Holding pattern course reversal

[MidlifeFlyer]

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?

Assuming no one says anything about being cleared for a straight in approach, absolutely. (I'm not sure what "circle to land" has to do with anything)

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?

I don't know without seeing the approach, the surrounding terrain, how I am approaching the IAF, whether the VOR is on-airport of off, whether I am on a feeder route or not, or whether 5,000' is an altitude that would allow me to continue straight in , among other things.

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

Huh? What does whether you have to maneuver once at the MDA have to do with whether or not you have to do a PT 8 miles away from it?

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)?

If I read you right, the vector is, in effect, a vector to join the FAC, although that language is not used. I think that is one of those things that both T and I will agree is what the "clarify" portion of AIM 5-4-9 is designed for. I'd ask whether I was cleared straight in.

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

<<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. >>

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

And from the sidelines, let me say that I hope you guys disagree frequently and on many different topics!

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

If I read you right, the vector is, in effect, a vector to join the FAC, although that language is not used. I think that is one of those things that both T and I will agree is what the "clarify" portion of AIM 5-4-9 is designed for. I'd ask whether I was cleared straight in.

I'm reconsidering this one.

You are intercepting the R-310. If the VOR is the IAF, then you are being given a vector to intercept the radial between the VOR and the runway. You should not ever get an approach clearance that has you intercept an FAC there. Under those circumstance, I'd inform ATC that I'd be turning toward the VOR, not the runway and would do the PT to get myself aligned properly.

Now, if you meant "intercept the R130", I'll stay with my initial response.

[B767Driver]

My company's airway manual states, "Whan an aircraft is cleared for an approach enroute to a fix designated as a procedure turn fix or any other course reversal, the procedure turn or turn reversal must be executed unless the crew receives specific clearance from ATC negating the procedure turn."

You've got to fly it unless the Part 91 exempted criteria appy.

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by seagull

! Not a lot different than the VMC climbs that some 121 operators do out of some locations...

!

Hey, I've got 2 pages of explicit instructions in my company's operating manual detailing the procedure for VFR climbs.

The preamble to the section states: "VFR climbs result in substantial fuel savings and on time performance. At their discretion, pilots are encouraged to request a VFR climb when conditions permit."

The conditions are then detailed and numerous. It goes on to state, "If it is necessary to depart via an IFR DP and VFR conditions exist and can be maintained, a VFR climb may be requested after the takeoff event and when 2000' terrain separation can be ensured."

[seagull]

Originally Posted by B767Driver

My company's airway manual states, "Whan an aircraft is cleared for an approach enroute to a fix designated as a procedure turn fix or any other course reversal, the procedure turn or turn reversal must be executed unless the crew receives specific clearance from ATC negating the procedure turn."

You've got to fly it unless the Part 91 exempted criteria appy.

That appears to imply that you can just go straight in if ATC says it's ok. I can virtually guarantee that they'll always clear you for it, but that doesn't make it legal! I am not sure I like the way that is phrased, although your posts appear to indicate that you understand the issue.

As for the VFR climb, it was an ops specs limitation, but that may have been changed now. I do know that a certain ATL based carrier was doing it when it was definitely counter to their ops specs, but that's been about 12 years ago. They had been doing it for years, then when the New Standard Ops Specs came out that prohibited it, it was never caught. I'm sure there was a scramble to get an exemption after that! I have not gotten into that issue for many years now, though. Things change, research required, I could be looking to correct my post!

[flyguy]

Sorry for chiming this in so late, maybe its already been asked but I don't have time to read all 3 pages right now.

My question is, what if it is a parellel entry, in which case you'll intercept the inbound course before crossing the VOR. Then are you expected to take another full turn or proceed inbound from that point? Or, a teardrop for that matter. After the entry, you are on the inbound course. Do you have to ever make a full turn throught the hold if you intercept the inbound course before crosing the VOR. The reason I ask is because our chief instructor has been yelled at by ATC for not taking the extra turn. The next time he shot the exact same approach he did take the full turn as he was instructed the previous time, and ATC asked what he was doing. Can't win either way I guess. So now we are instructed to teach to always ask ATC what they want us to do on a hold course reversal. That's definately a way to never mess it up, but I'm just wondering which controller was correct, and what to do in a NORDO situation.

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by seagull

I do know that a certain ATL based carrier was doing it when it was definitely counter to their ops specs, but that's been about 12 years ago. !

That doesn't surprise me one bit. Until the late 80's that carrier did things their own way...because "they had a better way". Until they started making idiots of themselves.

Now the standards and training leadership is pretty much top notch...they've had some good folks up there for a while now.

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by flyguy

Sorry for chiming this in so late, maybe its already been asked but I don't have time to read all 3 pages right now.

My question is, what if it is a parellel entry, in which case you'll intercept the inbound course before crossing the VOR. Then are you expected to take another full turn or proceed inbound from that point? Or, a teardrop for that matter. After the entry, you are on the inbound course. Do you have to ever make a full turn throught the hold if you intercept the inbound course before crosing the VOR. The reason I ask is because our chief instructor has been yelled at by ATC for not taking the extra turn. The next time he shot the exact same approach he did take the full turn as he was instructed the previous time, and ATC asked what he was doing. Can't win either way I guess. So now we are instructed to teach to always ask ATC what they want us to do on a hold course reversal. That's definately a way to never mess it up, but I'm just wondering which controller was correct, and what to do in a NORDO situation.

The guidance is pretty clear that you have to fly a racetrack pattern as it's published. So the entry is not good enough...you've got to fly the racetrack pattern before leaving the fix.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by flyguy

Sorry for chiming this in so late, maybe its already been asked but I don't have time to read all 3 pages right now.

Don't worry. most of the three pages was on a different subject anyway - when a PT is required to begin with.

My question is, what if it is a parellel entry, in which case you'll intercept the inbound course before crossing the VOR. Then are you expected to take another full turn or proceed inbound from that point? Or, a teardrop for that matter. After the entry, you are on the inbound course. Do you have to ever make a full turn throught the hold if you intercept the inbound course before crosing the VOR.

The second controller and your Chief Instructor were right. All the hold in lieu requires is an entry to the hold and getting established on the inbound leg. All the teardrop and racetrack are are course reversals with a different set up for the protected airsapce. The type of entry doesn't matter, none of them are mandatory anyway.

But...

if you intercept the inbound course before crosing the VOR

I'm not sure what you mean by this. All of the entries involve flying to the navaid, making an entry that sets you up outbound and then intercepting the inbound course before getting back to the navaid the second time. It may be that my answer misunderstood your question.

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by B767Driver

The guidance is pretty clear that you have to fly a racetrack pattern as it's published. So the entry is not good enough...you've got to fly the racetrack pattern before leaving the fix.

I may have to change my mind. AIM Para 5-4-9 has some details. I think it is confusing. One hand hand the guidance states that if a holding pattern replaces a PT the holding pattern must be followed, except when being RV'd to final. My company's guidance is that it must be flown similar to a procedural track...which leads you to believe you need to make the circuit in the hold.

However, the AIM goes on to state "The holding pattern maneuver is completed when the aircraft is established on the inbound course after executing the appropriate entry." If additional circuits are needed they must advise ATC and receive a clearance.

So I'd have to agree...if after the entry you are on course and altitude...you don't have to make a circuit. Or really, can't unless you receive permission.

As a side note, my company procedures require all parallel entries to be flown outbound on the holding radial or FAC radial. So being established inbound after the turn is not really practical...which is why we always would find ourselves making the turn in the holding pattern.

As for ATC's planning...they would have to expect you to make the outbound turn...how do they know you'd be established inbound after the entry? If however, you found yourself established inbound...IMO, you'd be good fly the approach. Remember in a non-radar environment, which is the only reason you'd be cleared for a full PT, instead of RV's to final...you have to report leaving the FAF.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by B767Driver

As a side note, my company procedures require all parallel entries to be flown outbound on the holding radial or FAC radial. So being established inbound after the turn is not really practical...which is why we always would find ourselves making the turn in the holding pattern.

As for ATC's planning...they would have to expect you to make the outbound turn...how do they know you'd be established inbound after the entry?

That's sort of the point. They don't. All they really know is that you crossed the fix outbound and are expecting you to turn inbound and continue the approach (although in a non-radar environment, I think they will almost always ask you to report inbound.)

The pilot's decision to proceed direct to the fix rather than to intercept the FAC is your decision, not something that's required, and it won't affect ATC's view - cross, fly outbound, turn inbound, and continue the approach) If you are going to take the extra leg to get established, tell them. (BTW, I'm not sure why turning to intercept the inbound course after a parallel entry isn't practical. I usually make those turns 30° past the inbound course so that I will intercept prior to reaching the fix - I figured that out when I was asked t do a parallel entry to an intersection hold and got completely lost )

[nosehair]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

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.

OK, what about this part of the equation. You guys are reading only the parts of the answer that supports what you already think. Which is what I'm doing too, but my thinking is just as supported by the written word as yours. This next line is following the definition, so wouldn't it be logical that the implication is that if you need to make a course reversal then:

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.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by nosehair

if you need to make a course reversal then:

That part of the section was lifted from TERPS and was guidance provided to the approach designer. Originally in the AIM is was copied almost verbatim and didn't make sense in the context of the pilot. That's why it seemed permissive and is the origin of much of this contention.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

That part of the section was lifted from TERPS and was guidance provided to the approach designer. Originally in the AIM is was copied almost verbatim and didn't make sense in the context of the pilot. That's why it seemed permissive and is the origin of much of this contention.

I know that was justification for that view but never quite understood why.

==============================
A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course.
==============================

It's a definition. The sentence tells you what a PT is. It also gives some information about when it is "prescribed." AFAIK, "prescribed" means laid down as a requirement by those with authority, not, that only needs to be followed,which sound a heck of a lot more like TERPS than an individual pilot.

It's sort of like
==============================
A traffic light is a fixture that is put up at intersections where it is necessary to stop the traffic flow in one direction to allow traffic in a conflicting direction to pass through unimpeded.
==============================
and figuring that means if you see no other traffic that needs to pass, you can go thorough the red light.

Now, if it said,
==============================
A procedure turn is the maneuver that only needs to be used when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course.
==============================
I guess the "a PT is always optional" crowd would have a point But it doesn't say that, and any "confusion" generated is now resolved by the next sentence, when the two sentences are read together - If a PT is never required, which is what the "the pilot decides when its required" argument comes down to, then the rules and statements about when it must be flown are, not only completely unnecessary, but an absolute contradiction.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

If a PT is never required, which is what the "the pilot decides when its required" argument comes down to, then the rules and statements about when it must be flown are, not only completely unnecessary, but an absolute contradiction.

Agreed. But I apply similar reasoning to the idea that ATC can waive the PT. If that had been the intent, there were quite a few ways to word that more clearly and not let it be inferred from vague passages.

BTW, in scanning through the 7110.65, I've only found one section that directs ATC to clear an aircraft for a straight-in approach, and that's on the cleared direct to the IF on an RNav approach. The language says that unless ATC says that, the pilot must be allowed to do the PT if one is present at the IF (unless there is a NoPT Arrival Sector.) (Section 4-8-1)

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

That's sort of the point. They don't. All they really know is that you crossed the fix outbound and are expecting you to turn inbound and continue the approach (although in a non-radar environment, I think they will almost always ask you to report inbound.)

Yes, what's been unsaid, but what I believe everyone is trying to say here is that the hold entry counts as a turn in holding. So a clearance of "one turn in holding", means that after you cross the fix on a teardrop, for example, and are established inbound, you're considered to have completed the one turn and are expected to commence crossing the IAF inbound.

[flyguy]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

I'm not sure what you mean by this. All of the entries involve flying to the navaid, making an entry that sets you up outbound and then intercepting the inbound course before getting back to the navaid the second time. It may be that my answer misunderstood your question.

I meant on the hold entry, after crossing the VOR once, you intercept the final approach course on the inbound leg of the hold.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by flyguy

I meant on the hold entry, after crossing the VOR once, you intercept the final approach course on the inbound leg of the hold.

That's what I thought at first. Just making sure. Then I guess my first response was okay.

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by MikeD

Yes, what's been unsaid, but what I believe everyone is trying to say here is that the hold entry counts as a turn in holding. So a clearance of "one turn in holding", means that after you cross the fix on a teardrop, for example, and are established inbound, you're considered to have completed the one turn and are expected to commence crossing the IAF inbound.

That about sums it up.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

Agreed. But I apply similar reasoning to the idea that ATC can waive the PT.

I know. I just put an ATC clearance on a different footing than "because I feel like it." (BTW, I don't see a contradiction between the earlier FAA Legal opinion sepcifically allowing it and the later one not mentioning it - I'd be looking for more specific language of negation. Wwe're just reading them differently and we'll just have to leave it at that). Guess I've moved partially to the evil side of the force.

[nosehair]

Originally Posted by MidlifeFlyer

I just put an ATC clearance on a different footing than "because I feel like it."

C'mon, Mark, I'm not advocating skipping an important maneuver 'cause I 'feel like it'; I'm talking about those obvious situations where you have 100% certainty of being on course on altitude on speed gear down prelanding checklist done and I'm humming along waiting to cross a fix.

Now, not because I 'feel like it', but because a turn to 'reverse direction' so I can get right back to where I am now is highly inefficient and begins to border on danger.

The argument is about the wording and interpretation. The old guys (of which I am one) have been taught to always do the turn, and when I started instrument flying way before the days of radar, and before the time when instrument flying was routine, I also believed you should always do the turn. For safety because you may not be exactly wher you think you are. And when I am out of my backyard, I will do the turn. I am talking about the situations where you know where you are. 100%.

On a VFR / VMC flight, when you are in a position to make a long straight-in to a non-towered airport, and you hear no traffic, and you self-announce, do you think it is ok to make a straight-in provided you are really alert for any traffic and will give way to any traffic already established. Do you circle around the airport and make the 45 into the down wind just becvause it's recommended in the AIM? For no other reason than that? It is recommended so that there is an orderly flow in traffic. When there is no traffic (except for the no radio green Cub you don't see or hear but you are always looking for him anyway no matter where you join the pattern) it is ok to go straight in. Same thing with the Procedure Turn.

[B767Driver]

It's interesting to note that AC90-66A, Airport Traffic Pattern Operations at Non Towered Airports, notes visually that a Straight In final is an option on their graphic...and textually, makes reference that S-In visual approaches should use caution not to disrupt the normal flow of airport traffic. Thereby, seemingly approving the S-In option.

However, my 2006 AIM has removed the Straight-In option from the graphic and makes no reference about it textually.

While not ideal, I've never know S-In traffic patterns to be prohibited. Has the FAA changed their stance?

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by nosehair

C'mon, Mark, I'm not advocating skipping an important maneuver 'cause I 'feel like it'; .

I'm sorry, but you are. I trust =you= to only do it when it's really appropriate (I even trust me, but that's because I'm basically chicken). But your interpretation isn't that it okay when nosehair thinks it is, but that each individual pilot can make the decision for herself. So, "careless and reckless" aside, Pilot A limits the straight in to within 30° of heading and 0 altitude. To Pilot B, is okay with a 60° turn and 500' to lose. Pilot C, however, thinks nothing of an extra 2000' of altitude to lose and a 120° turn. Your interpretation allows each of them to decide to go straight in just because they feel like it.

As tgrayson would probably point out, your position and mine are not really far apart. For practical purposes, the only addition my view has to yours is that under mine, ATC has to know and approve of what you are doing. I'm not sure exactly why you have a problem with that. This is IFR after all, which is about working within a system where communication and predictability are necessities, not doing things on your own.