Procedure turn or no procedure turn

[Jeepman]

O.k. what if you are approaching an airport (on an IFR flightplan) and you get cleared to the FAF, which requires a procedure turn and then you are cleared to the airport? ATC says, "you are cleared to ABC direct DEF (DEF is the airport)" You have not been given an approach clearance. You are approaching the fix at about a 90 degree angle to the final approach course. As I understand it you do not do the procedure turn, correct? If we had been given direct to the ABC fix, and cleared for the approach, we would have to do the PT as I understand it, but that was not the case.

I bring this up because this happened today & my fellow pilot & I had a disagreement about this. They said we had to do the PT, I said we didn't because of our last clearance & we were not cleared for the approach.

 

[81Horse]

What? Was the controller taking a potty break?

Sounds like you should have had an approach clearance, or holding instructions with EAC/EFC, prior to reaching ABC. The procedure turn is part of the approach -- you wouldn't want to fly it without being cleared for the approach. And you wouldn't go direct the airport -- that's just a clearance limit in the event of lost comm.

In fact, I'd say you should have queried the controller about it well before reaching ABC. What did you actually do?

 

[Flyerjosh]

I'm confused as to the question... (Mainly due to the wording of the clearance you got)...

Let's call the FAF intersection "FINAL". If this is the case, no controller would clear you "cleared to FINAL, via direct the airport" (with the exception of the case where perhaps you the airport was the IAF)...

Either way, he would probably clear you "Cleared to the airport via Final", or "direct, airport, direct final cleared for the approach". (Assuming he was playing by the rules). See what I'm getting at?

However, based on what you are telling me, unless you were proceeding inbound via a heading that either would have been a direct entry to the hold at the FAF, or via a published transition on the plate that states "NO PT", then the turn is required.

Of course if you get cleared for the visual approach, then anything is game and the PT goes out the window regardless of direction or angle.

 

[81Horse]

I think he meant he was "cleared to the DEF Airport via direct FINAL direct." Which makes sense. It just doesn't make sense that he got all the way to FINAL without an approach clearance or holding instructions.

 

[Slippery Mick]

If you weren't given a clearance for the approach, you can't begin the approach. That's a sticky one. I'd be inclined to hold, as you're not cleared to do anything else. Yuch.

 

[81Horse]

If you weren't given a clearance for the approach, you can't begin the approach. That's a sticky one. I'd be inclined to hold, as you're not cleared to do anything else. Yuch.

Well, I'd be inclined to utilize the magic of two-way radio communications and tell ATC I wanted an approach clearance. Or holding instructions. You know, a plan -- and a timely one, so it wasn't all a$$holes and elbows over FINAL.

 

[Slippery Mick]

Well, I'd be inclined to utilize the magic of two-way radio communications and tell ATC I wanted an approach clearance. Or holding instructions. You know, a plan -- and a timely one, so it wasn't all a$$holes and elbows over FINAL.

Well, obviously.

 

[Headwind]

Three times you don't need a procedure turn:
1) Chart says NO P T.
2) On a published route segment.
3) When on radar vectors (being vectored for straight in)

HEADWIND

 

[CA1900]

You were correct, your fellow pilot was not.

Unless the words "Cleared for the approach" came out of the controller's mouth, the procedure turn is completely irrelevant, because you haven't been cleared to follow anything on that approach chart.

Was the weather VFR? If so, my guess is that the controller was planning a visual approach, and direct to the fix, then direct to the airport, would have set you up nicely for it. A descent through the cloud bases would be forthcoming.

If neither the controller nor the ATIS advertised a visual approach, then you need to query the controller. He probably just forgot to tell you. But until something changes (like an approach clearance), do not fly a procedure turn on the approach chart. As you were cleared, fly to the fix then the airport (and hold over the airport until you commence your approach to arrive at the ETA, in the event of lost comm).

And of course if you don't have the equipment to fly direct to the field and hold, an "unable" would probably be in order.

 

[Jeepman]

We ended up asking for the approach with the PT. The controller was still confused as to whether or not we were going to do the PT. There was alot of traffic at the time & I think he was hoping we would go to the airport without the PT & get the visual.

 

[flyinghunter]

I had a similiar thing happen a few weeks ago, what do you guys think is correct? We were on a Victor airway, call it V357, with a VOR on the airway being the IAF and FAF for a VOR approach into an airport. The victor airway went to the VOR on a 270 heading and the final approach course was 248 or something like that into the airport. When we were 7 miles from the VOR ATC said, proceed direct VOR XYZ cleared for VOR 28 approach. We weren't on a vector prior to that or anything. Since we weren't established on the approach prior to the VOR I think we would've had to go to the VOR and then outbound for the procedure turn. We were in actual. My student said we could just head inbound, we ended up asking for a vector to final so no confusion. What do you guys think?

 

[minitour]

Fly: I would have done the PT unless I was going to pass by another IAF on the airway or if the airway sector was labeled NO PT VIA AIRWAYS or however it's labeled on those charts.

Direct VOR cleared VOR approach...ya...PT

That's my 2/100 of $1.

-mini

 

[81Horse]

I think we would've had to go to the VOR and then outbound for the procedure turn. We were in actual. My student said we could just head inbound, we ended up asking for a vector to final so no confusion. What do you guys think?

Your student had a vote? He was wrong. IMO.

 

[flyinghunter]

Your student had a vote? He was wrong. IMO.

Gotta test them to see what they would do. I had never been in that situation but knew what I was going to do if it came up if it was just me in the plane.

 

[nosehair]

Definition of a procedure turn: AIM 5-4-9 a. "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed to perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn is a required maneuver when it is necessary to perform a course reversal."
Bold letters are in the AIM, not mine.
It is that bold line,which didn't used to be bold, that makes this turn so mis-understood. Most instructors and schools teach a procedure turn must be done anytime when it is not prohibited, as in radar vectors or "NoPT" shown on the approch chart for the transition you are on. However, that is not what the above AIM reference says to me.
Whether or not you have to make a course reversal or not, is when you decide if a PT is required or not.
90 degrees sounds like the limit on whether or not you are calling yourself doing a "course reversal". A good rule of thumb would be anything more than 30-45 degrees from your inbound course to the final approach course would make a PT necessary, but that is for you, the PIC, to decide.
If you are very familiar with the approach, you know where a 90 degree turn will take you, and you know you will not bust airspace, terrain clearance, and will get established on final course safely before commencing descent and will get to MDA in good time,...go for it. If you are on an unfamiliar approach, etc., do the turn and get on course before the FAF. The procedure turn just depicts the side on which to do the turn if a course reversal is necessary.

 

[midlifeflyer]

However, that is not what the above AIM reference says to me.

Yeah, but that's only because you have a mental block about the next sentence, which moves from describing what a procedure turn =is= to when you are required to =do it=.

BTW, can you define "prescribed" and tell me when you last presecribed a preocedure turn?

 

[nosehair]

Yeah, but that's only because you have a mental block about the next sentence, which moves from describing what a procedure turn =is= to when you are required to =do it=.

BTW, can you define "prescribed" and tell me when you last presecribed a preocedure turn?

???...the next sentence?? The next sentence says: "The procedure turn is not required when the symbol "NoPT" is shown, etc..." Are you taking that to mean that the turn is required in all cases, except these, regardless? That is what the common thinking is, I think.

But...the sentence that describes what a procedure turn =is=also includes when it is required to =do it=.

Look at the '05 AIM Section 5-4-9 Procedure Turn: "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed to perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn is a required maneuver. The procedure turn is not required when..."

Now look at the '06 AIM Section 5-4-9 Procedure Turn: "A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed to perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn is a required maneuver when it is necessary to perform a course reversal. The procedure turn is not required when..."

See the difference? In the old wording, I have underlined the sentence which makes everyone think it is required at all times, with the specific exceptions which follow. That is taken out of context when the previous sentence is not considered. However, the new wording makes it clear that the turn is "prescribed" when it is necessary to perform a course reversal.

Why did they add those words? In Bold?

 

[midlifeflyer]

???...the next sentence?? The next sentence says: "The procedure turn is not required when the symbol "NoPT" is shown, etc..." Are you taking that to mean that the turn is required in all cases, except these, regardless? That is what the common thinking is, I think.

No. The next sentence says:

==============================
The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart.
==============================

http://www.faa.gov/ntap/NTAP06JAN19/gen05007.htm

 

[A Squared]

The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart

It doesn't get much plainer than that, does it?

 

[flyinghunter]

So what defines a course reversal, is there some degree of change that would qualify it? I have spoken to some controllers though, on this situation. They said that you are required to do the procedure turn unless on radar vectors or cleared for a straight-in approach.