Procedure turn question

midlifeflyer said:
When he does them at all :confused: Otto also does AIM-standard entries for holding patterns.

Yeah, GPS units do things in an FAA-standard way, not a big surprise there.
Click to expand...

Not always. The FAA goes into a pretty lengthy discussion about how FMS and GPS doesn’t always do things right. AIM 5-3-8 j. 7. and what pilots should do about it in 5-3-8 j. 8.
 
luvflyin said:
Not always. The FAA goes into a pretty lengthy discussion about how FMS and GPS doesn’t always do things right. AIM 5-3-8 j. 7. and what pilots should do about it in 5-3-8 j. 8.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know.
Parts of it ate reminiscent of non-GPS arguments over holding pattern entries. overall, it's a reminder that they are neither perfect nor intelligent, and we still need to be pilots not passengers.
 
luvflyin said:
Not always. The FAA goes into a pretty lengthy discussion about how FMS and GPS doesn’t always do things right. AIM 5-3-8 j. 7. and what pilots should do about it in 5-3-8 j. 8.
Click to expand...
That is about holding patterns, not procedure turns (which is the issue of this thread).
 
wind_shear said:
I was pretty sure the correct procedure after LUTZZ would be to intercept and track the loc outbound and than do the PT. I guess what I'm getting caught up on is not knowing if that will always be the case with a feeder? will you always go from the feeder and intercept the loc/vor and track outbound and than begin the pt? (if doing full procedure) reference this approach PWA VOR RWY 35R. IFI feeder at 3300 and 27.8 DME to DICKH, intercept and track the PWA 168r outbound begin PT after a minutes or so. obviously after crossing DICKH you can drop down to 3000 and so on after establish inbound. Also shouldn't there be NOPT noted from the IRW feeder? or am i missing something?

https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2103/00739V35R.PDF
Click to expand...

Palmpilot said:
My understanding is that if a PT is depicted, you are required to fly it unless you're on a route marked NoPT, ATC instructs you to fly straight-in, or you were given vectors to final. Maybe the lack of "NoPT" on the IRW feeder is an error. Making a 170 degree turn to get established outbound on the PT seems like a bit much.
Click to expand...

The feeder route does not say "NoPT" because feeder routes are not eligible for the "NoPT" indication.

From FAAO 8260.19I (the order that specifies how to document procedures), para 8-2-5g:
g. Initial approach segments.
(1) Initial approach segments not requiring a course reversal. Evaluate the flow of air traffic to
determine the need for routes that do not require a course reversal, i.e., fixes, STARs, airways,
waypoints. 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 [see paragraph 8-6-
4.a(3)].

Also 8-6-4a(3):
(3) Enter NoPT in the “To” “Fix Type,” column for initial segments that permit
elimination of the procedure turn.

There is no corresponding entry for feeder routes. Whether this makes sense or not, or is intentional or not, is a different question.
 
RussR said:
The feeder route does not say "NoPT" because feeder routes are not eligible for the "NoPT" indication.

From FAAO 8260.19I (the order that specifies how to document procedures), para 8-2-5g:
g. Initial approach segments.
(1) Initial approach segments not requiring a course reversal. Evaluate the flow of air traffic to
determine the need for routes that do not require a course reversal, i.e., fixes, STARs, airways,
waypoints. 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 [see paragraph 8-6-
4.a(3)].

Also 8-6-4a(3):
(3) Enter NoPT in the “To” “Fix Type,” column for initial segments that permit
elimination of the procedure turn.

There is no corresponding entry for feeder routes. Whether this makes sense or not, or is intentional or not, is a different question.
Click to expand...

Haven’t looked yet but I wonder if ‘Initial Segments’ is used generically. Not specifically meaning ‘Initial Approach Segment.’ Every order has it’s own ‘definitions’ page. And Glossary I think, that doesn’t always match up with other definitions in other documents.
 
luvflyin said:
Haven’t looked yet but I wonder if ‘Initial Segments’ is used generically. Not specifically meaning ‘Initial Approach Segment.’ Every order has it’s own ‘definitions’ page. And Glossary I think, that doesn’t always match up with other definitions in other documents.
Click to expand...

It does not seem so. There are 29 uses of the phrase "initial segment" in that document, and all of them seem to refer specifically to the segment starting at the IAF and ending at the IF. In some uses, the sentence contains both the terms "initial segment" and "feeder segment" showing that the two are different.
 
flyingron said:
Yes, an even more radical feeder one is this one: https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2103/00706IL24.PDF

There's a feeder from BZM to the TAWBA compass locator IAF. You need to do a course reversal there to get headed in the right direction to do another course reversal.
Click to expand...

That one is begging to be done as a Racetrack instead of the Barb thingy. Just two turns instead of 5. It looks like it is on the chopping block. Read the Notams
 
RussR said:
It does not seem so. There are 29 uses of the phrase "initial segment" in that document, and all of them seem to refer specifically to the segment starting at the IAF and ending at the IF. In some uses, the sentence contains both the terms "initial segment" and "feeder segment" showing that the two are different.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I did a quick read through and didn't find anything that supported my speculation. What got me wondering is how they used two different terms to describe what seems the same thing. Copied and pasted what you posted above but changed the 'highlighting.'

From FAAO 8260.19I (the order that specifies how to document procedures), para 8-2-5g:
g. Initial approach segments.
(1) Initial approach segments not requiring a course reversal. Evaluate the flow of air traffic to
determine the need for routes that do not require a course reversal, i.e., fixes, STARs, airways,
waypoints. 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 [see paragraph 8-6-
4.a(3)].
 
luvflyin said:
That one is begging to be done as a Racetrack instead of the Barb thingy. Just two turns instead of 5. It looks like it is on the chopping block. Read the Notams
Click to expand...
Which one? The only ones that seem to apply say unmonitored (the bulb must have burned out in the control tower) and that there's a temporary bump in the DA. Construction?
 
flyingron said:
Which one? The only ones that seem to apply say unmonitored (the bulb must have burned out in the control tower) and that there's a temporary bump in the DA. Construction?
Click to expand...
The ILS not monitered one that ends with Expiration Estimated. There are 'Expires' dates, but I don't remember seeing that Expiration Estimated thing before. I probably don't read enough Notams and took it all wrong.
 
luvflyin said:
The ILS not monitered one that ends with Expiration Estimated. There are 'Expires' dates, but I don't remember seeing that Expiration Estimated thing before. I probably don't read enough Notams and took it all wrong.
Click to expand...
It's saying they expect the NOTAM to expire in June but they aren't going to commit to it.
 
luvflyin said:
Let us know what the response is. I wonder if they'll just fix it and cut the NOTAM or send it up the food chain.
Click to expand...
FAA Response:

Thank you for bringing this to our attention; we do appreciate it.

A NOTAM has been written to correct the error and the Chart will be corrected for 05/20/17.

!FDC 1/1786 UAO CHART AURORA STATE, AURORA, OR. LOC RWY 17, AMDT 2A... CORRECT PLANVIEW: ADD IAF TO LUTZZ INT I-UAO 8.1 DME. 2104201124-PERM
 
flyingron said:
FAA Response:

Thank you for bringing this to our attention; we do appreciate it.

A NOTAM has been written to correct the error and the Chart will be corrected for 05/20/17.

!FDC 1/1786 UAO CHART AURORA STATE, AURORA, OR. LOC RWY 17, AMDT 2A... CORRECT PLANVIEW: ADD IAF TO LUTZZ INT I-UAO 8.1 DME. 2104201124-PERM
Click to expand...

Pretty quick. Sometimes they get it done almost right away like within minutes the same day on something simple like this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top