To PT or not to PT

dmspilot said:
Agree, the note as written makes no sense. And the link to the IFP Document for this approach links to the wrong approach (RNAV 19).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what doesn't make sense about it. To me it just says no PT if you're approaching Dells from the north. For instance if you are approaching Dells on the 007 radial, there would be no need for a PT as you'd already be on the approach course. The 284 and 094 radials cover two victor airways getting to Dells. Personally I wouldn't want to do a 83 degree intercept at 3000 and the FAF and try to land on rwy 19, but it wouldn't be too bad circling to rwy 1, provided you could break out prior to the field.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Flying the holding pattern as a PT complies 100% with the profile view, as well as the lateral requirements.
Click to expand...

OK, so if you enter on a teardrop or direct, at what point are you established outbound? If the answer is you aren't and won't be, and I'm pretty sure that is the correct answer, then are you 100% sure this is legal? I'm not so sure, but personally I like to err on the side of caution as I tend to rely on my ticket to put food on the table.
 
Captain Bubba said:
OK, so if you enter on a teardrop or direct, at what point are you established outbound? If the answer is you aren't and won't be, and I'm pretty sure that is the correct answer, then are you 100% sure this is legal? I'm not so sure, but personally I like to err on the side of caution as I tend to rely on my ticket to put food on the table.
Click to expand...
I’m established outbound when I’m on the outbound leg of the hold entry. I’m 100% sure it’s legal, and I prefer not to err, as I rely on my ticket to put food on the table as well.
 
Captain Bubba said:
As I understood it the question or assertion was not can you do a ratetrack pattern for a procedure turn but whether or not you can use the depicted missed approach hold as a "template" for your procedure turn. In my mind this raises two questions.

The first question is it legal? If you are doing a direct or teardrop entry you wouldn't be established outbound prior to starting the procedure turn. This makes the legality of such a maneuver questionable, and by questionable I mean the, "Captain, what were you thinking?" question and I don't think I'd have a good answer.

That leaves the parallel entry option which raises the second question of why would you want to do it that way? The way most people are going to do procedure turns where a PT track isn't depicted is to do either a 45/180 or a 80/260 turn. In both cases if you're smart you're making the first turn outbound because it gives you more time to get established. That's exactly the opposite of a parallel entry where you're making a 225 degree turn inbound with a 45 degree intercept with a lot less distance to get established. Assuming you're able to perform that remarkable feat of aviation while losing altitude as suggested and hopefully getting configured at the same time, you now immediately are faced with a tricky circle to land. Mess any of that up and you're back to the "Captain, what were you thinking?" question, or worse.

The suggestion was that would be a good way to lose altitude, but I can't say I agree with that either. For one thing as previously stated, the MEA is 3000 so there's no reason why you couldn't be at that altitude before the IAF. But let's say you weren't do to poor planning on your part or a controller who wanted to give you a slam dunk. Is the best option for that really to perform a parallel entry HILO PT at the FAF? If I need to lose altitude I'm going to use as much of my 10nm space as I can where I can lose altitude both outbound and inbound. This effectively gives me over 20nm of space as opposed to a 1 minute hold which gives me less than 5nm.

It may just be because I'm naturally stupid, but I can't find a good way to make that work, and I've done a helluva lot of full procedure approaches over the years.
Click to expand...

AIM 5-4-9 a. 1. has some things to say about what would be using a de facto parallel entry into a ‘racetrack’ pattern. They don’t seem to like the idea of ‘paralleling’ out bound but think ya should get right back on over to the published course. At that point ya might as well do a ‘Barb’ thing using 45/180, 80/260 or whatever other combination trips your trigger.
“...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...”

Nuthin wrong with using the Missed hold as a template for your racetrack seeing as how it’s right there and aligned correctly, EXCEPT don’t get your head wrapped around ‘one minute’ which would be the leg IF you were flying the Hold. But you aren’t. You are flying the PT, using the ‘racetrack’ method. Your ‘leg’ is whatever it takes to remain within 10 NM.
 
Captain Bubba said:
That's true, but in the case in question the chart only says no PT if you are approaching Dells from the north.
Click to expand...
Looking at the enroute chart, it looks to me like there are only three airways within the No-PT sector, one from the east, one from the west, and one from the northwest. From any of those airways, it looks to me like it wouldn't be too much of a problem to turn outbound from DLL and get established on the outbound PT course (provided ATC grants your request for clearance to fly the PT). Once you complete the PT and head inbound again, you would be able to cross DLL at a more reasonable 2100 MSL.

Of course in the real world, they would probably vector you to the approach course, which should result in intercepting it at least two miles out from DLL, giving you time to descend to 2100 MSL before reaching the VOR.
 
MauleSkinner said:
My question is not loaded. You said it wasn’t legal, but flying the holding pattern as a PT complies 100% with the profile view, as well as the lateral requirements.

While I also disagree that it’s a “bad idea”, that has no bearing on the legality, which you in no way disproved. Your assumption of some need to be “established outbound” prior to starting the PT doesn’t meet any legal criteria that I’m aware of.
Click to expand...

When did I say it wasn't legal? Specifically I asked the question is it legal and stated I wouldn't have a good explanation as to why it was. If you think it's legal, more power to you. Not sayin' you're wrong. I'm saying I don't walk such fine lines. I very much like this discussion, but I must ask if you are going to contradict me you do so with exactly what I said rather than something I didn't say. Otherwise it just makes the discussion seem loaded and not as much fun anymore.

The notion you can simply start performing an IAP without actually first being established on a published segment of the IAP is certainly a novel interpretation to me. If I'm ever having a sit down chat with FSDO about my future in aviation (which I fortunately I've been able to so far avoid) I don't think I'll be trying that one. YMMV.
 
Captain Bubba said:
When did I say it wasn't legal? Specifically I asked the question is it legal and stated I wouldn't have a good explanation as to why it was. If you think it's legal, more power to you. Not sayin' you're wrong. I'm saying I don't walk such fine lines. I very much like this discussion, but I must ask if you are going to contradict me you do so with exactly what I said rather than something I didn't say. Otherwise it just makes the discussion seem loaded and not as much fun anymore.

The notion you can simply start performing an IAP without actually first being established on a published segment of the IAP is certainly a novel interpretation to me. If I'm ever having a sit down chat with FSDO about my future in aviation (which I fortunately I've been able to so far avoid) I don't think I'll be trying that one. YMMV.
Click to expand...
How exactly does “quasi legal at best” indicate anything other than not legal?

Using a holding pattern as a PT is established on a published segment of the IAP. While I’m not saying that Joe FSDO inspector knows all, one would think that over a couple dozen checkrides with them, at least one inspector would’ve questioned it if it was in any way not acceptable.
 
MauleSkinner said:
How exactly does “quasi legal at best” indicate anything other than not legal?

Using a holding pattern as a PT is established on a published segment of the IAP. While I’m not saying that Joe FSDO inspector knows all, one would think that over a couple dozen checkrides with them, at least one inspector would’ve questioned it if it was in any way not acceptable.
Click to expand...
In addition, AIM 5-4-9a1 gives the pilot the option of flying the procedure turn as a race-track pattern even though it is not so depicted, provided that it is performed on the maneuvering side of the outbound course and within the "charted remain within xx NM distance."
 
luvflyin said:
Nuthin wrong with using the Missed hold as a template for your racetrack seeing as how it’s right there and aligned correctly, EXCEPT don’t get your head wrapped around ‘one minute’ which would be the leg IF you were flying the Hold. But you aren’t. You are flying the PT, using the ‘racetrack’ method. Your ‘leg’ is whatever it takes to remain within 10 NM.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to consider myself established on an IAP unless I'm first established on a segment of the approach. To me that means actually on a published segment and a needle on scale. If I approach Dells from the SE and do a teardrop entry into this "template" I have never been established on that approach by the time I'm executing the PT. If I approached from the east and did a direct entry same thing. To me there would be something very wrong with that. I get that others have different interpretations, but I'm just not going to be convinced of it as it just goes against everything I've been taught from my first CFII and years spent going back through part 142 schools and countless check rides. I wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall if someone were to try that with a check airman on board, but not sitting in row 0. The only way you could be first established on the IAP on such a scheme would be from a parallel entry. And doing the parallel method of course reversal is the last way I'd want to do it, so there's something wrong with that as well. If I'm not flying the hold as you describe, then I'm not flying this "template" which is certainly a hold. Someone's going to have to remind me what value this "template" was to begin with if I'm not actually using it as a template.
 
MauleSkinner said:
How exactly does “quasi legal at best” indicate anything other than not legal?
Click to expand...

I suppose I could copy and paste what Webster has to say about "quasi" but it would seem a bit pedantic.

MauleSkinner said:
Using a holding pattern as a PT is established on a published segment of the IAP. While I’m not saying that Joe FSDO inspector knows all, one would think that over a couple dozen checkrides with them, at least one inspector would’ve questioned it if it was in any way not acceptable.
Click to expand...

Sure, some IAPs have holds as part of the initial approach segment. This isn't one of those.
 
Captain Bubba said:
I suppose I could copy and paste what Webster has to say about "quasi" but it would seem a bit pedantic.
Click to expand...
Might help you to understand that it is “generally implying that what it qualifies is in some degree fictitious or unreal, or has not all the features of what it professes to be”, and therefore quasi legal does not mean legal and therefore means not legal.

“Captain Bubba” said:
Sure, some IAPs have holds as part of the initial approach segment. This isn't one of those.
Click to expand...
But since the PT can be flown as a hold, it doesn’t matter that “this isn’t one of them”.
Captain Bubba said:
Which is why I wouldn't mind seeing it....as a spectator. YMMV.
Click to expand...
MMDV.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Might help you to understand that it is “generally implying that what it qualifies is in some degree fictitious or unreal, or has not all the features of what it professes to be”, and therefore quasi legal does not mean legal and therefore means not legal.
Click to expand...

So "quasi" means "not". Really? I'm afraid this is going a bit farther down the rabbit hole than I care to go.
 
Captain Bubba said:
I'm not going to consider myself established on an IAP unless I'm first established on a segment of the approach. To me that means actually on a published segment and a needle on scale. If I approach Dells from the SE and do a teardrop entry into this "template" I have never been established on that approach by the time I'm executing the PT. If I approached from the east and did a direct entry same thing. To me there would be something very wrong with that. I get that others have different interpretations, but I'm just not going to be convinced of it as it just goes against everything I've been taught from my first CFII and years spent going back through part 142 schools and countless check rides. I wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall if someone were to try that with a check airman on board, but not sitting in row 0. The only way you could be first established on the IAP on such a scheme would be from a parallel entry. And doing the parallel method of course reversal is the last way I'd want to do it, so there's something wrong with that as well. If I'm not flying the hold as you describe, then I'm not flying this "template" which is certainly a hold. Someone's going to have to remind me what value this "template" was to begin with if I'm not actually using it as a template.
Click to expand...

Are you putting forth the proposition that you are not ‘established on the Approach’ when you cross DLL? The PT is a ‘segment’ of the Approach. Irregardless of whether you do the ‘Barb’ thang or another method as authorized, such as the ‘racetrack.’
 
I haven't been following this thread so all I've seen is the argument over whether one can do a racetrack-shaped PT arriving at DELLS. I guess someone here thinks that a PT requires tracking outbound on the inbound course with positive course guidance for some distance before reversing course. I'd sure like to see an FAA reference for that one.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I haven't been following this thread so all I've seen is the argument over whether one can do a racetrack-shaped PT arriving at DELLS. I guess someone here thinks that a PT requires tracking outbound on the inbound course with positive course guidance for some distance before reversing course. I'd sure like to see an FAA reference for that one.
Click to expand...

Nah. It’s that the Missed Approach Hold just happens to be at the IAF and words to the effect of treating it as an HILPT were being thrown around. No ones arguing you have to fly the PT exactly as depicted in bold black on the Chart
 
luvflyin said:
Nah. It’s that the Missed Approach Hold just happens to be at the IAF and words to the effect of treating it as an HILPT were being thrown around. No ones arguing you have to fly the PT exactly as depicted in bold black on the Chart
Click to expand...
I realize the missed hold was mentioned but I intentionally did not refer to it. Drilling down, isn't saying, "no, you can't use one depicted even if the maneuvering side is on the barbed side," saying the exact same thing as, "you cannot begin a racetrack shaped PT (or for that matter a barbed PT) at the IAF? Doesn't saying, "no you are not allowed to do A also mean you are not allowed to do B? (I assumed a direction for the airplane to be coming from, but choose any one you want)

upload_2021-3-21_11-31-58.png
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
I realize the missed hold was mentioned but I intentionally did not refer to it. Drilling down, isn't saying, "no, you can't use one depicted even if the maneuvering side is on the barbed side," saying the exact same thing as, "you cannot begin a racetrack shaped PT (or for that matter a barbed PT) at the IAF? Doesn't saying, "no you are not allowed to do A also mean you are not allowed to do B? (I assumed a direction for the airplane to be coming from, but choose any one you want)

View attachment 94910
Click to expand...

Gotcha.
 
dmspilot said:
Agree, the note as written makes no sense. And the link to the IFP Document for this approach links to the wrong approach (RNAV 19).
Click to expand...

I sent this to the FAA and receipt was acknowledged. We'll see what happens.


Reference the Note "NoPT for arrival on DLL VORTAC airway radials 284 CW 094." Two of the airways referenced have MEA's of 3000 and one 3500 with a MOCA 2800. The distance from DLL, to the MAP is 1.3 NM. The Vertical Descent Angle from the FAF to the MDA is extremely steep. It does not appear to meet TERPS requirements for VDA, vertical descent angle. The Feeder from OSH is in compliance because it does not have NoPT.
Also, when selecting this Approach in the Documents (NDBR) tab, it returns the 8260-3 for the RNAV(GPS) RWY 19 Approach
 
aterpster said:
The final segment descent gradient criteria have changed. Not simple like it used to be. Russ would be the best person to assess this IAP. Used to be that descent gradient had to be calculated from the FAF to the MDA for circling minimums.
Click to expand...

luvflyin said:
Paging @RussR .
Click to expand...

Issue #1: descent gradient, part 1: Descent gradient on a circling procedure is measured from the FAF altitude to the Circling MDA, not necessarily the runway, even if straight-in aligned. In fact, that is almost certainly why this procedure is not a VOR RWY 19, but a VOR-A - the descent gradient to the runway is too steep. From 2100 to Cat C's 1580 in 1.3 nm is 400 ft/nm, the limit for Cat C (400 ft/nm = 3.77 deg). Cats A and B MDAs are lower, because they have a higher limit, Cat B is 4.20 deg, or about 446 ft/nm. From the FAF at 2100 to MDA 1520 is, likely not coincidentally, 446 ft/nm. This implies that the MDAs are artificially increased due to the descent gradient, not based just on obstacles.

Issue #2: descent gradient, part 2: Feeders or airways not requiring the PT have a much higher DG, from 3000+ to the MDA. Since the FAF at 2100 we already know gives the maximum DG, these clearly exceed it. I have no answer for this. I look forward to the response that @luvflyin gets.

TWD87 said:
Can someone help me understand the "Procedure NA for arrival on OSH VORTAC airway radials 165 CW 212". Is this saying that you cannot use the OSH feeder route if you are arriving to OSH on those radials? For whatever reason I'm struggling to understand this one and think I have this one all wrong.
Click to expand...

This means what you think it means. You can't fly the procedure if you arrive at the OSH VORTAC on one of those airways in the note. The amount of turn is greater than 120 degrees, which is the limit. So if you are planning on arriving on one of these radials and need this procedure, you need to plan a different route (or just get vectors, of course).
 
I put the following aeronautical inquiry into the system on Monday. Sill "in process."


Your Aeronautical Inquiry has been received by the FAA.

========================================================

AI-199538

Category: Procedure Design > US Terminal Procedures

Airport: DLL

State: WI

Procedure Name: VOR-A

Inquiry: The note "NoPT for arrival on DLL VOR airway radials R-284 clockwise to R-094" consists of three airways that each have MEAs of 3,000. Crossing DLL at 3,000 followed by straight-in well exceeds the maximum descent gradient from the DLL FAF to circle-to-land MDAs. This note should be removed by NOTAM to comply with descent gradient criteria.

========================================================

You will receive email updates as your inquiry is processed. You may view your Aeronautical Inquiries online at https://nfdc.faa.gov.

Aeronautical Information Portal

https://nfdc.faa.gov
 
aterpster said:
I put the following aeronautical inquiry into the system on Monday. Sill "in process."


Your Aeronautical Inquiry has been received by the FAA.

========================================================

AI-199538

Category: Procedure Design > US Terminal Procedures

Airport: DLL

State: WI

Procedure Name: VOR-A

Inquiry: The note "NoPT for arrival on DLL VOR airway radials R-284 clockwise to R-094" consists of three airways that each have MEAs of 3,000. Crossing DLL at 3,000 followed by straight-in well exceeds the maximum descent gradient from the DLL FAF to circle-to-land MDAs. This note should be removed by NOTAM to comply with descent gradient criteria.

========================================================

You will receive email updates as your inquiry is processed. You may view your Aeronautical Inquiries online at https://nfdc.faa.gov.

Aeronautical Information Portal

https://nfdc.faa.gov
Click to expand...

Maybe that’ll get them moving on it. I was expecting to see a Notam issued and case closed by now. Seems like a no brainer.
 
This is why it's a VOR-A instead of VOR-19. The descent rate is greater than the maximum allowed by the FAA for a -XX <RWY> approach (I don't recall what the maximum is off hand). You can either try to descend at the rate to get you to the airport or circle-to-land. That's also why there are only circling minimums.
 
MonkeyClaw said:
This is why it's a VOR-A instead of VOR-19. The descent rate is greater than the maximum allowed by the FAA for a -XX <RWY> approach (I don't recall what the maximum is off hand). You can either try to descend at the rate to get you to the airport or circle-to-land. That's also why there are only circling minimums.
Click to expand...
If the ceiling is just above minimums and you can't get the airport in sight by the time you reach the missed-approach point, the fact that it is a circling approach won't help you; you still have to execute a missed approach, no?
 
Last edited:
MonkeyClaw said:
This is why it's a VOR-A instead of VOR-19. The descent rate is greater than the maximum allowed by the FAA for a -XX <RWY> approach (I don't recall what the maximum is off hand). You can either try to descend at the rate to get you to the airport or circle-to-land. That's also why there are only circling minimums.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That's not the issue here though. All what you described works fine when you've done the PT and leave DLL inbound from 2100. Not doing the PT and being at 3000 when starting inbound is to steep. It does not meet the FAA's own criteria. The Note that says "NoPT for arrival on DLL VORTAC airway radials 284 CW 094" should not be there.
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah. That's not the issue here though. All what you described works fine when you've done the PT and leave DLL inbound from 2100. Not doing the PT and being at 3000 when starting inbound is to steep. It does not meet the FAA's own criteria. The Note that says "NoPT for arrival on DLL VORTAC airway radials 284 CW 094" should not be there.
Click to expand...
Correct, the issue is descent gradient from the FAF altitude to MDA. It cannot exceed 400 feet per mile. The descent gradient from MDA to landing with CTL minimums only, has no limit. See KUKI RNAV-B.

I still haven't received a response to my aeronautical inquiry. I guess the inmates are running the place these days.
 
aterpster said:
Correct, the issue is descent gradient from the FAF altitude to MDA. It cannot exceed 400 feet per mile. The descent gradient from MDA to landing with CTL minimums only, has no limit. See KUKI RNAV-B.

I still haven't received a response to my aeronautical inquiry. I guess the inmates are running the place these days.
Click to expand...

Lol, yeah. And they've all escaped the asylum and are working at home now.:rolleyes2: If they put the VDA/TCH symbol on the Approach we've been discussing it would be about 8 degrees. From 3000 feet, which the Note says you may have to do if arriving on one of those Airways, it would be 14 degrees. They of course wouldn't Chart it that way, just a point of discussion.
 
luvflyin said:
Lol, yeah. And they've all escaped the asylum and are working at home now.:rolleyes2: If they put the VDA/TCH symbol on the Approach we've been discussing it would be about 8 degrees. From 3000 feet, which the Note says you may have to do if arriving on one of those Airways, it would be 14 degrees. They of course wouldn't Chart it that way, just a point of discussion.
Click to expand...
More than two days is a stonewall. I sent a copy to their overseer in Flight Standards. They can throw more darts at their dart board that has my name on it. Some of those designers feel they are accountable only to their union.
 
luvflyin said:
Lol, yeah. And they've all escaped the asylum and are working at home now.:rolleyes2: If they put the VDA/TCH symbol on the Approach we've been discussing it would be about 8 degrees. From 3000 feet, which the Note says you may have to do if arriving on one of those Airways, it would be 14 degrees. They of course wouldn't Chart it that way, just a point of discussion.
Click to expand...
And according to the chart in post #1, one of those airways has an MEA of 3500 feet, which of course makes it even worse if that's the airway you're on.
 
Palmpilot said:
And according to the chart in post #1, one of those airways has an MEA of 3500 feet, which of course makes it even worse if that's the airway you're on.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it has a MOCA of 2,800'

In any case, this was just issued:

!FDC 1/0720 DLL IAP BARABOO-WISCONSIN DELLS RGNL, BARABOO, WI. VOR-A, AMDT 13... DISREGARD PLANVIEW NOTE: NOPT FOR ARRIVAL ON DLL VORTAC AIRWAY RADIALS 284 CW 094.. 2103261634-2303261634EST
 
aterpster said:
More than two days is a stonewall. I sent a copy to their overseer in Flight Standards. They can throw more darts at their dart board that has my name on it. Some of those designers feel they are accountable only to their union.
Click to expand...

I here they have a paper shredder with your name on it:biggrin:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top