Legal or not?

[avbug]

When you say you were safe, apparently you mean from other aircraft...not from terrain or obstacles.

The proceedure is predicated upon the full proceedure. Technically the captain could be issued a violation for failure to fly the full proceedure when cleared for the approach.

You may have been aligned with the final approach course, but you were not on the final approach course as you did not execute the full proceedure when cleared the proceedure.

 

[Eric]

We were over flat terrain, above the MSA, at the MVA, the tallest obstacle was 439 AGL, we were within the 10mile protected airspace and on the final approach course (although we didn't get there from the IAF).

I'd say this was safe, not legal, and that it wouldn't have been safe in a non radar environment (able to be at MVA).

Should have flown the procedure turn. What's an extra 6 minutes anyway?

 

[midlifeflyer]

but I would submit that I see no difference in the content between the first letter and the second. The second is nothing more than a confirmation of the first.

I agree. Both say that unless you meet one of the conditions for avoiding the PT, you have to fly it.

The only difference is that one of them goes on to say/imply that =in addition= the requirement to fly the PT or not can =also= be directed by ATC.

Remember that 91.175(a) which tells us 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 of this chapter".
===========================

This is the general requirement that a =pilot= follow the chart. "Administrator" means "the Federal Aviation Administrator or =any person to whom he has delegated his authority= in the matter concerned.". In the area of instrument procedures, that means ATC.

So, ATC may authorize a departure from the SIAP. Vectoring is an obvious example, but instructions to fly or not fly a PT even in the absence of vectoring is another. At which time we are left with the 91.123 general rule that we have to follow ATC clearances and instructions.


A little older than the 90's opinions posted, but there is a lengthy 1977 FAA legal opinion that deals with PT issues under the old 91.116, which was essentially 91.175 before a Part 91 revision in 1990. I pasted the full opinion below, but the part of it that is pertinent to this issue says,

==============================
However, ATC may "authorize" a deviation from the prescribed procedure when it determines that a different approach procedure is appropriate
==============================

Here's the full opinion:

==============================

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." [Emphasis added]

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

 

[nosehair]

Alll Riiighty, Then! Now we're cookin'. There are many different points of view here, even from the "Officials". Every approach is different. There are "Standards", but there are variations from standard. These variations are individually unique, and "Officials" cannot say anything that might bring liability on them. If you want to always be right with no question about it - fly the procedure turn.
Now, I cannot find anything which actually says I have yo fly the procedure turn when I am cleared in the airspace and altitude which is the procedure turn. FAR 97.3(p) says the procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when necessary to reverse direction. It also says the point at which the turn is commenced and type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of the pilot. So, if I accepted that I had to make a turn at the FAF, I could make a double-standard rate 360 (1 minute) and continue inbound on final. That would be dumb, so I would'nt, but that would fit your "letter of the law". But I also don't follow that it is "the letter", because I still don't see it in the regs.
91.175(p) does not say "shall do a PT" no matter what. It says to use a standard instrument approach procedure. 91.175(j) defines certain conditions under which a PT is not authorized, it does not say "all other times, you will do a PT, no matter what.
I am sincerely looking for the precise language which requires a PT when all conditions of the SIAP are met when you are established on final approach at PT altitude in the PT airspace.
I file from A to B, and the course from A to B is 090, and the MEA is 2000, and B has an ILS-9 to RWY 9 and the PT altitude is 2000 and I can fix my distance and prepare for final descent on the glideslope, established on the localizer, do you think I have to do my double-standard (or triple, for that matter) rate 360 over the outer marker to be legal?
What are we doing here?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Alll Riiighty, Then! Now we're cookin'. There are many different points of view here, even from the "Officials". Every approach is different.

I guess I don't see the differences that you do. To me they all say the same thing:

1. When flying IFR, if there is an SIAP you must fly it as depicted. If a PT is part of the SIAP, flying it as depicted means flying the PT.

2. There are four specific situations where you do not need to the fly the PT.

3. Three of those are situations in which the regulations specifically tell you not to:
o being vectored to an FAF or FAC
o you are making a timed approach from a holding fix
or
o you arrive on a NoPT segment

4. The fourth is when ATC tell you not to. The fourth also includes ATC telling you to fly the PT even if the regulation would ordinarily tell you not to.

I didn't see anything in any of the official statements quoted that don't fit in to these. Of course, not all of them say all 4. I wouldn't expect them to.

I'll add a fifth:

5. Pilots don't get to make up additional reasons to do or not do procedure turns, or take over the FAA's rule-making authority by creating their own SIAPs, although they can take advantage of #4 by asking ATC.

 

[TonyC]

Agreed...but I would submit that I see no difference in the content between the first letter and the second. The second is nothing more than a confirmation of the first.

Let's compare:

Letter of November 3, 1993
First you ask whether an arriving aircraft must begin a SIAP at a published Initial Approach Fix (IAF). Provided a pilot has been cleared to execute an IFR approach and maintains the minimum altitudes prescribed in FAR Section 91.177, there is nothing in the FAR that requires a SIAP to be initiated at an IAF.

Letter of Nov. 28, 1994
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 IAF 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.

(BOLD added to emphasize differences.)

Again,

Letter of November 3, 1993
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 can be substituted for a published IAF along a portion of the published arc provided the pilot can maintain obstacle clearance. A feeder route to an IAF provides preliminary course guidance and is not considered a mandatory part of the approach.

Letter of Nov. 28, 1994
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.

The responses to the first two questions are polar opposites - - yes, you may - - no, you may not.

On the third question, the differences are more subtle.

Letter of November 3, 1993
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.

Letter of Nov. 28, 1994
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.

In answering the third question (the procedure turn) the first answer sounded like "you always have to do the procedure turn regardless of 91.175(j)" unless you have requested and been cleared to "deviate." The second answer sounds more like the reg, that is, you do the procedure turn unless one of the conditions of 91.175(j) is met (NO PT routing, timed approach from a holding fix, or radar vectors to final approach course or fix).

Thank you, Eric, for clarifying the circumstances:

We were cleared direct to the uncontrolled airport that has only one approach, and we just happened to be on the final approach course. We were then cleared for 'maintain xxxx till established, cleared GPS 10 approach.' The controller couldn't vector us to final...

You did NOT meet any of the conditions of 91.175(j), so you were required to execute the procedure turn.

You said you were "SAFE." I submit you were lucky. your knowledge of the terrain, obstacles, and a myraid of other factors proved to be sufficient THAT day - at that time. Fortunately there was not a new obstacle, or a traffic conflict, or a weather phenomenon that compromised the integrity of your airplane or your health. The fact that you didn't bend metal doesn't prove that you were safe. The SAFE thing to do is to fly the procedure.


Nosehair: You need to read more carefully.

Originally posted by Nosehair
Now, I cannot find anything which actually says I have yo fly the procedure turn when I am cleared in the airspace and altitude which is the procedure turn.

As previously observed on this thread, 91.175(a) requires 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 of this chapter." Further, we read that if that SIAP consists of a Procedure Turn, that PT must be flown unless one of three conditions apply.

In the above cited example (Refer to First Post on this thread and later clarifications) none of those three conditions applied. The PT was required.

There's no need here to confuse the issue with "What If?s".

 

[A Squared]

Nosehair:

"Alll Riiighty, Then! Now we're cookin'. There are many different points of view here, even from the "Officials".

Uhhh, no. While there may be some disagreement in the letters on some other topics, all 3 posted say eaxctly the same thing on hte subjece of executing the procedure turn:

You *must* fly the procedure turn, unless one of the listed exceptions applies.

Now, I cannot find anything which actually says I have yo fly the procedure turn when I am cleared in the airspace and altitude which is the procedure turn.

Ok maybe you missed the 3 Chief Counsel Interpretations. I'll quote them;

from the 1977 letter

Since the (SIAP) VOR approach prescribes a mandatory procedure turn as part of that procedure, the procedure turn (as described) is required.

from the 1993 letter:

However, if a SIAP does contain a procedure turn and ATC hascleared a pilot to execute the SIAP, the pilot must make the procedure turn regardless of the limitations set forth in Section 91.175(j).

from the 1994 letter:

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.

How much clearer do you want it? Aside from the confusing phrase in the 1993 letter "regardless of the limitations set forth in Section 91.175(j)" which I assume is a blunder as 91.174(j) is exceptions, not limitations, the letters all say that you must fly the procedure turn.


These are not merely opinions. to paraphrase Orwell, they are more equal opinions. If the FAA's office of chief counsel looks at part 91 and part 97, and concludes in an official interpretation that you must fly the procedure turn, then you must. That is the interpretation which will be binding on you and the NTSB judge in the hearing to suspend you certificate. Once the Chief Counsel has issued a interpretation, that is the law, for all intents and purposes.

Avbug,

TonyC illustrates pretty clearly the contradictions I was referring to (thanks tony). The 2 direct contradictions are on issues which aren't directly related to the original question so perhaps you didn't notice them. Read Tony's highlighted quotes and I think you'll see what we're talking about.

 

[nosehair]

OK, I see your point, you see flying the SIAP to include the procedure turn even when a course reversal is not necessary. I don't see it that way. To me, flying the SIAP means staying within the course boundries at depicted altitudes. When a course reversal is necessary, the procedure turn must be flown.
Seriously, do you think it is necessary to make a course reversal in the situation I described in my previous post?
All I get from anybody is "The SIAP must be flown as depicted." The depiction is intermediate and final approach course tracks and altitudes. The procedure turn is depicted as needed to effect a course reversal. That is how the regs read.
And, hey, I'm not advocating a "hot-dog" attitude. I DO FLY a full procedure turn when I have just one tiny shadow of doubt or uncertainty of my position. This is very rare to be aligned on final and all things in place, but, when you can work it that way and you are 100% positive of your position in space....
OK, Let me ask you this; say you are perfectly aligned and on altitude, slowed and configured for landing, landing check completed, and approaching the outer marker, what kind of procedure turn would you do?...and why?

 

[midlifeflyer]

OK, Let me ask you this; say you are perfectly aligned and on altitude, slowed and configured for landing, landing check completed, and approaching the outer marker, what kind of procedure turn would you do?...and why?

First I call ATC, let them know that I am able to proceed straight in and make my request.

If denied, I do the exact same procedure turn I would do if I was aligned the same way but 3000' above the FAF intercept altitude, except without losing altitude. In terms of form, I'd probably just fly a circle.

Since you asked such a good practical question, let me ask one right back at you: Show me a IAP chart in which you get from the enroute structure to the FAF "on heading" and "on altitude" without vectoring where NoPT or its equivalent =doesn't= appear for the arrival sector.

 

[Eric]

You said you were "SAFE." I submit you were lucky. your knowledge of the terrain, obstacles, and a myraid of other factors proved to be sufficient THAT day - at that time. Fortunately there was not a new obstacle, or a traffic conflict, or a weather phenomenon that compromised the integrity of your airplane or your health. The fact that you didn't bend metal doesn't prove that you were safe. The SAFE thing to do is to fly the procedure.

I don't claim to be the most experienced pilot or even a seasoned vet, but I'm going to have to disagree with this paragraph. 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.

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.

I can't wait till I'm the captain. I'll just fly the procedure turn.

 

[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.