Procedure turn or no procedure turn

[falconvalley]

You have to define "course reversal". When is course reversal necessary? After the new bold statement in the AIM, the answer is further clarified. You have to know when a course reversal is necessary. Odds are, these days, you're not going to end up right on the inbound course without having received radar vectors or being on any type of approach procedure.

If you do end up on a heading inbound without radar vectors or having been on an approach procedure and you have been cleared for the approach, chances are this happened:

By mistake of the controller and intercept the final was implied, but not yet legally given -or- you are not in radar contact and should have been informed by the controller.

In those two cases you have to follow the procedure turn. It sounds crazy, but those things aren't common these days (increased radar coverage) and need to be clarified from time to time. I know a lot of pilots who debate this topic. As far as the FAR/AIM reads, unless you've been vectored to final or a PT is not authorized a course reversal is necessary.

I don't understand the original question. I sounds like the controller was clearing them for the approach via a feeder route, but the scenario wasn't very clear. The AIM also says, if there is any confusion, ask for clarification immediately (of course).

 

[falconvalley]

Heh, didn't notice this thread was 3 pages long. Only read the first one, lol.

 

[81Horse]

One reason this issue (and many others) are so confusing: neither pilots nor controllers have a good working knowledge of non-radar/pilot nav procedures anymore.

Instead of widespread consensus on the intent of the AIM and FARs -- an intent that can often be traced to lost-comm procedures -- we have widespread guessing.

 

[100LL... Again!]

ATC can clear you to any point in the national airspace system.

Not so. Did you not read the thread?

I don't think you read my post thoroughly enough.

Yes, ATC can clear you to any fix, but NO, ATC can't clear you direct to an FAF for the purposes of flying the approach straight in. Some controllers will, but theyare not supposed to. I have had to correct several controllers who tried to clear me direct to GPS approach FAFs from impossible angles (and no PT is depicted - standard "T" type).

So, according to you, I can be cleared direct to the FAF at a 90 degree angle and fly the approach straight in?

They can clear you to the fix by name, but they WILL not clear you to the FAF directly (if they are follwing their guidance). They have to give you a certain amount of distance and a certain maximum intercept angle. Look it up in the controller's handbook.

I think that you are overthinking the 'permissive' term used in the text.

Where, then, is the permissive/madatory/prohibited PT symbol on the approach plate? How is it depicted differently? Where is the regulatory and/or advisory circular guidance on when the PT is 'permissive'?


1) If an approach has only one IAF, and a course reversal is depicted, the course reversal is mandatory unless you are being vectored. If a racetrack or teardrop reversal is depicted, you must fly it as published. If it the 'barb' depiction, you may make the reversal any way you like provided it is on the barbside and within the prescribed outbound limit.

2) If an approach has only one IAF and a PT (or teardrop or racetrack) is not depicted, obviously, you can't make a PT or any other reversal. The IAF would be either an arc or a transition of some sort. The plate may or may not say "NoPT" on that route. For some readon, this varies from plate to plate and from NOS (Naco) to Jepp. Or you can get vectored.

3) If the approach has multiple IAFs, ATC may clear you, and you may request any of the IAFs available. You must fly the IAF that you are cleared to, or if ATC clears you for 'an approach' you can select your own IAF.
That said, if you fly an arc or transition, you may not make a PT unless you request and are cleared for it (why would you want to, anyway). NoPT routes mean just that. No PT is required and no PT is authorized.

 

[avbug]

So, according to you, I can be cleared direct to the FAF at a 90 degree angle and fly the approach straight in?

I said no such thing.

In fact, I made no reference to being cleared for the approach in the commentary to which you refer.

However, referring FAA Order 7110.65P, the Air Traffic Controller's Handbook, the following information is of note. First, the definition of Approach Gate, which applies in the quotes to come (definition from the Pilot/Controller Glossary):

APPROACH GATE - An imaginary point used within ATC as a basis for vectoring aircraft to the final approach course. The gate will be established along the final approach course 1 mile from the final approach fix on the side away from the airport and will be no closer than 5 miles from the landing threshold.

Para 4-8-1, Approach Clearance:

a. Clear aircraft for "standard" or "special" instrument approach procedures only. To require an aircraft to execute a particular instrument approach procedure, specify in the approach clearance the name of the approach as published on the approach chart. Where more than one procedure is published on a single chart and a specific procedure is to be flown, amend the approach clearance to specify execution of the specific approach to be flown. If only one instrument approach of a particular type is published, the approach needs not be identified by the runway reference. An aircraft conducting an ILS/MLS approach when the glideslope/glidepath is reported out of service shall be advised at the time an approach clearance is issued. Standard Instrument Approach Procedures shall commence at an Initial Approach Fix or an Intermediate Approach Fix if there is not an Initial Approach Fix. Where adequate radar coverage exists, radar facilities may vector aircraft to the final approach course in accordance with para 5-9-1, Vectors to Final Approach Course.

Note 4 to the above paragraph states "14 CFR Section 91.175(j) requires a pilot to receive a clearance for a procedure turn when vectored to a final approach fix or position, conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure specifies "NO PT."

With this in mind, we read the following instruction for controllers with respect to vectors to final:

Para 5-9-1:

Except as provided in para 7-4-2, Vectors for Visual Approach, vector arriving aircraft to intercept the final approach course:
a. At least 2 miles outside the approach gate unless one of the following exists:
1. When the reported ceiling is at least 500 feet above the MVA/MIA and the visibility is at least 3 miles (report may be a PIREP if no weather is reported for the airport), aircraft may be vectored to intercept the final approach course closer than 2 miles outside the approach gate but no closer than the approach gate.
2. If specifically requested by the pilot, aircraft may be vectored to intercept the final approach course inside the approach gate but no closer than the final approach fix.

A note to that paragraph states that these stipulations do NOT apply to GPS or RNAV approaches.

Paragraph 5-9-2 goes on to stipulate intercept angles during vectors to final of 30 degrees when more than 2 miles from the approach gate, or 20 degrees if less than 2 miles. This is found in table 5-9-1.

Paragraph 5-9-1 also stipulates the altitudes to be used during vectors to final:

b. For a precision approach, at an altitude not above the glideslope/glidepath or below the minimum glideslope intercept altitude specified on the approach procedure chart.

c. For a nonprecision approach, at an altitude which will allow descent in accordance with the published procedure.

With respect to issuing an approach clearance, the following excerpts of guidance are given in Paragraph 5-9-4:

Issue all of the following to an aircraft before it reaches the approach gate:

a. Position relative to a fix on the final approach course. If none is portrayed on the radar display or if none is prescribed in the procedure, issue position information relative to the navigation aid which provides final approach guidance or relative to the airport.

b. Vector to intercept the final approach course if required.

c. Approach clearance except when conducting a radar approach. Issue approach clearance only after the aircraft is:

1. Established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure.

2. Assigned an altitude to maintain until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure.

e. Where a Terminal Arrival Area (TAA) has been established to support RNAV approaches, inform the aircraft of its position relative to the appropriate IAF and issue the approach clearance.

Skipping back again to Paragraph 4-8-1, to address your comment or question regarding intercept on a GPS/RNAV approach, we read the following:

Para 4-8-1:

b. For aircraft operating on unpublished routes, issue the approach clearance only after the aircraft is:

1. Established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure.
EXAMPLE-

2. Assigned an altitude to maintain until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure.

3. Established on a heading or course that will intercept the initial segment at the initial approach fix, or intermediate segment at the intermediate fix when no initial approach fix is published, for a GPS or RNAV instrument approach procedure at an angle not greater than 90 degrees. Angles greater than 90 degrees may be used when a hold in lieu of procedure turn pattern is depicted at the fix for the instrument approach procedure.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I hope you're not suggesting that after a flying a DME arc, I'm required to complete the PT because one is depicted.

I don't think you are saying that, but it sort of looks like you are??

No. Of course not. I just quoted the "next sentence" that corrected the older one nosehair posted.

DME arcs where a procedure turn is shown are typically depicted as NoPT routes which means, um... No PT.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Avbug - The approach gate is exactly what I was referring to. ATC is not supposed to clear you direct to the FAF,even though I have had controllers attempt to do so.

Midlifer - good, I didn't think you could have meant that, but I wans't sure.

 

[avbug]

The controller isn't supposed to clear you to the FAF for the approach (but can, for routing, or as you stated, as an IAF pending course reversal)...but it does happen. I've had it before. If I can arrive on the vector to the FAF aligned, stable, configured...I don't know that I would suggest a course reversal is required. I would probably go ahead and fly the approach from there, if consistant with the proceedure as charted.

However, if I'm high, fast, not configured, etc...then the course reversal is still a necessary maneuver...even though I'm aligned. Sometimes course reversal is taken to mean only that the aircraft must change course to get aligned, and this isn't always the case. Course reversal in this case may be necessary because the airplane isn't prepared to continue straight in on the approach. I suppose the point there is that course reversal may be necessitated by more than direction relative to the inbound course, or final approach segment.

 

[pgcfii2002]

I believe you DON'T do a PT if......

1) It says NO PT on the plate
2) There is a holding pattern in lieu of a PT
3) You are radar vectored
4) You are flying a DME arc

 

[100LL... Again!]

The controller isn't supposed to clear you to the FAF for the approach (but can, for routing, or as you stated, as an IAF pending course reversal)...but it does happen. I've had it before. If I can arrive on the vector to the FAF aligned, stable, configured...I don't know that I would suggest a course reversal is required. I would probably go ahead and fly the approach from there, if consistant with the proceedure as charted.

If not in radar contact, I would suggest that it is required in a strict legal sense. That has been address by the legal interp. If the FAA won't let you even join an arc other than at the endpoint (non-radar), then I really don't think that they allow direct to the FAF and then straight in.

That said, no one is ever going to know if you did it. i'm sure a lot of pilots do, and as long as you are stabilized at the right altitude and aligned pretty close, then I see it as a simple red tape issue.