Procedure Turn or Not

[BeeKeeper]

So here's the scenario:

You are being radar vectored for an ILS and are then cleared direct to XXXXX intersection, cleared for the approach. XXXXX is an IAF and also has a holding pattern in lieu of a procedure turn (ie bold print hold). You are aligned within 30 degrees of the final approach course when you hit this fix, and are at the correct altitude. Do you do the course reversal or not?

We were behind another carrier who did the PT, and we came along a few minutes later and ATC asked us what we would do. They seemed very surprised by the other carrier's PT, but we agreed, that technically it was required. Some discussion ensued about ATC using the terminology "cleared direct XXXXX and the straight in ILS." Would that provide relief from doing the PT? Doing the PT when aligned and at the correct altitude defies common sense, but I cant find any other way out of it other than asking for a heading to join instead.

 

[Pilot Knob]

It is my understanding that once ATC issued the clearance "cleared for the straight in ILS approach", no PT was required (or authorized). I did some research for work and remember this scenario from Jepps' website( The chart clinic 20th in a series) Hope this helps.

 

[mar]

Not.

You don't need to do the PT when you're vectored straight in.

The only exception would be if they held you high until the last minute. In that case you could *tell* them you're going to do a turn or two in the hold to loose altitude.

The whole point of vectoring is to expedite things.

 

[BeeKeeper]

Thanks gentlemen:

I have had several people tell me that "straight in ILS" by ATC means no PT. I just cant find it in writing to show the FAA inspector in my jumpseat. The AIM says you do the PT unless on radar vectors or on a route that says "NO PT."

Mar - Once they clear you direct XXXXX, I dont think Im on a radar vector anymore, thus the confusion. The silly thing is, if I ask for a heading to join that essentially equals direct, no pt is required.
Man, I used to be a lot better on this stuff when I was instructing.

 

[The_Russian]

Check the AIM

The bold hold sybol on the chart is actually just a course reversal. That is only true if you receive the clearance for the approach before passing the fix. upon reaching the fix after cleared, you just do the appropriate recommended entry and fly the approach.

However, it becomes a hold if you are not clear for the approach upon passing the fix. You must initiate the hold upon crossing and hold until you are cleared, complete the last full turn and join the FAC.

If you have been cleared for a straight in, none of the above applies.

 

[100LL... Again!]

I do not believe that a vector clearance can include a 'direct to' component.

Vector clearance:

"You're 3 miles from (name of FAF), FLY HEADING xxx, maintain 2,500 until established on the (loc, final approach course, etc), cleared for the approach.


Non-vector clearance:

"Cleared direct (fix), maintain 2500 until established on a PORTION of the approach, cleared for the approach.


You must be established on the course BEFORE crossing the FAF to be 100% legal to descend at the FAF.

This has to do with TERPS design criteria. Not spelled out in the FARs very well.

Are you 100% sure you are quoting the clearance exactly as it was given? It does not sound like any clearance I have ever heard. Something's not right here.

 

[80/20]

“CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN (type) APPROACH” should be used to clear for a straight-in-approach

“CLEARED APPROACH” should be used to authorize a pilot to execute his/her choice of instrument approach

Source: FAA ORDER 7110.65N Air Traffic Control.

Controllers are like most pilots – practical people that don’t always know every legal detail and they will often assume that a pilot will fly straight-in when available.

Common sense for me would be to advice ATC if I decided to do a procedure turn while being vectored for an approach.

 

[Pickle]

SHARnoPt

That is the little memory aid we used when I was instructing, you do NOT have to do a course reversal if you are straight in (S), holding (H), on a DME ARC (A) being radar vectored (R) or if it says NO PT (P). I would think in tihs scenario that no course reversal would be required.

 

[DAS at 10/250]

S
H
A
R
P
TIMED APPROACH (DONT FORGET THE T!)

 

[satpak77]

when in doubt ask

since I am not a rocket scientist, every time I get an ATC clearance that may be confusing, I just call ATC and ask in plain language exactly what they want

"Understand I am cleared to XXX then after that I am cleared to shoot the straight in approach with no PT turn/etc/XXXX?"

"Confirm we are cleared to land?"

after taxing to the runway at a huge airport for 10 minutes and approaching a runway, "sir, confirm ok to cross this runway?"

"what routing you got us on after Maverick?"

etc etc

beats filling out NASA forms (been there, done that)

 

[bobbysamd]

Guess what, we agree on something!

The bold hold sybol on the chart is actually just a course reversal. That is only true if you receive the clearance for the approach before passing the fix. upon reaching the fix after cleared, you just do the appropriate recommended entry and fly the approach.

However, it becomes a hold if you are not clear for the approach upon passing the fix. You must initiate the hold upon crossing and hold until you are cleared, complete the last full turn and join the FAC.

If you have been cleared for a straight in, none of the above applies.

I second Russian. "Cleared for the approach" means the approach is all yours. Once you are established on published routing you may descend to published mins on the procedure. Unless you are being vectored you must execute a course reversal.

If a PT barb is depicted, choice of course reversal is yours. It can be a standard PT, teardrop, or whatever. You do not have to fly a full racetrack. If a racetrack is depicted, you must enter it properly and use it to reverse course inbound. If a teardrop is depicted, you must execute the teardrop.

 

[enigma]

Beekeeper,

The short answer is: NO

If I'm vectored to the localizer and can reasonably consider myself established, I'm going straight in.

That may not be legal, but I guarantee you that the the Miami approach controllers don't expect anything but a straight in if you're landing at MIA, FLL, etc.

The scenario you'be written, seems to have happened at a location without an approach control. In that case, I'd only fly the PT/hold if I wasn't on course or altitude when I arrived at the FAF.

At destinations like DFW, LAX, ORD, LGA, etc. I usually receive a clearance to maintain heading, join the LOC, and don't get the "cleared for the ILS" until established.

good question,
enigma


enigma

 

[BeeKeeper]

Well, at least if nothing else, this has confirmed that there is a bir of confusion on this.
Satpak hit the nail on the head that conferring with ATC usually clears things up. Even ATC wasnt certain if the turn was necessary.
For those with West Coast charts, its the ILS 32 to KMFR and the clearance is "direct to Samie, cleared for the ILS."
I agree that this is mostly an academic discussion.
I think most crews do go straight in because that is what is expected and it makes sense. However, I always like to know how I would justify what I am doing if the FAA asked, and in this scenario, I still dont see how to get past the paragraph in the AIM that says a PT, or holding pattern in lieu of a PT is required unless on a RVector or a route that say NO PT. Anyways, thanks for the comments.