Procedure Turn Question

[eterepekio]

This question does not apply for aircraft being vectored or where "NoPT" is stated on the IAP.

If you are in a position to intercept the Final Approach at the right altitude and configuration on the I/B track, are you still required/expected to perform a PT (even though a reversal would make no sense because you are already heading to the airport)?

[modi13]

Not as long as you can get to the altitude you require when crossing the FAF, or the fix to which you're flying. The only reason to do a procedure turn is to safely lose altitude. When I did my training, I departed from Boundary Bay to the White Rock NDB, which happened to be both the departure fix and an IF for Abbotsford, so from there I did a straight-in.

[FlaplessDork]

Not as long as you can get to the altitude you require when crossing the FAF, or the fix to which you're flying. The only reason to do a procedure turn is to safely lose altitude. When I did my training, I departed from Boundary Bay to the White Rock NDB, which happened to be both the departure fix and an IF for Abbotsford, so from there I did a straight-in.

In this case you have a published transition to a straight in approach, and no PT is published for CYXX ILS 07. Basicly if there is no published transition and you are not being vectored you must do a PT. The only time you know exactly where you are with 100% reliability is over the beacon/fix.

[old_man]

This question does not apply for aircraft being vectored or where "NoPT" is stated on the IAP.

If you are in a position to intercept the Final Approach at the right altitude and configuration on the I/B track, are you still required/expected to perform a PT (even though a reversal would make no sense because you are already heading to the airport)?

When would you find yourself in a position to intercept the final approach course at the right altitude and config when you are not doing a published transition or being vectored?

[FlaplessDork]

When would you find yourself in a position to intercept the final approach course at the right altitude and config when you are not doing a published transition or being vectored?

VFR

[modi13]

How about where the altitude for crossing the FAF is the same as the 25 NM safe altitude? Or if you're using RNAV, know you're within the 10 NM ring, and can get down to the required safe altitude above the highest obstacle within the ring? If that's the case, you should be able to turn onto the inbound without a PT.

[paydaymayday]

This question does not apply for aircraft being vectored or where "NoPT" is stated on the IAP.

If you are in a position to intercept the Final Approach at the right altitude and configuration on the I/B track, are you still required/expected to perform a PT (even though a reversal would make no sense because you are already heading to the airport)?

When would you find yourself in a position to intercept the final approach course at the right altitude and config when you are not doing a published transition or being vectored?

Think uncontrolled IFR.

[The Old Fogducker]

I would suggest that each and every instrument procedure that does not contain the phrase "No Procedure Turn Required" requires that a PT be done each and every time as a standard, every day, built-in part of the full approach procedure.

Otherwise, why would the designers put the notation there on some procedures, and not others?

The procedure is based upon using the navaids mentioned on the plate, and assumes all navaids are functional on the ground and in the aircraft. If you have additional equipment on board the aircraft which would be helpful to maintain your situational awareness, more power to you, but they are extraneous to the approach design and compliance with its depicted procedure.

Based upon pilot self navigation, a PT positions you in a known spot in space where you are heading in the right direction, on the correct inbound track, at (hopefully) the right speed, at the right altitude to do the letdown to altitudes depicted on the approach plate which will ensure you are in the obstacle protected airspace underlying the procedure.

If you have a clearance from a controller to do the letdown and abbreviated procedure because he has vectored you into a position to pick up the inbound and proceed by your own navigation, you may do so after following the controller's specific instructions .... for example " For vectors to the ILS runway 16, Steer heading one two zero degrees, maintain three thousand feet. Upon intercepting the localizer, you are cleared for the straight in approach. Contact tower, frequency 118 decimal 7 at the Smith Beacon."

A "No PT Required" notation on a plate is there because using the equipment specified on the plate, you are able to transition from a known point in space to the final approach segment safely via a transition.

Otherwise, a procedure turn must be performed, because it is not exempted by one of the above described situations.

Do people do letdowns based on their own way to determine where they are on the final approach? Yes, sure they do.....every day and twice on Sunday because they have some local knowledge like .... "oh, look ... there's farmer Brown's place, we're 7 miles back." Or based on their own re-design of the approach plate, like ..... "we're 7 DME on the 123 degree radial, I know I'm OK to let down below 25 mile "safe" sector altitude."

Are they correct to do so to save a few minutes flying time for the operator instead of flying the published approach?

No.

Will they get away with it?

Often, but not always, and most certainly not everywhere, every time.

Perhaps someone more currently familiar with TP308 and TERPS criteria regarding approach plate design criteria may interject, as its been well over 20 years since I took the course at the ICP School.

The Old Fogducker

[modi13]

I would suggest that each and every instrument procedure that does not contain the phrase "No Procedure Turn Required" requires that a PT be done each and every time as a standard, every day, built-in part of the full approach procedure.

I had a discussion about this during my groundschool, which was done with a Class I who used to fly for one of the mid-level carriers on the West Coast. It was quite a while ago, so I don't remember exactly how the conversation went, but essentially what he said was that just because the plate doesn't say "No PT" doesn't mean a procedure turn is necessary. It has something to do with whether you can get to the FAF or IAF or something at the required altitude without doing something unsafe; the direction from which you're approaching might also play a role. I think I've also seen approach plates which specify that a procedure turn must be done, and if that's the case then just because it doesn't say "No PT" doesn't mean it's required. I've never been in a situation where I didn't have to do one, and my instructor preferred to have me do one for practice, just to make it as complicated as possible, but I'm pretty sure, in theory at least, that avoiding the PT is possible.

[The Old Fogducker]

Rather than get into a "Mine's bigger than your former instructors" contest, I'll just repost a segment of the information I passed along to you a short time before ....

...... Do people do letdowns based on their own way to determine where they are on the final approach? Yes, sure they do.....every day and twice on Sunday because they have some local knowledge like .... "oh, look ... there's farmer Brown's place, we're 7 miles back." Or based on their own re-design of the approach plate, like ..... "we're 7 DME on the 123 degree radial, I know I'm OK to let down below 25 mile "safe" sector altitude."

Are they correct to do so to save a few minutes flying time for the operator instead of flying the published approach?

No.

Will they get away with it?

Often, but not always, and most certainly not everywhere, every time.

[navajo]

I was talking to TC about a VOR/DME approach where the VOR is the FAF.

I asked the inspector if it was legal to do a straight in VOR approach and go down to the FAF altitude within the PT distance (10 NM) if "no pt" was not written on the chart (controlled airspace, non-radar environment, 10 NM from the VOR approximated to 10 DME from the VOR). The guy told me it was really dangerous do to that and as a pilot, safety should be my first concern and if I was caught to do that, I would expose myself to a big fine etc... I would expect that kind of answer from a new IFR pilot who doesn't understand too much IFR approaches but not from a professional inspector from TC!

First I was laughing but then, I realize these guys are in charge of air transportation safety in Canada... Every time I hear about a crash, I think about the fact that if TC was doing his job, less pilots from the 703 would die every year...

Otherwise, why would the designers put the notation there on some procedures, and not others?
The Old Fogducker

I think only the designers could answer to that! Maybe they are still working on it! I'm talking of course about approaches where there is no doubt about the 10 NM PT distance (certified GPS with certified training, DME, or navaid).

[FlaplessDork]

Procedure turn design. Notice you are not safe within 10nm in all directions. The 10NM ring on the plate means nothing except to give you an idea of scale.

[navajo]

Of course, this is not a "10 NM safe altitude", that's why they specify the side of the PT.

[Steve Baker]

What was the clearance and are you in compliance? If you are proceeding direct to the FAF, how can you not do a procedure turn? Not only are you likely not at the correct altitude, you aren't stabilized on the inbound course. The exception to this is if cleared to intercept the IB approach course and track it to the FAF. Then with some means of measuring distance back from the FAF, you could safely start your descent. Of course, if this is the case, ask the controlling agency for a straight in approach and remove the doubt.

In uncontrolled airspace, you are normally cleared out of controlled airspace via something for an approach at the airport in question. If there is no published transition you can use, then you should be doing a procedure turn. The problem and inefficiency here arises with RNAV overlay approaches. What I would like to see would be some IFs added to these approaches so that you could safely/legally transition to a straight in.

It foolish to belittle saving a minute here and there. In large aircraft a minute here and there adds up to a hell of a lot of money over the course of a day. (Certainly enough for a large Christmas bonus) Safety, is primary but, that doesn't excuse NavCan from not getting out there and improving these approaches to increase efficiency and reflect modern nav capabilities.

[navajo]

Then with some means of measuring distance back from the FAF, you could safely start your descent. Of course, if this is the case, ask the controlling agency for a straight in approach and remove the doubt.

So if ATC clears you to do something, it means you have the right to do it? I'm not sure if TC would agree with that argument.

[The Old Fogducker]

This thread reminds me why I haven't taken the time to post anything in here for several years.

Good explanation of what I thought I was conveying from square one Steve Baker. Its been over 20 years since I had the approach design course, and I never really used it all that much except for the conduct of about a thousand PPCs and initial instrument ratings.

I now return this channel to its regularly scheduled program .... "Bickering For No Reason." stay tuned for Monty Python's Flying Circus. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

The Old Fogducker