Where exactly does NoPT apply?

MarcoDA40

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 14, 2015
Messages
143
Display Name

Display name:
Marco
It might be a simple answer but I can’t seem to understand..

The instrument commercial book says:
“The notation NoPT indicates that you may not perform a procedure turn if you are on that segment of the approach”
In some plates it says NoPT literally right where a PT is depicted.. does that mean NoPT IF INBOUND on that segment of the approach or?

Not sure if my question is clear enough but any help at all would be appreciated
 
It might be a simple answer but I can’t seem to understand..

The instrument commercial book says:
“The notation NoPT indicates that you may not perform a procedure turn if you are on that segment of the approach”
In some plates it says NoPT literally right where a PT is depicted.. does that mean NoPT IF INBOUND on that segment of the approach or?

Not sure if my question is clear enough but any help at all would be appreciated

A picture is worth a thousand words. Seriously, the answer is: "it depends". Post a link to a chart or two and the brain trust here should be able to answer.
 
Look up RNAV 18 approach plate at KFAR. If you start your approach at IBORE or ZUMPI you don’t do the procedure turn. If you are starting your approach at MULEE then you go to do the hold.


Between I could be completely wrong since I am not rated IMG_3520.jpg
 
“The notation NoPT indicates that you may not perform a procedure turn if you are on that segment of the approach”
In some plates it says NoPT literally right where a PT is depicted.. does that mean NoPT IF INBOUND on that segment of the approach or?

How I understand it... Per the attached plate... if you're inbound off the IAF KWANG, then NoPT is required and it is notated. If you were coming in off of a feeder route such as the 145 radial from the San Marcos VOR then yes I believe you need to turn left to track outbound on the GVO VOR 99 radial do a PT as depicted, then track back in...

But I have to say, I have only flown a few PT and those were instructor induced gyrations. I have never had to do one while flying the system as I have usually been vectored to the final approach course/segment.
 

Attachments

  • 00378VG25.pdf
    396.8 KB · Views: 28
Okay I think I’m starting to understand!

Here’s the ILS Z for rwy 20 at kpgv 4418D6B7-F303-48C2-8FC2-62AAF1C4798D.png

So if start the approach at KENIR I don’t have to do a PT?

But if I start from the Kinston VOR.. then a PT is required?

Another example..
ILS for rwy 35 at KAVL

327016FD-90B0-4BBA-867B-68CCCACF9B22.png

If I were to approach from the Spartanburg VOR to the IAF TUXDO then I would NOT have to do a hold?
But if I arrived from the SUGARLOAF VOR on the 233 radial OR the FREEZ INT then a Hold WOULD be requiered?
 
5−4−9. Procedure Turn and Hold−in−lieu of Procedure Turn
a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course. 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. Additionally, the procedure turn or hold−in−lieu−of−PT is not permitted when the symbol “No PT” is depicted on the initial segment being used, when a RADAR VECTOR to the final approach course is provided, or when conducting a timed approach from a holding fix.
 
Okay I think I’m starting to understand!

Here’s the ILS Z for rwy 20 at kpgv View attachment 73869

So if start the approach at KENIR I don’t have to do a PT?

But if I start from the Kinston VOR.. then a PT is required?

Another example..
ILS for rwy 35 at KAVL

View attachment 73870

If I were to approach from the Spartanburg VOR to the IAF TUXDO then I would NOT have to do a hold?
But if I arrived from the SUGARLOAF VOR on the 233 radial OR the FREEZ INT then a Hold WOULD be requiered?
IMO your interpretation of PT vs noPT is correct. For the most part it should make sense until it doesn’t. These are clearer examples of when to use vs not use. Remember if there is a “bold line” your expected to fly it unless it specifically stated NoPT.
What helped me before my checkride better understand, plan, and fly these was reviewing @dtuuri ’s site www.avclicks.com
 
Okay I think I’m starting to understand!

Here’s the ILS Z for rwy 20 at kpgv View attachment 73869

So if start the approach at KENIR I don’t have to do a PT?

But if I start from the Kinston VOR.. then a PT is required?

Another example..
ILS for rwy 35 at KAVL

View attachment 73870

If I were to approach from the Spartanburg VOR to the IAF TUXDO then I would NOT have to do a hold?
But if I arrived from the SUGARLOAF VOR on the 233 radial OR the FREEZ INT then a Hold WOULD be requiered?

Yes. I would add one thing to that though. On the SPA TUXDO it’s more than you do not have to hold. You may not hold unless getting approval from ATC.
 
Just remember what the PT is for, its a "Procedure" to help you "Turn" around. If you are intercepting the final approach course on or near the correct heading, there is no need to "Turn" around, therefore the PT is unnecessary unless otherwise directed. The biggest gotcha on that is the T shaped GPS approaches. Some allow you to turn inbound from either side of the T, others do not, usually because you need to make the hold in order to lose altitude prior to turning inbound.
 
“The notation NoPT indicates that you may not perform a procedure turn if you are on that segment of the approach”

The emphasized statement is incorrect.

NoPT means you are not required to do a PT, not that you may not do a PT.

You can request the full approach if you'd like to, for currency, to burn some more fuel, to finish your beer....
 
The emphasized statement is incorrect.

NoPT means you are not required to do a PT, not that you may not do a PT.

You can request the full approach if you'd like to, for currency, to burn some more fuel, to finish your beer....

Disagree. Your explanation seems to stem from a convoluted way of thinking. Anything could be said to be "not prohibited if you get permission" to do that thing. :confused:

Requesting a "full approach" is not sufficient permission to perform a PT on a NoPT route.

§91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.
...

(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.
Sure sounds like the phrase "may not perform" is correct.
 
Disagree. Your explanation seems to stem from a convoluted way of thinking. Anything could be said to be "not prohibited if you get permission" to do that thing. :confused:

Requesting a "full approach" is not sufficient permission to perform a PT on a NoPT route.

§91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.
...

(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.
Sure sounds like the phrase "may not perform" is correct.

"...unless cleared to do so by ATC."

Hence asking to do the full approach as @Ravioli said.
 
"Cleared to do so" meaning cleared to perform a procedure turn.

Clearance to do a "full approach" does not give you clearance to do a procedure turn where the approach specifies NoPT.

Ok then, how about asking to do the PT and "cleared to do so by ATC." That means you can do it. You appear to be saying that under no circumstances can the PT be done if it says 'no PT'. ATC can clear you to do it. Unless I am misunderstanding the point you are trying to make.
 
Clearance to do a "full approach" does not give you clearance to do a procedure turn where the approach specifies NoPT.

Okay, I can agree with you. It isn't you MAY NOT, it's that you only may do the PT if you request it AND get clearance for it. Right?

My use of "full approach" was not accurate for the request.
 
But if I start from the Kinston VOR.. then a PT is required?

That looks about right to me. But the requirement for having an ADF???? I haven't seen many of these in planes as of late, and the ones I do are tagged "in-opp" Though... this may be one of those approaches where if you are coming form the southwest Washington center will probably vector you to KENIR to start you approach... kind of like downwind and cross wind legs..

But if I arrived from the SUGARLOAF VOR on the 233 radial OR the FREEZ INT then a Hold WOULD be required?

As depicted, I am going to say yes as this may be for the need to lose altitude from the 6200 to 5200 to set you up so you intercept the glide slope.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I can agree with you. It isn't you MAY NOT, it's that you only may do the PT if you request it AND get clearance for it. Right?

My use of "full approach" was not accurate for the request.

Well I got what you meant. I'm not sure what the point of nit-picking the wording is. The point is it can be done if you get permission to do it.
 
Just remember what the PT is for, its a "Procedure" to help you "Turn" around. If you are intercepting the final approach course on or near the correct heading, there is no need to "Turn" around, therefore the PT is unnecessary unless otherwise directed. The biggest gotcha on that is the T shaped GPS approaches. Some allow you to turn inbound from either side of the T, others do not, usually because you need to make the hold in order to lose altitude prior to turning inbound.

This is incorrect. A procedure turn is mandatory unless one of the exceptions apply. Not only does a PT allow you to turn around and become aligned with the final approach course, it also allows you to time to descend when cleared for the approach and established on a segment of the procedure.
 
Ok then, how about asking to do the PT and "cleared to do so by ATC." That means you can do it. You appear to be saying that under no circumstances can the PT be done if it says 'no PT'. ATC can clear you to do it. Unless I am misunderstanding the point you are trying to make.

My issue was the statement that requesting and being cleared for a "full approach" is sufficient permission to do a PT when the approach states NoPT. It isn't.

Can you do a PT if you are cleared for a full approach on a NoPT route? No.
Can you do a PT if you are cleared to do a PT on a NoPT route? Yes.

I don't consider that nit-picking. They are different clearances.
 
Last edited:
My issue was the statement that requesting and being cleared for a "full approach" is sufficient permission to do a PT when the approach states NoPT. It isn't.

Can you do a PT if you are cleared for a full approach on a NoPT route? No.
Can you do a PT if you are cleared to do a PT on a NoPT route? Yes.

I don't consider that nit-picking. They are different clearances. Post 11 is the one that seems to be nit-picking the wording.

I agree with you. And appreciate the clarification that "Full Approach" is insufficient when the PT is not required. I'll add this in my mindset along with requesting the published hold if I'm just out practicing.
 
"Cleared to do so" meaning cleared to perform a procedure turn.

Clearance to do a "full approach" does not give you clearance to do a procedure turn where the approach specifies NoPT.

I’d have to agree with that. The ‘full approach’ means I don’t want vectors to final.
 
My issue was the statement that requesting and being cleared for a "full approach" is sufficient permission to do a PT when the approach states NoPT. It isn't.

Can you do a PT if you are cleared for a full approach on a NoPT route? No.
Can you do a PT if you are cleared to do a PT on a NoPT route? Yes.

I don't consider that nit-picking. They are different clearances. Post 11 is the one that seems to be nit-picking the wording.

Yeah. A pilot requesting ‘the full approach’ after already being established on a segment of the Approach, would make me wonder what does this guy think ‘full approach’ means. If there was traffic that he would turn into by doing a course reversal I would’ve definitely clarify things
 
Ok then, how about asking to do the PT and "cleared to do so by ATC." That means you can do it. You appear to be saying that under no circumstances can the PT be done if it says 'no PT'. ATC can clear you to do it. Unless I am misunderstanding the point you are trying to make.
If an airport has a tower, but no ATC radar, sometimes they will do timed approaches using the HILPT holding pattern.
 
Well I got what you meant. I'm not sure what the point of nit-picking the wording is. The point is it can be done if you get permission to do it.
I guess the point is understanding the basic rule as it is written. What "cleared for the approach" standing alone means in terms of whether a PT is required, prohibited, or optional. "Unless you get permission to do something else" is certainly a helpful add-on but doesn't do much in terms of understanding the basics, which is what I am guessing was the point of the question starting this thread.
 
What does your CFII say on the mater?



A procedure turn generally accomplishes 3 things:

1) It more or less aligns you with the final approach course. The threshold for this turn may vary and I'm not sure exactly where the threshold starts so before I misstate something and have someone produce a chart proving me wrong, we'll just call it within 90 degrees, though its probably closer to 60 or even 45 or less degrees. If you have to make a turn of 90 degrees or more to intercept the final approach course, a procedure turn is generally required. Before someone jumps on me about GPS approaches, GPS approaches are a bit of an oddity in that their fixes, unlike other navigational fixes/approach types, are generally "fly-by" not "fly-over" fixes. Fly-by fixes means you do not have to be directly over the fix so you can initiate the turn early and intercept the course, this is a lot like the turn to final approach coming out of an arc, you anticipate/lead the turn. The only difference is the position of the IF fix on an arc is a short distance down the approach path after you've made the turn and are established inbound on the proper heading whereas the GPS IF fix is where the arc would meet the final approach course. I dont recall seeing a GPS approach with a "fly-over" fix and even more critically, a "fly-over" fix as the first fix on the approach course with a NoPT feeder segment that has a 90 degree turn to final approach, if someone can produce such an approach (or an any approach that has a NoPT segment with a flyover fix and a large turn to final approach course), I'd love to see it.

2) The procedure turn allows you to establish both where you are and where on the approach you are. There are 4 fixes that we'll call "critical" in an instrument approach. They are the IAF, IF, FAF and the MAP, sometimes you have other fixes (step downs, position checks, etc) but you dont have to use them. It is not uncommon to see the IAF/IF co-located; when the IAF/IF is co-located, you are generally expected to pass over this fix twice. Its also not uncommon to see an approach with a published IAF, FAF, MAP and a Procedure Turn but no "published" IF. In this case, your IF is when you re-establish on the final approach course, outside the FAF after executing the procedure turn. Since you are free to chose where, how and when to perform the procedure turn once past the IAF (within the protected space of 10nm [normally]) your IF may differ from the IF of another pilot or the same pilot on a different day or even second approach but nonetheless you have a "fix" on course, outside the FAF, thus you have an IF. Starting in 2006, its no longer required to begin an approach at the IAF and you can begin the approach at the IF; in the instance where your IAF/IF is co-located and a procedure turn is depcited, PTs are a bit of a holdover from days gone by, we'll cover how/why later when I talk about the KFAR GPS approach.

3) The procedure turn enables you to reduce altitude within a protected space. You'll notice that approaches with "bonified" procedure turns instead of "hold-in-lieu" have an altitude you are to fly on the outbound track and an altitude you are to fly on the inbound track. This is done for sequencing; holds-in-lieu are more controlled and inherently more orderly than traditional PTs as they stack you up and have you hold over the fix on the approach and just lower your cleared altitude with each plane cleared for the approach, for a traditional PT, you are typically holding somewhere off the approach plate which creates a requirement for a lot of additional time to complete the full approach including the PT so the different altitudes allow ATC to clear an aircraft holding somewhere off plate to begin the approach once the first aircraft has executed the procedure turn without fear of collision. It provides separation and increases capacity of the approach in question.


So with these 3 factors in mind, we'll look at each of the 3 example approaches given and see they stack up in the next posts.
 
Last edited:
TL;DR: Lots of stuff about applying the rules of the PT from my previous post to the 3 specific approach plates posted to this thread. Skip this and my next 2 posts if you're not interested.

RNAV (GPS) RWY 18 @ KFAR
There are 3 depicted fixes we'll look at IBORE, ZUMPI, MULEE.

IBORE and ZUMPI are functionally the same, they're feeders for the approach from the East/West. They are your IAF and MULEE becomes your IF. Since MULEE is a fly-by fix and not a fly-over fix, there is no real requirement that you fly to MULEE before initiating the turn inbound, in fact, at least with the Garmin series GPS's, you will usually be instructed to turn by the GPS before reaching MULEE so as to intercept the inbound course with the needle centered before ROTOE.

So lets say you are coming in from a point South of MULEE. A procedure turn is required because of Rule Number 1, alignment with approach course.

How about coming in from a point North of MULEE? Well MULEE is your IAF and your IF. Since the rules changed and you can now fly an approach beginning at the IF, there is no need/reason to cross MULEE twice. Indeed, I would expect ATC will clear you straight in on the approach and ask that you not do the procedure turn if they dont have traffic already holding for the approach. So why was it that a procedure turn was required at all? Well lets pretend for a second MULEE was not a GPS fix but a VOR fix (or worse an NDB which makes knowing your location even more non-trivial, especially with certain types of ADFs) and you did not have GPS or DME in your plane... How would you know where you are relative to the approach? Rule #2. You'd have to fly to MULEE and get station passage, once you had station passage, you've established your precise location over MULEE but then you'd need to make a heading correction, start your timer, change your VOR heading, reintercept, estimate time to the next fix, etc. In other words it was a lot to try and cram in, in a short period so why not execute the procedure turn set yourself up both directionally and in on the VOR/CDI for Rule #1, alignment with the final approach course and then when you cross MULEE again, this time as your IF, you start you'll already be in a nice stabilized position with everything configured and ready.
 
ILS Z @ KPGV
We again have 3 fixes we'll look at: KENIR, ZAGGY and AQE.

First note that there is no "hold-in-lieu" procedure turn so aircraft waiting for this approach are holding somewhere not depicted (or at the MAP). Maybe they're holding over Kinston VOR which is 22.5NM away from the IAF. That's a long time to have to keep the airspace clear so rule #3 applies. You are expected to maintain an altitude assigned by ATC until you reach the IAF of AQE. Then you are expected to descend down to 1600ft while flying away from AQE and executing the procedure turn, once you've re-established inbound to AQE at 1600ft, you've reached your IF and can continue down to 1400ft and as you cross AQE the second time, you are crossing your FAF and can continue the approach.

You'll also note that there is no IF within the permitted procedure turn (KENIR is 15NM) so executing this approach from almost any angle requires you to pass AQE twice, first as the IAF, execute the required procedure turn to establish inbound and then as the FAF. This is Rule #2 establishing where you are.

KENIR is an interesting one in that its an IF so technically if you were coming in from somewhere in the vicinity of KENIR it'd be easiest (post-2006) just to begin the approach at KENIR. Prior to 2006 however, you technically would not be authorized to do that. So why is KENIR an IF? Probably because it's the missed approach point and there's a hold there... If you flew the approach correctly pre-2006, you'd fly to AQE, do the PT, fly to AQE, then fly the course inbound go missed and fly to and hold at the holding point.

Since the KENIR hold aligns with the final approach course, the position can be positively identified by crossing VOR radials and is a hold outside the PT protected radius, you meet the criteria of all three rules so it was probably designated as an IF in consideration that you already flew IAF/non-published IF/FAF and are now at the missed approach flying a hold that sets you up on the LOC for a second approach. Technically speaking, if you went missed and attempted the approach again you would not be "starting" the approach at the IF of KENIR, you'd be continuing the approach, designating it the IF, allows you to fly to AQE as your FAF.

ZAGGY is even more interesting than KENIR. The PT is NA at ZAGGY only if you are flying southwest on V457 which is a 250 Bearing/radial off of ECG until ZAGGY at which point it turns further south. If you continued to fly the heading you were on on V457, you'd intercept the LOC about 5NM after passing ZAGGY and 3 NM outside of AQE. What's interesting to me is that ZAGGY is not listed as an acceptable IAF or IF and it has an MRA of 7000 coming off the ECG VOR so you may lose reception of ECG and awareness of where you are prior to intercepting the localizer signal. It seems to me that ZAGGY is intended as an IAF with the IF being the localizer intercept at 1600 but since it only works when you are flying southwest on V457 and its possible (and even likely) you will lose reception of the ECG VOR station during your decent, it cant actually be designated as such.

Flying ZAGGY seems particularly dangerous to me in a non-GPS and non-radar environment. Not having flown this approach myself, I dont know that I'd be happy with that potential loss of awareness unless ATC had radar contact and was at least nominally providing me with vectors; it may be a short distance but if I were in a cloud and had a non-indicating catastrophic loss or progressive loss of vacuum, I could easily turn off course and get totally lost. Even the short distance isn't comforting since its possible I tuned the ILS frequency incorrectly and thereby completely flew past the localizer course which was also my IF, now I'm at 1600 feet with no good way of knowing where I am. If I were to accept this without radar contact, I'd only do so with GPS or a secondary VOR/CDI and I'd tune Kinston/ISO VOR Radial 024 into my secondary (or something between 024 which I know to be past the localizer and 029 which I know to be on the localizer at the NDB) in order to increase situational awareness. I'd have Kinston tuned in before reaching ZAGGY so that I could verify reception and position at ZAGGY with Kinston and given Kinston is used for flying missed approach and can be used to fly to AQE, I'd be reasonably confident of reception during this phase of the approach down to at least 2100.


EDIT:
Note the entire procedure, not just the procedure turn is NA at ZAGGY when travelling Southwest on V457. My brain inserted "turn" to "procedure NA" on the approach plate. This, along with scenarios when the approach is authorized from ZAGGY and why ZAGGY appears on the approach plate is discussed more in later posts.
 
Last edited:
ILS RWY 35 @ KAVL

We have 5 depicted fixes to cover. NDB BRA, VOR's SUG and SPA and Intersections FREEZ and TUXDO. We'll try to cover these points quicker but I'll spend some time with FREEZ and some hypotheticals.

We'll start with the VOR's. Neither SUG or SPA are approved approach fixes. The depiction of SPA is there purely to identify the TUXDO intersection. The depcition of SUG is there because radials of off SUG are used to identify TUXDO, the FAF at UMUXE, an additional fix at OBOVE and radial 312 is used during the missed approach as both a radial to track and the radial on which to eventually hold.

Arguably, SUG radial 233 and the localizer could be used to identify BRA if you weren't equipped with ADF but it's not actually depicted as such and the plate does specifically state ADF is required so I'd have to defer to the regulations and when/which substitutions are allowed. We'll cover SUG Radial 233 a bit more momentarily with the FREEZ intersection since the FREEZ is more or less reciprocal (Bearing 055 or radial 235 @ 18.4NM vs radial 233 @ 18.4NM gives a position error of about 0.6NM)

NDB BRA. Like MULEE in the previous approach at KFAR, BRA is both the IAF and IF for this approach. When coming from a direction due West, North or East of BRA, the expectation is that a procedure turn is required to comply with Rule #1 and set yourself up on the Final Approach Course. When approaching BRA from the South, you have rule #2. Positively identifying your location. You'd overfly BRA as the IAF to establish your location, execute the procedure turn and overfly BRA a second time, this time as your IF. Rule #3 would apply if you were above 5,200ft but as the procedure is a hold-in-lieu, ATC probably has already stepped you down to the required altitude.

TUXDO. TUXDO is itself an IAF so when TUXDO is used, BRA is no longer your IAF/IF, it is only the IF so no PT is necessary. No PT is also necessary because TUXDO meets all the requirements you need for Rules 1-3. It's on the final approach course so there is no excessive turn to final approach complying with Rule #1. It and your position can be positively identified by intersecting VOR radials complying with Rule #2 and if you fly to TUXDO via SPA, you have some 33NM to get down to 5,200 ft before BRA, at a nice leisurely descent of 3-ish (3.3) degrees that's enough distance to descend from 16,200 ft to 5,200 ft at 600-700fpm and 120kts and no winds (tailwind will require faster descent/headwind slower).


Last but not least FREEZ. FREEZ is not listed as an IAF/IF. FREEZ depiction on the chart is largely irrelevant to the approach however, it is likely depicted due to the "high terrain" located under FREEZ and because it is a prominent enroute fix on V222 off the SUG VOR. You'll note that the approach plate clears you to 6200 ft between FREEZ and BRA which is interesting since the BRA NDB is almost directly below V222 and V222 has an MEA of 6100ft, the reason for this is probably both due to terrain and for separation with other traffic already in the approach/hold which begins at 5,200.

Let's say there was no other traffic but say terrain in the area requires you to be at 8,000 ft inbound from FREEZ... If you have to get from 8,000ft at FREEZ which is not an IAF or IF and flew the approach "starting" at BRA as the IF make your turn inbound on the approach at 8000 ft, which is 2800 ft high. You'd then have to come down 4,000 by UMUXE which is the final approach fix 4NM away from BRA. If you're going 120kts, that's a descent rate of 2,000 FPM to reach UMUXE at the correct altitude assuming an immediate change from level flight to 2000fpm descent, an immediate change from 2000fpm descent to something more "stable" say 500fpm a the bottom of the descent and with no time to prep the plane for the final approach. That's not only unstable but uncomfortable and unnecessarily stressing on the airframe both in unloading (negative-G initiating the descent) and loading (positive-G slowing the descent) even if the airframe is capable.

Lets say we go with something a little less uncomfortable or maybe we just decide to stick with the 2,000fpm because we haven't actually hit the FAF yet so stable approach criteria doesn't necessarily apply and hey we had an old-school military instructor for our CFII and he taught penetration/slam dunk approaches in addition to dive & drive and constant rate approaches (it's my understanding the military no longer does penetration/slam dunk approaches as a matter of course unless in a war zone where such a procedure may be necessary due to the protected area surrounding the airport, please correct me if I'm wrong).

OK so we get to the FAF and now we're still a bit high on the approach say 4,500 ft and lets say fast we picked up 30kts in that rapid descent, we probably picked up more but 30kts fast is still enough for this hypothetical/demonstration. We're inside the final approach fix where stable approach criteria does apply but we decide to continue anyway. Our descent rate is still somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000fpm as we have just over a minute at our speed with no wind to get down the necessary 1400ft to 3100ft by OBOVE just 3NM after the FAF.

We manage to pull it off, getting down and getting our descent rate under control but we still haven't prepped the plane for landing and we're still going 150kts or more which is too fast to put the gear and flaps down and it gives us only 1 minute and 15 seconds from the missed approach point at DA minimums which are 750ft below us. We bleed of our airspeed nice and quick without ballooning but now we're high again so we increase our descent rate by finally prepping the plane for landing... Maybe we catch up and are finally setup for landing and on our numbers or maybe we're a still a bit high but we're below the clouds and have the runway insight so we accept the excess altitude as something to manage in the final descent to land past the missed approach point...

Congrats but maybe in all that high workload and rapid fire events you forgot to change your fuel tanks and now you've run out of fuel and have an engine failure on short final or maybe you forgot to put the gear down or maybe you're still much to high to be stable or have a high vertical speed and end up slamming the plane on the ground or still have a high airspeed and land long... That's why stable approach criteria is such an important consideration...

Want to know what would have saved you a whole heck of a lot of work? Execute the procedure turn and get yourself down from the 8,000 ft to the 5,200 feet (or at least something closer to it) authorized before the IF, then execute a nice, comparably leisurely and stable approach to the runway. The average procedure turn adds about 3 minutes to the approach which is a descent rate of 950fpm and that's assuming you execute the procedure turn immediately after crossing the IAF, you have 10 NM which really becomes 20NM (10NM out, 10NM back in) which is enough distance to come down 6,000 ft from 11,200 ft to 5,200 ft at a nice 3-ish degree slope.
 
Last edited:
I'd never done this, normally ATC will vector you in a way that will make sense but I was curious so I fired up the Garmin 530W simulator to see what it would do.

I set it up on an RNAV approach and had it use an initial approach fix with "NoPT" which seems to be common to most RNAV approaches so that it would require a greater than 90 degree(in one case almost 180) turn to start the approach. Indeed it simply sequenced the approach and made a reaalllly early turn to come around and intercept the course from the selected IA to the next waypoint. I even got to see a message of "steep turn ahead" which I've never seen before...so... neat.

I don't think ATC would ever assign you a an initial fix where you had to make a near 180 but a 100 or 120 degree turn might make sense in certain scenarios I guess.
 
TL;DR: Lots of stuff about applying the rules of the PT from my previous post to the 3 specific approach plates posted to this thread. Skip this and my next 2 posts if you're not interested.

RNAV (GPS) RWY 18 @ KFAR
There are 3 depicted fixes we'll look at IBORE, ZUMPI, MULEE.

IBORE and ZUMPI are functionally the same, they're feeders for the approach from the East/West. They are your IAF and MULEE becomes your IF. Since MULEE is a fly-by fix and not a fly-over fix, there is no real requirement that you fly to MULEE before initiating the turn inbound, in fact, at least with the Garmin series GPS's, you will usually be instructed to turn by the GPS before reaching MULEE so as to intercept the inbound course with the needle centered before ROTOE.

So lets say you are coming in from a point South of MULEE. A procedure turn is required because of Rule Number 1, alignment with approach course.

How about coming in from a point North of MULEE? Well MULEE is your IAF and your IF. Since the rules changed and you can now fly an approach beginning at the IF, there is no need/reason to cross MULEE twice. Indeed, I would expect ATC will clear you straight in on the approach and ask that you not do the procedure turn if they dont have traffic already holding for the approach. So why was it that a procedure turn was required at all? Well lets pretend for a second MULEE was not a GPS fix but a VOR fix (or worse an NDB which makes knowing your location even more non-trivial, especially with certain types of ADFs) and you did not have GPS or DME in your plane... How would you know where you are relative to the approach? Rule #2. You'd have to fly to MULEE and get station passage, once you had station passage, you've established your precise location over MULEE but then you'd need to make a heading correction, start your timer, change your VOR heading, reintercept, estimate time to the next fix, etc. In other words it was a lot to try and cram in, in a short period so why not execute the procedure turn set yourself up both directionally and in on the VOR/CDI for Rule #1, alignment with the final approach course and then when you cross MULEE again, this time as your IF, you start you'll already be in a nice stabilized position with everything configured and ready.
Seems to me you're making this one complicated when the Left Base, Right Base, and Straight-In TAA's make the requirements quite clear.
 
ILS Z @ KPGV
We again have 3 fixes we'll look at: KENIR, ZAGGY and AQE.

First note that there is no "hold-in-lieu" procedure turn so aircraft waiting for this approach are holding somewhere not depicted (or at the MAP). Maybe they're holding over Kinston VOR which is 22.5NM away from the IAF. That's a long time to have to keep the airspace clear so rule #3 applies. You are expected to maintain an altitude assigned by ATC until you reach the IAF of AQE. Then you are expected to descend down to 1600ft while flying away from AQE and executing the procedure turn, once you've re-established inbound to AQE at 1600ft, you've reached your IF and can continue down to 1400ft and as you cross AQE the second time, you are crossing your FAF and can continue the approach.

You'll also note that there is no IF within the permitted procedure turn (KENIR is 15NM) so executing this approach from almost any angle requires you to pass AQE twice, first as the IAF, execute the required procedure turn to establish inbound and then as the FAF. This is Rule #2 establishing where you are.

KENIR is an interesting one in that its an IF so technically if you were coming in from somewhere in the vicinity of KENIR it'd be easiest (post-2006) just to begin the approach at KENIR. Prior to 2006 however, you technically would not be authorized to do that. So why is KENIR an IF? Probably because it's the missed approach point and there's a hold there... If you flew the approach correctly pre-2006, you'd fly to AQE, do the PT, fly to AQE, then fly the course inbound go missed and fly to and hold at the holding point.

Since the KENIR hold aligns with the final approach course, the position can be positively identified by crossing VOR radials and is a hold outside the PT protected radius, you meet the criteria of all three rules so it was probably designated as an IF in consideration that you already flew IAF/non-published IF/FAF and are now at the missed approach flying a hold that sets you up on the LOC for a second approach. Technically speaking, if you went missed and attempted the approach again you would not be "starting" the approach at the IF of KENIR, you'd be continuing the approach, designating it the IF, allows you to fly to AQE as your FAF.

ZAGGY is even more interesting than KENIR. The PT is NA at ZAGGY only if you are flying southwest on V457 which is a 250 Bearing/radial off of ECG until ZAGGY at which point it turns further south. If you continued to fly the heading you were on on V457, you'd intercept the LOC about 5NM after passing ZAGGY and 3 NM outside of AQE. What's interesting to me is that ZAGGY is not listed as an acceptable IAF or IF and it has an MRA of 7000 coming off the ECG VOR so you may lose reception of ECG and awareness of where you are prior to intercepting the localizer signal. It seems to me that ZAGGY is intended as an IAF with the IF being the localizer intercept at 1600 but since it only works when you are flying southwest on V457 and its possible (and even likely) you will lose reception of the ECG VOR station during your decent, it cant actually be designated as such.

Flying ZAGGY seems particularly dangerous to me in a non-GPS and non-radar environment. Not having flown this approach myself, I dont know that I'd be happy with that potential loss of awareness unless ATC had radar contact and was at least nominally providing me with vectors; it may be a short distance but if I were in a cloud and had a non-indicating catastrophic loss or progressive loss of vacuum, I could easily turn off course and get totally lost. Even the short distance isn't comforting since its possible I tuned the ILS frequency incorrectly and thereby completely flew past the localizer course which was also my IF, now I'm at 1600 feet with no good way of knowing where I am. If I were to accept this without radar contact, I'd only do so with GPS or a secondary VOR/CDI and I'd tune Kinston/ISO VOR Radial 024 into my secondary (or something between 024 which I know to be past the localizer and 029 which I know to be on the localizer at the NDB) in order to increase situational awareness. I'd have Kinston tuned in before reaching ZAGGY so that I could verify reception and position at ZAGGY with Kinston and given Kinston is used for flying missed approach and can be used to fly to AQE, I'd be reasonably confident of reception during this phase of the approach down to at least 2100.
KENIR was made the IF to support the HILPT and TAAs on the ILS Y or LOC Y RWY 20 procedure.
 
I thought it meant that you do not do the procedure turn, UNLESS instructed to do so. Then you perform the procedure term as depicted. So far, we have never been instructed to do the procedure turn.
 
Seems to me you're making this one complicated when the Left Base, Right Base, and Straight-In TAA's make the requirements quite clear.

Can you define what it is you mean by TAA's? I dont know that I've heard that term/acronym before aside from "technologically advanced aircraft" and want to make sure I'm on the same page before I respond.

I thought it meant that you do not do the procedure turn, UNLESS instructed to do so. Then you perform the procedure term as depicted. So far, we have never been instructed to do the procedure turn.

A lot of procedure turns have been made redundant by the high prevalence of radar coverage. In a lot of cases today, your procedure turn is handled for you by ATC providing Radar Vectors as your IAF but that's also why ATC will always advise where you are in relation to the next fix (usually the IF) before passing you on to the next frequency and/or clearing you for the approach.

As to being instructed to do the turn, it would only occur if ATC needed you to make the turn for separation from another aircraft on the approach.
 
Last edited:
ILS RWY 35 @ KAVL

We have 5 depicted fixes to cover. NDB BRA, VOR's SUG and SPA and Intersections FREEZ and TUXDO. We'll try to cover these points quicker but I'll spend some time with FREEZ and some hypotheticals.

We'll start with the VOR's. Neither SUG or SPA are approved approach fixes. The depiction of SPA is there purely to identify the TUXDO intersection. The depcition of SUG is there because radials of off SUG are used to identify TUXDO, the FAF at UMUXE, an additional fix at OBOVE and radial 312 is used during the missed approach as both a radial to track and the radial on which to eventually hold.

Arguably, SUG radial 233 and the localizer could be used to identify BRA if you weren't equipped with ADF but it's not actually depicted as such and the plate does specifically state ADF is required so I'd have to defer to the regulations and when/which substitutions are allowed. We'll cover SUG Radial 233 a bit more momentarily with the FREEZ intersection since the FREEZ is more or less reciprocal (Bearing 055 or radial 235 @ 18.4NM vs radial 233 @ 18.4NM gives a position error of about 0.6NM)

NDB BRA. Like MULEE in the previous approach at KFAR, BRA is both the IAF and IF for this approach. When coming from a direction due West, North or East of BRA, the expectation is that a procedure turn is required to comply with Rule #1 and set yourself up on the Final Approach Course. When approaching BRA from the South, you have rule #2. Positively identifying your location. You'd overfly BRA as the IAF to establish your location, execute the procedure turn and overfly BRA a second time, this time as your IF. Rule #3 would apply if you were above 5,200ft but as the procedure is a hold-in-lieu, ATC probably has already stepped you down to the required altitude.

TUXDO. TUXDO is itself an IAF so when TUXDO is used, BRA is no longer your IAF/IF, it is only the IF so no PT is necessary. No PT is also necessary because TUXDO meets all the requirements you need for Rules 1-3. It's on the final approach course so there is no excessive turn to final approach complying with Rule #1. It and your position can be positively identified by intersecting VOR radials complying with Rule #2 and if you fly to TUXDO via SPA, you have some 33NM to get down to 5,200 ft before BRA, at a nice leisurely descent of 3-ish (3.3) degrees that's enough distance to descend from 16,200 ft to 5,200 ft at 600-700fpm and 120kts and no winds (tailwind will require faster descent/headwind slower).


Last but not least FREEZ. FREEZ is not listed as an IAF/IF. FREEZ depiction on the chart is largely irrelevant to the approach however, it is likely depicted due to the "high terrain" located under FREEZ and because it is a prominent enroute fix on V222 off the SUG VOR. You'll note that the approach plate clears you to 6200 ft between FREEZ and BRA which is interesting since the BRA NDB is almost directly below V222 and V222 has an MEA of 6100ft, the reason for this is probably both due to terrain and for separation with other traffic already in the approach/hold which begins at 5,200.

Let's say there was no other traffic but say terrain in the area requires you to be at 8,000 ft inbound from FREEZ... If you have to get from 8,000ft at FREEZ which is not an IAF or IF and flew the approach "starting" at BRA as the IF make your turn inbound on the approach at 8000 ft, which is 2800 ft high. You'd then have to come down 4,000 by UMUXE which is the final approach fix 4NM away from BRA. If you're going 120kts, that's a descent rate of 2,000 FPM to reach UMUXE at the correct altitude assuming an immediate change from level flight to 2000fpm descent, an immediate change from 2000fpm descent to something more "stable" say 500fpm a the bottom of the descent and with no time to prep the plane for the final approach. That's not only unstable but uncomfortable and unnecessarily stressing on the airframe both in unloading (negative-G initiating the descent) and loading (positive-G slowing the descent) even if the airframe is capable.

Lets say we go with something a little less uncomfortable or maybe we just decide to stick with the 2,000fpm because we haven't actually hit the FAF yet so stable approach criteria doesn't necessarily apply and hey we had an old-school military instructor for our CFII and he taught penetration/slam dunk approaches in addition to dive & drive and constant rate approaches (it's my understanding the military no longer does penetration/slam dunk approaches as a matter of course unless in a war zone where such a procedure may be necessary due to the protected area surrounding the airport, please correct me if I'm wrong).

OK so we get to the FAF and now we're still a bit high on the approach say 4,500 ft and lets say fast we picked up 30kts in that rapid descent, we probably picked up more but 30kts fast is still enough for this hypothetical/demonstration. We're inside the final approach fix where stable approach criteria does apply but we decide to continue anyway. Our descent rate is still somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000fpm as we have just over a minute at our speed with no wind to get down the necessary 1400ft to 3100ft by OBOVE just 3NM after the FAF.

We manage to pull it off, getting down and getting our descent rate under control but we still haven't prepped the plane for landing and we're still going 150kts or more which is too fast to put the gear and flaps down and it gives us only 1 minute and 15 seconds from the missed approach point at DA minimums which are 750ft below us. We bleed of our airspeed nice and quick without ballooning but now we're high again so we increase our descent rate by finally prepping the plane for landing... Maybe we catch up and are finally setup for landing and on our numbers or maybe we're a still a bit high but we're below the clouds and have the runway insight so we accept the excess altitude as something to manage in the final descent to land past the missed approach point...

Congrats but maybe in all that high workload and rapid fire events you forgot to change your fuel tanks and now you've run out of fuel and have an engine failure on short final or maybe you forgot to put the gear down or maybe you're still much to high to be stable or have a high vertical speed and end up slamming the plane on the ground or still have a high airspeed and land long... That's why stable approach criteria is such an important consideration...

Want to know what would have saved you a whole heck of a lot of work? Execute the procedure turn and get yourself down from the 8,000 ft to the 5,200 feet (or at least something closer to it) authorized before the IF, then execute a nice, comparably leisurely and stable approach to the runway. The average procedure turn adds about 3 minutes to the approach which is a descent rate of 950fpm and that's assuming you execute the procedure turn immediately after crossing the IAF, you have 10 NM which really becomes 20NM (10NM out, 10NM back in) which is enough distance to come down 6,000 ft from 11,200 ft to 5,200 ft at a nice 3-ish degree slope.
SUG, FREEZ, and SPA are all feeder fixes. SUG and FREEZE terminal routes terminate at BRA (the IF/IAF) thus they both require the HILPT (their feeder routes are not annotated NoPT because of alignment and descent gradient). The SUG feeder route leads to TUXDO, an IAF, which meets alignment and descent gradient requirements, so TUXDO-BRA is an initial approach segment and is annotated NoPT. Those are the rules; it's not as complicated as you make it seem. BTW, NoPT can never be annotated on a feeder route.
 
I thought it meant that you do not do the procedure turn, UNLESS instructed to do so. Then you perform the procedure term as depicted. So far, we have never been instructed to do the procedure turn.
It would be rare to do a PT coming on a NoPT route. ATC most likely would not instruct it unless there was a traffic management problem and they were treating at as an ordinary hold. A pilot would not request it unless the pilot had an issue, even a simple one like arriving too high for a normal descent or just wanted to hold to meet currency requirements) and wanted to do the hold.
Can you define what it is you mean by TAA's? I dont know that I've heard that term/acronym before aside from "technologically advanced aircraft" and want to make sure I'm on the same page before I respond.
In this case TAA means "Terminal Arrival Area." See AIM paragraph 5-4-5.d. In the KFAR RNAV approach shown above, it's the quarter and semi-circular areas allowing descent. They are not limited to RNAV(GPS) approaches. They are appearing, for example, in "GPS Required" versions of ILS approaches.
 
Last edited:
KENIR was made the IF to support the HILPT and TAAs on the ILS Y or LOC Y RWY 20 procedure.

That makes no sense whatsoever. The ILS Y is a completely different approach with its own approach plate and information; it also requires GPS or RADAR which to me suggests the ILS Z came first since it is the one that actually uses the ADF/NDB. KENIR as an IF would still apply as I stated because its a position that can be positively identified on a course aligned with the final approach course and is a point you would fly to on the missed. It would seem to me that the ILS Y decided to use KENIR as its IAF/IF in order to give another approach option with minimal-fuss; the ILS Y has all the makings of a GPS-overlay imo.
 
That makes no sense whatsoever. The ILS Y is a completely different approach with its own approach plate and information; it also requires GPS or RADAR which to me suggests the ILS Z came first since it is the one that actually uses the ADF/NDB. KENIR as an IF would still apply as I stated because its a position that can be positively identified on a course aligned with the final approach course and is a point you would fly to on the missed. It would seem to me that the ILS Y decided to use KENIR as its IAF/IF in order to give another approach option with minimal-fuss; the ILS Y has all the makings of a GPS-overlay imo.
Yes, they are different approaches but of the same facility, thus Y and Z. It makes perfect sense to me.
 
That makes no sense whatsoever. The ILS Y is a completely different approach with its own approach plate and information; it also requires GPS or RADAR which to me suggests the ILS Z came first since it is the one that actually uses the ADF/NDB. KENIR as an IF would still apply as I stated because its a position that can be positively identified on a course aligned with the final approach course and is a point you would fly to on the missed. It would seem to me that the ILS Y decided to use KENIR as its IAF/IF in order to give another approach option with minimal-fuss; the ILS Y has all the makings of a GPS-overlay imo.
The two versions of an ILS are appearing in a lot of areas. One is the "traditional ILS." The other is one which uses GPS technology, often by having a TAA component, as in the PGV example.
 
Back
Top