Procedure turn and Holding in lieu of procedure turn

[flying_John]

I'm learning for IR and just understood that procudure turns are required unless NoPT is specified or straight-in approach is cleared. But still I have some questions.

Here are examples,

1. WASHINGTON MUNI airport (AWG)

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2109/06289V36.PDF

When arriving on R-186 of IOW, the IAF would be SHIRN. If straight-in is not cleared, do I havee to proceed to SHIRN on R-186 inbound and make 180 turn at SHIRN and fly R-186 outbound and do the procudure turn to reestablish on R-186 inbound?

2. LENAWEE COUNTY airport (ADG)

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2109/05555R5.PDF

When arriving at OBIHI on 053deg track, is Holding in lieu of procedure turn required? How about arriving at at OBIHI on 40 or 60deg track?

3. MARSHALL COUNTY airport (C75)

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2109/06240V13.PDF

This approach is very clear to me. When arriving BDF on airways radial 274 to 003, NoPT is specified.



If the above two PT and HILPT are required, what's the reason? What's the difference from the third one?
Even in the third case, when direct to BDF like radial 300 not on V-airways, do I need to do PT?

PS. I found that AWG does not have NDB approach even it has NDB in field. Has the approach been eliminated as people do not like the approach?

 

[luvflyin]

I'm learning for IR and just understood that procudure turns are required unless NoPT is specified or straight-in approach is cleared. But still I have some questions.

Here are examples,

1. WASHINGTON MUNI airport (AWG)

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2109/06289V36.PDF

When arriving on R-186 of IOW, the IAF would be SHIRN. If straight-in is not cleared, do I havee to proceed to SHIRN on R-186 inbound and make 180 turn at SHIRN and fly R-186 outbound and do the procudure turn to reestablish on R-186 inbound?

2. LENAWEE COUNTY airport (ADG)

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2109/05555R5.PDF

When arriving at OBIHI on 053deg track, is Holding in lieu of procedure turn required? How about arriving at at OBIHI on 40 or 60deg track?

3. MARSHALL COUNTY airport (C75)

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2109/06240V13.PDF

This approach is very clear to me. When arriving BDF on airways radial 274 to 003, NoPT is specified.



If the above two PT and HILPT are required, what's the reason? What's the difference from the third one?
Even in the third case, when direct to BDF like radial 300 not on V-airways, do I need to do PT?

PS. I found that AWG does not have NDB approach even it has NDB in field. Has the approach been eliminated as people do not like the approach?

1. You have to do the PT if they didn’t give you Straight In. You do not have to intercept the 186 radial outbound although that’s one way of doing it. All you have to do is stay on the side indicated by the Barb and remain within 10NM. The Missed Approach Hold gives you a nice picture of doing the Racetrack method of Procedure Turn.

2. That you just happened to arrive at OBIHI tracking straight in does not change that you must do the HILPT unless ATC included included ‘Straight In’ in the Approach Clearance.

The reason is, those are the rules. I don’t see an NDB at AWG. You may be looking at some outdated Charts

 

[PaulS]

You can ask for a straight in if it makes sense, you don't have to wait for them to offer it.

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

3. MARSHALL COUNTY airport (C75)

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2109/06240V13.PDF

This approach is very clear to me. When arriving BDF on airways radial 274 to 003, NoPT is specified.

The first approach I ever did in my IR training.

 

[somorris]

For the Washington Muni, if you had DME, you could ask (and I would) for the straight in if you were at about 3300 (the MSA). I think ATC would expect that. If you didn't have DME, you would likely need to go to the VOR first like you said unless you were on radar so ATC could give you a fix.

For LENAWEE, the HILPT is required unless you are cleared for the straight in for all your tracks listed.

For Marshall Co., you would cross the VOR approaching on the specified NoPT radials, so you would know where you are without GPS.

Your difficulty may be because you are used to using GPS so you can see where you are at all times. Picture not having any way to know exactly your position and I think you will see why the approaches need to be flown as specified.

This is my $0.02 worth, but there are other folks on this board who know a lot more than I do.

 

[chemgeek]

The PT or HILPT is required unless you are on a transition marked NoPT, are in a TAA sector marked NoPT, or are cleared by ATC straight in from the IAF. On the charts NoPT is the magic word.

 

[Clip4]

(j) Limitation on procedure turns. In the case of a radar vector to a final approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach for which the procedure specifies “No PT,” no pilot may make a procedure turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.

The PT allows you to descend, slow down and get aligned for the approach. You can always request the PT if you need it.

 

[John Collins]

1) Yes, the PT is required. Arriving along IOWR186R northbound is a random route to the fix SHIRN and does not use any airway feeder route, so you are not established on the final approach until after conducting the PT. The feeder to SHIRN is from IOW and is southbound. Regardless, the PT is shown on the chart and is required. None of the 4 exceptions apply in this case unless you are cleared straight in or vectored to final. The four exceptions are: 1) NoPt charted for route; 2) Vector to final; 3) Cleared Straight In; 4) timed approaches in progress.

2) Yes you must fly the HILPT in all cases if none of the 4 exceptions apply. If the HILPT or PT is charted, the chart designer determined it was necessary and you the pilot have no say in this matter, as to whether the PT is necessary . if it is charted and one of the 4 exceptions does not apply, it is required. You can always request a clearance straight in and then you are not required to fly the PT. You are also required by 91.103 to clarify with the controller if there is any confusion on the meaning of the clearance and I would advise you to do so in these instances.

3) That note "NoPT for arrivals on BDF VORTAC airway radials 247 CW 003" only applies to arriving on "airways" V10 Eastbound on the BDF247R, V156 Southeast Bound on the BDF282R, and V127 Southbound on the BDF003R. It does not apply to random routes such as along the BDF300R Southeast bound. Any other situation other than arriving on the airways requires the PT.

The reason is that there needs to be clarity in the rules. Each pilot and each controller can't just make up their own rules as this is chaos. If the FAA charts the HILPT or PT, you need to fly it unless one of the four exceptions apply. That is the rule. No big deal if you don't think it makes sense for your specific situation, clarify it with the controller or request what you want. Look at the KHKY ILS or LOC Rwy 24 approach where you use the feeder route from BZM to the IAF at TAWBA and figure out why it would not be such a good idea to avoid the PT and proceed straight in.

PS almost all NDB approaches and NDB are being phased out as so many aircraft no longer have ADF receivers installed, certainly not new aircraft. When the FAA provides RNAV procedures and or VOR/ILS procedures to the same airport, the NDB approach is on a short list for elimination. FAA has a policy to eliminate low use approaches according to this policy:
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...procedures-as-part-of-the-national-procedures

With the VOR MON program, over 300 VOR's are slated for removal which is going to make navigation in the future more dependent on GPS and aircraft without GPS are going to find IFR less convenient. Many Victor airways J routes along with VOR and NDB approaches are going away. Sufficient VOR and approaches will remain, primarily as a backup in the case of GPS failure or widespread outage.

 

[Brad Z]

It's worth noting that in the first two scenarios, to do what you're proposing would be to fly off airways, which generally requires radar coverage. PT requirements assume no radar coverage. If you have radar coverage, you can get vectors to the approach or a clearance to proceed direct to a fix on the procedure that obviates the need for a PT.

Note in your last example that the "no PT for arrivals on BDF Vortac airway radials 247 cw 003. That corresponds to arrivals from V10, V156, and V127.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The reason is, those are the rules. I don’t see an NDB at AWG. You may be looking at some outdated Charts

...and even though the creation of the hold was originally for course reversal or safe descent purposes, the main operational reason is so you are ATC are on the same page. The current statement of the rules about being cleared straight in was the result of at least 2-3 AIM revisions within a very short period of time.

Before then, our rules said we had to do it. ATC was expecting us to go straight in. Some pilots argued the PT is always optional, so I might do the PT and you might not. You can just imagine the confusion and arguments it caused. Its also easier.

Now, is situation where our rules say the PT is required, we and ATC confirm it with each other, either one of us making the first move.

 

[luvflyin]

For the Washington Muni, if you had DME, you could ask (and I would) for the straight in if you were at about 3300 (the MSA). I think ATC would expect that. If you didn't have DME, you would likely need to go to the VOR first like you said unless you were on radar so ATC could give you a fix.

For LENAWEE, the HILPT is required unless you are cleared for the straight in for all your tracks listed.

For Marshall Co., you would cross the VOR approaching on the specified NoPT radials, so you would know where you are without GPS.

Your difficulty may be because you are used to using GPS so you can see where you are at all times. Picture not having any way to know exactly your position and I think you will see why the approaches need to be flown as specified.

This is my $0.02 worth, but there are other folks on this board who know a lot more than I do.

DME is required for the KAWG VOR RWY 36. SHIRN is not a Radar Fix.

 

[aterpster]

...and even though the creation of the hold was originally for course reversal or safe descent purposes....

Before TERPs came into effect in November, 1967, most instrument approach procedures had standard procedure turns. The HILPT was unknown. The current holding pattern criteria was developed in 1963 to accommodate enroute or terminal holding by jet transports. Later on, someone in the Puzzle Palace came up with HILPTs because they take less airspace than a standard procedure turn.

 

[flying_John]

I watched youtube and it showed how an approach should be done.

Well explained in lost commucation situation.
But why is the pilot allowed to skip the Hold-In-Lieu of PT?

Appearently no verctor to approach in lost comm.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I watched youtube and it showed how an approach should be done.

Well explained in lost commucation situation.
But why is the pilot allowed to skip the Hold-In-Lieu of PT?

Appearently no verctor to approach in lost comm.

He's not "allowed." The context was the discussion of reality rather than regulation. They probably could have gone into more detail on this but they set the stage when they discussed not circling over the airport in IMC waiting for the filed ETA. Instead they pretty much quoted the very first sentence of the AIM discussion of lost comm - to exercise good judgment and even emergency authority if appropriate. Note that in the offered solution, he's also descended below the MEA down to the emergency MSA, which puts him at 4000 MSL, in decent position to safely bypass the required PT.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

The two most important real world things to learn, imho:

If there's anything you don't clearly understand about any ATC instruction, ask for clarification.

If you can't safely comply, say unable.

 

[John Collins]

Unless he considered it an emergency, the regulation says he can't commence his descent until reaching the IAF. The MSA is not an IAF and can't be used except in an emergency.

 

[dtuuri]

Well explained in lost commucation situation.

It was good until just after 5 minutes, then it went so badly off the rails I couldn't watch anymore. Y'know, anybody who earned an instrument rating within the last 30 years seems to be hopelessly confused about lost comm procedures in the setting of the meaning of "clearance limit". That includes the non-pilots in the FAA's Chief Counsel's office and their so-called expert advisers. "Clearance limit" in the context of lost comm is all about holding fixes short of the destination. Circa 1980, the regulations explicitly stated as much. You leave your assigned "holding fix" according to 91.185(c)(3)(i)or(ii). It makes no sense to overfly your destination just because it is specified as the clearance limit for the flight. Proof of that is the fact the regulation applies equally to non-RNAV capable aircraft too. Also, there is most likely no MEA for a random route over the airport nor has the airspace over an airport been approved for holding pattern entry procedures, if holding there is in anybody's mind. You fly your assigned route to the IAF, which is where your "route" ends and the SIAP begins and that's where and when your descent begins unless you have been "held" short of your destination. If you have been held at a holding fix ("clearance limit" in today's vernacular) follow 91.185(c)(3)(i)or(ii). If anybody in the FAA challenges you on this just claim you considered lost comm to be an emergency for all the prudent reasons.

 

[luvflyin]

It was good until just after 5 minutes, then it went so badly off the rails I couldn't watch anymore. Y'know, anybody who earned an instrument rating within the last 30 years seems to be hopelessly confused about lost comm procedures in the setting of the meaning of "clearance limit". That includes the non-pilots in the FAA's Chief Counsel's office and their so-called expert advisers. "Clearance limit" in the context of lost comm is all about holding fixes short of the destination. Circa 1980, the regulations explicitly stated as much. You leave your assigned "holding fix" according to 91.185(c)(3)(i)or(ii). It makes no sense to overfly your destination just because it is specified as the clearance limit for the flight. Proof of that is the fact the regulation applies equally to non-RNAV capable aircraft too. Also, there is most likely no MEA for a random route over the airport nor has the airspace over an airport been approved for holding pattern entry procedures, if holding there is in anybody's mind. You fly your assigned route to the IAF, which is where your "route" ends and the SIAP begins and that's where and when your descent begins unless you have been "held" short of your destination. If you have been held at a holding fix ("clearance limit" in today's vernacular) follow 91.185(c)(3)(i)or(ii). If anybody in the FAA challenges you on this just claim you considered lost comm to be an emergency for all the prudent reasons.

Yeah, he said it. If your Clearance Limit is the Airport, you should fly to a point in space over the Airport and pretend it is a Fix. When the change to Lost Com was done it was well explained why the changes were being done in the Federal Register and put out to public comment. 91.185 (c) (3) (ii) was meant to say "If the clearance limit is a fix from which an approach does not begin..." but somehow it became "If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins..."

 

[dtuuri]

If your Clearance Limit is the Airport, you should fly to a point in space over the Airport and pretend it is a Fix.

WADR, you can't mean that.

91.185 (c) (3) (ii) was meant to say "If the clearance limit is a fix from which an approach does not begin..." but somehow it became "If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins..."

It was meant to say "If the holding fix is not a fix from which an approach begins..." but somehow it became "If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins..."

IIRC, some foreign pilots were confused by charting that had, like today, icons of "holding fixes" and couldn't wrap their minds around the concept of holding at other places too. So they dubbed assigned holding fixes "clearance limits".

 

[Clip4]

It was good until just after 5 minutes, then it went so badly off the rails I couldn't watch anymore. Y'know, anybody who earned an instrument rating within the last 30 years seems to be hopelessly confused about lost comm procedures in the setting of the meaning of "clearance limit". That includes the non-pilots in the FAA's Chief Counsel's office and their so-called expert advisers. "Clearance limit" in the context of lost comm is all about holding fixes short of the destination. Circa 1980, the regulations explicitly stated as much. You leave your assigned "holding fix" according to 91.185(c)(3)(i)or(ii). It makes no sense to overfly your destination just because it is specified as the clearance limit for the flight. Proof of that is the fact the regulation applies equally to non-RNAV capable aircraft too. Also, there is most likely no MEA for a random route over the airport nor has the airspace over an airport been approved for holding pattern entry procedures, if holding there is in anybody's mind. You fly your assigned route to the IAF, which is where your "route" ends and the SIAP begins and that's where and when your descent begins unless you have been "held" short of your destination. If you have been held at a holding fix ("clearance limit" in today's vernacular) follow 91.185(c)(3)(i)or(ii). If anybody in the FAA challenges you on this just claim you considered lost comm to be an emergency for all the prudent reasons.

Might be a moot argue if you died in a mid air. Do what you are supposed to do.

 

[dtuuri]

Might be a moot argue if you died in a mid air.

Why would doing exactly what nearly everyone claims ATC really wants you to do, which is exactly what I'm arguing the regulation says to do, cause a risk of a midair? Or are you referring to the video posted by farmer_Joe?

 

[Clip4]

Why would doing exactly what nearly everyone claims ATC really wants you to do, which is exactly what I'm arguing the regulation says to do, cause a risk of a midair? Or are you referring to the video posted by farmer_Joe?

These “controllers” are the perfect position to get the reg changed. They have failed to do so for the last 3 decades and there is no record of them attempting to do so.

It’s just folk lore.

In the event of two‐way radio communications failure, ATC service will be provided on the basis that the pilot is operating in accordance with 14 CFR Section 91.185. A pilot experiencing two‐way communications failure should (unless emergency authority is exercised) comply with 14 CFR Section 91.185.

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/courses/content/38/483/Lost Com Graphic.pdf

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap6_section_4.html

 

[dmspilot]

Yeah, he said it. If your Clearance Limit is the Airport, you should fly to a point in space over the Airport and pretend it is a Fix.

Nope. The route you fly is governed by 91.185(c)(1). If your clearance limit is your destination, you aren't leaving the clearance limit, and 91.185(c)(3) does not apply.

Do what you are supposed to do.

If your clearance limit is your destination, you are not supposed to go there, leave, and then go back. That would be stupid.

 

[Clip4]

Nope. The route you fly is governed by 91.185(c)(1). If your clearance limit is your destination, you aren't leaving the clearance limit, and 91.185(c)(3) does not apply.



If your clearance limit is your destination, you are not supposed to go there, leave, and then go back. That would be stupid.

Your scenario assumes you flew over an IAF first. The IAF may be on the other side of the airport. You don’t proceed direct to an IAF from any point you want.

 

[dtuuri]

You don’t proceed direct to an IAF from any point you want.

No, from the last fix in your route definition. If you filed direct to a waypoint right over the airport, well, go there first. I wouldn't file that way.

 

[Clip4]

No, from the last fix in your route definition. If you filed direct to a waypoint right over the airport, well, go there first. I wouldn't file that way.

So you were lazy, filed direct, got a departure vector, lost Comm, and now you are headed to an IAF with a prayer the controller know where the hell you are going.

 

[dtuuri]

So you were lazy, filed direct, got a departure vector, lost Comm, and now you are headed to an IAF.

See what I mean? I wouldn't file like that.

 

[Clip4]

I wouldn’t either, but your advice is being read by some that do.

 

[dtuuri]

I wouldn’t either, but your advice is being read by some that do.

Maybe we can change some minds? My advice was to fly to the waypoint over the airport IF that's what they put in their route definition, THEN go to the IAF. Same as what the regulation says about following the cleared route. The AIM says to file over arrival fixes, doesn't it? Not over the airport. I'm a stickler for AIM advice (usually).

 

[dmspilot]

So you were lazy, filed direct, got a departure vector, lost Comm, and now you are headed to an IAF with a prayer the controller know where the hell you are going.

The alternative is a violation of 91.185(c)(1) which governs the route you fly. Maybe don't file a flight plan that will require you to violate a regulation in the event of lost comm.

 

[Clip4]

In the event of two‐way radio communications failure, ATC service will be provided on the basis that the pilot is operating in accordance with 14 CFR Section 91.185. A pilot experiencing two‐way communications failure should (unless emergency authority is exercised) comply with 14 CFR Section 91.185…..

 

[dtuuri]

In the event of two‐way radio communications failure, ATC service will be provided on the basis that the pilot is operating in accordance with 14 CFR Section 91.185. A pilot experiencing two‐way communications failure should (unless emergency authority is exercised) comply with 14 CFR Section 91.185…..

They ought to have a regulation that requires you to do what the rule means and not what it says if it doesn't make any sense.

 

[dmspilot]

In the event of two‐way radio communications failure, ATC service will be provided on the basis that the pilot is operating in accordance with 14 CFR Section 91.185. A pilot experiencing two‐way communications failure should (unless emergency authority is exercised) comply with 14 CFR Section 91.185…..

Congratulations, you can copy and paste. I can do that too.

In the event of two‐way radio communications failure, ATC service will be provided on the basis that the pilot is operating in accordance with 14 CFR Section 91.185. A pilot experiencing two‐way communications failure should (unless emergency authority is exercised) comply with 14 CFR Section 91.185…..

In the event of two‐way radio communications failure, ATC service will be provided on the basis that the pilot is operating in accordance with 14 CFR Section 91.185. A pilot experiencing two‐way communications failure should (unless emergency authority is exercised) comply with 14 CFR Section 91.185…..

In the event of two‐way radio communications failure, ATC service will be provided on the basis that the pilot is operating in accordance with 14 CFR Section 91.185. A pilot experiencing two‐way communications failure should (unless emergency authority is exercised) comply with 14 CFR Section 91.185…..

In the event of two‐way radio communications failure, ATC service will be provided on the basis that the pilot is operating in accordance with 14 CFR Section 91.185. A pilot experiencing two‐way communications failure should (unless emergency authority is exercised) comply with 14 CFR Section 91.185…..

 

[Clip4]

Congratulations, you can copy and paste. I can do that too.

In the event of two‐way radio communications failure, ATC service will be provided on the basis that the pilot is operating in accordance with 14 CFR Section 91.185. A pilot experiencing two‐way communications failure should (unless emergency authority is exercised) comply with 14 CFR Section 91.185…..

In the event of two‐way radio communications failure, ATC service will be provided on the basis that the pilot is operating in accordance with 14 CFR Section 91.185. A pilot experiencing two‐way communications failure should (unless emergency authority is exercised) comply with 14 CFR Section 91.185…..

In the event of two‐way radio communications failure, ATC service will be provided on the basis that the pilot is operating in accordance with 14 CFR Section 91.185. A pilot experiencing two‐way communications failure should (unless emergency authority is exercised) comply with 14 CFR Section 91.185…..

In the event of two‐way radio communications failure, ATC service will be provided on the basis that the pilot is operating in accordance with 14 CFR Section 91.185. A pilot experiencing two‐way communications failure should (unless emergency authority is exercised) comply with 14 CFR Section 91.185…..

Good, just like 5th grade, write it until you get it correct.

 

[midlifeflyer]

If your clearance limit is your destination, you are not supposed to go there, leave, and then go back. That would be stupid.

yet, the FAA Chief Counsel said exactly that.

We have previously explained that when a pilot flies an IFR flight plan, an estimated time of arrival at the destination is part ofthe flight plan. If during the flight the aircraft loses radio communication, the clearance limit of the aircraft is the destination. If the aircraft arrives early at its clearance limit, the pilot should hold at the approach fix and commence descent and approach as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival.​

Bizarre, but officially bizarre.

 

[dmspilot]

Good, just like 5th grade, write it until you get it correct.

Your 5th grade brain apparently can't understand that no one is saying you shouldn't comply with 91.185. Your post is a waste of internet.

 

[dtuuri]

yet, the FAA Chief Counsel said exactly that.

Yeah, but. They also referred to an opinion they gave to Air Traffic when ATO couldn't even answer questions I posed to that organization about why they initiated the language changes in the first place. In the second answer they gave to me (when I challenged their first one) they said this:

"In your subsequent question of November 28, 2010, you ask specifically if a pilot is cleared to the destination airport should he hold at an unapproved fix. Again, the answer is no because in your scenario the pilot was cleared to an airport without any holding instructions. If, however, the pilot had been cleared to a point other than his or her destination and instructed to hold for further clearance, that point would be both a clearance limit and a holding fix."
​

Since "leaving the clearance limit" in accordance with 91.185(c)(3)(ii) could involve holding for EFC time, it would be at an unapproved fix (destination airport). Here, they are admitting "the answer is no", i.e., don't do it. In the Van West letter they say their letter(s) to me are correct. It's clear to me they haven't got a clue what they're talking about other than this quote. Shame on them for the rest and I declare victory by their own words above.

EDIT: Well, actually, there would never be an EFC at the destination airport since it isn't an approved holding fix, which is the argument I should have said in the above paragraph. It's proof they just don't understand.

 

[Clip4]

ii) If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins, leave the clearance limit at the expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, (which is never going to be an airport) or if none has been received, upon arrival over the clearance limit, and proceed to a fix from which an approach begins and commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated.from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.

It seems rather clear to me, but the misinformation continues from the crowd that doesn’t like the regulation.

 

[dtuuri]

ii) If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins, leave the clearance limit at the expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or if none has been received, upon arrival over the clearance limit, and proceed to a fix from which an approach begins and commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated.from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.

Not sure of your point, but please note I edited my post. There wouldn't ever be an EFC at an unapproved holding fix like a destination airport, so the rule to "leave" it then makes no sense.

 

[dmspilot]

It seems rather clear to me, but the misinformation continues from the crowd that doesn’t like the regulation.

Meanwhile, misinformation continues from someone who has posts bizarre interpretations on a regular basis. Finish any 120-hour commercial students lately?