No "NoPT" marking on a straight-in feeder route - how to explain?

RussR

RussR

En-Route
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
4,039
Location
Oklahoma City, OK
Display Name
Display name:
Russ
Weird title, sorry.

Consider the KUWL VOR or GPS RWY 27.
http://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1309/pdf/06042VG27.PDF

Pretty straightforward approach, all along one radial, simple. But you'll notice that the HILPT is required, due to lack of any indication to the contrary. Now, this is flat country and the altitude for the feeder route from RID is the same as the HILPT altitude, and the FAF altitude.

I think I know WHY there is no NoPT marking, but it's a convoluted regulatory/design criteria reason:

1. NoPT markings are only shown on Initial segments, not Feeder routes.
2. The leg from RID VOR to ECONO INT cannot be an Initial Segment given the current design, because then there would need to be an Intermediate segment, which there currently is not.
3. The leg from RID to ECONO cannot be an Intermediate segment (an IF can serve as an IAF if it's located on the enroute structure) because its length exceeds the TERPS maximum of 15 nm for an Intermediate segment.
4. Presumably you could solve 2 and 3 by putting a fix between RID and ECONO and making it the IF, but maybe the geometry for a crossing radial doesn't work out and they didn't want to make DME required.

So, we're left with a feeder route to a HILPT, which is required (unless meeting one of the various exceptions, like vectors or cleared straight-in, etc. - but let's assume none of them apply). But there is no course change nor altitude change at ECONO for the HILPT. You get to ECONO, you fly one lap around, and proceed inbound.

Actually, this makes it LESS safe than flying straight-in. You were happily established on the final approach course prior to ECONO, then had to go deliberately off-course and reintercept it.

I guess my question is, as a flight instructor, how would you explain the need for a PT to an instrument student? "The regs say we have to, so shut up and do it" isn't really my preferred approach. Yes, I am flying this approach soon with a student. I suppose it's just a good example for discussion.
 
The PT at ECONO is for using it as an IAF. "Cleared direct ECONO, cleared VOR 27" you do the PT.

If coming from over RID you do not do the PT.
 
As a CFI, you explain the following:

1. The chart is regulatory.
2. A procedure turn is a required manuver except.....
3. The bold procedure turn icon reprents HILPT.
4. The hold is an area for the pilot to descend, slow, configure and align with the final course. (just because the feeder says 2600 doesn't mean you will be assigned 2600).
 
Last edited:
Ok, you're cruising along from RID at 4000', one VOR installed, no DME, and flippin' back and forth looking for the intersection, "Whoa! Here she comes! Shoulda slowed 'er up sooner! Sure glad I got a holding pattern to get myself configured for final. Whew!"

dtuuri
 
RussR said:
Weird title, sorry.

Consider the KUWL VOR or GPS RWY 27.
http://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1309/pdf/06042VG27.PDF

Pretty straightforward approach, all along one radial, simple. But you'll notice that the HILPT is required, due to lack of any indication to the contrary. Now, this is flat country and the altitude for the feeder route from RID is the same as the HILPT altitude, and the FAF altitude.

I think I know WHY there is no NoPT marking, but it's a convoluted regulatory/design criteria reason:

1. NoPT markings are only shown on Initial segments, not Feeder routes.
2. The leg from RID VOR to ECONO INT cannot be an Initial Segment given the current design, because then there would need to be an Intermediate segment, which there currently is not.
3. The leg from RID to ECONO cannot be an Intermediate segment (an IF can serve as an IAF if it's located on the enroute structure) because its length exceeds the TERPS maximum of 15 nm for an Intermediate segment.
4. Presumably you could solve 2 and 3 by putting a fix between RID and ECONO and making it the IF, but maybe the geometry for a crossing radial doesn't work out and they didn't want to make DME required.
Click to expand...

A fix using a crossing radial from MIE could be established about halfway between RID and ECONO. The divergence angle would be about 39° where the minimum required is 30°.

So, we're left with a feeder route to a HILPT, which is required (unless meeting one of the various exceptions, like vectors or cleared straight-in, etc. - but let's assume none of them apply). But there is no course change nor altitude change at ECONO for the HILPT. You get to ECONO, you fly one lap around, and proceed inbound.

Actually, this makes it LESS safe than flying straight-in. You were happily established on the final approach course prior to ECONO, then had to go deliberately off-course and reintercept it.

I guess my question is, as a flight instructor, how would you explain the need for a PT to an instrument student?
Click to expand...

You couldn't, as there clearly is none.

"The regs say we have to, so shut up and do it" isn't really my preferred approach. Yes, I am flying this approach soon with a student. I suppose it's just a good example for discussion.
Click to expand...

The regs don't say where we have to fly a PT, they say where flying one is prohibited.
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
Ok, you're cruising along from RID at 4000', one VOR installed, no DME, and flippin' back and forth looking for the intersection, "Whoa! Here she comes! Shoulda slowed 'er up sooner! Sure glad I got a holding pattern to get myself configured for final. Whew!"

dtuuri
Click to expand...

The purpose of PTs is not to be a safety net for pilots behind the plane, it's to reverse course. No course reversal is required if coming from RID. The published alt is 2,600 IIRC.
 
roncachamp said:
A fix using a crossing radial from MIE could be established about halfway between RID and ECONO. The divergence angle would be about 39° where the minimum required is 30°.



The regs don't say where we have to fly a PT, they say where flying one is prohibited.
Click to expand...

[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]GOVERNMENT/INDUSTRY CHARTING FORUM[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]Instrument Procedures Group[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]October 25, 2005[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]HISTORY RECORD[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]FAA CONTROL # 05-02-260[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]
[FONT=Arial,Bold]SUBJECT: ACF Closed Issue Re: Course Reversals Negated by AIM Change[/FONT]​


[FONT=Arial,Bold]BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: [/FONT]
[/FONT]​
Because of years of confusion and erosion of certain​
procedural aspects of instrument approach procedures by both pilots and air traffic control,
in 1993 the Air Line Pilots Association wrote FAA chief counsel asking for legal interpretations about certain aspects pertaining to the conduct of instrument approach procedures, including a precise, unambiguous ruling about when a prescribed course
reversal is required.



On November 28, 1994, FAA’s chief counsel’s office issued a responsive letter of interpretation, which included the following language pertaining to course reversals:​


​
​
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]“Finally, you ask whether a course reversal segment is optional ‘when one of the conditions [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]of FAR section 91.175(j) is not present.’ Section 91.175(j) states that in the case of a radar [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]vector to a final approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]for which the procedures specifies ‘no procedure turn,’ no pilot may make a procedure turn [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]unless cleared to do so by ATC.”[/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]“Section 97.3(p) defines a procedure turn, in part, as a maneuver prescribed when it is [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]course. A SIAP may or may not prescribe a procedure turn based on the application of [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]certain criteria contained in the TERPs. However, if a SIAP does contain a procedure turn [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]and ATC has cleared a pilot to execute the SIAP, the pilot must make the procedure turn [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]when one of the conditions of Section 91.175(j) is not present.”[/FONT][/FONT]​





The cited language did not create new instrument flight operating procedures. Rather, it clearly set forth the requirements for course reversals that had been intended by the Flight Standards Service from the inception of TERPS criteria in November, 1967.​

But, the foregoing letter of legal interpretation had little, if any, practical effect to correct the

misunderstandings prevalent among pilots and controllers because the aviation community has no effective or uniform access to FAA legal interpretations. Thus, the issue was brought
to the ACF for the purpose of working a change to the AIM so that the mandate of the legal
interpretation would be set forth in an effective and continuing manner to the pilot community and to air traffic controllers. It took several years of discussion and AIM amendments to provide language of sufficient precision and clarity to finally put an end to the morass of pilot community and air traffic
controller “sharp-shooting” the language. The AIM was eventually amended to contain the following precise, clear and unambiguous language, which language was the ​
​


[FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]final [/FONT][/FONT]consensus of the ACF on the matter:​





[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]“5-4-9. Procedure Turn[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course. The[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver. The procedure turn [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]is not required when the symbol ‘No PT’ is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to the final [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]approach course is provided, when conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]turn is not authorized. The hold in lieu of procedure turn is not required when RADAR [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]VECTORING to the final approach course is provided or when ‘No PT’ is shown. The[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]altitude prescribed for the procedure turn is a minimum altitude until the aircraft is [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]established on the inbound course. The maneuver must be completed within the distance [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]specified in the profile view.”[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]​


[/FONT]​
The foregoing language lay to rest the morass of user “sharp shooting” of previous AIM language about course reversals. But, this past August, the settled language was amended without first being considered and discussed at the ACF. The new language is cited below. The fatal blow to all the previous work done to set this issue straight is emphasized in bold type:​

[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]“5-4-9. Procedure Turn[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]{New-2005-17 a. revised August 4, 2005}[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed to perform a course reversal to establish the[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]lieu of procedure turn is a required [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]maneuver when it is necessary to perform a course [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]reversal. [/FONT][/FONT]​





[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]The procedure turn is not required when the symbol "No PT" is shown, when [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]RADAR VECTORING to the final approach course is provided, when conducting a timed [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]approach, or when the procedure turn is not authorized. The hold in lieu of procedure turn is[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic]not required when RADAR VECTORING to the final approach course is provided or when [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]"No PT" is shown. The altitude prescribed for the procedure turn is a minimum altitude until [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]the aircraft is established on the inbound course. The maneuver must be completed within [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]the distance specified in the profile view.” [/FONT]​
[/FONT]





The phrase “when it is necessary to perform a course reversal” has ignited the “sharp shooters” debate with vigor greater than past ad hoc community debates about the issue. In a few short weeks, the myriad of discussions in various aviation forums have completely undone the years of effort by the ACF on this issue.​





[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]RECOMMENDATION: [/FONT][/FONT]​









The aviation community needs to be informed on a priority basis that the August, 2005, change to the AIM was in error, and that the language cited above
that existed prior to August, 2005 is still the directive practice set forth by the office of primary responsibility for this issue: Flight Standards Service. ​






Further, until the language is corrected and effectively disseminated to the aviation community, not only is Flight Standards Service’s mandate thwarted, so is chief counsel’s 1994 legal ruling.​



A change to the AIM, although essential, will take too long to set the issue straight before the new misunderstandings become embedded within the system. NBAA submits that the confusion created by the new AIM language represents a critical safety of flight issue that must be first resolved by timely NOTAM action, with the AIM language to be corrected in the next AIM open cycle. Thus, it is also recommended that an immediate GENOT or general

FDC NOTAM be issue to rescind the new AIM language and to restate the recently rescinded AIM language as being the language that is in full force and effect.​


​









Finally, the substance of this issue is not reopened by this issue paper. The issue about AIM language for course reversals had been the subject of much previous ACF discussion, amendments, and debate. The issue was properly closed in the past and settled with the AIM language that existed prior to August, 2005, and cited above. The issue set forth by​


this issue paper is limited to getting the agreed-to language back into the hands of the aviation community as soon as possible.​











[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]COMMENT: [/FONT][/FONT]​




This recommendation affects the Aeronautical Information Manual, the FAA chief counsel’s legal ruling dated November 18, 1994, the ATC 7110.65 series handbook, and the general procedural control of the orderly and proper use of standard instrument approach procedures.​





[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]SUBMITTED BY: [/FONT][/FONT]​




Steve Bergner​



[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]ORGANIZATION: [/FONT][/FONT]​




National Business Aviation Association (NBAA)​



[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]DATE: [/FONT][/FONT]​




October 7, 2005.​



[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]PHONE: [/FONT][/FONT]​




(845) 583-5152​



[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]FAX: [/FONT][/FONT]​




(845) 583-5769​



[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]Email: [/FONT][/FONT]​




bergners@granitelp.com​



[FONT=Arial,Bold]INITIAL DISCUSSION (Meeting 05-02): [/FONT]​





New issue introduced by Steve Bergner,​



NBAA. NBAA is concerned that language in the most recent AIM paragraph 5-4-9 is misleading and contradicts the FAA General Council opinion discussed at the ACF in the early 1990’s. The current language could cause pilot confusion on when a course reversal is required and lead to violation of 14 CFR Part 91.175(j). Tom Schneider, AFS-420, stated

that his office is in agreement with the NBAA concern. Tom presented the following draft
language for the AIM to resolve the issue, noting that it would not be published until the August 06 AIM revision. The consensus was that the proposed language would resolve the issue. Mark Ingram, ALPA, recommended the draft language be published in the Notices to Airmen Publication (NTAP) as soon as possible. Tom agreed to pursue this.​





ACTION: AFS-420.​



​
​
[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]Proposed AIM Revision: [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]5-4-9. Procedure Turn[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]: A procedure turn is the maneuver[/FONT][/FONT]​





[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an[/FONT][/FONT]​


[FONT=Arial,Italic]
[FONT=Arial,Italic]intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Italic]maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart. However, the procedure turn or holdin-[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Italic]lieu-of-PT is not permitted when the symbol "No PT" is depicted on the initial segment[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic]being used, when a RADAR VECTOR to the final approach course is provided, or when [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]conducting a timed approach from a holding fix. The altitude prescribed for the procedure [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]turn is a minimum altitude until the aircraft is established on the inbound course. The [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]maneuver must be completed within the distance specified in the profile view.[/FONT]​

[/FONT]​

​
[FONT=Arial,Italic]

[/FONT]






[FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Note[/FONT][/FONT]​






[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]: The pilot may elect to use the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT when it is not [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]required by the procedure, but must first receive an amended clearance from ATC. When [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]ATC is Radar vectoring to the final approach course or to the Intermediate Fix, ATC [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]may [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]specify in the approach clearance “CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN (type) APPROACH” to insure [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is not to be flown. If the pilot is uncertain whether [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]the ATC clearance intends for a procedure turn to be conducted or to allow for a straight-in [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]approach, the pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC (14 CFR Part 91.123).[/FONT][/FONT]​





[FONT=Arial,Bold]MEETING 06-01: [/FONT]​




Tom Schneider, AFS-420, stated that immediately following the last ACF, AFS-420 published the agreed upon AIM text in the NTAP. The text has been forwarded for publication in the August AIM change.​




Action: None Required - Pending Publication.​







[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]MEETING 06-02: [/FONT][/FONT]​




Bill Hammett, AFS-420 (ISI), briefed that the ACF agreed upon text was published in the August AIM. ​



ISSUE CLOSED.​
 
Captain said:
The purpose of PTs is not to be a safety net for pilots behind the plane, it's to reverse course. No course reversal is required if coming from RID. The published alt is 2,600 IIRC.
Click to expand...
I know. It was an answer to the OP's question, "I guess my question is, as a flight instructor, how would you explain the need for a PT to an instrument student?"

Who says the pilot in my scenario is "behind the airplane" anyway? As for altitude, 4000' is typical westbound and 2600 is moot if lost comm happens at 4000'. I think you just want to start something. :yesnod:

dtuuri
 
Clip4 said:
[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]GOVERNMENT/INDUSTRY CHARTING FORUM[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]Instrument Procedures Group[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]October 25, 2005[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]HISTORY RECORD[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]FAA CONTROL # 05-02-260[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Bold]
[FONT=Arial,Bold]SUBJECT: ACF Closed Issue Re: Course Reversals Negated by AIM Change[/FONT]​


[FONT=Arial,Bold]BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: [/FONT]
[/FONT]​
Because of years of confusion and erosion of certain​
procedural aspects of instrument approach procedures by both pilots and air traffic control,
in 1993 the Air Line Pilots Association wrote FAA chief counsel asking for legal interpretations about certain aspects pertaining to the conduct of instrument approach procedures, including a precise, unambiguous ruling about when a prescribed course
reversal is required.



On November 28, 1994, FAA’s chief counsel’s office issued a responsive letter of interpretation, which included the following language pertaining to course reversals:​


​
​
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]“Finally, you ask whether a course reversal segment is optional ‘when one of the conditions [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]of FAR section 91.175(j) is not present.’ Section 91.175(j) states that in the case of a radar [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]vector to a final approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]for which the procedures specifies ‘no procedure turn,’ no pilot may make a procedure turn [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]unless cleared to do so by ATC.”[/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]“Section 97.3(p) defines a procedure turn, in part, as a maneuver prescribed when it is [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or final approach [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]course. A SIAP may or may not prescribe a procedure turn based on the application of [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]certain criteria contained in the TERPs. However, if a SIAP does contain a procedure turn [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]and ATC has cleared a pilot to execute the SIAP, the pilot must make the procedure turn [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]when one of the conditions of Section 91.175(j) is not present.”[/FONT][/FONT]​





The cited language did not create new instrument flight operating procedures. Rather, it clearly set forth the requirements for course reversals that had been intended by the Flight Standards Service from the inception of TERPS criteria in November, 1967.​

But, the foregoing letter of legal interpretation had little, if any, practical effect to correct the

misunderstandings prevalent among pilots and controllers because the aviation community has no effective or uniform access to FAA legal interpretations. Thus, the issue was brought
to the ACF for the purpose of working a change to the AIM so that the mandate of the legal
interpretation would be set forth in an effective and continuing manner to the pilot community and to air traffic controllers. It took several years of discussion and AIM amendments to provide language of sufficient precision and clarity to finally put an end to the morass of pilot community and air traffic
controller “sharp-shooting” the language. The AIM was eventually amended to contain the following precise, clear and unambiguous language, which language was the ​
​


[FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]final [/FONT][/FONT]consensus of the ACF on the matter:​





[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]“5-4-9. Procedure Turn[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course. The[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver. The procedure turn [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]is not required when the symbol ‘No PT’ is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to the final [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]approach course is provided, when conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]turn is not authorized. The hold in lieu of procedure turn is not required when RADAR [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]VECTORING to the final approach course is provided or when ‘No PT’ is shown. The[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]altitude prescribed for the procedure turn is a minimum altitude until the aircraft is [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]established on the inbound course. The maneuver must be completed within the distance [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]specified in the profile view.”[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]​


[/FONT]​
The foregoing language lay to rest the morass of user “sharp shooting” of previous AIM language about course reversals. But, this past August, the settled language was amended without first being considered and discussed at the ACF. The new language is cited below. The fatal blow to all the previous work done to set this issue straight is emphasized in bold type:​

[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]“5-4-9. Procedure Turn[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]{New-2005-17 a. revised August 4, 2005}[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed to perform a course reversal to establish the[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]lieu of procedure turn is a required [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]maneuver when it is necessary to perform a course [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]reversal. [/FONT][/FONT]​





[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]The procedure turn is not required when the symbol "No PT" is shown, when [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]RADAR VECTORING to the final approach course is provided, when conducting a timed [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]approach, or when the procedure turn is not authorized. The hold in lieu of procedure turn is[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic]not required when RADAR VECTORING to the final approach course is provided or when [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]"No PT" is shown. The altitude prescribed for the procedure turn is a minimum altitude until [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]the aircraft is established on the inbound course. The maneuver must be completed within [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]the distance specified in the profile view.” [/FONT]​
[/FONT]





The phrase “when it is necessary to perform a course reversal” has ignited the “sharp shooters” debate with vigor greater than past ad hoc community debates about the issue. In a few short weeks, the myriad of discussions in various aviation forums have completely undone the years of effort by the ACF on this issue.​





[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]RECOMMENDATION: [/FONT][/FONT]​









The aviation community needs to be informed on a priority basis that the August, 2005, change to the AIM was in error, and that the language cited above
that existed prior to August, 2005 is still the directive practice set forth by the office of primary responsibility for this issue: Flight Standards Service. ​






Further, until the language is corrected and effectively disseminated to the aviation community, not only is Flight Standards Service’s mandate thwarted, so is chief counsel’s 1994 legal ruling.​



A change to the AIM, although essential, will take too long to set the issue straight before the new misunderstandings become embedded within the system. NBAA submits that the confusion created by the new AIM language represents a critical safety of flight issue that must be first resolved by timely NOTAM action, with the AIM language to be corrected in the next AIM open cycle. Thus, it is also recommended that an immediate GENOT or general

FDC NOTAM be issue to rescind the new AIM language and to restate the recently rescinded AIM language as being the language that is in full force and effect.​


​









Finally, the substance of this issue is not reopened by this issue paper. The issue about AIM language for course reversals had been the subject of much previous ACF discussion, amendments, and debate. The issue was properly closed in the past and settled with the AIM language that existed prior to August, 2005, and cited above. The issue set forth by​


this issue paper is limited to getting the agreed-to language back into the hands of the aviation community as soon as possible.​











[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]COMMENT: [/FONT][/FONT]​




This recommendation affects the Aeronautical Information Manual, the FAA chief counsel’s legal ruling dated November 18, 1994, the ATC 7110.65 series handbook, and the general procedural control of the orderly and proper use of standard instrument approach procedures.​





[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]SUBMITTED BY: [/FONT][/FONT]​




Steve Bergner​



[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]ORGANIZATION: [/FONT][/FONT]​




National Business Aviation Association (NBAA)​



[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]DATE: [/FONT][/FONT]​




October 7, 2005.​



[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]PHONE: [/FONT][/FONT]​




(845) 583-5152​



[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]FAX: [/FONT][/FONT]​




(845) 583-5769​



[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]Email: [/FONT][/FONT]​




bergners@granitelp.com​



[FONT=Arial,Bold]INITIAL DISCUSSION (Meeting 05-02): [/FONT]​





New issue introduced by Steve Bergner,​



NBAA. NBAA is concerned that language in the most recent AIM paragraph 5-4-9 is misleading and contradicts the FAA General Council opinion discussed at the ACF in the early 1990’s. The current language could cause pilot confusion on when a course reversal is required and lead to violation of 14 CFR Part 91.175(j). Tom Schneider, AFS-420, stated

that his office is in agreement with the NBAA concern. Tom presented the following draft
language for the AIM to resolve the issue, noting that it would not be published until the August 06 AIM revision. The consensus was that the proposed language would resolve the issue. Mark Ingram, ALPA, recommended the draft language be published in the Notices to Airmen Publication (NTAP) as soon as possible. Tom agreed to pursue this.​





ACTION: AFS-420.​



​
​
[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]Proposed AIM Revision: [/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]5-4-9. Procedure Turn[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]: A procedure turn is the maneuver[/FONT][/FONT]​





[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an[/FONT][/FONT]​


[FONT=Arial,Italic]
[FONT=Arial,Italic]intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Italic]maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart. However, the procedure turn or holdin-[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Italic]lieu-of-PT is not permitted when the symbol "No PT" is depicted on the initial segment[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Italic]being used, when a RADAR VECTOR to the final approach course is provided, or when [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]conducting a timed approach from a holding fix. The altitude prescribed for the procedure [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]turn is a minimum altitude until the aircraft is established on the inbound course. The [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]maneuver must be completed within the distance specified in the profile view.[/FONT]​

[/FONT]​

​
[FONT=Arial,Italic]

[/FONT]






[FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]Note[/FONT][/FONT]​






[FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]: The pilot may elect to use the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT when it is not [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]required by the procedure, but must first receive an amended clearance from ATC. When [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]ATC is Radar vectoring to the final approach course or to the Intermediate Fix, ATC [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic][FONT=Arial,BoldItalic]may [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]specify in the approach clearance “CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN (type) APPROACH” to insure [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is not to be flown. If the pilot is uncertain whether [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic][FONT=Arial,Italic]the ATC clearance intends for a procedure turn to be conducted or to allow for a straight-in [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]approach, the pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC (14 CFR Part 91.123).[/FONT][/FONT]​





[FONT=Arial,Bold]MEETING 06-01: [/FONT]​




Tom Schneider, AFS-420, stated that immediately following the last ACF, AFS-420 published the agreed upon AIM text in the NTAP. The text has been forwarded for publication in the August AIM change.​




Action: None Required - Pending Publication.​







[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]MEETING 06-02: [/FONT][/FONT]​




Bill Hammett, AFS-420 (ISI), briefed that the ACF agreed upon text was published in the August AIM. ​



ISSUE CLOSED.​
Click to expand...

Were you trying to make a point?
 
I suspect this is a charting error. Report it IAW the instructions in the front of the Terminal Procedures book. Bet you get a response within 72 hours explaining why it is the way it is, or see an FDC NOTAM making RID an IAF and that a NoPT route.
 
Folks, I didn't want to rehash the "is a procedure turn required" discussion, that's been beat up enough in the other current thread and many others.

It's pretty clear from the AIM 5-4-9, current version, that a PT is required.

However, it's probably not necessary in this case, in most situations. But it's required.

In the most basic example, you're cleared direct RID from the east, you lose radio and radar contact, you cross RID at say 4000, then begin a descent to 2600. You arrive at 2600 well before ECONO and you're on the final approach course already. You arrive at ECONO...

And you have to do the PT. For no clear reason other than that's what AIM 5-4-9 says to do.

How as an instructor would you explain this?
 
Ron Levy said:
I suspect this is a charting error. Report it IAW the instructions in the front of the Terminal Procedures book. Bet you get a response within 72 hours explaining why it is the way it is, or see an FDC NOTAM making RID an IAF and that a NoPT route.
Click to expand...

I actually don't think it's a charting error. I think it's a criteria error, or rather, a situation that isn't covered by the criteria (and it's some of the oldest criteria too), as explained in my OP.
 
RussR said:
In the most basic example, you're cleared direct RID from the east, you lose radio and radar contact, you cross RID at say 4000, then begin a descent to 2600... How as an instructor would you explain this?
Click to expand...
By explaining that you can't descend to 2600 at RID because of CFR 91.185(c)(2):
(2) Altitude. At the highest of the following altitudes or flight levels for the route segment being flown:

(i) The altitude or flight level assigned in the last ATC clearance received;

(ii) The minimum altitude (converted, if appropriate, to minimum flight level as prescribed in § 91.121(c)) for IFR operations; or

(iii) The altitude or flight level ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance.
​
The feeder is a route segment and the 4000' may have been assigned for opposite direction traffic departing the airport at 3000'. You'll need to let down in the hold.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
By explaining that you can't descend to 2600 at RID because of CFR 91.185(c)(2):
(2) Altitude. At the highest of the following altitudes or flight levels for the route segment being flown:

(i) The altitude or flight level assigned in the last ATC clearance received;

(ii) The minimum altitude (converted, if appropriate, to minimum flight level as prescribed in § 91.121(c)) for IFR operations; or

(iii) The altitude or flight level ATC has advised may be expected in a further clearance.
​
The feeder is a route segment and the 4000' may have been assigned for opposite direction traffic departing the airport at 3000'. You'll need to let down in the hold.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

Those are excellent points, and I'll use them as discussion material. If you lose Comm, you're expected to proceed to an IAF before executing the approach/descending from the previously assigned altitude, which in this case would be ECONO. Very good.

But I was really just trying to make a scenario where you haven't received any of the instructions or situations that eliminate the need for a PT, and thereby have to do the PT. So for whatever reason you're on the feeder route at 2600. Maybe you get cleared for the approach before you get to RID, and lose comm before you can ask about the straight-in bit. Maybe you're assigned 3000, and don't feel you really need a hold to lose an additional 2600 feet. Whatever.
 
RussR said:
2. The leg from RID VOR to ECONO INT cannot be an Initial Segment given the current design, because then there would need to be an Intermediate segment, which there currently is not.
Click to expand...
I was not aware that having an initial segment requires an intermediate segment. I know quite a few approaches with an IAF but no IF, such as the VOR 22 at KGED. What am I missing?
 
RussR said:
In the most basic example, you're cleared direct RID from the east, you lose radio and radar contact, you cross RID at say 4000, then begin a descent to 2600. You arrive at 2600 well before ECONO and you're on the final approach course already. You arrive at ECONO...

And you have to do the PT. For no clear reason other than that's what AIM 5-4-9 says to do.

How as an instructor would you explain this?
Click to expand...
I don't try to explain TERPS, just to teach my trainees how to comply with SIAP's. In this case, once they apply the 4-step test to see if you can skip a HPILPT:
  1. Vectors to final?
  2. NoPT route?
  3. Already holding at the fix at the depicted altitude?
  4. Cleared straight in?
...they see that the answers are all "no," so they must fly the HPILPT to be legal.

As for why RID is not an IAF, and thus why there is no NoPT from RID, I leave that to the folks in the basement at 800 Independence Ave, because I sure don't see why it isn't.
 
dtuuri said:
I know. It was an answer to the OP's question, "I guess my question is, as a flight instructor, how would you explain the need for a PT to an instrument student?"

Who says the pilot in my scenario is "behind the airplane" anyway? As for altitude, 4000' is typical westbound and 2600 is moot if lost comm happens at 4000'. I think you just want to start something. :yesnod:

dtuuri
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to start anything.

Over RID with lost comms you go to 2,600. If you're at 4,000 over ECONO then you're behind the plane and a turn in the hold or a vector would be the thing to do.

But none of that is what the OP is asking. I can't believe there are people who would do a procedure turn when straight in. Does anyone think a controller would expect that? And how is doing unexpected things help the system?

...sigh, I guess people do believe doing an unannounced 360 on final is a great idea. Hope I'm not the guy behind you.
 
What if you're flying a new chart and the published DA was 200' BELOW the runway. Obvious error. Do you just fly it anyway cause 'that's how to be legal'?
 
Ron Levy said:
I was not aware that having an initial segment requires an intermediate segment. I know quite a few approaches with an IAF but no IF, such as the VOR 22 at KGED. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

That is a different application because the IAF is on an airway.
 
roncachamp said:
A fix using a crossing radial from MIE could be established about halfway between RID and ECONO. The divergence angle would be about 39° where the minimum required is 30°.
Click to expand...

That is only one of the requirements.
 
In practice I wouldn't fly that approach from RID without a clarification from ATC if none was given in the clearance. Assuming I was told to descend to 2600 at RID, I don't see the point of the turn and with some controllers I'm sure it would surprise them. Why take a chance, risk a violation, or on air argument?

Just talk to ATC whenever there is any doubt when instrument flying, your life depends on absolute clarity. That is the number one thing I would tell a student.:dunno:
 
dtuuri said:
I hope I'm not the guy below you.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

Is it safe to assume if you lose comms you will never descend to land? What's the plan? Fly for ever or go find an airport at your exact altitude and shoot the shallowest approach ever?

I think maybe you're trying to start something.
 
Captain said:
I can't believe there are people who would do a procedure turn when straight in. Does anyone think a controller would expect that? And how is doing unexpected things help the system?
Click to expand...

Without explicit instruction from ATC I will fly the plate as published.
 
For the sake of discussion, assume the feeder route didn't exist. Then the procedure could still be flown by a RNAV equipped aircraft. The IAF is also a FAF. According to the current 7110.65, an aircraft may not be cleared directly to an FAF unless it is also an iAF, in which case the pilot is expected to fly the PT or HILPT in this case. Without the feeder route or another IAF located at the VOR, there is no way the procedure can be flown using VOR as the primary means of navigation, Normally the HILPT would be located at the VOR or IAF/IF. I think the procedure could have been better designed and seems a little bass ackwards, but when the IAF and the FAF were both placed at the same location, the result was the HILPT.
 
John Collins said:
For the sake of discussion, assume the feeder route didn't exist. Then the procedure could still be flown by a RNAV equipped aircraft. The IAF is also a FAF. According to the current 7110.65, an aircraft may not be cleared directly to an FAF unless it is also an iAF, in which case the pilot is expected to fly the PT or HILPT in this case. Without the feeder route or another IAF located at the VOR, there is no way the procedure can be flown using VOR as the primary means of navigation, Normally the HILPT would be located at the VOR or IAF/IF. I think the procedure could have been better designed and seems a little bass ackwards, but when the IAF and the FAF were both placed at the same location, the result was the HILPT.
Click to expand...

Procedures that could have been better designed are quite plentiful.
 
Russ,
the lengthy letter posted by Cli4ord which is supposed to support the idea that the PT "is a required maneuver when depicted".
However, that same letter contains the same language; it begins with the phrase, "when a course reversal is necessary".

In the letter, he says "According to section 97.3(p), when a course reversal is necessary...it must be flown as depicted".

The pilot determines, by his knowledge of TERPS, his skill and familiarly with the airplane and approach procedure, wx conditions, etc., if and when he needs a course reversal.

Most everyone on this board will disagree.

You can teach your students rote procedures "because the regs say so", but if you want to explain when, why, and how to do a legal and required course reversal because you know you really need to, you will need a thorough knowledge of TERPS .
 
nosehair said:
Russ,
the lengthy letter posted by Cli4ord which is supposed to support the idea that the PT "is a required maneuver when depicted".
However, that same letter contains the same language; it begins with the phrase, "when a course reversal is necessary".

In the letter, he says "According to section 97.3(p), when a course reversal is necessary...it must be flown as depicted".

The pilot determines, by his knowledge of TERPS, his skill and familiarly with the airplane and approach procedure, wx conditions, etc., if and when he needs a course reversal.

Most everyone on this board will disagree.

You can teach your students rote procedures "because the regs say so", but if you want to explain when, why, and how to do a legal and required course reversal because you know you really need to, you will need a thorough knowledge of TERPS .
Click to expand...

Not really a majority. Like 4 of the 6 or 7 posters to this thread say they'd do the 360 course revers...errrr, course re-course.

I've talked about drunks and librarians before. Librarians love their rules and love more that they 'know' them. They quote letters from lawyers and all sorts to support their claim that a 360 degree turn is 'REQUIRED' for safety of flight.
 
nosehair said:
Russ,
the lengthy letter posted by Cli4ord which is supposed to support the idea that the PT "is a required maneuver when depicted".
However, that same letter contains the same language; it begins with the phrase, "when a course reversal is necessary".

In the letter, he says "According to section 97.3(p), when a course reversal is necessary...it must be flown as depicted".

The pilot determines, by his knowledge of TERPS, his skill and familiarly with the airplane and approach procedure, wx conditions, etc., if and when he needs a course reversal.

Most everyone on this board will disagree.

You can teach your students rote procedures "because the regs say so", but if you want to explain when, why, and how to do a legal and required course reversal because you know you really need to, you will need a thorough knowledge of TERPS .
Click to expand...

"When necessary" refers to Part 97, not a pilot's training in TERPs (as small as it typically is).

However, I agree with you, most everyone on this board will disagree. Might, however, doesn't make right.

I tried very hard at the ACF many years ago, when I was a participant, to get added to "NoPT" the term "PT Required." The TERPs experts blew me out of the water. And, partially predicated on the 1994 legal interp letter.

I am at the stage of life where I couldn't care less, and am too old to be an expert witness when some numb nuts goes straight-in when way too high and prangs it.

Having said that, the FAA has never done a sterling job on TERPs criteria, either design or implementation.

Major airline airports do not have these issues, it is always the "Podunk" airport. There are Podunk airports with issues far greater than this one. I always hope when it is an airplane in IMC with the wife and kids that the PIC really knows what he is doing.

Then again, hope springs eternal. :)
 
nosehair said:
Russ,
the lengthy letter posted by Cli4ord which is supposed to support the idea that the PT "is a required maneuver when depicted".
However, that same letter contains the same language; it begins with the phrase, "when a course reversal is necessary".

In the letter, he says "According to section 97.3(p), when a course reversal is necessary...it must be flown as depicted".

The pilot determines, by his knowledge of TERPS, his skill and familiarly with the airplane and approach procedure, wx conditions, etc., if and when he needs a course reversal.


Most everyone on this board will disagree.
Click to expand...
The point on which some may disagree is the criteria to be applied in that situation. The only thing you need to know is the criteria set I described above:
  1. Vectors to final?
  2. NoPT route?
  3. Already holding at the fix at the depicted altitude?
  4. Cleared straight in?
If any answer is "yes," then the course reversal is prohibited without additional ATC authorization. If all answers are "no", then the course reversal is required without additional ATC authorization. It's as simple as that, and you need know nothing about TERPS.
 
Ron Levy said:
The point on which some may disagree is the criteria to be applied in that situation. The only thing you need to know is the criteria set I described above:
  1. Vectors to final?
  2. NoPT route?
  3. Already holding at the fix at the depicted altitude?
  4. Cleared straight in?
If any answer is "yes," then the course reversal is prohibited without additional ATC authorization. If all answers are "no", then the course reversal is required without additional ATC authorization. It's as simple as that, and you need know nothing about TERPS.
Click to expand...

So....if the 'new' course is the exact same as the 'old' course can you really call it a 'course reversal'?

Seriously, do you people hear yourselves?
 
Last edited:
RussR said:
I actually don't think it's a charting error. I think it's a criteria error, or rather, a situation that isn't covered by the criteria (and it's some of the oldest criteria too), as explained in my OP.
Click to expand...

I think it is phisss poor design.

1. They could have designated RID as an IAF then charted NoPT after RID.

2. The could have designed a 6 mile intermediate segment, and still made RID as the IAF.
 
aterpster said:
I think it is phisss poor design.

1. They could have designated RID as an IAF then charted NoPT after RID.

2. The could have designed a 6 mile intermediate segment, and still made RID as the IAF.
Click to expand...

Radar/Communications might be why this is designed like it is. ULW is under Indy approach and RID is under Columbus approach.

Edit: in a yearvits likey the VOR approach will be deleted, there are not many VORs left serving satelite airports.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top