VOR approach with no PT waypoint

"The five T’s: TURN, TIME, TWIST, THROTTLE and TALK." In case I am not the only one wondering what it is.

I do not remember hearing this. I guess it is just automatic after over 30 years of instrument flying.
 
Plano Pilot said:
"The five T’s: TURN, TIME, TWIST, THROTTLE and TALK." In case I am not the only one wondering what it is.

I do not remember hearing this. I guess it is just automatic after over 30 years of instrument flying.
Click to expand...

I had never heard of it until a few years ago when getting an IPC. It was after about 25 years away from flying. I'm wondering if anyone knows when it was first coined? Like Machado did it back in whenever or something
 
luvflyin said:
I had never heard of it until a few years ago when getting an IPC. It was after about 25 years away from flying. I'm wondering if anyone knows when it was first coined? Like Machado did it back in whenever or something
Click to expand...
At least back to the late ‘60s when my Dad learned/taught it.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Actually, you do think about it, but the thought process is more automatic and internalized and, as you say, you don't need the Ts as a prompt or checklist.

Interesting thing about doing videos even if you don't publish them. I don't publish a lot for many reasons but one is that I'm fairly quiet in the cockpit when I'm alone. Not a lot of self-talk or narration of what I'm doing. But when I listen to a video, I can sometimes hear myself mumbling things like, "210, 2100 at [fix]" somewhere well before the fix.
Click to expand...

I will also talk to myself. It helps to focus and stay ahead of the airplane. My most common comment is "okay, what's next?" Even flying Lady Luscombe we observe sterile cockpit procedures. Focus and SA are survival skills.
 
Arnold said:
I will also talk to myself. It helps to focus and stay ahead of the airplane. My most common comment is "okay, what's next?" Even flying Lady Luscombe we observe sterile cockpit procedures. Focus and SA are survival skills.
Click to expand...

So do I. I didn't always. It started when returning to flying after about 25 years off. Spent a lot of time dual with CFI's knocking the rust off, getting a flight review done and doing an IPC. It was about letting them know what I was thinking and going to do so they wouldn't be talking so much and asking a lot of questions. I discovered that, like you, it helps to keep focus and have been babbling ever since. It's part of my briefing with passengers why I will be talking to myself.
 
Arnold said:
I will also talk to myself. It helps to focus and stay ahead of the airplane. My most common comment is "okay, what's next?" Even flying Lady Luscombe we observe sterile cockpit procedures. Focus and SA are survival skills.
Click to expand...
Talking to oneself while flying is a very good habit to get into. I wish I was better at it. It's taught as a skill these days far more often than in the past. I think teaching it regularly started, as @luvflyin mentioned, as a way of letting people know what you are thinking and doing - especially on checkrides! But it is very helpful for focusing ourselves.
 
luvflyin said:
I had never heard of it until a few years ago when getting an IPC. It was after about 25 years away from flying. I'm wondering if anyone knows when it was first coined? Like Machado did it back in whenever or something
Click to expand...

MauleSkinner said:
At least back to the late ‘60s when my Dad learned/taught it.
Click to expand...

It's also in Peter Dogan's book. (I have the 1991 edition, but I assume it's in the earlier and later editions as well,)
 
Arnold said:
Old school, dead simple, I love it. Quick monkey wrench. You've just completed the outbound portion of the procedure turn which way do you turn inbound - left or right?
Click to expand...

80/260, Baby! No timing, no worries about which way to turn inbound, no intercept angle. Just a 80° turn in the direction of the barb followed immediately by a 260° the other way... Done. You are inbound. :D
 
Rgbeard said:
I'm sorry - isn't the IAF GARRD, and it requires no PT?

Whoooops. My dumb butt was looking at the other VOR approach.
Click to expand...

There's a reason why the first item on an approach briefing is "This is the XXXXX approach into XXXXX" :D:D
 
midlifeflyer said:
Talking to oneself while flying is a very good habit to get into.
Click to expand...

It was the only way I could get my Instrument instructor to shut up long enough to let me think and do. He had the uncanny ability to talk to me just as I was reaching out to do something. Thinking perhaps he was correcting me, I would stop what I was about to do to listen to him and get behind the airplane. Soon as I started talking my way through the entire flight, my instrument flying got a whole lot better.
 
smv said:
80/260, Baby! No timing, no worries about which way to turn inbound, no intercept angle. Just a 80° turn in the direction of the barb followed immediately by a 260° the other way... Done. You are inbound. :D
Click to expand...

Well, you could do a 260/80 instead of an 80/260 which would be the equivalent of do you do the 45/180 thang away from or toward the airport discussed above
 
luvflyin said:
Well, you could do a 260/80 instead of an 80/260 which would be the equivalent of do you do the 45/180 thang away from or toward the airport discussed above
Click to expand...
Or, for that matter, treat it exactly the same as a Hold in Lieu. Whatever floats your boat. The only rules on the barbed PT are to do it on the barbed side and remain within distance and altitude restrictions.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Or, for that matter, treat it exactly the same as a Hold in Lieu. Whatever floats your boat. The only rules on the barbed PT are to do it on the barbed side and remain within distance and altitude restrictions.
Click to expand...
And, don't exceed 200 KIAS.
:D
 
aterpster said:
And, don't exceed 200 KIAS.
:D
Click to expand...

Do PT’s protect as much airspace on the non barb side as a holding pattern does on the non holding side? I’m wondering if you could get in trouble by simply treating a PT as an HILPT and doing a parallel entry.
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
Do PT’s protect as much airspace on the non barb side as a holding pattern does on the non holding side? I’m wondering if you could get in trouble by simply treating a PT as an HILPT and doing a parallel entry.
Click to expand...
You could stay on protected side and just do the same turn you’d do on a parallel entry.
 
Salty said:
You could stay on protected side and just do the same turn you’d do on a parallel entry.
Click to expand...

Both sides are ‘protected’ in both PT’s and holding patterns. Doing an ad hoc hilpt for a PT using a parallel entry would have you in the non holding side. I’m wondering if there is a significant difference in how much area is protected between a holding pattern and a PT.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Or, for that matter, treat it exactly the same as a Hold in Lieu. Whatever floats your boat. The only rules on the barbed PT are to do it on the barbed side and remain within distance and altitude restrictions.
Click to expand...

Exactly the same would be interesting on the Approach that started this thread if you did a parallel entry and used 1 minute. Any entry using 1 minute could be a little dicey. The AIM uses the words “racetrack pattern.”
 
luvflyin said:
Exactly the same would be interesting on the Approach that started this thread if you did a parallel entry and used 1 minute. Any entry using 1 minute could be a little dicey. The AIM uses the words “racetrack pattern.”
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. Just like any PT, where you choose to start whatever turn you choose to do matters. I was thinking in terms of flying 2 minutes outbound and then doing the a parallel or teardrop reversal.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Well, yeah. Just like any PT, where you choose to start whatever turn you choose to do matters. I was thinking in terms of flying 2 minutes outbound and then doing the a parallel or teardrop reversal.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I didn't think you would do it that tight. Mostly just commenting on using "HILPT" which is a 'defined' acronym and has specific rules. You wouldn't be doing it instead of the PT. The PT is there. More like HPILB, holding pattern in lieu of barb. Or RTILB, race track in lieu of barb.
 
aterpster said:
And, don't exceed 200 KIAS.
:D
Click to expand...

luvflyin said:
Do PT’s protect as much airspace on the non barb side as a holding pattern does on the non holding side? I’m wondering if you could get in trouble by simply treating a PT as an HILPT and doing a parallel entry.
Click to expand...

midlifeflyer said:
Well, yeah. Just like any PT, where you choose to start whatever turn you choose to do matters. I was thinking in terms of flying 2 minutes outbound and then doing the a parallel or teardrop reversal.
Click to expand...

I have some things to say about these, in fact I already have here: https://www.avclicks.com/presentations/To the Rear March

and here: https://www.avclicks.com/presentations/No Holds Barred

so I'll let them speak for themselves other than a heads up that 200 KIAS is too fast and flying two minutes outbound before doing a HILPT probably isn't going to fit. Having a canned maximum ground speed (or two) in mind that you know fits gives you peace of mind.
 
dtuuri said:
I have some things to say about these, in fact I already have here: https://www.avclicks.com/presentations/To the Rear March

and here: https://www.avclicks.com/presentations/No Holds Barred

so I'll let them speak for themselves other than a heads up that 200 KIAS is too fast and flying two minutes outbound before doing a HILPT probably isn't going to fit. Having a canned maximum ground speed (or two) in mind that you know fits gives you peace of mind.
Click to expand...

That pretty much answers my question. The protected airspace on the 'other' side is about the same for holds and PT's
 
luvflyin said:
Do PT’s protect as much airspace on the non barb side as a holding pattern does on the non holding side? I’m wondering if you could get in trouble by simply treating a PT as an HILPT and doing a parallel entry.
Click to expand...
Not as much, but you could do a holding pattern on the "barb" side with no issue. And, there is sufficient airspace for a parallel entry, especially when using GPS (no fix displacement errors).
 
aterpster said:
Not as much, but you could do a holding pattern on the "barb" side with no issue. And, there is sufficient airspace for a parallel entry, especially when using GPS (no fix displacement errors).
Click to expand...

Seems I remember you saying once there are only 3 PT sizes unlike a holding patterns that get a little bigger every thousand feet or so. If so, what are the altitude ranges for each of the 3 PT templates. Leave leg lengths out of it for now.
 
luvflyin said:
Seems I remember you saying once there are only 3 PT sizes unlike a holding patterns that get a little bigger every thousand feet or so. If so, what are the altitude ranges for each of the 3 PT templates. Leave leg lengths out of it for now.
Click to expand...

The size depends on the published length of the procedure turn and the altitude in three strata: <= 6000, >6000 to <=10000, and >10000 MSL. However, since most PT lengths are 10 nm, this effectively makes three commonly-used sizes.

However however, the largest one is used as a default UNLESS terrain or obstacles forces use of a smaller one. You will know this is the case if you see a PT with a MAXIMUM altitude charted at the PT fix. If not, then it was designed using the ">10000 MSL" size.

Assuming a 10-nm PT length, the "non-barb side" of the ">10000 MSL" PT still offers 6 nm of obstacle clearance from the centerline of the inbound course, with an additional 2-nm "buffer" width. And the total length of the PT from the fix outbound is 18 nm, again plus a 2-nm buffer area. So, yeah, most PT protected airspace is HUGE.
 
RussR said:
The size depends on the published length of the procedure turn and the altitude in three strata: <= 6000, >6000 to <=10000, and >10000 MSL. However, since most PT lengths are 10 nm, this effectively makes three commonly-used sizes.

However however, the largest one is used as a default UNLESS terrain or obstacles forces use of a smaller one. You will know this is the case if you see a PT with a MAXIMUM altitude charted at the PT fix. If not, then it was designed using the ">10000 MSL" size.

Assuming a 10-nm PT length, the "non-barb side" of the ">10000 MSL" PT still offers 6 nm of obstacle clearance from the centerline of the inbound course, with an additional 2-nm "buffer" width. And the total length of the PT from the fix outbound is 18 nm, again plus a 2-nm buffer area. So, yeah, most PT protected airspace is HUGE.
Click to expand...


Thanks. I don’t think the MAXIMUM altitude thing necessarily means there are terain/obstacles in areas of steeply rising terrain that ‘force’ use of a smaller one. MAX altitudes are starting to show up on Charts all over the place. Seems like ever time there is an Amendment for anything it gets thrown in. Like they just decide what’s the logically highest you would want to start an Approach from to avoid overly steep descents and use that. Then they don’t have to waste time doing an obstacle survey or flight check altitudes above it.
 
luvflyin said:
Thanks. I don’t think the MAXIMUM altitude thing necessarily means there are terain/obstacles in areas of steeply rising terrain that ‘force’ use of a smaller one. MAX altitudes are starting to show up on Charts all over the place. Seems like ever time there is an Amendment for anything it gets thrown in. Like they just decide what’s the logically highest you would want to start an Approach from to avoid overly steep descents and use that. Then they don’t have to waste time doing an obstacle survey or flight check altitudes above it.
Click to expand...

What I had stated is very much the situation for PTs. The largest template size is the default for development. Using the smaller size isn't necessarily caused by steeply rising terrain or dramatically higher obstacles either. If going to the larger template size causes a 100-foot taller tower to be picked up, and this raises the PT completion altitude another 100 feet, and if that altitude then hits the limit for descent gradient, then a smaller pattern will be used and the maximum altitude charted. The only other reason I can think of for a PT to have a maximum entry altitude charted (and a smaller template size) would be it's close to a MOA or other airspace and the larger template size would impact the MOA - or other ATC-related reason.

The maximum altitudes you're seeing all over the place now aren't on PTs, but HILPTs, due to a change in the language of the FAAO 8260.19H that now requires the max altitude that was evaluated to be charted. But this language only applies to HILPTs (note that missed approach holding patterns don't have a maximum altitude charted).
 
RussR said:
What I had stated is very much the situation for PTs. The largest template size is the default for development. Using the smaller size isn't necessarily caused by steeply rising terrain or dramatically higher obstacles either. If going to the larger template size causes a 100-foot taller tower to be picked up, and this raises the PT completion altitude another 100 feet, and if that altitude then hits the limit for descent gradient, then a smaller pattern will be used and the maximum altitude charted. The only other reason I can think of for a PT to have a maximum entry altitude charted (and a smaller template size) would be it's close to a MOA or other airspace and the larger template size would impact the MOA - or other ATC-related reason.

The maximum altitudes you're seeing all over the place now aren't on PTs, but HILPTs, due to a change in the language of the FAAO 8260.19H that now requires the max altitude that was evaluated to be charted. But this language only applies to HILPTs (note that missed approach holding patterns don't have a maximum altitude charted).
Click to expand...

Ah. Gotcha. It was the HILPT's I was remembering about and just kinda applied the logic check to PT's. "..requires the max altitude that was evaluated to be charted..." could be used to say 'lets just put a reasonable MAX there and we won't have to waste time 'evaluating' any higher than that.' Some explanation I ran across I'm pretty sure had that logic in it.
 
luvflyin said:
Seems I remember you saying once there are only 3 PT sizes unlike a holding patterns that get a little bigger every thousand feet or so. If so, what are the altitude ranges for each of the 3 PT templates. Leave leg lengths out of it for now.
Click to expand...
Good memory. There are 3: 6,000 and below, 6,000 to 10,000, and above 10,000. They usually construct the largest pattern. If they use one of the two smaller templates, then they have to cap the entry altitude.(example the ILS with a PT at KALW).
 
RussR said:
The largest template size is the default for development. Using the smaller size isn't necessarily caused by steeply rising terrain or dramatically higher obstacles either. If going to the larger template size causes a 100-foot taller tower to be picked up, and this raises the PT completion altitude another 100 feet, and if that altitude then hits the limit for descent gradient, then a smaller pattern will be used and the maximum altitude charted.
Click to expand...
Can you tell me where this information is published? I didn't know the maximum altitude was published for all but the largest procedure turn area. I'm not even sure I have that right, so I'd like to study it some more.
 
dtuuri said:
Can you tell me where this information is published? I didn't know the maximum altitude was published for all but the largest procedure turn area. I'm not even sure I have that right, so I'd like to study it some more.
Click to expand...

See PM.
 
RussR said:
What I had stated is very much the situation for PTs. The largest template size is the default for development. Using the smaller size isn't necessarily caused by steeply rising terrain or dramatically higher obstacles either. If going to the larger template size causes a 100-foot taller tower to be picked up, and this raises the PT completion altitude another 100 feet, and if that altitude then hits the limit for descent gradient, then a smaller pattern will be used and the maximum altitude charted. The only other reason I can think of for a PT to have a maximum entry altitude charted (and a smaller template size) would be it's close to a MOA or other airspace and the larger template size would impact the MOA - or other ATC-related reason.
Click to expand...
A few years ago some designer for the state of Washington used the smallest PT template without any justification given.

KALW ILS Y or LOC Rwy 20 and KLWS ILS 26 are still that way. The ILS at KHQM was that way, but not now.
 
aterpster said:
KALW ILS Y or LOC Rwy 20 and KLWS ILS 26 are still that way. The ILS at KHQM was that way, but not now.
Click to expand...
??? "Remain within 10 NM" and no max altitude charted. Did you mean, "The next to smallest?"
 
aterpster said:
A few years ago some designer for the state of Washington used the smallest PT template without any justification given.

KALW ILS Y or LOC Rwy 20 and KLWS ILS 26 are still that way. The ILS at KHQM was that way, but not now.
Click to expand...

Where and what would justification be and look like? I see that on the Radio Fix and Holding Data Records, these Fixes that only have that one use, PT, no reference is made to the PT. Seems like it would be a good place to put it.
 
luvflyin said:
Where and what would justification be and look like? I see that on the Radio Fix and Holding Data Records, these Fixes that only have that one use, PT, no reference is made to the PT. Seems like it would be a good place to put it.
Click to expand...
I recall during coordination justification was not documented.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top