We are flying an IFR flight plan. We requested an RNAV approach via an IAF. ATC cleared us to the point VIA "Direct fix, Direct airport". Would this type of clearance imply that we do not have to the PT at the specified fix?... Are we cleared straight in? Would flying at night change any factors?
Procedure turn? or no Procedure turn
- Thread starter Zach2424
- Start date
RussR
En-Route
The exact clearance you specified isn't a clearance for any kind of approach. "Direct fix, direct airport" would not imply anything, as it's a clearance to fly direct to some fix, then direct to the airport, not fly an approach procedure. As such, it would be an exceedingly unusual clearance assuming that fix is part of an approach procedure.
To answer this question usefully, you'd have to provide us with an example procedure and scenario. Being cleared direct to an IAF is normal, but whether a PT is needed or not depends on the particular approach and what direction you're coming from.
To answer this question usefully, you'd have to provide us with an example procedure and scenario. Being cleared direct to an IAF is normal, but whether a PT is needed or not depends on the particular approach and what direction you're coming from.
Who did you request the approach from? The controlling approach/center, or someone before your final ATC? If you weren't in their sector (or if you were in their big one) they may not know that fix from Adam and you would end up getting the approach clearance from the final controller.
Usually if I ask for the IAF I just get "proceed direct FIX" and I believe the clearance to the final destination is still implied.
Usually if I ask for the IAF I just get "proceed direct FIX" and I believe the clearance to the final destination is still implied.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Gotta wait until you get an Approach Clearance to answer the question. So let’s say you got the Approach Clearance. You were still on your last clearance received when you got it, which was direct IAF direct. If there is a PT or HILPT there you gotta do the PT/HILPT. Unless they included the words ‘straight in’ in the Approach Clearance. It’s really that simple. Even if you just happened to have been coincidentally aligned pretty much straight in.
Last edited:
Larry in TN
En-Route
The only thing that clearance implies is that you do not have your approach clearance yet.
Since JUGMO is marked as both IAF and IF on the approach plate, you can request a straight-in approach and treat JUGMO as an intermediate fix and skip the hold when that makes sense.
If your clearance is merely "proceed direct JUGMO, cleared for the LDA 33 approach at Martin State", then JUGMO is the IAF, and flying it as published requires the hold. In real life, I found that controllers prefer or even expect the elimination of the hold when the geometry makes sense - but it's good to always be specific on the radio whether it's a straight-in or HILPT, and avoid any confusion about it.
From https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap4_section_8.html:
If a hold in lieu of procedure turn pattern is depicted at an IAF and a TAA is not defined, the aircraft must be instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does not want the pilot to execute a hold-in-lieu procedure turn. “Cleared direct CENTR, maintain at or above three thousand until CENTR, cleared straight-in RNAV Runway One-Eight Approach.”
- Martin
Last edited:
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
You do it. Unless they say ‘straight in,’ then you don’t. Whether or not there are NoPT Feeders and Initial Approach Segments has nothing to do with it.
write-stuff
En-Route
I'd say there is never an "implication" to not do the course reversal. Even if you're positioned for the straight in, if you don't see NoPT on the plate, the only things preventing the reversal is if you are being radar vectored or the controller has explicitely said "straight in". If the straight seem obvious but the controller didn't say it, ASK.
midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
Here' are the very first three sentence of the AIM discussion of procedure turns. Seems pretty clear, no?
5-4-9. Procedure Turn and Hold-in-lieu of Procedure Turn
a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart, unless cleared by ATC for a straight-in approach. Additionally, the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is not permitted when the symbol "No PT" is depicted on the initial segment being used, when a RADAR VECTOR to the final approach course is provided, or when conducting a timed approach from a holding fix.
a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart, unless cleared by ATC for a straight-in approach. Additionally, the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is not permitted when the symbol "No PT" is depicted on the initial segment being used, when a RADAR VECTOR to the final approach course is provided, or when conducting a timed approach from a holding fix.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yup. ASK. Verify. Confirm. When your pretty much straight inish, it seems counter intuitive. Some controllers don't seem to get it still. But many do. So you could end up with a Controller expecting you to go straight in, even though he didn't say it. Then you do the right thing, doing the PT/HILPT and turn right back into a plane following you.
write-stuff
En-Route
Quick story. I was told to proceed to a fix on the approach course with a HILPT. No vectors, just told to go there. When I arrived I began the reversal. The controller got really upset because he expected me to do the straight in. I told him I hadn't been radar vectored. He said that didn't matter because I was in a radar environment. I asked for his phone number.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Hope he got edumicated and didn’t do it again.
midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
Controllers have been this way at least as long as I have been rated. I was a fairly new instrument pilots and was doing a simulator session with a CFI who was also a controller. Absolutely insisted that you were required to go straight in, even from a IAF/FAF approach fix, whenever "on altitude/on airspeed." That's not even permitted under the current AIM/Controller manual guidance.
It's gotten better - I suspect the Point 65 references have changed as much as the AIM - but if not cleared straight in from an IF, just read back the approach clearance, adding, "confirm cleared straight in." Like so many "what to do" questions we see, it's so simple to push to talk and take 3 seconds of valuable airtime to clarify. I keep wondering what combination of "wasted airtime," "I'll sound as stupid as I feel," and mic fright are at work.
write-stuff
En-Route
Sage advice, Mark. Yes, had I included "confirm straight in" in my readback I could have avoided the kerfuffle. I must say that I did enjoy the resulting phone call, though.
Pinecone
En-Route
This is what happened to me to cause me to ask the question. Controller did not state Straight In, so I did the HILPT, and he got upset when I started to fly it.
There was another pilot (not IR) in the right seat, but he confirmed that the controller did not state Straight in.
Thanks everyone for agreeing with me.
midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
It's really just that simple. And multiple ways to say it in very few words.
There was a guy who used to hang out on aviation forums. Very knowledgeable but had a blind spot about procedure turns. He would focus on the first sentence from the AIM:
"A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound"
His view came down to "If I decide it's not necessary to reverse direction, I don't have to do it." Which, if you think about it, makes all procedure turns optional. And a propos of your comment, it violates what I think of as the First Commandment of instrument flying: Thou shalt be on the same page as ATC.