Holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn

[aterpster]

Wally,

This is what I am referring to:




This isn't a change from the previous guidance as it also required radar monitoring to the IF.

You're correct. I didn't read far enough.

I do know they were planning at one time to do it without radar being required.

 

[Palmpilot]

How do you get around this?

Par 4-8-1 d.2.(b) Radar monitoring is provided to the IF.
​

Why would I need to get around it? Radar monitoring is not synonymous with radar vectoring.

I take the position(s) that:

1. Part 91.175 has specific requirements for written waivers in 91.905, except when being radar vectored to final​

I just searched the entirety of 91.175, and neither written, waiver, nor 91.905 appear anywhere in it.

2. All the talk in the notice about "straight-in" approaches is specifically when being vectored

Not true. The example clearance for Aircraft 1 near the bottom of page 4 says "Cleared direct CENTR, maintain at or above three thousand until CENTR, cleared straight-in RNAV Runway One Eight approach." A clearance direct to a fix is not a vector. (See the P/CG definition for "vector," and note that no heading is stated above.)

3. There's a prerequisite for being "established" on a heading or course with an interception angle less than (fill in the blank)° to whatever fix they're discussing. That's "radar talk" in my view. How else can they know the plane's "established"? Ask every pilot, with apologies to Verizon, "Can I clear you now?"

I agree that the controller needs some means to determine whether the aircraft meets those requirements, and radar provides such a means, but "radar" is not synonymous with "vector."

I guess confusion still reigns. <sigh>

Obviously!

 

[poadeleted20]

I hear you, but I take a more broad view: They can't do that legally without a waiver, so they need do it in conjunction with legal vectoring. That's why radar monitoring is required even though you might have RNAV capability. They just can't cut out a section of an approved SIAP without it.

dtuuri

Except they don't have to vector you, just clear you direct and monitor your progress on radar. That's not "vectoring", and 7110.65 has different criteria for them when vectoring you onto the approach. Finally, no "waiver" is required since the regulation says "unless authorized by ATC," and ATC is authorizing you as they are authorized to do by 7110.65.

 

[dtuuri]

Why would I need to get around it? Radar monitoring is not synonymous with radar vectoring.

Says you. I says radar is the underlying basis for approval in the first place. YMMV.

I just searched the entirety of 91.175, and neither written, waiver, nor 91.905 appear anywhere in it.

It's the other way around--91.175 is in the list of regs that allow waivers in 91.905.

Not true. The example clearance for Aircraft 1 near the bottom of page 4 says "Cleared direct CENTR, maintain at or above three thousand until CENTR, cleared straight-in RNAV Runway One Eight approach." A clearance direct to a fix is not a vector. (See the P/CG definition for "vector," and note that no heading is stated above.)

You mean the Figure 4-8-2 referred to by this paragragh (my emphasis)?

3. Established on a heading or course direct to a fix between the IF and FAF, in accordance with Paragraph 5-9-1, Vectors to Final Approach Course, and Paragraph 5-9-2, Final Approach Course Interception. (See FIG 4-8-2.)​

I agree that the controller needs some means to determine whether the aircraft meets those requirements, and radar provides such a means, but "radar" is not synonymous with "vector."

Is to me. Else how do they get around 91.905?

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

Finally, no "waiver" is required since the regulation says "unless authorized by ATC," and ATC is authorizing you as they are authorized to do by 7110.65.

Part 91.175(a) doesn't say that. It says (my emphasis):

Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport.​

"by the FAA" and "by ATC" aren't the same. But radar vectors are allowed, so no waiver is needed if the FAA considers that final "direct to" assignment as part of the vectoring. Now, if it isn't, then how do they get around not needing a waiver?

I've satisfied myself there's some logic here, but I don't care if anybody agrees. You'll all have to conjure up your own rationalizations.

dtuuri

 

[midlifeflyer]

I've satisfied myself there's some logic here, but I don't care if anybody agrees. You'll all have to conjure up your own rationalizations.

dtuuri

This is mine:

1. Once over the FAF, except for staying on the protected side if you do perform a PT, assuming at approximately FAF/GSI crossing altitude, it makes exactly zero difference from a terrain-avoidance standpoint whether you do a PT or go straight in.

2. The potential difference is a traffic one. I'm not talking about the "it's all about ME!" impingement on approach airspace. I'm thinking more in terms of big picture stuff - does ATC slow down the pilot 60 miles out early to avoid a hold in expectation that the first pilot is going to do the PT or grant her request to start down and speed up in the process to beat that next line of weather in expectation that the first pilot will go straight in.

3. #2 is probably the reason for the requirement that a pilot not do a PT without specific ATC authorization when it's not required. But it applies equally to the pilot who chooses not to do the "required" PT.

4. We can look at the technical jargon and come up with rationalizations why it's allowed or not allowed. But the bottom line is that it's about communication between ATC and the pilot, and if the pilot and ATC are on the same page in terms of what the pilot is going to do, there are no practical consequences wither way.

The Chief Counsel's office seems to have recognized this some time ago when it said way back in 1977, "However, ATC may "'authorize' a deviation from the prescribed procedure when it determines that a different approach procedure is appropriate."


Sorry, Dave, but just like me, your written authorization requirement for "unless authorized by the FAA" is also only a rationalization to support your own point of view. The FAA acts through its people and, even if you want to use "the Administrator" in place of the FAA, FAR 1.1 tells us:

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

Even aside from the almost 40-year old interpretation, I don't see anything in 91.175 that suggests that an authorization by ATC to perform or not perform an act that comes up due to various contingencies that occur in flight with zero consequences other than to the pilot-ATC relationship is beyond the scope of ATC's delegated authority.

 

[aterpster]

This is mine:

1. Once over the FAF, except for staying on the protected side if you do perform a PT, assuming at approximately FAF/GSI crossing altitude, it makes exactly zero difference from a terrain-avoidance standpoint whether you do a PT or go straight in.

That depends. If it is a ground-based procedure with an HILPT at the IAF/FAF the primary issue would be diving for the vertical guidance inside the FAF.

If it is an RNAV IAP, any course reversal must be a HILPT, which must be at the IAF/IF. The intermediate segment must be not less than 6 miles long. If it is LPV, for instance, the intermediate is very narrow at the FAF. Also, you may end up sufficiently high going direct to the FAF that it would be unsafe, obstacles aside.

 

[dtuuri]

The Chief Counsel's office seems to have recognized this some time ago when it said way back in 1977, "However, ATC may "'authorize' a deviation from the prescribed procedure when it determines that a different approach procedure is appropriate."


Sorry, Dave, but just like me, your written authorization requirement for "unless authorized by the FAA" is also only a rationalization to support your own point of view. The FAA acts through its people and, even if you want to use "the Administrator" in place of the FAA, FAR 1.1 tells us:

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

Even aside from the almost 40-year old interpretation, I don't see anything in 91.175 that suggests that an authorization by ATC to perform or not perform an act that comes up due to various contingencies that occur in flight with zero consequences other than to the pilot-ATC relationship is beyond the scope of ATC's delegated authority.

Well, if that isn't just like a lawyer, arguing both sides of a case. Looking for the 1977 interpretation on your website I discovered your words:

"Unless you fit into one of the categories of 91.175(j) (vectors to final, timed approach from a holding fix, or arrival from a NoPT segment), the pilot must make the procedure turn."
​

We aren't talking timed approaches or NoPT segments, so that leaves vectors to final--which is how I'm justifying it. You're not saying, there, that ATC can modify a Part 97 SIAP and citing a 1977 Chief Counsel interpretation.

Can you post that interp for us or link to it? Context of the times is everything.

As to the "Administrator" delegating persons, of course he can delegate ATC persons, but that doesn't mean ATC can speak for the persons he delegated to write the approach procedures. You're hanging a lot on that old interpretation. Why don't you consider it superceded by the 1994 letter you also cite, with your emphasis:

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.​

They surely must have realized ATC could simply approve a straight in approach and would have mentioned that, if you're right.

And... if ATC has the power to change SIAPs 'on the fly' by virtue of the FAA/administrator rationale, then why all the explicit authorizations in other areas of Part 91, like class D speed restrictions (my em)?

§ 91.117 Aircraft speed.

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate an aircraft below 10,000 feet MSL at an indicated airspeed of more than 250 knots (288 m.p.h.).

(b) Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft at or below 2,500 feet above the surface within 4 nautical miles of the primary airport of a Class C or Class D airspace area at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph.).
​

It appears they draw a distinction, no?

I should know better than to argue law with a lawyer, but I guess I don't.

dtuuri

 

[Velocity173]

If a hold in lieu of pattern is depicted and a straight−in area is not defined (e.g.,“ No PT” indicated at the fix), the aircraft must be instructed to conduct a straight−in approach if ATC does not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn.

ATC has had the power to modify the IAP for quite sometime now. The newest change of a straight in clearance hasn't changed that fact.

 

[dtuuri]

If a hold in lieu of pattern is depicted and a straight−in area is not defined (e.g.,“ No PT” indicated at the fix), the aircraft must be instructed to conduct a straight−in approach if ATC does not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn.

ATC has had the power to modify the IAP for quite sometime now. The newest change of a straight in clearance hasn't changed that fact.

That quote is from Figure 4-8-2, right? The paragraph referencing it is in the context of radar vectoring:

3. Established on a heading or course direct to a fix between the IF and FAF, in accordance with Paragraph 5-9-1, Vectors to Final Approach Course, and Paragraph 5-9-2, Final Approach Course Interception. (See FIG 4-8-2.)​

What's the basis for the claim ATC has long been allowed to modify IAPs, a 1977 interpretation by chance? What then exempts them from clearing pilots to intercept arcs inside the IAF if they're otherwise allowed to change stuff?

dtuuri

 

[Velocity173]

That quote is from Figure 4-8-2, right? The paragraph referencing it is in the context of radar vectoring:

3. Established on a heading or course direct to a fix between the IF and FAF, in accordance with Paragraph 5-9-1, Vectors to Final Approach Course, and Paragraph 5-9-2, Final Approach Course Interception. (See FIG 4-8-2.)
​

What's the basis for the claim ATC has long been allowed to modify IAPs, a 1977 interpretation by chance? What then exempts them from clearing pilots to intercept arcs inside the IAF if they're otherwise allowed to change stuff?

dtuuri

No, the context is being cleared direct the IAF (with a HILPT) for the approach. The example has nothing to do with being vectored. If the example had to do with being vectored to intercept final, then the issuance of "cleared straight in approach" would be a waste of phraseology.

 

[dtuuri]

No, the context is being cleared direct the IAF (with a HILPT) for the approach. The example has nothing to do with being vectored. If the example had to do with being vectored to intercept final, then the issuance of "cleared straight in approach" would be a waste of phraseology.

Since that last assignment would be ambiguous without NoPT charted, they're saying to make sure one isn't performed tell the pilot "straight in". Not a waste of phraseology, IMO.

dtuuri

 

[midlifeflyer]

That depends. If it is a ground-based procedure with an HILPT at the IAF/FAF the primary issue would be diving for the vertical guidance inside the FAF.

If it is an RNAV IAP, any course reversal must be a HILPT, which must be at the IAF/IF. The intermediate segment must be not less than 6 miles long. If it is LPV, for instance, the intermediate is very narrow at the FAF. Also, you may end up sufficiently high going direct to the FAF that it would be unsafe, obstacles aside.

That's why I said

"assuming at approximately FAF/GSI crossing altitude,"

 

[midlifeflyer]

Well, if that isn't just like a lawyer, arguing both sides of a case. Looking for the 1977 interpretation on your website I discovered your words:

"Unless you fit into one of the categories of 91.175(j) (vectors to final, timed approach from a holding fix, or arrival from a NoPT segment), the pilot must make the procedure turn."
​

My FAQ is out-of-date. Since I wrote it, the AIM discussion on the PT has changed multiple times. Thanks for the reminder. Actually, I'm in the process of moving my site to Wordpress. Most of my FAQ has been migrated; this one hasn't until edited.

The 1977 Chief Counsel interpretation:

==============================
July 25, 1977

Robert E. Little, Jr., Esquire

Dear Mr. Little:

We have reviewed your letter dated April 28, 1977, in which you requested an interpretation concerning whether, when depicted on an approach chart, a procedure turn is required under all circumstances in executing an IFR approach or it is permissive and subject to the pilot's judgment as to the need for the maneuver. Our conclusion is essentially as discussed with you on the phone on May 17, 1977.

In your letter, you indicated that during the first leg of an IFR training flight from Tipton Army Air Field, Fort Meade, Maryland to Westminster Airport (EMI), you were radar vectored to Federal Airway V-265 and thereafter maintained an altitude of 3,000 feet. Approximately 4 miles south of Westminster VORTAC you obtained the following Air Traffic Control (ATC) clearance:

"Army 295, radar service terminated 4 miles south of Westminster VOR, cleared for the VOR approach at Westminster, maintain 3000 feet until crossing the VOR."

You indicated that "for training purposes" you executed a procedure turn during the approach but concluded, after discussion with your instructor pilot, that the procedure turn was not required under the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). You stated that you considered the following factors:

"(1) Our course was 11 to the right of the final approach course depicted on the plan view of the Westminster VOR Runway 36 approach;

(2) We were only 500 feet above the minimum procedure turn altitude; and

(3) We had approximately 4 minutes and 30 seconds to lose approximately 1500 feet at a rate of approximately 330 feet per minute after crossing the EMI VOR."

According to your letter, your subsequent research into the matter and inquiries of various FAA personnel into the correctness of your conclusion did not provide a satisfactory answer.

As you discovered, "procedure turn," as a symbol or term used in Part 97 of the FARs, is defined in Section 97.3(p) as follows:

"(p) Procedure Turn means the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach course. The outbound course, direction of turn, distance within which the turn must be completed, and minimum altitude are specified in the procedures. However, the point at which the turn may be commenced, and the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of the pilot." [Emphasis added]

Pertinent paragraphs of Section 91.116 "Takeoff and landing under IFR; General" provide as follows:

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator (including ATC), each person operating an aircraft shall, when an instrument letdown to an airport is necessary, use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed for that airport in Part 97 of this chapter.

(h) Limitations on procedure turns. In the case of a radar initial approach to a final approach fix or position, or a timed approach from a holding fix, or where the procedure specifies "NOPT" or "FINAL", no pilot may make a procedure turn unless, when he receives his final approach clearance, he so advises ATC.

Paragraph (a) of Section 91.75 "Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions" states in pertinent part as follows:

(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance, except in an emergency, unless he obtains an amended clearance. ... If a pilot is uncertain of the meaning of an ATC clearance, he shall immediately request clarification from ATC."

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.

Thus, if you accepted the indicated ATC clearance, under the FARs, you were requested to maintain an altitude of 3000 feet on the inbound course until crossing the VOR and then to execute the prescribed (SIAP) VOR approach at Westminster. Since the (SIAP) VOR approach prescribes a mandatory procedure turn as part of that procedure, the procedure turn (as described) is required.

Further, please note that if a pilot is uncertain whether the IFR approach procedure for which he obtained ATC clearance requires or only permits a procedure turn, he is required under Section 91.75(a) to immediately request clarification from ATC.

You correctly noted that the discussion of procedure turns in Advisory Circular 90-1A is neither regulatory nor interpretive of the regulation. Advisory circulars, as their title suggests, are intended to provide information, suggestions and other guidance.

If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,
NEIL R. EISNER
NEIL R. EISNER
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations & Enforcement Division
==============================

I should know better than to argue law with a lawyer, but I guess I don't.

Notice. I'm not making a legal argument. I described it as my own personal rationalization. As a rationalization, I don't know if it flies legally or not and don't care. It's definitely NOT a legal opinion on the subject.

 

[aterpster]

That's why I said

"assuming at approximately FAF/GSI crossing altitude,"

Yes, then there is the issue of lateral containment and the issue of regulatory compliance, or lack thereof.

 

[dtuuri]

The 1977 Chief Counsel interpretation:

==============================
July 25, 1977

Robert E. Little, Jr., Esquire

Dear Mr. Little:
<snip>

Thanks for posting that, here let me buy you one .

I don't think there's any chance the Chief Counsel still stands by that, but then again I'm never surprised at what they can torture out of the regulations. All they had to do in 1994 was cite that response instead of writing a contrary one. I note, too, that "ATC" was explicitly authorized in the reg, but is not today.

dtuuri

 

[Jaybird180]

Is it a job requirement for the Chief Counsel of the FAA to be either a Pilot or have worked ATC?

 

[poadeleted20]

Is it a job requirement for the Chief Counsel of the FAA to be either a Pilot or have worked ATC?

Neither.

 

[nosehair]

Neither.

Case Closed.

 

[Jaybird180]

Can one of you brilliant folks start something to require it by law, regulation, executive order or something!!!!

 

[midlifeflyer]

Yes, then there is the issue of lateral containment and the issue of regulatory compliance, or lack thereof.

As I indicated, I'm bypassing the regulatory compliance question (which is the one being argued) and describing what I see as a practical approach.

But what lateral containment issue is there? I can see a potential problem with a 90° approach to the IAF/FAF with a fly-over of the fix and very short FAC. You would conceivably be a full deflection inside the FAF until you re-intercepted. Is that what you're thinking of?

If not, is there a chart we can use to explain this one further?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Can one of you brilliant folks start something to require it by law, regulation, executive order or something!!!!

It would be a great idea. But keep in mind that most of the current group of Chief Counsel opinions generally mention an appropriate operational group within the FAA before publication. I guess part of that is an outgrowth of the old Lynch-Chief Counsel turf battles.

It's hardly perfect, but neither is the presumption that an author who flies would be capable of better regulatory opinions than one who doesn't. As a lawyer and a pilot, I don't have that kind of confidence.

 

[poadeleted20]

All that said, if you read those Chief Counsel interpretations, they will almost always say at the end something like "This interpretation was coordinated with the General Aviation and Commercial Division of the Flight Standards Service." When my buddy was head of AFS-810, he said he was spending two hours a day working with AGC-200, so in most cases, they do talk to each other, and when they do, generally the interpretation is what AFS told them AFS intended the reg to mean. There have been times where AGC has told AFS, "I'm sorry, the reg really doesn't say what you wanted it to," but otherwise, the lawyers are generally just mouthpieces for the Ops Inspectors in AFS.

 

[dtuuri]

Is it a job requirement for the Chief Counsel of the FAA to be either a Pilot or have worked ATC?

I'm not sure it's even a requirement to have worked as a lawyer. I think the most important thing is for the intent of the original rule to be clearly recorded and any subsequent amendments as well. If not, somebody's mistaken notion leads to an interpretation that has a domino effect ultimately leading to the bizarre. When the bizarre becomes the norm you get things like four people in a four place airplane all able to log PIC time and everybody being comfortable with it.

dtuuri

 

[aterpster]

As I indicated, I'm bypassing the regulatory compliance question (which is the one being argued) and describing what I see as a practical approach.

But what lateral containment issue is there? I can see a potential problem with a 90° approach to the IAF/FAF with a fly-over of the fix and very short FAC. You would conceivably be a full deflection inside the FAF until you re-intercepted. Is that what you're thinking of?

If not, is there a chart we can use to explain this one further?

It's all in TERPs 8260.3B and RNAV Order 8260.58.

The idea is that pilots aren't supposed to concern themselves with those areas, rather fly the procedure as set forth in FAR 97 or as properly modified by ATC with vectors or direct-to the IF.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It's all in TERPs 8260.3B and RNAV Order 8260.58.

The idea is that pilots aren't supposed to concern themselves with those areas, rather fly the procedure as set forth in FAR 97 or as properly modified by ATC with vectors or direct-to the IF.

I know. And, obviously, if one flies the procedure as depicted, including any required PT, one is guaranteed obstacle protection.

But you said that there would be a "lateral containment issue" for the pilot who chooses to go straight in from over the FAF rather than make the PT. I'm just trying to learn how that might happen. The "chart" I was referring to was an IAP plate that might be used to illustrate the problem.

Offhand, it seems me that being over the fix at 3200' and turning to a heading of 350 is the same as being over the fix at 3200' and turning to a heading of 350, whether the pilot got in that position before or after performing a PT.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Thanks for posting that, here let me buy you one .

I don't think there's any chance the Chief Counsel still stands by that, but then again I'm never surprised at what they can torture out of the regulations.

Yeah, it happens and not just in aviation. But sometimes, land actually more often or not, the interprettaion follows a rule of reasonableness based on its context.

What's more reasonable here? In order to get a deviation from the strict courses on an IAP, a pilot has to (a) figure out months in advance that he might want it and go through the formal waiver process or (b) ask ATC?

******************************
Pilot: Approach, I'd like to deviate 20° left of course for weather and then re-intercept the transition.

ATC: Sorry. Unable without you declaring an emergency. Here, take down this fax number for a waiver...

 

[John Collins]

The rule is quite simple, you fly the PT if it is charted and one of the specific exceptions doesn't apply. Although this may be clear, in many instances it may not make good sense, in that the PT appears to serves no useful function. Both the controller and the pilot have a simple remedy. In the case of the controller, just clear the aircraft straight in. In the case of the pilot, they have options as well in that they can request the straight in or they can clarify with the controller to make sure both are on the same page. To simply leave it to pilot discretion as to whether or not to fly the PT when in the pilot's opinion the rule does not makes sense for a specific situation effectively means there isn't a rule.

The rule serves a purpose in that it clarifies what the expected action is, but permits the pilot to request a different course of action or the controller to clear the aircraft for a different course of action.

 

[bobmrg]

Is it a job requirement for the Chief Counsel of the FAA to be either a Pilot or have worked ATC?

Is it a requirement that a judge ruling in a medical case be a doctor?

Bob Gardner

 

[Velocity173]

The rule is quite simple, you fly the PT if it is charted and one of the specific exceptions doesn't apply. Although this may be clear, in many instances it may not make good sense, in that the PT appears to serves no useful function. Both the controller and the pilot have a simple remedy. In the case of the controller, just clear the aircraft straight in. In the case of the pilot, they have options as well in that they can request the straight in or they can clarify with the controller to make sure both are on the same page. To simply leave it to pilot discretion as to whether or not to fly the PT when in the pilot's opinion the rule does not makes sense for a specific situation effectively means there isn't a rule.

The rule serves a purpose in that it clarifies what the expected action is, but permits the pilot to request a different course of action or the controller to clear the aircraft for a different course of action.

Yes. The best statement on the subject yet. How something so simple can last 6 pages is beyond me.

 

[aterpster]

The rule is quite simple, you fly the PT if it is charted and one of the specific exceptions doesn't apply. Although this may be clear, in many instances it may not make good sense, in that the PT appears to serves no useful function. Both the controller and the pilot have a simple remedy. In the case of the controller, just clear the aircraft straight in. In the case of the pilot, they have options as well in that they can request the straight in or they can clarify with the controller to make sure both are on the same page. To simply leave it to pilot discretion as to whether or not to fly the PT when in the pilot's opinion the rule does not makes sense for a specific situation effectively means there isn't a rule.

The rule serves a purpose in that it clarifies what the expected action is, but permits the pilot to request a different course of action or the controller to clear the aircraft for a different course of action.

Good summation, except there are times when a controller will clear the pilot for a straight-in when it is not appropriate.

Controllers, at least most of them, know little to nothing about the IAPs they work beyond providing separation.

 

[Palmpilot]

Says you.

Says the Pilot/Controller Glossary, which says that a vector is a "heading." In the phraseology example I quoted, there is no mention of "fly heading..." When a controller clears you direct to a fix, he doesn't know what heading you will need to fly in order to comply with that clearance.

I says radar is the underlying basis for approval in the first place. YMMV.

"The" underlying basis? What about the stated requirement for the aircraft to be RNAV equipped? If vectors were the basis of the approval, there would be no need for the RNAV requirement. And show me where the FAA says that a requirement for radar means that a clearance direct to a fix is a vector.

It's the other way around--91.175 is in the list of regs that allow waivers in 91.905.

I notice you said "allow," not require.

You mean the Figure 4-8-2 referred to by this paragragh (my emphasis)?

3. Established on a heading or course direct to a fix between the IF and FAF, in accordance with Paragraph 5-9-1, Vectors to Final Approach Course, and Paragraph 5-9-2, Final Approach Course Interception. (See FIG 4-8-2.)​

Notice that the passage you quoted says heading or course direct to a fix.

Is to me. Else how do they get around 91.905?

I didn't see anything in 91.905 that said that the waiver procedure must be followed in order for the FAA to authorize something.

 

[Palmpilot]

It's hardly perfect, but neither is the presumption that an author who flies would be capable of better regulatory opinions than one who doesn't. As a lawyer and a pilot, I don't have that kind of confidence.

As someone who reads the online opinons of pilots about the meanings of regulations, I'm CERTAIN that your lack of confidence is justified!

 

[dtuuri]

When a controller clears you direct to a fix, he doesn't know what heading you will need to fly in order to comply with that clearance.

The maximum interception angles are specified in the Notice. The controller is required to verify your track with radar, that it's within the angle, and then he clears you to the fix and has no reason to expect any significant change if any change at all from what he observed.

"The" underlying basis? What about the stated requirement for the aircraft to be RNAV equipped? If vectors were the basis of the approval, there would be no need for the RNAV requirement. And show me where the FAA says that a requirement for radar means that a clearance direct to a fix is a vector.

I've shown you where 'vectors to final' is the only legal means to avoid a charted PT without a waiver (other than timed approaches and NoPT) and shown where the recent Notice predicates the "direct to" clearance on radar vectoring guidance. Call it what you or the P/CG want, without radar it isn't allowed by rule.

I notice you said "allow," not require.

If they don't "allow" it, you're "required" to do it.

Notice that the passage you quoted says heading or course direct to a fix.

Yes, that proves radar is the underlying basis, doesn't it? Either of those must be observed by the controller in accordance with the vectoring guidance mentioned.

I didn't see anything in 91.905 that said that the waiver procedure must be followed in order for the FAA to authorize something.

I also have mentioned 91.903:

§ 91.903 Policy and procedures.

(a) The Administrator may issue a certificate of waiver authorizing the operation of aircraft in deviation from any rule listed in this subpart if the Administrator finds that the proposed operation can be safely conducted under the terms of that certificate of waiver.

(b) An application for a certificate of waiver under this part is made on a form and in a manner prescribed by the Administrator and may be submitted to any FAA office.

(c) A certificate of waiver is effective as specified in that certificate of waiver.
​

If it isn't listed, it isn't waiverable. Some waivers can be done by ATC when the rule allows, so those are in the list too. ATC works for the Administrator. Hard to imagine the boss not being able to approve something his employee can, but I suppose it's possible.

dtuuri

 

[roncachamp]

Do you intend to follow the guidance that was effective June 3, 2013 in JO 7110.615, in particular these relevant directives:

Nope.

 

[roncachamp]

Three easy responses to that, based on one simple fact of IFR flight - you are operating in a system, not the wild, wild west. A system of rules like those specifically quoted by others.

1. You don't know whether or not ATC is handling other traffic based on ATC's expectation of what you are going to do when you get to that IAF. That's true whether ATC expects you to do the PT or not do the PT.

2. In a vacuum I agree with you. Doing a course reversal where straight in would work just fine is an unnecessary maneuver and unnecessary >180° degree turns can lead to potential errors that a shorter turn onto the FAC would not. So do you have a decision point with support for exactly how many degrees entitles a pilot to ignore the procedure turn without mentioning it to anyone? Or is your definition of "when necessary" no more than "when I personally feel like it"?

3. Which brings us to the third answer. The AIM tells us that one of the exceptions is being cleared "straight in." Solves the problems raised by your secret personal beliefs on what is proper, unnecessary maneuvering, the potential for conflicting traffic based on expectations, and the need to communicate your intentions.

So what traffic situation is resolved by a controller not including "straight-in" as part of the approach clearance where straight-in would work just fine?

 

[roncachamp]

In a radar environment , you're gonna be vectored to final.

Not always, and radar sites do go down from time to time. But even with radar available vectoring the aircraft to the final approach course often offers no advantage over clearing it direct to a fix that doesn't require it to reverse course.

My debate is in the non-radar environment where you are simply cleared for approach and expected to do it on your own.
No other aircraft will be cleared into the approach airspace until you have completed your own approach. Whether or not you have to make a course reversal or how long it takes is not a factor in the controllers traffic flow.
I could make a tight 360 (in the direction prescribed by the PT ) to comply with what you think is required by regulation.
It is not.

But in the non-radar environment aircraft must be on non-radar routes and routes that bring the aircraft to an IAF or feeder fix that then don't require a course reversal are typically tagged NoPT. Do you have an example of one that is not?

 

[roncachamp]

Based on all the posts, it seems the only person whom it does not strike that way is Steven, and he's not going to be convinced no matter what anyone says, so I don't think there's any further need for discussion.

Not true. He can always be convinced by a cogent argument.

 

[roncachamp]

How you make the PT may affect traffic flow to busier airports - while the plane behind you won't get the approach clearance, if you ignore the PT (or HPILPT), it may leave a larger gap than necessary. That's beyond the whole "stabalized approach" thing.

Under those conditions if you're cleared for the approach without a "straight-in" included it's probably because the controller forgot to include it. That's the problem with having the flying of an unneeded course reversal be the default condition. If the traffic situation calls for it the controller will issue holding while flying an unneeded course reversal can create real problems with following traffic.

 

[roncachamp]

If a hold in lieu of pattern is depicted and a straight−in area is not defined (e.g.,“ No PT” indicated at the fix), the aircraft must be instructed to conduct a straight−in approach if ATC does not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn.

Under what conditions might ATC decline to instruct an aircraft to conduct a straight-in approach?