NoPT Arrival Sector Via Airway

[HPNPilot1200]

This issue came up recently on an instrument checkride and I wanted to see what the general conscensus from PoA members is on this. The applicant, who was performing an instrument rating practical test, failed because he entered a hold-in-lieu-of-a-procedure-turn (HILPT) on a VOR-A approach when approaching from a sector marked "NoPT Arrival Sector Via Airway." He was not instructed to intercept or fly an airway or fly a radial that defines an airway.

As an example, take a look at the VOR-A at SNC (this wasn't the approach flown but merely an example). I have attached an older Jeppesen version of the chart to this post. Here is a link to the current FAA chart:

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1104/06356VA.PDF

The FAA chart reads, "NoPT for arrival on MAD VOR/DME airway radials 235 CW 317."

The Jeppesen chart reads, "NoPT Arrival Sector via Airway"

The applicant appealed his failure though the appeal was later denied on the grounds that the NoPT arrival sector is defined by two radials and although the chart says "via Airway," you need not be on the Airway to be considered inside the NoPT arrival sector.

What are your thoughts? Enter the HILPT because you're not inbound to the VOR on an airway? No HILPT because you're arriving from the NoPT Arrival via Airway sector?

One point that someone brought up was that airways are technically 4nm wide and thus, the aircraft could be considered on the airway even though a clearance did not include an airway to fly. That being said, if you were inbound on a radial that does not define an airway, that logic seems questionable.

I appreciate your thoughts.

 

[Everskyward]

I think the spirit of what is intended is to have that whole sector NoPT but it's worded badly on the charts so it could be read either way. I guess the other question is whether he was already cleared for the approach and if he was assigned a reasonable altitude in order to get down in time. If not then he could have asked to go around the hold once to lose altitude.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Huh. Interesting. I would contact NACO on this one (the e-mail address in the front of the approach plate books). They are extremely helpful and often will fix issues like this - And I do think it's an "issue" because it is a wee bit ambiguous. Let us know what you find out!

After looking at the enroute chart, I see that there are airways on those radials - So I think they probably mean "Anywhere from 235 clockwise to 317, y'know, the airway radials" and that the hold is not required. But, I certainly don't think that what's on the plate is clear, and I hope they change the notation. (They're quite responsive and open to input - I've gotten two approach plates changed myself.)

 

[Ted]

This is a wording issue, and neither NACO nor Jepp says it well. The Jepp chart explains it better graphically. The NACO chart would be clear if the word "airway" was removed, because that makes it sound like you need to be on an airway, but then doesn't explain graphically at all. I could see that mistake being easy to make, especially for an instrument student.

From a practical perspective, however, I'm not sure why ATC would care, or why it would really matter. But we all know checkrides aren't about what you actually do...

 

[mantakos]

I'd fail the applicant, the FAA, and NACO.
-harry

 

[poadeleted20]

The use of the word "airway" in that note is both standard and confusing. It is regrettable that the applicant's instructor didn't know and teach better. In any event, the bust was legit.

 

[Aztec Driver]

From a practical perspective, however, I'm not sure why ATC would care, or why it would really matter. But we all know checkrides aren't about what you actually do...

Because ATC will not expect a procedure turn in that instance.

 

[Ted]

Because ATC will not expect a procedure turn in that instance.

In most of the places I've gone that have procedure turns, ATC is very clearly out to lunch, if they even have you on radar. But you are correct.

 

[RussR]

The wording is that way because that's how it's required to be worded, in the 8260.19. Yes, it's horrible and confusing and AFS needs to change it, but AeroNav Products typically can only follow the direction provided to them by AFS.

From 8260.19E, para 8-6g,
When a course reversal is over a facility:

“Chart planview note: NoPT for arrival on ABC VORTAC airway radials 302 CW 096.”​

Unfortunately, that's the wording of the note, although it is confusing and does, as far as I know, mean ALL radials between the two given.​

 

[RussR]

The wording is that way because that's how it's required to be worded, in the 8260.19. Yes, it's horrible and confusing and AFS needs to change it, but typically AeroNav Products can only follow the direction provided to them by AFS.

From 8260.19E, para 8-6g,
When a course reversal is over a facility:

“Chart planview note: NoPT for arrival on ABC VORTAC airway radials 302 CW 096.”​

Unfortunately, that's the wording of the note, although it is confusing and does, as far as I know, mean ALL radials between the two given.​

 

[Palmpilot]

The NACO wording seems crystal clear to me because the "CW" implies that the note includes everything going clockwise from airway radial 235 to airway radial 317.

The Jepp wording seems clear as mud to me.

 

[denverpilot]

Huh. Interesting. I would contact NACO on this one (the e-mail address in the front of the approach plate books).

Darn. I couldn't find that in Foreflight.



(Poke Kent with stick. Run away! Run away!)

 

[Arnold]

From the West

V-1 - 235 radial
V-475 - 258 radial
V-34 - 317 radial

The note on the FAA chart does not say NoPT when arriving via the airway. It says when arriving between the radials.

In a world before random routes the reference to airways makes perfect sense. You would have found yourself arriving at the MAD VOR via one of six airway sectors. The sectors noted above if arriving from the west and their opposites (note I am not saying reciprocals) if arriving from the east. It therefore makes sense to define the NoPT sector by airways and to use that word in the plan view note. In addition the cited procedure (8260.19E, para 8-6g) assures the chart maker uses a rational basis for determining the starting and stopping radials.

This is an excellent object lesson on the need for instructors to teach the why as well as the how to.

One poster notes that this is an easy mistake for an "instrument student" to make - why the poster made this comment is not clear to me. He could be saying that instructors should be on the look out for this mistake. He could also be saying this was an understandable error by the applicant. But on the date of the check ride the the applicant is affirmatively stating that he is qualified to be an instrument pilot and is no longer a student.

I think the bust was legit and the examiner makes an excellent point with this bust.

 

[taters]

If there were 2 feeder routes or airways 235R and 317R that didn't require a PT they would be clearly diagrammed. Example BUR ILS


All they are saying is NOPT required between 235 and 317 as the turn required isnt steep enough to require a hold.



No doubt though confusion could be had here...as earlier posted think about the "spirit" of whats going on here.

 

[gismo]

The NACO wording seems crystal clear to me because the "CW" implies that the note includes everything going clockwise from airway radial 235 to airway radial 317.

The Jepp wording seems clear as mud to me.

The only confusing aspect of the NACO wording is the unnecessary inclusion of the word "airway".

That said, it seems to be that faced with what appeared to be an ambiguity the absolute best choice for the IR candidate (or any other pilot) would be to ask ATC for clarification. I seriously doubt that the DE would have failed the candidate for that.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

The plot thickens... here is the guidance I received from Jeppesen. Still waiting to hear from NACO. Jeppesen says the PT is required if not on a radial defined by an airway.

The definition on Jeppesen Introduction Page 105 regarding NoPT Arrival Sectors is correct. The aircraft must be arriving on airway in order to be exempted from the executing the published procedure turn. Otherwise, it is required, even if arriving in this quadrant.

The same information can be taken from the note on the NACO chart (looking at it differently)– “NoPT for arrival on BVT VOR airway radials 234 CW 021” – meaning that NoPT for arrival R-234 CW R-021 via airway radials.


I would contact your local FSDO (a source other than the examiner). I searched the Instrument Procedures Handbook as well as the AIM and found no information published to the contrary. I reviewed this with several technical experts here at Jeppesen, and they are confident that our publications are correct.

(Emphasis mine)

I should also add that the note denying the failure appeal noted the main reason why the request was denied was because the DE was "acting as ATC and clearing/vectoring the aircraft to the VOR and was basically the final approach course." That was included in the letter, "basically." It also had a few typos which I found comical.

 

[Palmpilot]

Wow. It just blows my mind when we stumble across things like this, where authoritative sources disagree on basic stuff.

 

[poadeleted20]

The plot thickens... here is the guidance I received from Jeppesen. Still waiting to hear from NACO. Jeppesen says the PT is required if not on a radial defined by an airway.

Jepp is not the "source" on this -- FAA Order 8260.19E is. What is says is:

Specify an arrival sector from which course reversal must not be made when

NoPT designations will result in an excessive number of terminal routes. Place an applicable
statement in the Notes Section of the 8260-series form.
Examples:
When a course reversal is over a facility:​

“Chart planview note: NoPT for arrival on ABC VORTAC airway radials 302 CW 096.”

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8260.19E.pdf

A "sector" is not just a few airways. I suggest that Jason ask whoever at Jepp gave him that answer confirm their position with AFS-420, which is responsible for that order. I would also suggest that AFS-420 be advised of the confusion this unfortunately-required wording is causing so a better wording can be developed.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Jepp is not the "source" on this -- FAA Order 8260.19E is.

Correct. My main concern is how are we as pilots are supposed to interpret verbiage on Jeppesen charts that does not agree with FAA Order 8260.19E, noting the Jeppesen legend is information only and not regulatory in nature. I contacted Jeppesen to find out, considering they are authorized by the FAA to publish instrument approach procedures. If you don't have to complete the procedure turn why does the FAA allow Jeppesen to use confusing verbiage and provide incorrect guidance (be it advisory in nature or not)?

A "sector" is not just a few airways. I suggest that Jason ask whoever at Jepp gave him that answer confirm their position with AFS-420, which is responsible for that order. I would also suggest that AFS-420 be advised of the confusion this unfortunately-required wording is causing so a better wording can be developed.

Jeppesen advised that I should contact my local FSDO but the specialist I have been communicating with was going to try to look into it further as well. Either way, the verbiage on Jepp charts with this notation seems confusing.

 

[GMascelli]

similar situation on my checkride.....

I was directed to divert to KMIV millville from my planned Atlantic city destination and fly the VOR A approach. I was on the 302 radial which is noted as no PT. When I briefed I said no PT and my examiner said he wanted the PT. I advised ACY of the diversion, requested the vor A with a PT......all went well. I went through the exercise with my CFII prior to the ride and the reasons I would require the PT and why to advise.

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1104/00891VA.PDF

 

[poadeleted20]

Jeppesen advised that I should contact my local FSDO but the specialist I have been communicating with was going to try to look into it further as well.

...most likely with AFS-420, who handles that book. Make sure the "specialist" has either a name/office or something in writing in respose.

 

[poadeleted20]

similar situation on my checkride.....

I was directed to divert to KMIV millville from my planned Atlantic city destination and fly the VOR A approach. I was on the 302 radial which is noted as no PT. When I briefed I said no PT and my examiner said he wanted the PT. I advised ACY of the diversion, requested the vor A with a PT......all went well. I went through the exercise with my CFII prior to the ride and the reasons I would require the PT and why to advise.

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1104/00891VA.PDF

Perfect job -- you knew what was "correct," and that if you want to do something different from what's published, you coordinate it with ATC. Sounds like your instructor did a better job than the one who trained the unfortunate applicant in the original post.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

similar situation on my checkride.....

I was directed to divert to KMIV millville from my planned Atlantic city destination and fly the VOR A approach. I was on the 302 radial which is noted as no PT. When I briefed I said no PT and my examiner said he wanted the PT. I advised ACY of the diversion, requested the vor A with a PT......all went well. I went through the exercise with my CFII prior to the ride and the reasons I would require the PT and why to advise.

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/1104/00891VA.PDF

That's the best way to deal with it, coordinate anything different than what is published with ATC. That's what I do when I fly and teach my students to do and it keeps you safe and legal. There's nothing that says you can't ask or seek clarification in fact I encourage it if something is unknown or confusing.

 

[poadeleted20]

There's nothing that says you can't ask or seek clarification in fact I encourage it if something is unknown or confusing.

Not only is there nothing that says you can't ask "if something is unknown or confusing," there's something that says you must, and without delay.

Sec. 91.123

Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.

(a) ... When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Here's the guidance I received from the FAA today:

In accordance with FAA Order 8260.19 Chapter 8 paragraph 805 g. (1) and
(2)-

"Where a route can meet alignment and descent gradient requirements, a course reversal should not be established. Where a course reversal has been established on an instrument approach, initial segments which meet alignment and descent gradient requirements for a straight-in approach must have a designation of "NoPT" for that applicable route......"

Para (2) Specify and arrival sector from which course reversal must not be made when NoPT designations will result in an excessive number of terminal routes.

For IFR flight when you are established on the airway inbound that is a protected route of flight. If as you say coming in from that sector, you are not on a protected route of flight. You may be under a radar vector and it would be Air Traffic assuming obstacle clearance for your flight.

So, for example VOR-A at LAF if you are on V-251, v-227, v-399, v-7-51-97, and v-371 we expect you to not commence a procedure turn as the plan view note specifies. If you are not on one of these airways you are not protected from obstructions unless Air Traffic is clearing you direct from your present location. In this case Air Traffic has assumed responsibility for obstacle clearance.

Mission Support - AJV-351 Manager
Terminal Quality Control and Support Team

(My emphasis)

 

[poadeleted20]

That answer from AJV is incomplete as it only addresses the issue of obstruction clearance on your way to the fix, not whether you perform a course reversal upon arrival, and anyway, AJV doesn't set pilot procedures. Suggest you get in touch with AFS-420, which is the office which does set those procedures.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

That answer from AJV is incomplete as it only addresses the issue of obstruction clearance on your way to the fix, not whether you perform a course reversal upon arrival, and anyway, AJV doesn't set pilot procedures. Suggest you get in touch with AFS-420, which is the office which does set those procedures.

I didn't contact anyone at the FAA yet, this was an email I received earlier today. I'm assuming Jeppesen gave them my information as they sent it to a different email address. You're right though, it is incomplete. I sent the Jepp specialist the phone number for AFS-420 last night in an email, haven't heard back from him yet. He was still looking into it. I am also going to get in touch with them.

 

[poadeleted20]

I didn't contact anyone at the FAA yet, this was an email I received earlier today. I'm assuming Jeppesen gave them my information as they sent it to a different email address. You're right though, it is incomplete. I sent the Jepp specialist the phone number for AFS-420 last night in an email, haven't heard back from him yet. He was still looking into it. I am also going to get in touch with them.

Wally Roberts is already looking into it with AFS, and they know and respect him, and respond quickly to his inquiries.

 

[aterpster]

This issue came up recently on an instrument checkride and I wanted to see what the general conscensus from PoA members is on this. The applicant, who was performing an instrument rating practical test, failed because he entered a hold-in-lieu-of-a-procedure-turn (HILPT) on a VOR-A approach when approaching from a sector marked "NoPT Arrival Sector Via Airway." He was not instructed to intercept or fly an airway or fly a radial that defines an airway.

As an example, take a look at the VOR-A at SNC (this wasn't the approach flown but merely an example). I have attached an older Jeppesen version of the chart to this post. Here is a link to the current FAA chart:

I have never liked this concept. It is more confusing in today's "direct to" world than when it was "invented" in the 1970s.

I am working with the FAA on this (I am not an FAA employee) and it would be very informative to know whether the pilot applicant was using Jeppesen or FAA (AeroNav Service) charts. I am Wally Roberts and I am a technical consultant to NBAA.

Further, although not as important as the preceding, would it be possible to know the actual IAP involved?

 

[poadeleted20]

Welcome to PoA, Wally -- great to have you here. For those unfamiliar with Wally's background, see http://www.terps.com/.

 

[aterpster]

Welcome to PoA, Wally -- great to have you here. For those unfamiliar with Wally's background, see http://www.terps.com/.

Thanks Ron.

It is noteworthy that Jeppesen explains the procedure in their chart legend. Thus far, no one can find an FAA explanation of the procedure.

An excerpt from the Jeppesen legend:

NoPT arrival sectors depict an area of approach transition routing to an approach fix. No procedure turn, Race Track Pattern or any type course reversal is required nor authorized without ATC clearance when an arrival course is within the charted sector and on an established airway radial to the fix. (emphasis added)

 

[HPNPilot1200]

I have never liked this concept. It is more confusing in today's "direct to" world than when it was "invented" in the 1970s.

I am working with the FAA on this (I am not an FAA employee) and it would be very informative to know whether the pilot applicant was using Jeppesen or FAA (AeroNav Service) charts. I am Wally Roberts and I am a technical consultant to NBAA.

Further, although not as important as the preceding, would it be possible to know the actual IAP involved?

Welcome to PoA, Wally. I just sent you a PM with this info. Thanks for looking into this.

 

[Lance F]

Why in the world is this particular approach secret? This is an interesting thread, and something is lost if a key detail like this is missing.

 

[Ted]

Why in the world is this particular approach secret? This is an interesting thread, and something is lost if a key detail like this is missing.

I don't believe it is, see post 1.

 

[jason]

I don't believe it is, see post 1.

That was an example approach

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Why in the world is this particular approach secret? This is an interesting thread, and something is lost if a key detail like this is missing.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to keep it "secret," Lance. I thought I would send the info directly to Wally in a PM. It's the VOR-A into LAF. I didn't have the Jepp chart handy at the time that I posted this thread so I posted a similar approach which I had with me.

 

[Lance F]

OK, I see the point. In my opinion the Jepp wording is obtuse, not so the NACO. But me, I'd fly the ILS

BTW, gotta love a UPUKE waypoint going into a college town.

 

[aterpster]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to keep it "secret," Lance. I thought I would send the info directly to Wally in a PM. It's the VOR-A into LAF. I didn't have the Jepp chart handy at the time that I posted this thread so I posted a similar approach which I had with me.

AFS-410 has just acknowledged that this issue needs clarification and that will be accomplished.

How or when was not mentioned.

 

[jimbtv]

Hence, when information is insufficient, declare your intentions and fly the procedure turn.

Maybe, and unintentionally, the candidate actually did the correct thing. Due to the ambiguity I wouldn't say they did the WRONG thing.

And in my opinion, flying the PT is an option if the pilot and ATC are in sync.

Given a scenario where the approach is to an untowered airport, and without radar coverage, when cleared for the approach ATC cannot put another aircraft on the approach without a verbal cancellation from the previous aircraft. If the pilot wanted to execute the PT and remains within the designated airspace, I believe they are perfectly within the FAA regs.

If the pilot declared that they were flying the PT before proceeding with the approach, where's the violation? Does NoPT mean absolutely under any circumstance DO NOT execute a PT?

Inconvenient faux pas maybe but violation?... hmmmm.