Racetrack/Procedure Turn Question

[ArnoldPalmer]

Hello - been a minute since I posted here. I have a quick question as a newly minted CFII.

On my recent CFII checkride, at 3AU I was coming in from the NW and shooting the VOR-A approach. Examiner asked me if I was going to do the racetrack procedure turn, and I said yes. DPE said that was correct, per the AIM 5-4-6 regulations. If I had not made the turn, DPE said it would be an instant failure. Phew.

Now as I review other approaches in the area - I have some questions/uncertainties.

A good example would be KEMP. They also have a VOR-A approach. While there is no racetrack procedure, it does have a procedure turn that takes one outbound on the 126 radial. My question is this - if approaching from the SE on a 318 heading, and you head to the VOR (which is the IAF/FAF), do I still have to do the procedure turn, even though I am pretty much straight in??

Same for the VOR-A at KCNU. If coming in from the west and arriving at the VOR ot a heading of 075, do I have to (do a 180) track outbound to complete the procedure turn?

Thanks!

 

[Pinecone]

https://www.ifr-magazine.com/technique/procedure-turn-basics/

"AIM 5-4-9 tells us “the procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-PT is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart, unless cleared by ATC for a straight-in approach.” That’s pretty straightforward. If a procedure turn is published and you don’t fall into one of the buckets defined in 14 CFR Part 91.175(j) or receive a straight-in approach clearance, you’re expected to fly it.

As we’ve shown, there are cases where a procedure turn is required but doesn’t make sense given the orientation of the aircraft to the procedure turn course. In these cases, hopefully ATC would have given you a straight-in clearance, but if they haven’t, just ask. Either you’ll get it, or you’ll find out why they want you to jump through an additional hoop."

 

[Steamflyer]

On my recent CFII checkride, at 3AU I was coming in from the NW and shooting the VOR-A approach. Examiner asked me if I was going to do the racetrack procedure turn, and I said yes. DPE said that was correct, per the AIM 5-4-6 regulations. If I had not made the turn, DPE said it would be an instant failure. Phew.

Now as I review other approaches in the area - I have some questions/uncertainties.

A good example would be KEMP. They also have a VOR-A approach. While there is no racetrack procedure, it does have a procedure turn that takes one outbound on the 126 radial. My question is this - if approaching from the SE on a 318 heading, and you head to the VOR (which is the IAF/FAF), do I still have to do the procedure turn, even though I am pretty much straight in??

Same for the VOR-A at KCNU. If coming in from the west and arriving at the VOR ot a heading of 075, do I have to (do a 180) track outbound to complete the procedure turn?

Thanks!

If you were shooting the VOR-A from NW to 3AU, flying the procedure turn from WANDY should have been non-controversial - how else could one get turned around and pointed at the airport? The procedure turn gives you a place and altitude to get oriented. If you were already at 3000', you would just join outbound and the on the inbound leg join the FAC. So the "racetrack" is going to look kind of like a regular PT in this case.

If you went missed you'd go around and around if necessary for you or ATC after navigating to WANDY.

At KEMP from the SE you would either join the arc or go to the IF and join the FAC. ATC would be very surprised if you turned around at the IF outbound coming from that direction. Since the field also has two RNAV approaches, ideally you'd never be on the VOR-A.

KCNU is trickier IMHO - shooting on own (no radar vectors, no vectors to final) seems you would have to turn around in theory at the VOR, but in real life I'd tell ATC that's the plan as if nearly aligned with the FAC and on altitude, don't think they'd expect it.

 

[luvflyin]

Hello - been a minute since I posted here. I have a quick question as a newly minted CFII.

On my recent CFII checkride, at 3AU I was coming in from the NW and shooting the VOR-A approach. Examiner asked me if I was going to do the racetrack procedure turn, and I said yes. DPE said that was correct, per the AIM 5-4-6 regulations. If I had not made the turn, DPE said it would be an instant failure. Phew.

Now as I review other approaches in the area - I have some questions/uncertainties.

A good example would be KEMP. They also have a VOR-A approach. While there is no racetrack procedure, it does have a procedure turn that takes one outbound on the 126 radial. My question is this - if approaching from the SE on a 318 heading, and you head to the VOR (which is the IAF/FAF), do I still have to do the procedure turn, even though I am pretty much straight in??

Same for the VOR-A at KCNU. If coming in from the west and arriving at the VOR ot a heading of 075, do I have to (do a 180) track outbound to complete the procedure turn?

Thanks!

If the Controller does not include ‘straight in’ in the Approach Clearance you are required to do the PT or HILPT. 3AU has a HILPT. I suppose calling it a racetrack PT is a good enough description of a HILPT. But ‘racetrack’ is something you can do with a PT. At KCNU, arriving from the West heading 075 I would do the racetrack method of PT. But you could reverse course, get on the 239 radial and fly the barb if you wanted to. Same thing at KEMP. Keep in mind that the Missed Approach Hold on both of those Approaches has nothing to do with this. You could do the racetrack method if they weren’t there.
AIM 5-4-9 a. 1.
1. On U.S. Government charts, a barbed arrow indicates the maneuvering side of the outbound course on which the procedure turn is made. Headings are provided for course reversal using the 45 degree type procedure turn. However, the point at which the turn may be commenced and the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of the pilot (limited by the charted remain within xx NM distance). Some of the options are the 45 degree procedure turn, the racetrack pattern, the teardrop procedure turn, or the 80 degree 260 degree course reversal. Racetrack entries should be conducted on the maneuvering side where the majority of protected airspace resides. If an entry places the pilot on the non−maneuvering side of the PT, correction to intercept the outbound course
ensures remaining within protected airspace. Some procedure turns are specified by procedural track. These turns must be flown exactly as depicted.

 

[OC59]

I'm a little puzzled by the sentence at the end "These turns must be flown exactly as depicted." I'm relatively new (2yrs) to IFR, and I've been treating the HILPT as just another PT, except that the fix is specified (as opposed to the barb where it's up to the pilot to choose where to turn). So I will cross the fix then do whatever maneuver is appropriate (teardrop or parallel) to get turned around & lined up. That doesn't seem to match the phrasing "flown exactly as depicted".

One of the very annoying things about the AIM is that it doesn't reference the regs or interpretations that apply when they say something like this. In this case, there's an interpretation letter (I can get a link if anyone cares) that says that if the HILPT specifies a distance (e.g., 4 nm), the full distance does not have to be flown unless specified by ATC. If you can get turned around in 2 miles, you don't have to fly the full 4. This is definitely not "flown exactly as depicted".

 

[luvflyin]

I'm a little puzzled by the sentence at the end "These turns must be flown exactly as depicted." I'm relatively new (2yrs) to IFR, and I've been treating the HILPT as just another PT, except that the fix is specified (as opposed to the barb where it's up to the pilot to choose where to turn). So I will cross the fix then do whatever maneuver is appropriate (teardrop or parallel) to get turned around & lined up. That doesn't seem to match the phrasing "flown exactly as depicted".

One of the very annoying things about the AIM is that it doesn't reference the regs or interpretations that apply when they say something like this. In this case, there's an interpretation letter (I can get a link if anyone cares) that says that if the HILPT specifies a distance (e.g., 4 nm), the full distance does not have to be flown unless specified by ATC. If you can get turned around in 2 miles, you don't have to fly the full 4. This is definitely not "flown exactly as depicted".

The sentence at the the end does not stand alone and refer to HILPT’s and various methods of PT like racetrack, 80/260 etc. It is two sentences at the end, “Some procedure turns are specified by procedural track. These turns must be flown exactly as depicted.” There aren’t very many of these. An example would be the VOR or TACAN RWY 25 at KPMD

 

[OC59]

The sentence at the the end does not stand alone and refer to HILPT’s and various methods of PT like racetrack, 80/260 etc. It is two sentences at the end, “Some procedure turns are specified by procedural track. These turns must be flown exactly as depicted.” There aren’t very many of these. An example would be the VOR or TACAN RWY 25 at KPMD

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're proposing? There are tons of depicted racetrack HILPTs -- I think pretty much every RNAV with a PT is now depicted this way, though I might be wrong about that. But I see them on approaches all the time. And they do not have to be flown as depicted.

 

[luvflyin]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're proposing? There are tons of depicted racetrack HILPTs -- I think pretty much every RNAV with a PT is now depicted this way, though I might be wrong about that. But I see them on approaches all the time. And they do not have to be flown as depicted.

A HILPT is a Hold in Lieu of Procedure Turn. A Hold. All Holding patterns are in the shape of a racetrack. Where it says in AIM 5-4-9 a. 1. "...Some of the options are the 45 degree procedure turn, the racetrack pattern, the teardrop procedure turn, or the 80 degree 260 degree course reversal..." racetrack is 'generic' so to speak. If doing it, you are bound by doing a racetrack shaped PT on the side indicated by the Barb and must remain within the distance published, usually 10 miles. If there is a HILPT published, you are doing a HILPT. Not the racetrack pattern method of PT.

 

[dmspilot]

At KEMP from the SE you would either join the arc or go to the IF and join the FAC. ATC would be very surprised if you turned around at the IF outbound coming from that direction. Since the field also has two RNAV approaches, ideally you'd never be on the VOR-A.

You would NOT join the arc in some random point, certainly not coming from the SE, but at one of the IAFs.You also would NOT go directly to the IF because it's an IF, not an IAF.

ATC would not be surprised if you did the procedure turn, because they would not know unless they were radar vectoring you, and if they are vectoring you onto the final approach course, you would not do a procedure turn because that's the whole point of being vectored.

Procedure turns are either mandatory or prohibited. There's no in-between.

 

[RussR]

There aren’t very many of these. An example would be the VOR or TACAN RWY 25 at KPMD

I'm confused. There are literally thousands of these - most RNAV (GPS) procedures have a HILPT (none have a "regular" PT by policy). And there are many, many on VOR/ILS procedures as well. So they're hardly uncommon.

 

[luvflyin]

I'm confused. There are literally thousands of these - most RNAV (GPS) procedures have a HILPT (none have a "regular" PT by policy). And there are many, many on VOR/ILS procedures as well. So they're hardly uncommon.

I wasn't talking about HILPT's. It's Procedure Track course reversals. Like the ILS or LOC RWY 33 at KRMN.

 

[flyingron]

Teardrop course reversal, the one at RMN is just pretty fat compared to a lot of them. Unless vectored to final you have to fly that. There's no suitable IF you can be cleared straight-in from.

 

[luvflyin]

Teardrop course reversal, the one at RMN is just pretty fat compared to a lot of them. Unless vectored to final you have to fly that. There's no suitable IF you can be cleared straight-in from.

How many others do you know of? They seem to be kinda rare.

 

[RussR]

I wasn't talking about HILPT's. It's Procedure Track course reversals. Like the ILS or LOC RWY 33 at KRMN.

Okay, yes, I did misunderstand. Teardrop procedure turns are pretty rare. Most common at military fields or joint-use airports, usually will have Cat E minimums on them too.

 

[Pinecone]

How many others do you know of? They seem to be kinda rare.

They are very common in Hi TACAN approaches.

 

[Clip4]

Little scary a new CFII that doesn’t know this stuff.

 

[flyingron]

How many others do you know of? They seem to be kinda rare.

There used to be more. The FAA has been removing them. This stuff's still on the instrument written (as it was back 20 years ago when I took it last).

DDC ILS OR LOC RWY 14
GUP LOC RWY 6
PBF ILS or LOC RWY 18
LNK ILS or LOC Y RWY 18

Not just a US thing either.

 

[Sluggo63]

You would NOT join the arc in some random point, certainly not coming from the SE, but at one of the IAFs.You also would NOT go directly to the IF because it's an IF, not an IAF.

ATC would not be surprised if you did the procedure turn, because they would not know unless they were radar vectoring you, and if they are vectoring you onto the final approach course, you would not do a procedure turn because that's the whole point of being vectored.

Procedure turns are either mandatory or prohibited. There's no in-between.

In a non-radar environment, I agree with you.

If you're in a radar environment, ATC can certainly I know I have gotten a vector you to join the approach along the DME arc and not at an IAF.

Edit: I know I've gotten that vector (many, many times) but the more I read, the more I think that might not have been quite by the book. More research coming...

 

[flyingron]

You're not supposed to be vectored other than to final. You can be directed to proceed to an IAF or IF (and go straight in from there if it makes sense). The IFR illuminati (Paul Bertorelli and the folk at IFR magazine) that swore that you could join a DME arc anywhere, but the FAA did an official edict that says you have to join it at the end where the little IAF is.

 

[TCABM]

In a non-radar environment, I agree with you.

If you're in a radar environment, ATC can certainly I know I have gotten a vector you to join the approach along the DME arc and not at an IAF.

Edit: I know I've gotten that vector (many, many times) but the more I read, the more I think that might not have been quite by the book. More research coming...

KSKF ILS16. Don’t know if it matters that it’s a DOD controller or not.

 

[Sluggo63]

You're not supposed to be vectored other than to final. You can be directed to proceed to an IAF or IF (and go straight in from there if it makes sense). The IFR illuminati (Paul Bertorelli and the folk at IFR magazine) that swore that you could join a DME arc anywhere, but the FAA did an official edict that says you have to join it at the end where the little IAF is.

I know for a fact that I've both been given vectors to join an arc to start an approach and also flown on a radial inbound and joined the arc for an approach. This was at Tuscaloosa (KTCL). This was one of the airports we would fly with students while I was a T-37 instructor, and we did it all the time. That's not to say that TCL approach wasn't following the rules, but my brief research on this tonight led me to believe that even ATC isn't clear if they can vector you to an arc. There were some controllers online who said "it's legal and we do it all the time at our facility" and others who weren't so sure.

That special counsel LOI deals only with non-radar environments (unless there another letter out there that I don't know about).

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/1994/AGC_Opinion-ARC_IAFs_1994_Legal_Interpretation.pdf

Mr. Tom Young, Chairman
Charting and Instrument Procedures Committee
Air Line Pilots Association
535 Herndon Parkway
Herndon, VA 22070

Dear Mr. Young:

This is a clarification of our response to your letter of August 23, 1993. In that letter you requested an interpretation of Section 91.175 of the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) (14 CFR Section 91.175). You address the necessity of executing a complete Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) in a non-radar environment while operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). Our response assumes that each of the specific scenarios you pose speaks to a flight conducted under IFR in a non-radar environment.

Section 91.175(a) provides that unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each person operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, shall use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed for the airport in Part 97.

First you ask whether an arriving aircraft must begin the SIAP at a published Initial Approach Fix (IAF). A pilot must begin a SIAP at the IAF as defined in Part 97. Descent gradients, communication, and obstruction clearance, as set forth in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Approach Procedures (TERPs), cannot be assured if the entire procedure is not flown.

You also ask whether a Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) arc initial approach segment can be substituted for a published IAF along any portion of the published arc. A DME arc cannot be substituted for a published IAF along a portion of the published arc. If a feeder route to an IAF is part of the published approach procedure, it is considered a mandatory part of the approach.

Finally, you ask whether a course reversal segment is optional "when one of the conditions of FAR section 91.175(j) is not present."

Section 91.175(j) states that 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 procedures specifies "no procedure turn," no pilot may make a procedure turn unless cleared to do so by ATC. Section 97.3(p) defines a procedure turn, in part, as a maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on a intermediate or final approach course. A SIAP may or may not prescribe a procedure turn based on the application of certain criteria contained in the TERPs. However, if a SIAP does contain a procedure turn and ATC has cleared a pilot to execute the SIAP, the pilot must make the procedure turn when one of the conditions of Section 91.175(j) is not present.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Patricia R. Lane, Manager, Airspace and Air Traffic Law Branch, at (202) 267-3491.

Sincerely,
/s/
Patricia R. Lane
for Donald P. Byrne

 

[luvflyin]

You're not supposed to be vectored other than to final. You can be directed to proceed to an IAF or IF (and go straight in from there if it makes sense). The IFR illuminati (Paul Bertorelli and the folk at IFR magazine) that swore that you could join a DME arc anywhere, but the FAA did an official edict that says you have to join it at the end where the little IAF is.

“…official edict…”. Do you have a citation for that? Is it a 7110.###?

 

[Clip4]

If ATC vectors you to an intermediate point along the arc, activate the arc leg of your RNAVs flight plan before reaching the arc and fly the arc.

 

[luvflyin]

You're not supposed to be vectored other than to final. You can be directed to proceed to an IAF or IF (and go straight in from there if it makes sense). The IFR illuminati (Paul Bertorelli and the folk at IFR magazine) that swore that you could join a DME arc anywhere, but the FAA did an official edict that says you have to join it at the end where the little IAF is.

Only to final is not what I’m seeing when I look at ‘the law.’ CFR 91.175 (i).

(i) Operations on unpublished routes and use of radar in instrument approach procedures. When radar is approved at certain locations for ATC purposes, it may be used not only for surveillance and precision radar approaches, as applicable, but also may be used in conjunction with instrument approach procedures predicated on other types of radio navigational aids. Radar vectors may be authorized to provide course guidance through the segments of an approach to the final course or fix. When operating on an unpublished route or while being radar vectored, the pilot, when an approach clearance is received, shall, in addition to complying with § 91.177, maintain the last altitude assigned to that pilot until the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure unless a different altitude is assigned by ATC. After the aircraft is so established, published altitudes apply to descent within each succeeding route or approach segment unless a different altitude
is assigned by ATC. Upon reaching the final approach course or fix, the pilot may either complete the instrument approach in accordance with a procedure approved for the facility or continue a surveillance or precision radar approach to a landing.

 

[luvflyin]

KSKF ILS16. Don’t know if it matters that it’s a DOD controller or not.

DOD Controllers, as well as uniformed military Controllers in the US are subject to FAA regulations. 7110.65 and FAR 65. There are USN/USAF/USA exceptions to certain rules in the 7110.65. None about what we are talking about here.

 

[TCABM]

DOD Controllers, as well as uniformed military Controllers in the US are subject to FAA regulations. 7110.65 and FAR 65. There are USN/USAF/USA exceptions to certain rules in the 7110.65. None about what we are talking about here.

Okay.

Within the past 18 months one of our partners I was safety piloting for was vectored to join the ILS16 arc between TASME and FAMDO after going missed at KCVB RNAV34.

Both of us thought it was unusual at the time, but it did happen.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Little scary a new CFII that doesn’t know this stuff.

There's a lot simpler stuff new CFIIs don't know. As with almost everything other field, our knowledge can be limited by our experience. Not necessarily talking about time but exposure. If you never see it, you may not know about it. I see those kinds of gaps all the time. It's normal.

I just looked at the three approaches being questioned. I have to agree with you.

 

[luvflyin]

Okay.

Within the past 18 months one of our partners I was safety piloting for was vectored to join the ILS16 arc between TASME and FAMDO after going missed at KCVB RNAV34.

Both of us thought it was unusual at the time, but it did happen.

I can see that it may not happen all that often but I cannot find any rule against doing it. This has intrigued me and I’ve spent quite a bit of time researching it. I don’t see a reason not to allow it. It’s not like it’s that difficult a thing for a pilot to do. It does require a little more situational awareness than going direct to a fix, but not that much in my opinion. Just curious, did you get the interception from the inside of or the outside of the arc.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I can see that it may not happen all that often but I cannot find any rule against doing it. This has intrigued me and I’ve spent quite a bit of time researching it. I don’t see a reason not to allow it. It’s not like it’s that difficult a thing for a pilot to do. It does require a little more situational awareness than going direct to a fix, but not that much in my opinion. Just curious, did you get the interception from the inside of or the outside of the arc.

I seem to recall some language in in the past suggesting that a DME arc can only be started from an IAF, but I've seen interceptions also. Or maybe ... @TCABM, was this a VFR practice approach or on an IFR flight plan?

 

[luvflyin]

I seem to recall some language in in the past suggesting that a DME arc can only be started from an IAF, but I've seen interceptions also. Or maybe ... @TCABM, was this a VFR practice approach or on an IFR flight plan?

I’m pretty sure they can only start from an IAF. That would be a TERPS thing when constructing and publishing the Approach. They have to start somewhere, and where a connection to the Enroute structure is makes sense. But that doesn’t mean we must start ‘flying’ them there.

 

[dtuuri]

Edit: I know I've gotten that vector (many, many times) but the more I read, the more I think that might not have been quite by the book. More research coming...

I think "through" means "to" not just "across" (91.175(i)), so I agree with you:

"...Radar vectors may be authorized to provide course guidance through the segments of an approach to the final course or fix."
​

 

[midlifeflyer]

I’m pretty sure they can only start from an IAF. That would be a TERPS thing when constructing and publishing the Approach. They have to start somewhere, and where a connection to the Enroute structure is makes sense. But that doesn’t mean we must start ‘flying’ them there.

I'm talking about flying it. I'm sure I have them floating around somewhere but I think it was two Chief Counsel letters in the early 90s where someone asked whether the arc could be intercepted. If I recall correctly, the Chief said no but then clarified they were talking about a non-radar environment. Or something like that.

 

[RussR]

In a radar environment, I cannot see any safety reason to prohibit vectors to intercept an arc. Especially today, with GPS and FMS units easily capable of doing this, but even pre-GPS I don't see it being a problem for a competent instrument pilot.

In a non-radar environment, though, obviously you couldn't be "vectored" to the arc, and making up your own entry to it could be a problem for any of a number of reasons, such as terrain and separation with other airplanes.

 

[dmspilot]

The question was about how to get from your present position to the approach course. If you're getting vectors then the "how" is "vectors" which makes the question trivial, therefore my answer was about a non-vector situation. Did not mean to start a debate, though it's been interesting anyway.

 

[TCABM]

I can see that it may not happen all that often but I cannot find any rule against doing it. This has intrigued me and I’ve spent quite a bit of time researching it. I don’t see a reason not to allow it. It’s not like it’s that difficult a thing for a pilot to do. It does require a little more situational awareness than going direct to a fix, but not that much in my opinion. Just curious, did you get the interception from the inside of or the outside of the arc.

IIRC, we were northwest of the IAF and given a fly heading to intercept the arc from the west (outside); @midlifeflyer it was a practice approach.

The CVN GPS32 missed is a left turn back to the south to avoid crossing the SAT 273 radial which is where the IAF (TASME) for the arc is located (12 DME). We did not execute the full missed and instead got ‘fly runway heading (320) climb to 3100” or something and then once level the right turn to intercept.

 

[luvflyin]

IIRC, we were northwest of the IAF and given a fly heading to intercept the arc from the west (outside); @midlifeflyer it was a practice approach.

The CVN GPS32 missed is a left turn back to the south to avoid crossing the SAT 273 radial which is where the IAF (TASME) for the arc is located (12 DME). We did not execute the full missed and instead got ‘fly runway heading (320) climb to 3100” or something and then once level the right turn to intercept.

That’s what I expected. Next question, if they had given you direct FAMDO, would it have been more than a 90 degree cut to Final Approach Course. If so, there would be a legitimate reason to have you join the Arc.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The question was about how to get from your present position to the approach course. If you're getting vectors then the "how" is "vectors" which makes the question trivial, therefore my answer was about a non-vector situation. Did not mean to start a debate, though it's been interesting anyway.

sure, non-radar, you'd be coming in on published routes which would take you to an IAF.

 

[midlifeflyer]

IIRC, we were northwest of the IAF and given a fly heading to intercept the arc from the west (outside); @midlifeflyer it was a practice approach.

I asked mostly because ATC sometimes handles VFR practice approaches a bit differently.