When do you have to fly a procedure turn?

TimRF79

TimRF79

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Dec 10, 2017
Messages
352
Location
Houston, TX
Display Name
Display name:
Tim
I am still a bit fuzzy about when you have to fly a PT?
Lets take the LOC to RWY at KAXH (LINK).
Assume I am inbound on a course of 85 at 2,500ft, 10 miles out from the runway.
Get cleared for the approach, once established, could I not simply drop to 2,400 ft and intercept DUCKS at 2,400ft and continuou inbound for landing?
 
Getting radar vectored to the final approach course is one of the criteria when a procedure turn is not required. In your scenario, are you getting radar vectored to the final approach course? If so, you DO NOT have to perform the procedure turn.

Look up AIM 5-4-9
 
In that particular situation that you give, I would listen for "cleared straight in" from ATC and ask for clarification if I didn't hear it.

Also, are you familiar with the S.H.A.R.P.T.T. acronym?
 
TimRF79 said:
I am still a bit fuzzy about when you have to fly a PT?
Lets take the LOC to RWY at KAXH (LINK).
Assume I am inbound on a course of 85 at 2,500ft, 10 miles out from the runway.
Get cleared for the approach, once established, could I not simply drop to 2,400 ft and intercept DUCKS at 2,400ft and continuou inbound for landing?
Click to expand...
I think the only way you’d get that direct is vectored. Notice the MSA is 3100. Would be odd to be fooling along at 2500 that far out right? If ATC clears you for straight in then you fly it straight in.
I sound strongly consider reviewing http://www.avclicks.com/lessons.html from @dtuuri These not only help you understand when but why as well which is the key, for me, to understanding these questions. Because there will be more!!!
 
Yeah, I don't quite understand the scenario. You are either on a course to the IAF, at or above 3100, or getting vectored in.
 
TimRF79 said:
I am still a bit fuzzy about when you have to fly a PT?
Lets take the LOC to RWY at KAXH (LINK).
Assume I am inbound on a course of 85 at 2,500ft, 10 miles out from the runway.
Get cleared for the approach, once established, could I not simply drop to 2,400 ft and intercept DUCKS at 2,400ft and continuou inbound for landing?
Click to expand...

More information needed. What was your last Clearance received before getting the Approach Clearance. What was the Approach Clearance, what did the Controller say?
 
Procedure turns and holds in lieu of procedure turns (HILPTs) are included in approaches to allow for a course reversal to the final approach course when cleared to the IAF. Some approaches have more elegant IAFs (e.g. some GPS approaches with T-shaped approach segments) to avoid PTs and HILPTs when flying by your own navigation.

In your case, if you are "cleared to DUCKS, maintain 3100 until established, cleared for the LOC 9 approach" you would fly to DUCKS and fly the procedure turn to reverse course, descending to 2400 once established inbound to DUCKS. Alternatively, ATC would simply vector you to intercept the final approach course at 30 degrees or less a few miles outside of DUCKS: "3 miles from DUCKS, maintain 3100 until established, cleared for LOC 9 approach." In one case you are expected to find DUCKS on your own and fly there directly. In the other case you are being vectored to the final approach course. It will be clear which is which when you are flying it.

If you are in ATC contact and aligned with the LOC on your present course, you are likely going to be vectored in. ATC would not send you on a course reversal if you are within 30 degrees of the final approach course. But if ATC just clears you to DUCKS without any other instructions, you are likely expected to fly the course reversal. If the course reversal is awkward or impractical, you should clarify with ATC that you are or are not expected to fly the PT. It would be rare that ATC hasn't figured this out already. You won't have been the first plane to fly that approach from your direction of flight.
 
Last edited:
TimRF79 said:
I am still a bit fuzzy about when you have to fly a PT?
Lets take the LOC to RWY at KAXH (LINK).
Assume I am inbound on a course of 85 at 2,500ft, 10 miles out from the runway.
Get cleared for the approach, once established, could I not simply drop to 2,400 ft and intercept DUCKS at 2,400ft and continuou inbound for landing?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by, "Once established"? An 85° course is not on the localizer. To become "established" you have to identify DUCKS, do a procedure turn and nail the localizer inbound.
 
I think as you described it you would fly to ducks, turn around and do the procedure turn. I doubt ATC would ask you to do it like that unless it is a non radar area. More likely they would give you vectors to final, or clear you for a straight in from that direction. If they don't you can always ask for the straight in. If they give it to you, then I would aim for cfflr, when I hit it, I would drop to 2,400 and fly the localizer
 
Flying from 10 miles west heading 85deg, you will vectored to intercept the localizer somewhere outside of Ducks (which is also the FAF) probably at or above 2400’. I’d take bets that no one is ever cleared from the west to intercept DUCKS at 3100’ or above.

Given the location and the MSA, it’s worth looking around to see what would demand such a high MSA. Given that it’s Houston, it ain’t a natural feature for sure. It’s antenna to the North and given the relationship to Houston proper, you would never find yourself vectored anywhere near there anyway.

Whatever direction you are coming from, my guess would be you would always be vectored to intercept the localizer outside of DUCKS, even if flying from due east.

But I have no idea what the books say here, just guessing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Bill Watson said:
Flying from 10 miles west heading 85deg, you will vectored to intercept the localizer somewhere outside of Ducks (which is also the FAF) probably at or above 2400’. I’d take bets that no one is ever cleared from the west to intercept DUCKS at 3100’ or above.

Given the location and the MSA, it’s worth looking around to see what would demand such a high MSA. Given that it’s Houston, it ain’t a natural feature for sure. It’s antenna to the North and given the relationship to Houston proper, you would never find yourself vectored anywhere near there anyway.

Whatever direction you are coming from, my guess would be you would always be vectored to intercept the localizer outside of DUCKS, even if flying from due east.

But I have no idea what the books say here, just guessing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

Hmm. Interesting thing about the MSA. It's centered on IAH and is 30 NM. They are typically 25 NM. It looks like those 2049 obstructions about 5 miles North of KAXH are the controlling obstruction. The IAF, DUCKS, and the Airport are barely within the 30 NM MSA circle. Much of the Procedure Turn is outside of it as well as the Missed Approach. @aterpster , any idea why they didn't use something more logical, like say HUB to center the MSA on?
 
luvflyin said:
Hmm. Interesting thing about the MSA. It's centered on IAH and is 30 NM. They are typically 25 NM. It looks like those 2049 obstructions about 5 miles North of KAXH are the controlling obstruction. The IAF, DUCKS, and the Airport are barely within the 30 NM MSA circle. Much of the Procedure Turn is outside of it as well as the Missed Approach. @aterpster , any idea why they didn't use something more logical, like say HUB to center the MSA on?
Click to expand...

HUB VOR/DME is scheduled for decommissioning as part of the VOR MON program in 2020.
 
Also, this is an unfortunate example procedure to use for this question. Notice it requires RNAV (the note at the top "RNAV 1-GPS"). This is both to enter the procedure (navigate direct to DUCKS, note there are no feeder routes from any airway), and to fly the missed approach (note it says go direct to KEEDS, not via a radial from somewhere). I'm guessing most pilots would just choose to fly the RNAV (GPS) RWY 9 instead.

Ultimately the real reason that PT's are required is that in the most basic IFR installation (no GPS, no DME), you have no way to tell how far you are from an intersection or facility until you actually fly over it. We often forget that in this era of instant knowledge of position. So by the time you know your location, you've already overflown the facility or intersection and it's too late. Hence, you go outbound, get turned around and lined up, and then start your descent the next time you know where you are.
 
RussR said:
Also, this is an unfortunate example procedure to use for this question. Notice it requires RNAV (the note at the top "RNAV 1-GPS"). This is both to enter the procedure (navigate direct to DUCKS, note there are no feeder routes from any airway), and to fly the missed approach (note it says go direct to KEEDS, not via a radial from somewhere). I'm guessing most pilots would just choose to fly the RNAV (GPS) RWY 9 instead.

Ultimately the real reason that PT's are required is that in the most basic IFR installation (no GPS, no DME), you have no way to tell how far you are from an intersection or facility until you actually fly over it. We often forget that in this era of instant knowledge of position. So by the time you know your location, you've already overflown the facility or intersection and it's too late. Hence, you go outbound, get turned around and lined up, and then start your descent the next time you know where you are.
Click to expand...

Seeing as how RNAV is required, the only reason to keep the LOC Approach is better Minimums.
 
kgruber said:
You can just ask for the "straight in."
Click to expand...
ATC can't clear you for a straight-in unless one of the conditions set forth in the AIM for not doing a procedure turn is satisfied. It's up to the pilot to not accept a bogus clearance.
 
RussR said:
Ultimately the real reason that PT's are required is that in the most basic IFR installation (no GPS, no DME), you have no way to tell how far you are from an intersection or facility until you actually fly over it. We often forget that in this era of instant knowledge of position. So by the time you know your location, you've already overflown the facility or intersection and it's too late. Hence, you go outbound, get turned around and lined up, and then start your descent the next time you know where you are.
Click to expand...

This. In a simulator, turn off GPS and DME. Pretend all you have is the nav radio and a VOR head. You fly to the VOR and as soon as the TO/FROM indicator switches, you know where you are. Start the timer, turn outbound (do your 6T's). At the appropriate time, turn back inbound via a PT or HILPT, cross the VOR again and continue the approach as written.
 
mcdewey said:
This. In a simulator, turn off GPS and DME. Pretend all you have is the nav radio and a VOR head. You fly to the VOR and as soon as the TO/FROM indicator switches, you know where you are. Start the timer, turn outbound (do your 6T's). At the appropriate time, turn back inbound via a PT or HILPT, cross the VOR again and continue the approach as written.
Click to expand...
But as stated, do it in a simulator...it’s DANGEROUS in an airplane! :D
 
luvflyin said:
Seeing as how RNAV is required, the only reason to keep the LOC Approach is better Minimums.
Click to expand...

And they're only barely better. 40 feet for us little guys.

Looking at the approach, and given the scenario, technically the PT is still required, but this is also a situation where the rule is kinda stupid. The PT protected airspace would allow you to safely descend from 3100 (MSA)/3200 (OROCA) within 10 miles of DUCKS if you were on a 085 course to DUCKS. That's plenty of time to get down to the 2400 foot altitude for the FAF.
 
I am not sure what the purpose of the acronym is... It's just a list of the types of procedural tracks. It is more confusing than it is worth...
 
flyingcheesehead said:
And they're only barely better. 40 feet for us little guys.

Looking at the approach, and given the scenario, technically the PT is still required, but this is also a situation where the rule is kinda stupid. The PT protected airspace would allow you to safely descend from 3100 (MSA)/3200 (OROCA) within 10 miles of DUCKS if you were on a 085 course to DUCKS. That's plenty of time to get down to the 2400 foot altitude for the FAF.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I wouldn’t advocate changing the rule though. In this situation you just get clearance for a ‘straight in’ and the problem is solved. There could be a rule that says if you are say within 20 degrees of being straight in than you just go straight in without a ‘straight in’ clearance. But what if you figure you’re about 22 degrees so you do the PT. But it looked like about 18 to the Controller, he expects you to go straight in but you hang a course reversal into traffic behind you. A lot of communication is going to be required to ensure both pilot and controller are on the same page. I think just like it is now is fine. You wanna go straight in, ask for it and get it. Controller can also give it without you asking for it if certain conditions are met.
 
Here’s another approach where flying the PT is generally ‘not expected’ by ATC or most pilots. Not required for GRACO but not expected for AMRTN coming from the S or E. Back in the day, post 9/11, few if any arrivals would come from the west.

As a new i-rated pilot, I dutifully hit AMRTN coming from PXT and started a PT. Controller lost his nuts for a second and I lost a bit of my innocence.
1b0eb0852b9cdb173463e1d07ff935d8.jpg



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
aterpster said:
ATC can't clear you for a straight-in unless one of the conditions set forth in the AIM for not doing a procedure turn is satisfied. It's up to the pilot to not accept a bogus clearance.
Click to expand...

As a 135 pilot, was paid for getting pax from "A" to "B". Asked for and received straight in clearances regularly. I'm SURLY not going to spin around NEEDLESSLY if I don't have to.
 
Bill Watson said:
Here’s another approach where flying the PT is generally ‘not expected’ by ATC or most pilots. Not required for GRACO but not expected for AMRTN coming from the S or E. Back in the day, post 9/11, few if any arrivals would come from the west.

As a new i-rated pilot, I dutifully hit AMRTN coming from PXT and started a PT. Controller lost his nuts for a second and I lost a bit of my innocence.
1b0eb0852b9cdb173463e1d07ff935d8.jpg



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

"Controller lost his nuts for a second." What happened next? Did he relax, say disregard, anything to indicate he knew he was wrong? This was a problem and a few years ago there were mandatory briefings throughout ATC about this reminding Controllers of the rule and that the 'logic check' didn't apply. You could have been literally straight in from the ESE to AMRTN and unless you were cleared for a 'straight in' approach, you do the HILPT.
 
Last edited:
kgruber said:
I'm SURLY not going to spin around NEEDLESSLY if I don't have to.
Click to expand...
IIRC, that has been litigated long ago and ALPA lost. Pilots don't get to decide "needlessly". Neither do controllers, AFAIK. Has to be a basis for it, like a clearance straight to the IF under stipulated ATC rules?
 
It's probably already been stated; but this is from my notes:

WHEN NOT NECESSARY
-when being radar vectored in
-when making a timed approach from a holding fix
-when the IAF states "NoPT"
-when holding pattern used instead

acronym = NORTH

N o PT on IAP
O therwise instructed by ATC
R adar vectored to final
T imed approaches from a holding fix
H old depicted instead of PT
 
kgruber said:
As a 135 pilot, was paid for getting pax from "A" to "B". Asked for and received straight in clearances regularly. I'm SURLY not going to spin around NEEDLESSLY if I don't have to.
Click to expand...

I think what he meant was that if you were on a NoPT segement or being vectored to final, both of which you may not make a procedure from, that the Controller will not say 'straight in.' It's implied
 
StevieTimes said:
It's probably already been stated; but this is from my notes:

WHEN NOT NECESSARY
-when being radar vectored in
-when making a timed approach from a holding fix
-when the IAF states "NoPT"
-when holding pattern used instead

acronym = NORTH

N o PT on IAP
O therwise instructed by ATC
R adar vectored to final
T imed approaches from a holding fix
H old depicted instead of PT
Click to expand...
Now there's an acronym in search of a reason!
 
Just found this from NASA while looking into this a bit more. Pretty interesting discussion.
 
Last edited:
StevieTimes said:
It's probably already been stated; but this is from my notes:

WHEN NOT NECESSARY
-when being radar vectored in
-when making a timed approach from a holding fix
-when the IAF states "NoPT"
-when holding pattern used instead

acronym = NORTH

N o PT on IAP
O therwise instructed by ATC
R adar vectored to final
T imed approaches from a holding fix
H old depicted instead of PT
Click to expand...

I'd take the H off that list. When there is an HILPT depicted, N, O, R and T all apply. You still don't do the 'course reversal.' Look at it as 'when is a PT/HILPT not necessary.' Not as 'when is a PT not necessary.' When there is an HILPT and the segment leading to does not require course reversal (does not allow it actually) it does not say NoHILPT. It still says NoPT.
 
jerrydavis said:
Just found this from NASA while looking into this a bit more. Pretty interesting discussion.
Click to expand...
These misunderstandings have been around for a long time, with a vocal contingent claiming that the definition of a procedure turn,
The maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish an aircraft on the intermediate approach segment or final approach course​
leaves it to the pilot to determine "when it is necessary to reverse direction." IOW, all procedure turns are optional.

It goes way back. At an IPC in the late 1990s, my CFII was also a retired air traffic controller insisted that coming into the FAF "on airspeed and on altitude" meant was was not supposed to do the PT. Period.
 
luvflyin said:
I'd take the H off that list. When there is an HILPT depicted, N, O, R and T all apply. You still don't do the 'course reversal.' Look at it as 'when is a PT/HILPT not necessary.' Not as 'when is a PT not necessary.' When there is an HILPT and the segment leading to does not require course reversal (does not allow it actually) it does not say NoHILPT. It still says NoPT.
Click to expand...
There's also the teardrop procedure turn, so we'd have to add an additional letter into the acronym to make it work.

Basically, just do the procedure turn unless the chart or the controller tell you not to. The only one that's not exceptionally clear is Timed Approaches from a holding fix, but the holding fix is probably going to be the procedure turn fix, so you've been doing the procedure turn for the entire time you've been holding.
 
jerrydavis said:
Just found this from NASA while looking into this a bit more. Pretty interesting discussion.
Click to expand...

Good stuff. Here's what the Controllers rules are on it. It's been this way for quite a few years now:

e. If a procedure turn, hold-in-lieu of procedure turn, or arrival holding pattern is depicted and the angle of intercept is 90 degrees or less, the aircraft must be instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does not want the pilot to execute a procedure turn or hold-in-lieu of procedure turn. (See FIG 4−8−3)

PHRASEOLOGY − CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN (type) APPROACH

NOTE−
1. Restate “cleared straight-in” in the approach clearance even if the pilot was advised earlier to expect a straight-in approach.

2. Some approach charts have an arrival holding pattern depicted at the IAF using a “thin line” holding symbol. It is charted where holding is frequently required prior to starting the approach procedure so that detailed holding instructions are not required. The arrival holding pattern is not authorized unless assigned by ATC.
 
luvflyin said:
I'd take the H off that list. When there is an HILPT depicted, N, O, R and T all apply. You still don't do the 'course reversal.' Look at it as 'when is a PT/HILPT not necessary.' Not as 'when is a PT not necessary.' When there is an HILPT and the segment leading to does not require course reversal (does not allow it actually) it does not say NoHILPT. It still says NoPT.
Click to expand...
But then you screw up the mnemonic! What the heck is NORT? Besides, since being cleared straight in by ATC requires at least an IF, the "O" is also technically incorrect as a statement of the rule. So you gotta find another letter for that too. Maybe NIRT, with the I standing for "cleared straight in to an IF" ?

But that doesn't sound that good and, as we all know a mnemonic is more important that what it is supposed to represent! What are you thinking messing with it?

:D :D :D
 
StevieTimes said:
acronym = NORTH

N o PT on IAP
O therwise instructed by ATC
R adar vectored to final
T imed approaches from a holding fix
H old depicted instead of PT
Click to expand...

Really?

A procedure turn is either mandatory or prohibited. Two of the times it's prohibited are when being radar vectored or performing a timed approach from a holding fix. Otherwise, you just do what the chart tells you to do (and apply any modifications by ATC, which seems self-evident). That is so hard to remember we need an acronym?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top