Holding pattern course reversal

[meritflyer]

If we are doing a VOR approach with a holding pattern as a course reversal, if our position put us on the border of a direct and parallel entry and we choose to direct it, do we still need to make a reversal or can we simply cross the VOR and then proceed?

Make sense?

[Pilot Hopeful]

. . . such as when the VOR is the IAF and FAF?

In that case, I would complete one turn in the pattern after a direct entry and no trip in the pattern after a parallel entry.

[meritflyer]

Not to say thats incorrect, but it makes no sense to me to have a direct entry, make a lap, and proceed inbound.

But if thats what you should do..

[Pilot Hopeful]

That is my interpretation of AIM Sections 5-4-7 and 5-4-8. I would appreciate input to rectify any incorrect assumptions. Would you believe that your question is one that I have been wrestling with over the past year?

Some further explanation . . .
If the VOR is the IAF/FAF and we make a direct entry and proceed immediately past the station, we might never have been established on the inbound course. Also, we have very little time to transition from the enroute environment to the approach. Hence, my recommendation for one circuit after the direct entry.

[mikecweb]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

Not to say thats incorrect, but it makes no sense to me to have a direct entry, make a lap, and proceed inbound.

But if thats what you should do..

If you read the AIM it should say something to the effect of being established inbound after the correct entry. Therefore you would have to make a lap. Especially if you are on the border between the two...probably would want the extra time to be Established.

[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
2 - Holding patten in lieu of a PT
3 - Not authorized
4 - Radar vectors
5 - Timed approach

So, if the entry is a direct, why wouldnt that constitute a straight in?

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

But if thats what you should do..

There's a big difference between what's legal and what's safe. TERPS requires that an intermediate segment be aligned with the final approach course within 30 degrees. If your hold-in-lieu (HIL) is located at the IAF/FAF, and you approach at a larger angle than that, your turn to final could exceed the protected area.

While it may seem absurd to do the HIL when you're on course, on altitude, and on airspeed, legally you're supposed to. Real world, many pilots would not. ATC might be surprised if you do.

My view is that self-discipline is a great asset when flying IFR, and it's better not to develop the habit of cutting corners when we don't fully understand why the corners are there in the first place. ;-)

[meritflyer]

I am with you on safe and legal IFR practices. Another point is the VOR-B into KPSP. Palm Springs approach always asks you if you'd like the a turn in the hold when approaching the VOR off the V airway from the east (V64?). I usually say no and proceed to turn inbound on the approach after crossing the fix. The hold is at TRM and serves as the IAF, not the FAF though.

[mikecweb]

If you are using a Hold in lieu of a PT then the rest of that list doesn't apply eh? And then you must complete the entry and then get established inbound.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

1 - Straight in

The only "straight in" I'm familiar with is with a TAA, and it's published "NoPT" on the chart.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

I am with you on safe and legal IFR practices. Another point is the VOR-B into KPSP. Palm Springs approach always asks you if you'd like the a turn in the hold when approaching the VOR off the V airway from the east (V64?). I usually say no and proceed to turn inbound on the approach after crossing the fix. The hold is at TRM and serves as the IAF, not the FAF though.

Same thing applies here, though. The HIL is required, and ATC cannot waive this requirement. Geez, you got mountains around there! They put the PT there for a reason and I sure wouldn't ignore it.

[777forever]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

1 - Straight in

Never heard of this requirement, but anyways, I would make a course reversal, unless you were getting radar vectored

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

The only "straight in" I'm familiar with is with a TAA, and it's published "NoPT" on the chart.

ATC may radar vector to the final approach course or to an intermediate fix. ATC may then specify "cleared straight in VOR blah blah".

AIM 5-4-9

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

I am with you on safe and legal IFR practices. Another point is the VOR-B into KPSP. Palm Springs approach always asks you if you'd like the a turn in the hold when approaching the VOR off the V airway from the east (V64?). I usually say no and proceed to turn inbound on the approach after crossing the fix. The hold is at TRM and serves as the IAF, not the FAF though.

I would say to be completely legal either:

a) do the hold, even if it's a direct entry, then once inbound proceed on course to the VOR and the next course change

b) if you want to save some time and $$, say no but ask 'em for a vector to final

On another note merit, why is the VOR-B a non-runway specific approach (not sure if this has been covered ever)? It's within 30 degrees of a runway...

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

why is the VOR-B a non-runway specific approach (not sure if this has been covered ever)? It's within 30 degrees of a runway...

Good question, what is the answer?

[EatSleepFly]

Haven't looked at it, but normally that is the case if the FAF is close to the runway making it unlikely to go from MDA to the runway using "normal maneuvers." Don't know what the exact criteria is.

[meritflyer]

The approach into KPSP is like 15 or 20 miles from the IAF to the RWY.

[EatSleepFly]

Read my post.

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

Good question, what is the answer?

MDA of 1800'+ (AGL) with a vis req. of 1 1/4 mile (class a) = chop and drop

You basically couldn't make the the runway with normal manuvers if you were at MDA and you obtained the runway at the last possible moment - so you've gotta turn it into a circle to lose the altitude.

[meritflyer]

You guys are silly!!

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

ATC may then specify "cleared straight in VOR blah blah".AIM 5-4-9

Yep, that one is new. RNAV approaches only.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

On another note merit, why is the VOR-B a non-runway specific approach (not sure if this has been covered ever)? It's within 30 degrees of a runway...

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.

From the chart, it vaguely looks like the FAC is aimed towards the airport center. This is sometimes done to avoid an obstacle along the desired FAC. Therefore, requirement #3 is not fulfilled.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

You basically couldn't make the the runway with normal manuvers if you were at MDA and you obtained the runway at the last possible moment - so you've gotta turn it into a circle to lose the altitude.

That's true of almost every NPA. This reasoning would make every NPA a circling approach.

[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.

[MidlifeFlyer]

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.