Holding pattern course reversal

[seagull]

Originally Posted by aviategw

Most controllers won't expect you to go into the hold. In fact, I've been chewed out more than once for going into the hold. If I'm faced with a direct entry into a holding pattern in lieu of a procedure turn, and if I feel that I'm properly aligned on the FAC and can safely complete the approach, I simply ask the controller to approve a straight in from the fix. Usually they respond with something like, 'Duh, what else were you going to do?'

An approach can be something other than a straight in if the descent is greater than 400'/NM from the FAF to the threshold. Can't quote the page right now, but I got this out of the Instrument Procedures Handbook.

ATC doesn't expect it because so many don't follow proper procedure. It is not ATC's job to know what the proper procedure is, either, they just are trying to separate the metal. No wonder they are surprised by those rare pilots who actually know what they're doing! Not a lot different than the VMC climbs that some 121 operators do out of some locations...

As for the rest, listen to tgrayson. He is 100% right on this. I think I *might* have once actually caught him actually goof something, but it's been years ago!

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

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.

Can you point to any regulation that gives ATC authority to waive Part 97 requirements (such as a PT)?

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

Can you point to any regulation that gives ATC authority to waive Part 97 requirements (such as a PT)?

Directly, no. But, as you probably know, the "waiver" of the PT when "on course, on altitude, on airspeed" has been one of those hot topics for years. After a bad mis-step, the current AIM (August 2006) contains the final clarification authorizing ATC to provide a "cleared straight in" approach clearance when it does not want or expect you to do a PT. (They apparently thought the clarification was important enough to issue it by NOTAM before the publication date.)

If you want "legal" support for it, you can look at 91.175(a)'s "unless authorized by the Administrator." The Administrator always acts through designees. Those that took the "can do" side even before the AIM change argued that, for the purpose of the straight in clearance, ATC was the Administrator's "designee." That was kind of iffy, but the authorization for the straight in clearance in the AIM (including when vectored to the IAF, not merely the FAC which 91.175 mentions) is pretty good for an Administrator authorization.

Interesting: there used to be 3 sides to the argument. (1) that a PT was always optional since the pilot had the right to decide it wasn't required; (2) that it was mandatory unless one of the 91.175(j) conditions were met; (3) that it was mandatory unless one of th 91.175(j) conditions were met or ATC authorized it.

You are the only person I've come across so far that continues to reject (3) after the AIM change. (I have heard people continue to argue (1).

[seagull]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

Directly, no. But, as you probably know, the "waiver" of the PT when "on course, on altitude, on airspeed" has been one of those hot topics for years. After a bad mis-step, the current AIM (August 2006) contains the final clarification authorizing ATC to provide a "cleared straight in" approach clearance when it does not want or expect you to do a PT. (They apparently thought the clarification was important enough to issue it by NOTAM before the publication date.)

If you want "legal" support for it, you can look at 91.175(a)'s "unless authorized by the Administrator." The Administrator always acts through designees. Those that took the "can do" side even before the AIM change argued that, for the purpose of the straight in clearance, ATC was the Administrator's "designee." That was kind of iffy, but the authorization for the straight in clearance in the AIM (including when vectored to the IAF, not merely the FAC which 91.175 mentions) is pretty good for an Administrator authorization.

Interesting: there used to be 3 sides to the argument. (1) that a PT was always optional since the pilot had the right to decide it wasn't required; (2) that it was mandatory unless one of the 91.175(j) conditions were met; (3) that it was mandatory unless one of th 91.175(j) conditions were met or ATC authorized it.

You are the only person I've come across so far that continues to reject (3) after the AIM change. (I have heard people continue to argue (1).

What paragraph of the AIM do you refer to? I just took a look, and I don't read it the way you are. I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I am siding with tgrayson for now. So, that makes two of us, unless he switches sides!

[EatSleepFly]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

Those that took the "can do" side even before the AIM change argued that, for the purpose of the straight in clearance, ATC was the Administrator's "designee."

I've always been under the impression that ATC can't act as the "Administrator." I'll look for some kind of reference.

[seagull]

Originally Posted by EatSleepFly

I've always been under the impression that ATC can't act as the "Administrator." I'll look for some kind of reference.

You're quite correct, not sure of a reference, but it has been the topic of a few legal interps and NTSB decisions.

[MidlifeFlyer]

I'm not sure I'm really on a "side" here. Just a viewpoint.

The FAR definition of "Administrator"

==============================
Administrator means the Federal Aviation Administrator or any person to whom he has delegated his authority in the matter concerned.
==============================

I don't know the answer to this, but I suspect that for some "matters concerned", there is Administrator authority delegated to ATC and in other "matters concerned" there is not. If that's an accurate statement, then the question is whether the authority was delegated in this case.

On the more general subject of ATC's authority to authorize a deviation from an SIAP, there is this from a fairly lengthy 1977 FAA Legal opinion:

==============================
Accordingly, under Section 91.116, Part 97 Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) are regulatory and, unless otherwise authorized (such as by an ATC clearance to the contrary), a pilot is required to execute an IFR approach in accordance with the SIAP prescribed in Part 97. As you know, the substance of SIAPs is reflected on "approach plates" or other flight information available for use in the cockpit.

Particular SIAPs may prescribe a procedure turn that is mandatory, permissive, or prohibited depending on the application of criteria contained in the U.S. Standards for Terminal Instrument Approach Procedures (TERPs). The TERPs are used by the FAA in developing SIAPs for particular regulatory approaches at particular airports. However, ATC may "authorize" a deviation from the prescribed procedure when it determines that a different approach procedure is appropriate. Accordingly, a pilot may request ATC for authorization to deviate from a prescribed procedure turn, if it is prescribed as mandatory or, if it is prescribed as permissive, he may request an approach clearance with or without the described procedure turn.
==============================

(BTW, 91.116 is where 91.175 used to be before renumbering)

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

"waiver" of the PT when "on course, on altitude, on airspeed" has been one of those hot topics for years.

I know its been argued, but I've never seen it alleged there was a "waiver", only that it was "silly." The most knowledgeable individuals have always agreed, though, it was a required maneuver. Even though it's always been implied in the Part 97 regulation (according to Wally Roberts), there is a letter of interpretation from the FAA General Counsel's Office that makes it explicit (in the eyes of the FAA).

<<"cleared straight in" approach clearance when it does not want or expect you to do a PT. >>

I do not see in the AIM where it authorized a pilot to skip a PT when the chart depicts one (absent the vectors, etc.) Can you give me a paragraph? Still, the AIM has no authority to contradict the FARs, and I'm skeptical that it does.

<>

I agree that ATC is the Administrator's designee, but they can only do what the Administrator has authorized them to do, which is depicted in FAAO 7110.65, the Air Traffic Controllers Handbook. They have no other authority over instrument approaches other than vectoring you to final, which is supported by the regulations. If you fly the approach starting at an IAF, then you are bound by the approach chart, which is regulatory.


< >>

Again, I see nothing in the AIM that supports your point of view. In fact, it says "The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart." Although the wording the paragraphs have changed, then meaning is the same as it's always been.

The ATC thing about "Cleared Straight In" only occurs in the context of vectors to final or intermediate fix.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

that is mandatory, permissive, or prohibited depending on the application of criteria contained in the U.S. Standards for Terminal Instrument Approach Procedures (TERPs).

This letter of interpretation has been superceded. Thank goodness, because whoever wrote it was on drugs. What is the basis for "mandatory, permissive, or prohibited." ?

Anyway, here's a more current FAA viewpoint:

Mr. Tom Young, Chairman
Charting and Instrument Procedures Committee
Air Line Pilots Association
535 Herndon Parkway
Herndon, VA 22070

Dear Mr. Young

This is a clarification of our response to your letter of August 23, 1993. In that letter you requested an interpretation of Section 91.175 of the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) (14 CFR Section 91.175). You address the necessity of executing a complete Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) in a non-radar environment while operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). Our response assumes that each of the specific scenarios you pose speaks to a flight conducted under IFR in a non-radar environment.
Section 91.175(a) provides that unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each person operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, shall use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed for the airport in Part 97.
First you ask whether an arriving aircraft must begin the SIAP at a published Initial Approach Fix (IAF). A pilot must begin a SIAP at the IAF as defined in Part 97. Descent gradients, communication, and obstruction clearance, as set forth in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Approach Procedures (TERPs), cannot be assured if the entire procedure is not flown.
You also ask whether a Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) arc initial approach segment can be substituted for a published IAF along any portion of the published arc. A DME arc cannot be substituted for a published IAF along a portion of the published arc. If a feeder route to an IAF is part of the published approach procedure, it is considered a mandatory part of the approach.
Finally, you ask whether a course reversal segment is optional "when one of the conditions of FAR section 91.175(j) is not present." Section 91.175(j) states that in the case of a radar vector to a final approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach for which the procedures specifies "no procedure turn," no pilot may make a procedure turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.
Section 97.3(p) defines a procedure turn, in part, as a maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on a intermediate or final approach course. A SIAP may or may not prescribe a procedure turn based on the application of certain criteria contained in the TERPs. However, if a SIAP does contain a procedure turn and ATC has cleared a pilot to execute the SIAP, the pilot must make the procedure turn when one of the conditions of Section 91.175(j) is not present.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Patricia R. Lane, Manager, Airspace and Air Traffic Law Branch, at (202) 267-3491.

Sincerely,

/s/
Patricia R. Lane
for Donald P. Byrne
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations Division

[seagull]

As expected, I agree with tgrayson 100%, and there is a LOT of case law to support that position.

ATC is NOT the Administrator, and does NOT have the authority to waive any regulation.

[B767Driver]

I'll chime in on my understanding. If the chart does not waive the requirement for the course reversal,i.e. printed verbage stating "PT Not Required"...you have to fly it.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

The ATC thing about "Cleared Straight In" only occurs in the context of vectors to final or intermediate fix.

and the FAR authority for cleared straight in in the case of vectors to the intermediate fix is...?

In terms of the "more current" opinion, can you show me where it supersedes the 1977 one? Or suggests that ATC cannot authorize a straight in, say, in a radar environment although not giving vectors?

(BTW, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I've taken the same position as you in more than one discussion of the issue. I haven't been particularly satisfied with any of the explanations on any side of the issue I've seen. For the most part, this is an academic exercise, although becoming more real as GPS direct becomes more common. Not really meant for anyone else to take as gospel, "you can if ATC clears you" has become the answer that makes the most overall sense to me from both a traffic management and obstacle standpoint, and the history of the AIM changes suggests to me that this is what they had in mind)

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

and the FAR authority for cleared straight in in the case of vectors to the intermediate fix is...?

The best answer is that the procedure for doing so is in the 7110.65 and thus is "authorized by the administrator." I do agree (if that's what you're getting at) that 91.175 ought to reflect this. However, vectors to the final approach course has always meant to the intermediate segment, so vectors to the intermediate fix isn't much different. It's always pretty aligned with the FAC.

<>

The date on the interpretation is more current. As for the radar, when you're flying the full procedure, you're in a non-radar environment. After all, the radar is not being used for your benefit.

<>

Except for this: ATC knows nothing about instrument procedures or obstacle clearance. This is the whole reason they are not allowed to modify an instrument approach, because they do not have the knowledge to do so. They will let you do a lot of things that are unsafe or illegal, as long as it doesn't conflict with traffic. I've had to speak with watch supervisors on more than one occasion complaining about ATC assigning lower-than-published altitudes on approaches and they've never taken the position they have the right to do so.

And you still haven't pointed out the AIM change that seems to give them the authority to do this. As far as I can tell, it's even more assertive that they can't.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

Except for this: ATC knows nothing about instrument procedures or obstacle clearance. This is the whole reason they are not allowed to modify an instrument approach, because they do not have the knowledge to do so. They will let you do a lot of things that are unsafe or illegal, as long as it doesn't conflict with traffic. I've had to speak with watch supervisors on more than one occasion complaining about ATC assigning lower-than-published altitudes on approaches and they've never taken the position they have the right to do so.

In the situations you are describing, ATC is allowing the pilot to do something potentially dangerous =other= than go straight in. There may be obstruction or terrain issues that would preclude arriving at an IAF/FAF at the "right" altitude from a certain point.

The (or at least my) discussion of the issue presupposes that there is nothing preventing - from either a safety or regulatory standpoint - you from getting in position. Best scenario I can come up offhand is a GPS direct flight at the OROCA direct to an off-airport VOR IAF/FAF on a course that is 30° off the FAC. The altitude of the OROCA is low enough that it you turn inbound 30° you will fly a "normal" approach. Being GPS direct on an OROCA, you won't be coming in on the no PT feeder that might well be there if your were on an airway.

I don't see the terrain, obstacle or TERPS ramifications of that.

And you still haven't pointed out the AIM change that seems to give them the authority to do this. As far as I can tell, it's even more assertive that they can't.

Fair question. The answer is historical rather than focussed on current language. The original version left the potential for the "If I don't think it's necessary, I don't have to do it" argument. An earlier amendment seeking to clarify it actually made it worse. Finally the current language closed up the "I don't really have to" argument, but added the italicized portion talking about what to do when you =want= to do a PT you are not supposed to and when a "cleared straight-in approach" clearance may be given.

I agree that the strict language of the straight it limits it to vectors to the FAC or "intermediate fix" but I really don't see where 91.175 permits the latter.

Finally, there's that last part of the italicized language is 5-4-9:

==============================
If the pilot is uncertain whether the ATC clearance intends for a procedure turn to be conducted or to allow for a straight-in approach, the pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC (14 CFR Section 91.123).
==============================

which invites exactly the inquiry we're talking about:

ATC: Cessna 1234X. Proceed direct ABC VOR. Cleared for the VOR runway 30 approach.

1234X (who is heading to the VOR on a heading of 280°); 1234X cleared for the VOR 30 approach. Do you want a PT or am I cleared straight in?

ATC: 1234X cleared straight in VOR Runway 30 approach.

At that point, doesn't 91.123 come into play?

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

Best scenario I can come up offhand is a GPS direct flight at the OROCA direct to an off-airport VOR IAF/FAF on a course that is 30° off the FAC.

I agree that the above would probably be safe, but the problem arises of developing the proper criteria for permitting this. You don't want a bunch of people who don't know TERPS deciding, through ignorance, that something is OK.

For instance, I quoted TERPS saying that the intermediate segment had to be aligned within 30 degrees of the FAC. But does that mean that every approach has the appropriate turning radius protected for an arrival 30 degrees of course, even when the actual intemediate is dead-on? I don't know the answer to that right off...I'll have to look it up.

I suspect that the FAA attitude is that since we can't define the rules clearly enough for all situations, we're just going to forbid the whole thing.

This new approval for "direct to the IF" for RNAV approaches is an attempt to rationalize the process. I would certainly like to hear the backroom conversations about why it was limited to RNAV approaches.

<>

I believe I conflated the two issues of "authorization for vectors to final", and "permission to skip the PT". 91.175 gives the criteria for skipping the PT, but the powers of vectoring to final (or the IF) reside with the "authorization of the administrator". Based on that, ATC can vector us to the IF, but then we have to do the PT. Wouldn't that screw everyone up?

Still, vectors to final has never been to the FAC, (ok, except for on-airport navaids), but to the intermediate, which may nor may not be aligned with the FAC. So the 91.175 language might be stretched to include the vectors to the intermediate fix. But, what about direct to the IF?

<>

The issue here is that ATC is often unaware of whether or not a PT is required. Even when the PT is required, some pilots will skip it, making pilots unpredictable in the eyes of ATC. When pilots ask ATC whether or not to do the PT, this gives the false impression to ATC that it's at their discretion, rather than the pilot's.

I make it a habit to tell ATC that I will be doing the PT, when it's required. When the PT is not required, I ask permission.

[meritflyer]

AIM 5-4-9 Procedure Turn

Note: The pilot may elect to use the procedure turn or hold in lieu of PT when it is not required by the procedure but most first receive an amended clearance from ATC. When ATC is radar vectoring to the final approach course or to the intermediate fix, ATC may specify in the approach clearance, "CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN (type) APPROACH" to ensure the procedure turn or hold in lieu of PT is not flown. If the pilot is uncertain whether the ATC clearance intends for a PT to be conducted or allow for a straight-in approach, the pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC. (14 CFR Section 91.123)

It sounds clear to me that ATC may clear you straight in therefore allowing you to forego the PT and continue the approach. I havent found anything about this applying exclusively to RNAV approaches.

AIM 5-4-9 (3) Procedure Turn

3. When a holding pattern replaces a PT, the holding pattern must be followed, except when radar vectoring is provided or when NoPT is shown on the approach course.

The key here is the term "radar vectors". When in a radar environment and a straight-in clearance is issued, I'd say that the PT doesnt need to be executed. When in a non-radar enviro, I'd say without question it needs to be flown.

So back to my example, flying into Palm Springs coming in GPS direct to TRM which is the IAF, we were cleared for the VOR-B approach, circle to land. Now, being a Circling approach, I am going to say the "straight-in" clearance was never issued (for obvious reasons) and the holding pattern at TRM regardless of the entry should have been executed.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

It sounds clear to me that ATC may clear you straight in therefore allowing you to forego the PT and continue the approach.

What you quoted does not say that:

<<The pilot may elect to use the procedure turn or hold in lieu of PT when it is not required by the procedure but most first receive an amended clearance from ATC.

When ATC is radar vectoring to the final approach course or to the intermediate fix, ATC may specify in the approach clearance, "CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN (type) APPROACH" to ensure the procedure turn or hold in lieu of PT is not flown. >>

The last paragraph applies only to vectoring.

The only part that is a little fuzzy is this:

<>

Given the other statements in the section, no one could read this as giving ATC the authority to waive the PT when required. The main point is to make ATC aware of what you're going to do. They don't always know when a PT is required. If they tell you straight in, yet the procedure requires a PT, you need to get amended clearance that allows for this.

<>

Only when vectored to final or the IF.

<>

You're right, it's being cleared direct to the IF that is for RNAV approaches only. I mistated.

<<3. When a holding pattern replaces a PT, the holding pattern must be followed, except when radar vectoring is provided or when NoPT is shown on the approach course.

The key here is the term "radar vectors". When in a radar environment and a straight-in clearance is issued, I'd say that the PT doesn't need to be executed. When in a non-radar enviro, I'd say without question it needs to be flown. >>

There's nothing here about being in an "radar enviro", it says "radar vectoring". When they say that, they mean "vectors to final", which is in accordance with 7110.65. Only when radar vectoring to the FAC is provided does 91.175 kick in. In fact, the regs say you can't do a PT, unless authorized by ATC. In general, the "straight-in" clearance is redundant.

The above paragraph says

When a holding pattern replaces a PT, the holding pattern must be followed, except when radar vectoring is provided or when NoPT is shown on the approach course.

How much more explict could the AIM be?

<>

You're confusing a "straight-in" landing vs. a "straight-in" approach.

To reiterate, the AIM says

When a holding pattern replaces a PT, the holding pattern must be followed, except when radar vectoring is provided or when NoPT is shown on the approach course.

Notice that it doesn't say "unless authorized by ATC". That statement is in accordance to the law and letter of interpretation by the FAA General Counsel's Office. The only reason this subject is confusing is that those who wish ATC to have this authority try to read it into any sentence that has any degree of vagueness to it.

[meritflyer]

You can still land straight in for a circle to land approach.

A straight in approach is obviously an approach that aligns within 30 degrees and doesnt require an excessive descent rate from the FAF to the TCH.

Do I have that right?

Are you suggesting that I would have needed to do the course reversal at TRM then execute the approach?

Come on T, spell it out for me here

[meritflyer]

Okay, lets get your answers to these questions -

1) Looking at the VOR-B into KPSP, you are cleared direct to TRM and then approach says "Cessna 12345, cross TRM at or above 4000, cleared for the VOR-B circle to land RWY 31R"

Q: Do you use the holding pattern at TRM as a reversal?

2) You are flying an approach into airport X. There is a VOR approach that has a published hold over the IAF. You arrive and tower says "Cessna 12345, cross VOR X at or above 5000, cleared for the VOR approach straight-in RWY X".

Q: Do you use the holding pattern as a reversal?

3) Can you be cleared for "straight-in" on a circle to land?

4) You are flying into an airport that has a VOR straight in approach. Arriving, ATC tells you "turn left heading 320, intercept the XXX R-310 which leads straight to the VOR which is the IAF, cleared for the VOR RWY 31 approach"

Q: Do you still need to do the PT (holding pattern) or does that count as a radar vector (I understand you are not on the intermediate segment or fix)?

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

There are actually 3 reasons (at least) why you may only have circling minimums:

1) Not aligned within 30 degrees
2) Excessive descent rate required on final (> 400 ft/nm)
3) FAC does not intercept the extended runway center line between the threshold and 3000 prior to the threshold.

T, I agree with these. Can you give me a reference for my own notes?

THX!

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

T, I agree with these. Can you give me a reference for my own notes?
THX!

TERPS. FAAO 8260.3. Sorry! You might be able to find it in the Instrument Procedures Handbook.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

This new approval for "direct to the IF" for RNAV approaches is an attempt to rationalize the process. I would certainly like to hear the backroom conversations about why it was limited to RNAV approaches.

There was an interesting take on this in a recent IFR magazine. In a non-radar environment, you plan to fly the localizer because it has better minimums than the GPS approach. The LOC has a PT; the GPS has a TAA with a large straight in area. You ask for the GPS and once inside the T and heading towards the LOC FAF, you ask ATC to clear you "straight in" for the LOC approach.

It had me scratching my head.

BTW, with all the flames that usually get shot when people disagree, I want to say what an absolute pleasure it is to disagree with you.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

Okay, lets get your answers to these questions -

1) Looking at the VOR-B into KPSP, you are cleared direct to TRM and then approach says "Cessna 12345, cross TRM at or above 4000, cleared for the VOR-B circle to land RWY 31R"

Q: Do you use the holding pattern at TRM as a reversal?

Yep, it's a big bold line, you aren't being vectored to final and you're not on a NoPT route. Required maneuver. Circling to land is irrelevant.

<>

What you were just cleared for was a non-circle-to-land. As a required maneuver, you must do the PT. However, had the controller said

"Cleared for straight-in VOR RWY X", then he would not be expecting the PT. However, it's a required maneuver. You should reply, "Cessna 12345, unable straight-in, request the procedure turn."

<>

Sure

<
Q: Do you still need to do the PT (holding pattern) or does that count as a radar vector (I understand you are not on the intermediate segment or fix)?[/quote]>>

Yes, you must do the PT because you are not being vectored to final (or the intermediate).

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

You can still land straight in for a circle to land approach. A straight in approach is obviously an approach that aligns within 30 degrees and doesnt require an excessive descent rate from the FAF to the TCH.
Do I have that right?
Are you suggesting that I would have needed to do the course reversal at TRM then execute the approach?
Come on T, spell it out for me here

I've sort of lost our train of thought.

From the pilot/controller glossary:

STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH IFR- An instrument approach wherein final approach is begun without first having executed a procedure turn, not necessarily completed with a straight-in landing or made to straight-in landing minimums.

The word "straight-in" can be used two ways by a controller: not expecting a PT, or not authorizing circling. They are unrelated.

You can be cleared for a straight-in approach, to be followed by circling to land.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

You ask for the GPS and once inside the T and heading towards the LOC FAF, you ask ATC to clear you "straight in" for the LOC approach. It had me scratching my head.

I'm sure the lawyers would be scratching their heads too. Switching approaches in midstream? Bet they wouldn't have done that with an FAA Ops Inspector on board.

<>

Why thank you! Then let's hope we disagree more often.