why NoPT on SBD NDB RWY 6?

C

coma24

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 2, 2011
Messages
920
Location
Pompton Plains, NJ
Display Name
Display name:
coma24
why no NoPT on SBD NDB RWY 6?

Check out the SBD NDB RWY 6 approach from PDZ. Why does this IAF require a PT?
 
Last edited:
I was leaning towards that as well. However, does the fact that PDZ is an IAF, and SUDOC is an IF mitigate the need for the PT, given that we're already established on the intermediate segment and we are NOT using PETIS as an IAF?

My gut was and is that it's a charting error...especially given that all the other approaches have PDZ as an IAF, but none of them have PT's at all, making this one an exception.
 
Last edited:
coma24 said:
I was leaning towards that as well. However, does the fact that PDZ is an IAF, and SUDOC is an IF mitigate the need for the PT, given that we're already established on the intermediate segment and we are NOT using PETIS as an IAF?
Click to expand...
No. Absent the "NoPT" on the PDZ-SUDOC leg, as it is now printed, you do not meet any of the four criteria to automatically skip the PT, so the PT is required. Of course, as it stands, if you are an IFR GPS-equipped aircraft, the controller could under the new criteria established this year clear you "straight in" from PDZ, or, since SUDOC is a published IF, even send you direct to SUDOC at 3200 without going to PDZ first (as long as your turn onto intermediate segment at SUDOC would be less than 90 degrees), but you'd need to hear that from the controller in order to do so.

My gut was and is that it's a charting error...especially given that all the other approaches have PDZ as an IAF, but none of them have PT's at all, making this one is an exception.
Click to expand...
I agree -- so send them the email.
 
The AIM actually covers the case I describe above, where the approach can be made from the intermediate approach segment direct to the FAF:
AIM 5-4-9(a)(6) 
A procedure turn is not required when an approach can be made directly from a specified intermediate fix to the final approach fix. In such cases, the term “NoPT” is used with the appropriate course and altitude to denote that the procedure turn is not required
Click to expand...

However, it does say that NoPT will be published in that case...so, that shoots down my potentially mitigating circumstance above (which I'm quite happy about).

Determining if a PT is required is normally very simple. I'd be much happier for this to be a charting error than, "oh, you're not using PETIS as an IAF, so it doesn't apply." The AIM entry pretty much rules the latter option, so that leaves a charting error.
 
coma24 said:
The AIM actually covers the case I describe above, where the approach can be made from the intermediate approach segment direct to the FAF:
AIM 5-4-9(a)(6) 


However, it does say that NoPT will be published in that case...so, that shoots down my potentially mitigating circumstance above (which I'm quite happy about).
Click to expand...
Exactly -- no "NoPT" on the segment, no automatic straight-in.

Determining if a PT is required is normally very simple. I'd be much happier for this to be a charting error than, "oh, you're not using PETIS as an IAF, so it doesn't apply." The AIM entry pretty much rules the latter option, so that leaves a charting error.
Click to expand...
Bingo. So send it.
 
Ron Levy said:
Super. Bet there's an FDC NOTAM on that one by COB tomorrow.
Click to expand...

If there's anybody home at the FAA to issue it. The last thing I sent to the FAA got a "we'll get to it when we get our staff back" message.
 
Ron Levy said:
four criteria to automatically skip the PT
Click to expand...
Ron

Please state these 4 criteria for me. The "when is a procedure turn really required" question seems to be a recurring issue for many of us. Seems it would be best to either request a vector or ask the controller if cleared straight in or for the procedure turn. Off the top of my head I can name 2 or possibly 3 of the 4 - "NoPT", receiving vectors, cleared straight in, and ???

Incidentally I have had ATC call and question why I did not do a procedure turn on an approach where the chart was clearly marked "NoPT" on the approach segment I was using.

Here is another example of a current approach where the same confusion might occur if coming from the South:
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1310/05063VDC.PDF
 
Last edited:
FORANE said:
Please state these 4 criteria for me. The "when is a procedure turn really required" question seems to be a recurring issue for many of us. Seems it would be best to either request a vector or ask the controller if cleared straight in or for the procedure turn. Off the top of my head I can name 2 or possibly 3 of the 4 - "NoPT", receiving vectors, cleared straight in, and ???
Click to expand...
Vectors are nice and they are typically given - if they have radar down to the level of the FAF intercept altitude. That's not always the case and when it's not, you can ask for one all you want but won't get it (an instrument student did that on his dual IFR cross country and the controller chuckled as much as I did).

The 4 criteria are the 3 in 91.175(j) for when a procedure turn is not authorized ("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") plus the "straight in" ATC instruction discussed in a few places including AIM 5-4-6.e.4. and 5-4-9.a.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
No. Absent the "NoPT" on the PDZ-SUDOC leg, as it is now printed, you do not meet any of the four criteria to automatically skip the PT, so the PT is required. Of course, as it stands, if you are an IFR GPS-equipped aircraft, the controller could under the new criteria established this year clear you "straight in" from PDZ, or, since SUDOC is a published IF, even send you direct to SUDOC at 3200 without going to PDZ first (as long as your turn onto intermediate segment at SUDOC would be less than 90 degrees), but you'd need to hear that from the controller in order to do so.

I agree -- so send them the email.
Click to expand...

It's a source error, not a charting error. I have the 8260-5, Amendment 1, dated May 7, 2009.

Because it's been this way for almost 4 and 1/2 years, I doubt they will be in any hurry to issue an abbreviated amendment.
 
FORANE said:
Please state these 4 criteria for me.
Click to expand...

  • Vectors to final
  • On a published NoPT route
  • Already in hold at the depicted altitude (e.g. timed approach or holding in the HPILPT)
  • Cleared "straight in" by the controller.
The "when is a procedure turn really required" question seems to be a recurring issue for many of us. Seems it would be best to either request a vector or ask the controller if cleared straight in or for the procedure turn. Off the top of my head I can name 2 or possibly 3 of the 4 - "NoPT", receiving vectors, cleared straight in, and ???
Click to expand...
You got three out of four, and the fourth is both the least common and the one usually forgotten.

Incidentally I have had ATC call and question why I did not do a procedure turn on an approach where the chart was clearly marked "NoPT" on the approach segment I was using.
Click to expand...
Sadly, experience tells us that controllers are not as familiar with the rules on this issue (or at least, what's on the approach charts in their areas) as one might hope they would be. But that's pretty well balanced by the number of pilots who don't understand it that well, either.

Here is another example of a current approach where the same confusion might occur if coming from the South:
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1310/05063VDC.PDF
Click to expand...
Yes, that could happen if the pilot assumes something the controller hasn't said, or the controller assumes something s/he hasn't told the pilot. Since based on what I hear on the radio and what I read on the internet this happens more often than is good, it behooves all of us on both sides of the radio to speak up and make sure we know what the other side expects/is going to do before the aircraft reaches the fix.
 
Last edited:
KSBDNDB6amendment1_zpsa068c790.jpg
 
I daresay the reason this one has slipped by is because very few people fly this approach. You'd need a working ADF receiver in the airplane, and those are few and far between at this point. That, and of those people, how many actually fly the approach from PDZ, rather than receiving a vector to final? And of THOSE people...how many realized there was a charting conflict? My guess is most pilots would assume a straight-in, or they'd query the controller and be cleared for the straight-in.

In other words, I'm guessing nobody cares :)
 
coma24 said:
I daresay the reason this one has slipped by is because very few people fly this approach. You'd need a working ADF receiver in the airplane, and those are few and far between at this point. That, and of those people, how many actually fly the approach from PDZ, rather than receiving a vector to final? And of THOSE people...how many realized there was a charting conflict? My guess is most pilots would assume a straight-in, or they'd query the controller and be cleared for the straight-in.

In other words, I'm guessing nobody cares :)
Click to expand...

No doubt you are "spot on." But, that begs the issue in the sense of a technical discussion on a forum. Incorrect design is fair game.

Having said that I know that the ILS is seldom vectors because the routing from PDZ creates the least conflict for KONT operations. Further, probably no one has flown that NDB approach since it was first published in 2007.
 
HPNPilot1200 said:
What's an ADF? :goofy:
Click to expand...
I haven't seen a working installed ADF in any client airplane for instrument training for about four years. It's to the point where I need to set up the sim and practice it on my own a couple of times a year just to stay sharp enough that I could teach it if necessary.
 
Ron Levy said:
I haven't seen a working installed ADF in any client airplane for instrument training for about four years. It's to the point where I need to set up the sim and practice it on my own a couple of times a year just to stay sharp enough that I could teach it if necessary.
Click to expand...

We elected to leave NDB approaches off of our OpSpecs since we (1) never fly them and (2) then no longer have to demonstrate an NDB approach on our checkrides.

That being said, a lot of our planes have an ADF but it is solely used to listen to AM radio. It's a great way to get caught up on the news (or lack thereof).
 
Ron Levy said:
I haven't seen a working installed ADF in any client airplane for instrument training for about four years. It's to the point where I need to set up the sim and practice it on my own a couple of times a year just to stay sharp enough that I could teach it if necessary.
Click to expand...
We've got one and the last time (and only time) I turned it on it seemed to work well.
 
NOTAM is going to be issued for this approach shortly, as Ron suspected.

This originally came up while one of my clients was shooting approaches at SBD on PilotEdge and I reminded him that, as charted, the PT was required, even though it made no sense. I say that because it speaks to my theory that this is not frequently flown in r/w :)
 
coma24 said:
NOTAM is going to be issued for this approach shortly, as Ron suspected.

This originally came up while one of my clients was shooting approaches at SBD on PilotEdge and I reminded him that, as charted, the PT was required, even though it made no sense. I say that because it speaks to my theory that this is not frequently flown in r/w :)
Click to expand...

FDC 3/8757 - IAP SAN BERNADINO INTL, SAN BERNADINO, CA.NDB RWY 6 AMDT 1...ADD (NOPT) TO TERMINAL ROUTE PDZ VORTAC (IAF) TO SUDOC INT.CHANGE HELICOPTER NOTE TO READ: HELICOPTER VISIBILITY REDUCTION BELOW3/4 SM NOT AUTHORIZED.THIS IS NDB RWY 6 AMDT 1A. 18 OCT 19:37 2013 UNTIL PERM. CREATED: 18 OCT 19:482013
 
aterpster said:
FDC 3/8757 - IAP SAN BERNADINO INTL, SAN BERNADINO, CA.NDB RWY 6 AMDT 1...ADD (NOPT) TO TERMINAL ROUTE PDZ VORTAC (IAF) TO SUDOC INT.CHANGE HELICOPTER NOTE TO READ: HELICOPTER VISIBILITY REDUCTION BELOW3/4 SM NOT AUTHORIZED.THIS IS NDB RWY 6 AMDT 1A. 18 OCT 19:37 2013 UNTIL PERM. CREATED: 18 OCT 19:482013
Click to expand...
:applause:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top