Quote:
Originally Posted by meritflyer  While you're correct, it also does mention that you do not need to execute a PT within the following situations -
1 - Straight in
[snip]
So, if the entry is a direct, why wouldn't that constitute a straight in? |
Well, you are suggesting a situation where you are on the "border" between direct and parallel, so you are crossing the fix in the opposite direction to the FAC - doesn't sound very "straight in" to me.
But let's turn you around so that you are coming in on a more traditional direct entry - roughly aligned with the FAC.
Apples and oranges. Two completely different rules at work. First of all, according to the AIM, with the straight in "exception" you can't just go straight in because you feel like it. You and ATC have to be on the same page. If you are approaching the IAF in the right position, you can ask to be cleared straight in and ATC can clear you for it.
In your hypothetical, if you are indeed in line for a direct entry and you think you can go straight in, you are under that straight in "ask and clear" exception and, if cleared, you don't execute the PT (in this case a racetrack PT) at all.
But that's not what you're asking. You are asking whether, having accepted the hold in lieu, having =not= asked for or been cleared for the straight in, having decided =not= take advantage of the "exception," do you still really have to execute the hold-in-lieu PT or can you keep mum, and go straight in anyway while the procedure demands (and ATC probably expects) a holding pattern (entry and inbound leg). The answer to that is no. Unless you fit an exception, the procedure must be flown as depicted.