccuracy of NDB tracking, and the fact that you might find yourself on the localizer at 2800 feet as you pass Judky LOM, and if everything is good, you could request a straight-in and continue on in at glideslope intercept.

This is a good one. The PT is there for two purposes. (1) because the navaid you are tracking inbound from PELZE is not designed to intercept the localizer outside the gate. (2) to let you descend the 200' from the transition altitude to you GS intercept altitude. And, although somehow no one has managed to mention it before, everybody doing the same expected thing means that no one gets surprised and metal isn't bent.

And, of course, as you said, you could ask ATC for the straight in. And ATC could grant it and let you know 120 whole seconds off your approach. Look at what you're saying instead:

"I'm going to assume that I will be off-course on that NDB bearing. I'm further going to assume that I will be off course in one direction only - the right one- the one that will let me intercept the extended localizer course. Then, instead of spending the minimum 2 minutes doing a procedure turn that everyone else is expecting, I'll just head straight in without regard to who may be in sequence in front or behind me."

#2: Look at the ILS RWY 22. You could be on V54 coming from Spartanburg VOR(SPA) which is the 269 radial. The IAP shows a 278 radial transition with NoPT, however, you COULD do the same on the 269 radial IF everything was set and you have no trouble attaining alignment at the intersection of V54 and I-LMJ.

Again, maybe a good reason to =ask= but there are too many "IF" in the equation. "If" I'm at the right altitude and "if" I'm in a slow airplane, and "if" I can align myself properly... , then I'll do what no one else is expecting me to do instead of following standard operating procedures or asking. (BTW, what's the V54 MEA?).

I think that's the bottom line. A rule that says "Hey everyone! Do it this way unless ATC okays an alternative" isn't just designed for you to get down safely. It's for predictability in a system which (although mostly radar-covered now) is based on instrument pilots doing things in a predictable way when no one can see them. "I'll do what they expect me to unless I feel like doing it differently" just doesn't cut it.

 

[TonyC]

I have been doing this a long, long time, more than 40 years, and I would only speak of these kinds of things among pilots I know would not go blindly into an approach without a Procedure Turn when necessary. Maybe I'm wrong to discuss this practice on this board....but it is a learning experience, so here goes anyway.

The problem you seem to have, even with your 40 years of experience, is acknowledging that the REGULATIONS make this Procedure Turn NECESSARY.

Mark, Look at the IAP for Greenville-Spartanburg Intl (GSP) in South Carolina

..., these published transitions COULD result in a similar alignment, and it is your option to continue straight-in or make the PT if you are not ready.

COULD? similar? and you're hanging your hat on this? Let me get this straight. You're NOT talking about an Emergency situation, here, are you? You're saying this is a perfectly legitimate practice any day of the week, for any reason at all. In fact, if fuel costs are a consideration, you'd advocate this over doing a PT, right?

I still maintain that the wording in the regulations which say "a course reversal when necessary" - the "when necessary" is up to the pilot.

When necessary is NOT up to the pilot. The Regulations clearly state that the PT is required unless you meet one of three conditions. Being on a nearby airway that could be similar is NOT one of those three conditions.

As a matter of practical experience, I would always "request" a straight-in from Approach if I am doing that, but I really don't think it would be a legal necessity.

Make sure I'm reading you right - - you're not talking about an Emergency, and you're not requesting anything because you think it's required, you're just being a nice guy? What would you do if it your request was denied? Would you still be legal to skip the PT? Are you exempt from complying with verbal instructions, too?

...just trying to "break the mold" on the "Fixed-Idea" that you MUST do the PT when it is obvious that it is not required.

It's only obvious to you. To most everyone else, there is at least a shade of doubt about the legality, and I'd venture a guess that most have realized, through an honest review of the arguments presented on this thread, that the PT is required.

Actually, I am very surprised to see so much flak on this subject.

That should tell you something.

... back in the old no-radar days, filing to points of airway and final approach course intersections was common.

What were the accident rates back then?

That is all I am attempting to revive; self-awareness and control.

What you are doing is promoting an attitude of deviating from a standard as long as you "know what you're doing." That's a dangerous attitude. Surely in your 40 years you've known of people who ended their lives with that attitude.

This whole discussion PRESUPPOSES we are completely and totally knowledgable about our whereabouts and the saftey of the situation.

Since that is impossible, I guess we're talking about a moot point. I'll never presume to be completely and totally knowledgable about ANYTHING.

Pssssst.... I don't think anyone is...

 

[nosehair]

Well, I'm going to let this go. I did not mean to get into a position of defending myself. You guys are taking quotes out of context and pointing out the discepencies in each...and of course, in each instance, you are right. I was only giving "examples" of how it could be done, not how it should be done.
I'm interested in teaching and learning - not trying to prove my point. If someone has learned something from this - including how wrong I am - the board has served it's purpose.

 

[PadFull'oTrim]

No PT is necessary if you are in radar contact and are receiving vectors to the final approach course.

 

[Eric]

We were not receiving vectors to the final approach course. We were talking to center and they didn't have the ability to do that for us. We were cleared direct to the airport, and then we were cleared for the GPS approach.

 

[avbug]

In which case you are required to fly the full proceedure.

... back in the old no-radar days, filing to points of airway and final approach course intersections was common.

No, it wasn't. You've always been able to file to a point in space, but that has nothing to do with flying the approach. If you're file to a fix on the final approach course, and don't meet the criteria for not being required to fly the full proceedure, then simply put, you must still fly the full proceedure. It's really very simple.

You can file to the outer timbuctoo, if you like, but that doesn't change the requirements of the national airspace system. Back in the non-radar days we were still operating using AN range legs, and largely navigating using course beacons and NDB's. Full proceedures were always the norm, and required.

 

[profile]

Coming in late to this discussion, and apologies if this has already been covered.

As I was one of the participants that was involved in discussion which led to those letters, I notice on my quick scan of this thread that the final letter of the group appears to be missing. Wally Robert's actually wrote all of the letters to FAA, which were signed by Tom Young. I don't have those letters anymore, but I do have all of the responses. The third letter from FAA (below) was sent in reply to clear up the ambiguity that others have noted in this thread. I include the middle letter to keep the context, but it's been previously posted here.

U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration

Nov 28 1994



This is a clarification of our response to your letter of
August 23, 1993. In that letter you requested an
interpretation of Section 91.175 of the Federal Aviation
Regulation (FAR) (14 C.F.R. Section 91.175). You address
the necessity of executing a complete Standard Instrument
Approach Procedure (SIAP) in a non-radar environment while
operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). Our
response assumes that each of the specific scenarios you
pose speaks to a flight conducted under IFR in a non-radar
environment.

Section 91.175(a) provides that unless otherwise authorized
by the Administrator, when an instrument letdown to a civil
airport is necessary, each person operating an aircraft,
except a military aircraft of the United States, shall use
a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed for
the airport in Part 97.

First you ask whether an arriving aircraft must begin the
SIAP at a published Initial Approach Fix (IAF). A pilot
must begin a SIAP at the IAP as defined in Part 97. Descent
gradients, communication, and obstruction
clearance, as set forth in the U.S. Standard for Terminal
Instrument Approach Procedures (TERPs), cannot be assured
if the entire procedure is not flown.

You also ask whether a Distance measuring Equipment (DME)
arc initial approach segment can be substituted for a
published IAF along any portion of the published, arc. A
DME arc cannot be substituted for a published IAF
along a portion of the published arc. If a feeder route to
an IAF is part of the published approach procedure, it is
considered a mandatory part of the approach.

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 procedures 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 a 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 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 when one
of the conditions of Section 91-175(j)is not present.

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


Sincerely,

/s/ Patricia R. Lane


------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Department of Transportation
800 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20591

Federal Aviation Administration

DECEMBER 19, 1994

Thank you for your letter concerning standard instrument
approach procedures (SIAP) in a nonradar environment and
the need to begin the procedure at an initial approach fix
(IAF).

The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Part 91.175a
states:

"Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, when
an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each
person operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of
the United States, shall use a standard instrument approach
procedure prescribed for the airport in part 97 of this
chapter."

SIAP's, as described in Part 97, begin at an IAF. In
Order 7110.65, Air Traffic Control, the Administrator
authorizes a controller to radar vector an aircraft to an
intermediate segment of a SIAP. However, there are no
provisions for "short cutting" any segment of the SIAP in
a nonradar environment. A SIAP must begin at an IAF in a
nonradar environment. This is consistent with the revised
interpretation that was recently furnished to you by the
Federal Aviation Administration Chief Counsel.

There is nothing in Order 7110.65 or the Airman's
Information Manual that contradicts this, so there is no
need to "correct" these publications. A note will be
included in future revisions of these manuals to emphasize
to controllers and pilots that unless a controller is
utilizing radar vectors to an intermediate segment of an
approach, a SIAP will commence at an IAF.

Please direct any questions to Gerald M. Dudley, ATP-126,
at (202) 267-8561.


/s/ L. Lane Speck

L. Lane Speck
Director, Air Traffic
Rules and Procedures Service, ATP-1
--------------------------------------------------