Legal or not?

[nosehair]

Old habits do die hard, don't they? I suspect we will see a lot of change in old "mindsets" as GPS becomes more normal. I did say "if I can get the airspace clearance". Cleared to a point that intercepts final with no course reversal required. And also using all data on the chart - not "Aunt Bessi's house".

 

[A Squared]

Nosehair,

that is not correct at all.

What the TERPS actually says is: "A procedure turn is not required when an approach can be made direct from a specified intermediate fix to the final approach fix."

WHat you have to keep in mind is that the TERPS are instructions for *designing* instrument approaches, it is not instructions for *flying* instrument approaches. The purpose of that sentence is to allow approach designers to design instrument approach procedures with NoPT routes, Nosehair,

that is not correct at all.

What the TERPS actually says is: "A procedure turn is not required when an approach can be made direct from a specified intermediate fix to the final approach fix."

What you have to keep in mind is that the TERPS are instructions for *designing* instrument approaches, it is not instructions for *flying* instrument approaches. The purpose of that sentence is to allow approach designers to design instrument approach procedures with NoPT routes, It is not put there to tell pilots to skip charted procedure turns if they feel like it.

Now, for a while, that exact sentence appeared in the AIM also. It has since been removed. It was removed because it was giving pilots the incorrect impression that procedure turns were discretionary. They are not. I don't know what you mean by "The legal counsel interpretation uses the same language as in the TERPS"

I know of no legal counsel interpretation which contains this language. There have been several legal counsel interpretations on this and they all say the same thing: If there is a procedure turn and you're not on a NoPT segment or being vectors for final, you must fly the procedure turn. I've copied the most recent Chief Counsel interpretation below, It's pretty clear.


FAA legal opinion:

Nov. 28, 1994
Mr. Tom Young, Chairman
Charting and Instrument Procedures Committee
Air Line Pilots Association
535 Herndon Parkway
Herndon, VA 22070

Dear Mr. Young

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 CFR 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 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.

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.

If 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
for Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations Division

 

[avbug]

In conjunction with the same letter posted by A Squared:

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).

In your letter, 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 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.

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.

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

 

[A Squared]

Hmmm, interesting

Am I missing something or do the two letters take exactly opposte positions on several issues? It would be interesting to know what went on there. seems like Ms Lane completely dropped the ball on the first letter and the second letter was written to "clarify" her mistakes.

 

[TonyC]

seems like Ms Lane completely dropped the ball on the first letter and the second letter was written to "clarify" her mistakes.

Except that hers was dated a year (and 25 days) AFTER Mr. Byrne's.

Both of these letters address a "Non-radar environment" - - the original post did not stipulate NON-RADAR, and it would seem to me that it implied the contrary.

Although the wording of the initial post seems somewhat ambiguous (probably as ambiguous as the clearance in question) it reminded me of the situation where one might be VECTORED to the final approach course and then to fly the Straight-In vice the Procedure turn. IF - - I repeat IF - - such had been the clearance, it seems pretty obvious to me that the procedure turn should NOT be flown. Unfortunately, I don't get the impression that such was the case, so I'd have to side with the folks who have stated the need to fly the procedure turn. Being able to establish one's position relative to the final course is, at least in this instance, irrelevant.

 

[TonyC]

Old habits do die hard, don't they?

And fools die young.

 

[A Squared]

Except that hers was dated a year (and 25 days) AFTER Mr. Byrne's.

Tony, I am assuming that both leters were in written by Ms Lane.

The letter I posted is signed by Patricia Lane. I have a .pdf file of the original letter and you can see the her handwritten signature, that's what the /s/ means before her name, that it's her signature, not printed text.

I don't have a .pdf file of the letter Avbug posted, I was assuming because the last line directs questions to her attention and otherwise ends identically to the first that they both were authored by her, on Mr Bryne's behalf.

No matter, the point is they are both letters of interpretation from the chief counsel's office.

The first letter seems to say that there is no need to begin a SIAP at an IAF, and that you may join a DME arc at any point. The second letter says that you must begin a SIAP at an IAF and that you may only join a DME arc at a designated IAF.

Both letters state that if there is a procedure turn you must execute it.

You have a valid point about the letters addressing a non-radar environment. I've been through this same discussion before and scratched my head about that same detail. Clearly if you are being vectored for final (Nxxyyzz, you are 5 miles from the final approach fix, fly heading 050 , join the localizer maintain 2500 until established on a published portion of the approach clared ILS rwy 2)... you do *not* fly the procedure turn. If you're out there in the boonies, on your own, not showing up on anyone's radar scope, clearly you *must* fly the procecdure turn ..... but what if you are in radar contact, but you are not receiving vectors. The interpretations do not explicitly address this situation.

My take on this is that if the controller is not actively vectoring you, then you're not being provided any navigation assistence that you wouldn't have in a non radar environment, therefore the same restrictions would apply, you'd be required to fly the procedure turn.

 

[TonyC]

Tony, I am assuming that both leters were in written by Ms Lane.

The letter I posted is signed by Patricia Lane. I have a .pdf file of the original letter and you can see the her handwritten signature, that's what the /s/ means before her name, that it's her signature, not printed text.

I don't have a .pdf file of the letter Avbug posted, I was assuming because the last line directs questions to her attention and otherwise ends identically to the first that they both were authored by her, on Mr Bryne's behalf.

No matter, the point is they are both letters of interpretation from the chief counsel's office.

The first letter seems to say that there is no need to begin a SIAP at an IAF, and that you may join a DME arc at any point. The second letter says that you must begin a SIAP at an IAF and that you may only join a DME arc at a designated IAF.

Both letters state that if there is a procedure turn you must execute it.

I see now what you're saying - - I think you're right.

You have a valid point about the letters addressing a non-radar environment. I've been through this same discussion before and scratched my head about that same detail. Clearly if you are being vectored for final (Nxxyyzz, you are 5 miles from the final approach fix, fly heading 050 , join the localizer maintain 2500 until established on a published portion of the approach clared ILS rwy 2)... you do *not* fly the procedure turn. If you're out there in the boonies, on your own, not showing up on anyone's radar scope, clearly you *must* fly the procecdure turn ..... but what if you are in radar contact, but you are not receiving vectors. The interpretations do not explicitly address this situation.

My take on this is that if the controller is not actively vectoring you, then you're not being provided any navigation assistence that you wouldn't have in a non radar environment, therefore the same restrictions would apply, you'd be required to fly the procedure turn.

I tend to agree with you on that. I see no way to construe the first post to meet any of the three aforementioned conditions.

 

[avbug]

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.

 

[Eric]

I'll try to clear up some of the ambiguity.

We were in radar contact at the minimum vectoring altitude. 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 as the final approach course wasn't on his screen. Once we were within 10 miles and on the final approach course, the captain let down.

This is my take on it after reading all of the above posts:

We were supposed to fly the procedure turn.

We were safe as long as the controller didn't let someone depart based on us doing the procedure turn. (they won't let but one aircraft at a time in or out of an uncontrolled airport when it is IMC will they?)

Thanks for the discussion.