Help with GNS 430

Guest Discussion
21

That’s correct Joe. While you may not see these kinds of individual elements listed in the TERPS criteria, that’s the reason for the criteria. Also, the length of the arc, DME distance and more are chosen for very specific purposes. The basic idea is to allow the aircraft to configure for the approach. If you enter the initial approach segment early by being vectored – weaving your way along trying to intercept that arc (not an easy task) – you lose valuable time and distance to configure the aircraft.

This is the same reason for the procedure turn. You wouldn’t want ATC to vector you to the procedure turn (or at least I wouldn’t).

Thanks for the observations, Joe.

22

Scott, To carry that one step further, suppose the controller vectored you to intercept the arc and instructed you to follow the arc to Mindi. Would that be OK? Couldn’t one consider the arc to be the feeder route to Mindi which is then both the IAF and the FAF wrapped up into one?
I the answer is yes than suppose he cleared you direct to ODI, asked your heading and told you to maintain that heading to intercept the arc? Is that a vector?

23

Jerry,

It is possible for the controller to vector you to the arc and follow it all the way to MINDI where you begin the approach. Now the question is, do you do a PT or not? I would say that since you didn’t start the arc at the IAF, then you would be forced to do the PT.

This is a tough call. MINDI is a valid IAF. If you are at the ODI, I would expect the controller to clear you for the approach which means that you would proceed to MINDI via the transition and do the PT. I wouldn’t expect the controller to turn you to intercept the arc. That puts you in a weird position.

Once you intercept the arc, then you are bound to follow it (on your own nav, not radar vectors). I don’t know if you can throw out the PT. It is a NoPT arc, but that’s assuming you started at the IAF (SHLGN or BOOTY). I don’t like the option of intercepting the arc for a straight-in approach.

If you are told to maintain any heading, that’s a vector.

24

Scott, Here I would disagree with you. If you are on the DME arc and intercept the localizer at the LSE 14 DME fix on the localizer you are essentially inbound on the localizer at that point and are on a transition route that says NoPT (although it says it from the EAU IAF). It would seem to me that when you’re pointed at the runway on the localizer 6.3 miles form the OM that to go to the OM (Mindi) and do a procedure turn is, at best, silly. Perhaps you got to that point “illegally” but once you’re there, what the heck. Continue straight in.

25

Jerry,

There are many of these silly scenarios that still require you to do the PT. You’re all lined up and at the right altitude, but you are not on a NoPT arrival route. The procedure turn is mandatory even though it may seem silly. For example if you were cleared direct to the ELANE intersection (at the top of the approach) and cleared for the approach it would seem silly to do the PT, but you are required by regulation. Now if you came from EAU (as you mentioned) you wouldn’t be authorized to do the PT. Sounds silly, but that’s the rules.

26

This was not a clearance I received, it was hypothetical. I made this flight Wednesday and I was just trying to figure out what I would do if I received this type of clearance. Just trying to stay ahead of the game. I feel better trying to think through this stuff on the ground rather than trying to figure it out while I’m suppose to be flying it.

27

Not only does it SOUND silly. It seems to me that if there’s another aircraft behind you and the controller assumes that you’re going to use common sense and go straight in, a procedure turn may put you right into the path of the next guy. I’ll bet that if you asked 100 radar controllers about a procedure turn on that approach if you were cleared direct ELANE, cleared ILS RW18 approach all one hundred would say they would NOT expect a procedure turn to be executed and would base their sequencing on a straight in arrival.
If you were to make a PT under that circumstance I would strongly recommend you tell the controller you were going to do it before you commence it lest you und up nose to nose with the next guy.

28

Jerry,

I know we could debate this one forever. But it is clear from the regs (not just the AIM this time) that you must execute the procedure turn and ATC will expect you to execute the PT if you are told to proceed direct to ELANE and cleared for the approach. If the controller needed to expedite traffic and it was a radar environment, then you would expect vectors to final where you would not be authorized to do the PT.

An examiner would bust you for not doing the PT on the checkride. They would look at FAR 91.175(j) and put it to the test. Are you being radar vectored to final? No. Are you conducting a timed approach from a holding fix? No. Are you on an approach for which the procedure specifies “NoPT”? No. So you must do the procedure turn. Anything short of that would be a violation of FAR 91.175(j).

Let me just say that you might be very high on the approach at ELANE. In that case, this PT will allow you to lose that altitude and configure for the approach. If you arrive via EAU (once cleared) you can descend on the transition to the proper altitude and you can proceed straight in on the approach without the PT (NoPT arrival).

From the FAA Legal Counsel on this issue:

Finally, you ask whether a course reversal segment is optional “when one of the conditions of FAR section 91.175(j) is not present.” Section 91.175(j) states that in the case of a radar vector to a final approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach for which the procedures specifies “no procedure turn,” no pilot may make a procedure turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.

Section 97.3§ defines a procedure turn, in part, as a maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on a intermediate or final approach course. A SIAP may or may not prescribe a procedure turn based on the application of certain criteria contained in the TERPs. However, if a SIAP does contain a procedure turn and ATC has cleared a pilot to execute the SIAP, the pilot must make the procedure turn when one of the conditions of Section 91.175(j) is not present.

29

Appreciate the tone of the debate and where it ended up, but your comments about ELANE and procedure turns prompted me to wonder: how would you suggest one reverse course to execute a procedure turn to reverse course!

You suggested that a clearance “direct to ELANE” would put you on a segment without NoPT authorization. Assume you were in the north east quadrant (otherwise “direct to EAU” or direct to a southern IAF would have made more sense and those segments do have NoPT). Would you most likely turn to the LSE357 radial at ELANE? Then how would you execute the procedure turn? A hold makes more sense to me if you need to lose altitude.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the LSE ILS18 approach seems to require the procedure turn ONLY IF cleared to MINDI and flying the localizer outbound. There are more NoPTs on this approach than I’ve seen elsewhere!

Cheers
Rick

30

In reply to:

If you happen to be vectored onto a segment of the approach (including an arc) that is marked as a NoPT, then you would not be required or authorized to perform the PT. Just make sure it is a NoPT arrival route.

Scott: Wouldn’t it be true that any time you are on a ‘vectored’ approach, you do not need to complete the PT? For instance, if the controller asks if you want ‘vectors’ or ‘the full approach’? If on the other hand, you are not vecotred or given the option, then you must accomplish the PT.
It is my understanding that the PT is used to establish you on the proper part (segment) of the approach, which otherwise would be unidentifiable. For instance, a VOR approach with the VOR located on the field and w/out DME or an IAF other than the VOR, you need to fly over the VOR to establish your position. Then by flying the outbound leg and then the PT, you have established yourself to a know point (within certain tolerences) along the final approach leg. If you were just to fly the inbound leg, you would never know (using only VORs) how far out you were.
Therefore, on a vectored approach, the controller has established you on the final leg within a certain (read: safe) distance from the VOR to “clear you for the approach” which means to continue the aproach inbound and descend to the MDA.

Marty

31

Marty,

At the risk of placing my foot back in my mouth…

I think the answer depends on the approach and depends on the reason for the vector.

If the vector is a “vector to final” then you are never authorized to fly the PT unless you get permission to do so from ATC.

The other situation is where ATC vectors you to join the approach at some intermediate position, perhaps even on the initial segment of the IAP inside the IAF. The clearance is to “intercept a portion of the published approach, cleared for the ILS 18”. As indicated in FAR 91.175(i) and AIM para 5-4-7©, you should continue to descend in accordance with the published IAP procedure. Then upon reaching the final approach course or fix, the pilot executes the procedure or continues on a radar approach (ASR or PAR).

The words “final approach course or fix” mean final approach course or FAF, not final approach course or “IAF”, which may just happen to be collocated with the FAF. The procedure to which the FAA refers in the rule clearly means the final approach procedure from the FAF (or final approach course on IAPs with no FAF).

For example, let’s assume that you are flying a VOR approach with no FAF, for which the IAF and the MAP is the VOR station. You are vectored onto a portion of the approach and cleared for the approach (letÂ’s assume that there is an arc with “NoPT” that leads you onto final). As per 91.175(i) you follow the procedural altitudes on the arc and intermediate segment. Once on final, you would descend in accordance with FAR 91.175(i), all the way to the MDA. At that point, you would definitely NOT cross the VOR, claiming that you are now at the IAF, climb up and fly the full PT. The final sentence in the AIM, para 5-4-7 confirms this:

“For this purpose, the Procedure Turn of a published IAP shall not be considered a segment of that IAP until the aircraft reaches the initial fix or navigation facility upon which the procedure turn is predicated.”

In other words, if you are given a vector to a portion of the approach that includes the IAF as a subsequent fix along the route, then you would execute the procedure turn – for example, if vectored onto a feeder route that goes to the IAF, and which is NOT marked as “NoPT”, then you would fly the procedure turn.

But just because you overfly the IAF, which happens to be the same fix as the FAF, does not mean that you climb up and fly the full PT. This would occur if you were vectored onto the intermediate segment. You are cleared to descend on the procedural IAP altitudes – the IAF is now irrelevant to your flight. You do not need it for anything because you are aligned on the approach and at the proper altitudes, and are probably below the procedure turn completion altitude. Looking at the procedure turn altitude and the altitude you’d be by following the IAP route, usually drives home the fact that a procedure turn is not authorized or required. You never want to climb to do a procedure turn.

Again, I would like to apologize for any confusion I might have caused.

32

Thanks Paul for the example. Always a good idea to come up with “what ifs” as they tend to bring up important details.

33

Rick,

I also appreciate the tone of the discussion. You (and Jerry — we’ve been having a private conversation) are correct about the arrival from ELANE. I’ve been using FAA charts to analyze these approaches and I’m used to seeing Jepp charts. Not an excuse, but an observation that I need to use FAA charts from time to time.

ELANE is part of the NoPT arrival route and therefore you would not be expected or authorized to do the procedure turn. If you had been given DIRECT ELANE, you would descend to 2900 ft in accordance with the published route. The PT is at 3400 ft. That’s the real clue that a PT is not a good idea (see my response to Marty at the top) since you would have to climb to 3400 to do the PT. Obviously, this is not the correct thing to do. You should never climb to do a procedure turn.

Be careful. There are cases where a seemingly straight in approach might not be authorized even though you are lined up right down the throat of the final approach course. Many reasons for this. Altitude loss, mistake on the IAP (this has happened many times), clutter on the chart, etc. all may be a reason to do the PT.

Also, this is the case for a radar environment. In a non-radar environment you would be expected to fly the entire approach beginning at an IAF.

Again, sorry for any confusion that I might have caused. It must be that Pledge of Allegiance thing that’s got my mind distorted.