Do I need to do a PT in this case?

AndrewX

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
101
Display Name

Display name:
Andrew
In the VOR approach for KSYI, if I'm coming in from the North on a heading of 180:

Cleared for the approach. Not on vectors.

1. Do I need to pass over the SYI VOR first?
2. Do I always have to do the course reversal?
 

Attachments

  • SYI_VOR.PDF
    130.2 KB · Views: 133
You're not on vectors, there's no "NoPT" route. That's a procedure turn.

In this case, I'd probably do a hold on the PT side to minimize turns.
 
You're not on vectors, there's no "NoPT" route. That's a procedure turn.
That's the rule. Unless one of the conditions listed in 91.175(j) exists, a procedure turn is mandatory. Simple and easy to apply.

Besides, what makes you think you will be at a reasonable altitude to go straight in? And how do you know, with just a VOR, when it's time to descend from you enroute altitude (which, based on the enroute chart might be well above the 2800 ft PT altitude)?
 
Last edited:
That's the rule. Unless one of the conditions listed in 91.175(j) exists, a procedure turn is mandatory. Simple and easy to apply.

My instrument students "enjoy" me beating this into their heads. It's actually a very simple rule to apply, but even after reading it, people often try to get creative.

However, this very approach is a perfect example of the rules "getting in the way of understanding". Yes, if you have a single VOR you don't know how far away you are, and that's the basis that these approaches were developed for. But any instrument student, once reaching the "correlation" level of knowledge that we hope they achieve, would rightly bring up good points:

- We know that if I conduct a procedure turn, then once I am established on the final approach course (assuming within 10 nm of the VOR), then I can start my final descent.
- However, coming from the north, I could easily establish myself on the final approach course. Since I have a DME or GPS in this airplane, I will at some point know that I am within 10 nm of the VOR. So, why can't I descend then?

At this point, my only real answer is "that's the rules", which works for some students but is profoundly unsatisfying for others.
 
Last edited:
That's the rule. Unless one of the conditions listed in 91.175(j) exists, a procedure turn is mandatory. Simple and easy to apply.
I never quite got the "avoid a procedure turn at all costs" bug...in fact, eventually I realized it was often substantially quicker than vectors to final.

I did, however, learn to minimize changing turn direction after giving a copilot severe vertigo with an 80/260 once...by his own admission afterward he was pretty much worthless on final & landing.
 
My instrument students "enjoy" me beating this into their heads. It's actually a very simple rule to apply, but even after reading it, people often try to get creative.
They do. The definition of a PT in the AIM as a maneuver "prescribed when it is necessary" for a course reversal leads some to think "necessary" is a pilot decision, not a procedure design decision.
 
Agree that one would navigate to the VOR, turn to intercept the SYI 332R outbound for the PT.
 
My instrument students "enjoy" me beating this into their heads. It's actually a very simple rule to apply, but even after reading it, people often try to get creative.

However, this very approach is a perfect example of the rules "getting in the way of understanding". Yes, if you have a single VOR you don't know how far away you are, and that's the basis that these approaches were developed for. But any instrument student, once reaching the "correlation" level of knowledge that we hope they achieve, would rightly bring up good points:

- We know that if I conduct a procedure turn, then once I am established on the final approach course (assuming within 10 nm of the VOR), then I can start my final descent.
- However, coming from the north, I could easily establish myself on the final approach course. Since I have a DME or GPS in this airplane, I will at some point know that I am within 10 nm of the VOR. So, why can't I descend then?

At this point, my only real answer is "that's the rules", which works for some students but is profoundly unsatisfying for others.

Yeah. Something to add to the 'self vector' to final argument is when do you initiate that? When your within 10 miles? Or earlier so you can already be on final when you get within 10 miles and start descent. ATC is going to have had to give you an altitude to maintain until crossing SYI. How high was that? There are separation from other aircraft issues here as well as from terrain and obstructions. You could end up very close to another airplane by deciding to do an 'ad hoc' straight in in this scenario without making sure you and ATC are on the same page with this. ATC however, cannot 'legally' get on that page.
 
Last edited:
My instrument students "enjoy" me beating this into their heads. It's actually a very simple rule to apply, but even after reading it, people often try to get creative.
Some of those people are controllers!

At this point, my only real answer is "that's the rules", which works for some students but is profoundly unsatisfying for others.
Alas, always has been, always will be.
 
Agree that one would navigate to the VOR, turn to intercept the SYI 332R outbound for the PT.
The reason being that the VOR is the IAF and therefore the procedure must begin there when not on vectors??
 
The reason being that the VOR is the IAF and therefore the procedure must begin there when not on vectors??
Yes. If not receiving vectors to intercept the final approach course on this approach (and you won't), an approach must begin somewhere. That somewhere is the "initial approach fix."
 
This is an on-airport, no-FAF VOR approach. This means there is also no intermediate segment. The only way to get onto the final approach segment is via the procedure turn. In this design. the final approach segment melds with the completion of the procedure turn; i.e., the final approach segment is within and below the procedure turn area.
 
4 cases a procedure turn not required:

No-pt
Hold in lieu of PT
Cleared straight in
Being vectored for approach
 
In the VOR approach for KSYI, if I'm coming in from the North on a heading of 180:

Cleared for the approach. Not on vectors.

1. Do I need to pass over the SYI VOR first?
2. Do I always have to do the course reversal?

What is your clearance? How did you come to be on that heading of 180?
 
Thanks for all of the feedback. It's truly appreciated.
 
What is your clearance? How did you come to be on that heading of 180?

I just made up the scenario while reviewing local approaches. I wanted to be sure I understood this one correctly. I'm still not entirely sure if i have to fly all the way to the VOR or not. I am now quite sure I need to make the course reversal.
 
I just made up the scenario while reviewing local approaches. I wanted to be sure I understood this one correctly. I'm still not entirely sure if i have to fly all the way to the VOR or not. I am now quite sure I need to make the course reversal.
How would you fly it and NOT go all the way to the VOR?
 
In the VOR approach for KSYI, if I'm coming in from the North on a heading of 180:

Cleared for the approach. Not on vectors.

1. Do I need to pass over the SYI VOR first?
2. Do I always have to do the course reversal?

Interesting question, so coming in on a heading of 180 at an altitude of 2800, you fly to the vor, start your hold turn, stay at 2800 until established on final, then you can descend to 1360. Is this right?
 
I just made up the scenario while reviewing local approaches. I wanted to be sure I understood this one correctly. I'm still not entirely sure if i have to fly all the way to the VOR or not. I am now quite sure I need to make the course reversal.

You're not being vectored, (unless the controller gave you that heading AND an altitude to maintain UNTIL established on the final approach course). Therefore in your scenario you fly to the VOR, turn on the PT side to intercept the radial outbound, perform the PT, then intercept the final approach course.
 
4 cases a procedure turn not required:

No-pt
Hold in lieu of PT
Cleared straight in
Being vectored for approach
It's really only three. The Hold-in-loo and the teardrop ARE procedure turns, they are just mandatory forms of them.
And it's specifically vectors to FINAL approach course not just vectors for the approach.
 
I just made up the scenario while reviewing local approaches. I wanted to be sure I understood this one correctly. I'm still not entirely sure if i have to fly all the way to the VOR or not. I am now quite sure I need to make the course reversal.

Your made up scenario should include a made up clearance.
 
He did Ron, said he was cleared for the approach. So he had his choice of approaches there if more than one.


In the VOR approach for KSYI, if I'm coming in from the North on a heading of 180:

Cleared for the approach. Not on vectors.

1. Do I need to pass over the SYI VOR first?
2. Do I always have to do the course reversal?
 
In this case, if you begin the approach from the VOR (IAF) you are required to do the procedure turn. The only instance when this is not the case would be if ATC was vectoring you to the final approach course. HILPT is still a procedure turn, but in this case, with the VOR basically on-field, there is insufficent distance in the hold maneuver in terms of alttiude loss (2000+) from MSA to MDA with a mile for required visibility without extending it quite a bit outbound. The PT barb only indicates that a PT is required and that it be to the left, but the choice of the course reversal is pilot's choice (Racetrack, 80/260, 45/180). If radar available, I'd just ask for vectors onto R-332 and track inbound.
 
Nobody else uses SHARP-TT? Or is that something you just use for the oral and throw it away once you're done?
What the heck is that? Never heard of it until now, although admittedly, I would have ignored it if I had).

Really need a mnemonic to realize you don't do a PT when the chart says "NoPT" (duh)? Really think, after hearing it described even once, that if ATC vectors you to the FAC, or to an IF and/or says "cleared straight in," you are supposed to go in the opposite direction? Why does someone need to put together yet another incomprehensible mnemonic just to increase 4 conditions to 7?

Sorry. I'm known to rant a tiny bit :D about the ridiculous overuse of incomprehensible mnemonics as a substitute for learning.
 
Last edited:
How else are you supposed to get to the final approach course?

I barely fly much IFR at all and never thought this stuff was that complicated. This particular approach is dead simple. Then again I got my rating without GPS. I guess when you learn with a pretty moving map you experience cognitive dissonance when you realize you can't just go anywhere you want.
 
In this case, if you begin the approach from the VOR (IAF) you are required to do the procedure turn. The only instance when this is not the case would be if ATC was vectoring you to the final approach course. HILPT is still a procedure turn, but in this case, with the VOR basically on-field, there is insufficent distance in the hold maneuver in terms of alttiude loss (2000+) from MSA to MDA with a mile for required visibility without extending it quite a bit outbound. The PT barb only indicates that a PT is required and that it be to the left, but the choice of the course reversal is pilot's choice (Racetrack, 80/260, 45/180). If radar available, I'd just ask for vectors onto R-332 and track inbound.
ATC is not suppose to provide vectors to final unless the procedure is on their video map. This type of procedure isn't typically video mapped even in an area of good TRACON coverage. Plus, ATC would have to know where the 10 mile beginning of the final segment is, for the aircraft that doesn't have DME. And, if they vectored you onto the 332 radial beyond 10 miles then you wouldn't be on a published segment of the approach so they would have to provide an altitude to maintain until within 10 miles. Lots of work for ATC with an on-airport, no FAF VOR or NDB IAP.
 
How else are you supposed to get to the final approach course?

I barely fly much IFR at all and never thought this stuff was that complicated. This particular approach is dead simple. Then again I got my rating without GPS. I guess when you learn with a pretty moving map you experience cognitive dissonance when you realize you can't just go anywhere you want.

I also learned before GPS, and while I get this type of question a lot, and have to answer with the textbook answer, I have come to realize that the question isn't a bad one at all. And, while it is directly caused by the prevalence of GPS, it doesn't necessarily mean that the person isn't capable of flying without it. On the contrary, asking this question, to me, shows an attempt at correlating different rules and capabilities.

This most basic type of VOR approach is designed for aircraft with only VOR receivers, and even only one of them. The reason you have to fly all the way to the VOR, turn around and go out on the PT is precisely because with only VOR receivers, you don't know how far you are from the VOR until you are directly over it. And that's a very important consideration, of course.

But if you're flying in an airplane with GPS, that handicap of not knowing exactly where you are is an interesting academic discussion, but difficult to understand why it applies in the "real world".

Like I mentioned before, it's a simple matter with GPS (or even just DME), to know exactly how far you are from the VOR on this approach. The whole reason the rules require you to go all the way to the VOR to do the PT is simply because you don't know your distance from it except when you're directly over it. But if you do know exactly how far you are, then this reason disappears in practical application. Now you are going all the way to the VOR not because of any equipment or technology limitation, but just due to a rules limitation.

A student who leads me down this road of reasoning is, in my opinion, showing a good grasp of correlation of various considerations. "Why can't ATC just give me a heading of 180 to intercept final, then when I'm within 10 miles I can descend" is a valid question. And what's more, it would be perfectly safe too. So my only answer is, "that's the rules".
 
I also learned before GPS, and while I get this type of question a lot, and have to answer with the textbook answer, I have come to realize that the question isn't a bad one at all. And, while it is directly caused by the prevalence of GPS, it doesn't necessarily mean that the person isn't capable of flying without it. On the contrary, asking this question, to me, shows an attempt at correlating different rules and capabilities.

This most basic type of VOR approach is designed for aircraft with only VOR receivers, and even only one of them. The reason you have to fly all the way to the VOR, turn around and go out on the PT is precisely because with only VOR receivers, you don't know how far you are from the VOR until you are directly over it. And that's a very important consideration, of course.

But if you're flying in an airplane with GPS, that handicap of not knowing exactly where you are is an interesting academic discussion, but difficult to understand why it applies in the "real world".

Like I mentioned before, it's a simple matter with GPS (or even just DME), to know exactly how far you are from the VOR on this approach. The whole reason the rules require you to go all the way to the VOR to do the PT is simply because you don't know your distance from it except when you're directly over it. But if you do know exactly how far you are, then this reason disappears in practical application. Now you are going all the way to the VOR not because of any equipment or technology limitation, but just due to a rules limitation.

A student who leads me down this road of reasoning is, in my opinion, showing a good grasp of correlation of various considerations.

Nothing wrong with the question per se, and it's certainly better to ask than not ask and be left believing the wrong thing. I apologize if it seemed like I was picking on the OP, it was more a digression. Though he apparently is having trouble believing the answers: "I'm still not entirely sure if i have to fly all the way to the VOR or not."

Why can't ATC just give me a heading of 180 to intercept final, then when I'm within 10 miles I can descend" is a valid question. And what's more, it would be perfectly safe too. So my only answer is, "that's the rules".
That wasn't what the question was at all.
 
I also learned before GPS, and while I get this type of question a lot, and have to answer with the textbook answer, I have come to realize that the question isn't a bad one at all. And, while it is directly caused by the prevalence of GPS, it doesn't necessarily mean that the person isn't capable of flying without it. On the contrary, asking this question, to me, shows an attempt at correlating different rules and capabilities.
What is directly caused by the prevalence of GPS. This question was around long before GPS. In fact, I'd bet @aterpster wrote at least one article about it before any of us saw GPS.

In fact, it might be good for you to read his articles on the subject...you'd be able to give a better answer to your students. ;)
 
What is directly caused by the prevalence of GPS. This question was around long before GPS. In fact, I'd bet @aterpster wrote at least one article about it before any of us saw GPS.

In fact, it might be good for you to read his articles on the subject...you'd be able to give a better answer to your students. ;)

That's my fault for bringing it up.
 
What is directly caused by the prevalence of GPS. This question was around long before GPS.
Definitely! There are a few Chief Counsel in the early 1990s and there is even one going back to 1977. I've seen the issue discussed online as long as I have been instrument rated (1992).
 
What is directly caused by the prevalence of GPS. This question was around long before GPS.

The question "when do we need to do a PT" has been around forever. But the inability to know how far you are from the VOR, without GPS (or DME), more easily answered the question of "why". Coming from the enroute environment, if you don't know how far you are from the VOR, you don't know when you're within 10 nm, so that's a more simple explanation of why you have to first fly over the VOR and do the PT.

Yes, before GPS some people had DME or other equipment to give them this information. But now, virtually every student I teach has an IFR GPS in their airplane. Which means the "why" question is a whole lot more common, AND harder to answer satisfactorily.
 
Last edited:
I've been around here long enough to know I might get a pummeling just for asking the question. I still appreciate all the comments. I learn something from all of them.
 
I've been around here long enough to know I might get a pummeling just for asking the question. I still appreciate all the comments. I learn something from all of them.

Yeah more than you want to know right? Seems like one can't a simple and correct answer here without people going off in crazy directions.
 
FWIW, the nearest Memphis Center radar is 50 miles away. Unlikely they have decent radar coverage at 3,000'
 
Back
Top