How to fly this approach?

[mscard88]

Yes, meant it that way. Sorry.

 

[blurceo]

KCTJ West Georgia Rgnl ILS/LOC 35.

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1702/06016IL35.PDF

You're arriving from the south on the 006 radial at 3000ft from LGC VOR. There's no NoPT, there's a procedure turn depicted so it is a mandatory part of the approach.
So - let's say you are cleared for the approach, then lose comms. How exactly are you supposed to fly it?

Fly the approach, land the plane, if you go miss then I'd worry about all this procedure turn and what not. If your in the situation fly the plane, land, then you can exspalin your self.

 

[azure]

You don't worry about the MSA period. For normal operations, the MSA is entirely without meaning. It's purely for emergencies. The minimum altitude for any part of an instrument approach is found somewhere other than the MSA circle: either it's part of the published procedure (as this transition is) or you're at some other cleared altitude.
If you think you need to look at the MSA circle during a normal approach, you're doing it wrong.

I think you missed my point. The OP seemed worried about the MSA because the charted altitude on the feeder route was below it. The MSA is a minimum safe altitude for the entire area, but on specific published routes, the MEA may well be lower and not in the least unsafe. That's what I meant when I said you don't worry about it as long as you're on a published route. (And ditto if you're on an ATC vector at an assigned altitude that happens to be lower than the MSA.)

OTOH if you're in the vicinity of an airport trying to get established on the approach, and you've lost navigational guidance for some reason (equipment failure, pilot error, whatever) and don't know where you are with respect to a published route, then it's time to worry about the MSA; i.e. if you're below it, climb NOW.

 

[somorris]

It's a full approach either way, isn't it?

That is my thought as well. Most pilots would use the barb PT if they were coming from the north and the holding pattern entry from the south. At least that is my thinking.

 

[mtuomi]

I flew this approach today for practice and descending in the hold makes sense. I think that's the best way to fly this.

 

[Larry in TN]

I flew this approach today for practice and descending in the hold makes sense. I think that's the best way to fly this.

For clarification...

The depicted hold is part of the missed approach procedure. It is not part of the approach itself. You aren't "in the hold" if you do a holding-pattern-style course reversal after arriving at the IAF.

The approach specifies a procedure turn but the type of procedure turn to use. It is left up to the pilot, with the normal limitations. Just because a pilot might choose to do a holding-pattern-entry-style course reversal DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING to do with the missed approach holding pattern that is depicted at the fix that also serves as and IAF and the FAF.

In short, you are not flying the depicted hold. You are flying a course reversal procedure turn that just happens to look a lot like the MAP hold.

 

[mtuomi]

For clarification...

The depicted hold is part of the missed approach procedure. It is not part of the approach itself. You aren't "in the hold" if you do a holding-pattern-style course reversal after arriving at the IAF.

The approach specifies a procedure turn but the type of procedure turn to use. It is left up to the pilot, with the normal limitations. Just because a pilot might choose to do a holding-pattern-entry-style course reversal DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING to do with the missed approach holding pattern that is depicted at the fix that also serves as and IAF and the FAF.

In short, you are not flying the depicted hold. You are flying a course reversal procedure turn that just happens to look a lot like the MAP hold.

Yes, I used inaccurate terminology there, obviously I was not "in a hold" but flew the holding pattern while descending.