Procedure Turn

[meritflyer]

I have the subscription to Jepps so I dont think so.. (unless I missed it in the mail or something )

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

Consider this themctm, if you arrive on a victor airway to join the final approach course of a VOR approach and the victor airway and FAC happen to line up so it would literally be a straight in and ATC says "Cessna 1234, cleared for the VOR approach blah blah blah"

Legally, are you required to do the PT (hold in lieu of)?

Probably. But it's also highly likely that if you look at the plate for such an approach, that victor airway will show up as a no-PT feeder.

We had a discussion about just such a situation - using a real approach - about a year or so ago on another forum. The airway showed up as a feeder in the approach chart but without being noted as No-PT. Within days of the charting office being notified of it, there was a NOTAM to add "NoPT" to the feeder.

[themctm]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

I am still waiting for a reference that says straight in approaches do not require a HIL...

Consider this themctm, if you arrive on a victor airway to join the final approach course of a VOR approach and the victor airway and FAC happen to line up so it would literally be a straight in and ATC says "Cessna 1234, cleared for the VOR approach blah blah blah"

Legally, are you required to do the PT (hold in lieu of)?

I have a small imagination so I'm going to spell this out while I think about it...

I'm going straight to an airport on a Victor, that happens to be the same radial the approach is on so I would maintain a constant heading, right? SO HOW WOULD I DO A PT? Go out somehow in the opposite direction so I could turn back around to turn around?!

Lets just agree to disagree. I'm totally lost.

Lets ask mtsu_av8er, he'll know.

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by themctm

I have a small imagination so I'm going to spell this out while I think about it...

I'm going straight to an airport on a Victor, that happens to be the same radial the approach is on so I would maintain a constant heading, right? SO HOW WOULD I DO A PT? Go out somehow in the opposite direction so I could turn back around to turn around?!

Lets just agree to disagree. I'm totally lost.

Lets ask mtsu_av8er, he'll know.

I went searching and found the thread that merit was talking about. It might be appropriate to your questions:
Holding pattern course reversal



.

[themctm]

Ok, after reading the original post I know understand what the gentleman has been typing about. Yes, you would do a turn in the hold as far as I know then commence the approach. Its been a while.

[seagull]

Originally Posted by themctm

I have a small imagination so I'm going to spell this out while I think about it...

I'm going straight to an airport on a Victor, that happens to be the same radial the approach is on so I would maintain a constant heading, right? SO HOW WOULD I DO A PT? Go out somehow in the opposite direction so I could turn back around to turn around?!

Lets just agree to disagree. I'm totally lost.

Lets ask mtsu_av8er, he'll know.

Yes, you would just have to turn back outbound and do the Pt. It doesn't happen often, but when it's not an oversight, it is likely due to some crossing restriction issue that would result in a descent that is in excess of the TERPs or PANS-OPS design criteria.

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by themctm

Ok, after reading the original post I know understand what the gentleman has been typing about. Yes, you would do a turn in the hold as far as I know then commence the approach. Its been a while.

Sorry dude, but another pilot's opinion on a procedure doesnt make it legal or illegal. As for arriving on a victor airway that is perfectly aligned (or even slightly off set) from a final approach course with a holding pattern in lieu of a PT, you would have to make the seemingly useless turn.

What kind of airplanes do you fly again?

[mikecweb]

Just a couple of thoughts.
Why are you guys jumping all over themctm when he infact answered your original question correctly. Then you change your question mid-way to try and prove him wrong.
I'm fully supportive of asking questions on this fourm or submitting questions in an attempt to help others discuss and learn but honestly if you are a CFII and don't know that if you are being radar vectored to the FAF that you can forget the PT...I'm not sure your students are getting their money's worth. I could be wrong however.

[meritflyer]

It was my oversight for stating that about radar vectors. Nobody was jumping all over anyone. The only thing I saw was someone saying they fly hundreds of approaches professionally and thats where their justification came into play.

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by SteveC

What's the date or rev on that chart? Could it be out of date?

LIPTE is new, as the HILO used be located at WASON. I've flown that approach countless times in any number of airplanes. I've always been vectored, whether from the northwest (coming from PHX/Picacho Peak), the west from the ranges, the east, or from the radar pattern. Never have I flown the HILO, nor been expected or queried to, nor would it make sense. I could see requesting it if it was needed to descend to make any crossing restriction (which are usually given), but that would be odd considering being on radar vectors for a straight-in; in addition to the No-PT feeders.

[meritflyer]

I already said, my bad. My oversight. My chart had none of that information. After the three page thread that discussed PTs and HILOs its obvious there is more to them than just what the AIM says.
If you werent radar vectored or arriving on the NoPT sector, you should fly the HILO. Not because ATC didnt expected you to but because its illegal not to.

[MidlifeFlyer]

Originally Posted by themctm

Ok, after reading the original post I know understand what the gentleman has been typing about. Yes, you would do a turn in the hold as far as I know then commence the approach. Its been a while.

The change in the AIM =finally= making clear that a depicted PT is always required certain specific requirements are met, appeared by NOTAM in (I think) February 2006 and didn't get published in the AIM until the August 2006 edition. Before that there was some dispute about whether PTs were really required or not when the pilot didn't think he needed one.