Procedure turn

[BEFAN5]

I would like to see what others have to say about this situation, as this topic comes up quite often in the flight deck.

1. you are on a flight from point A to point B, both of which are in uncontrolled airspace.
2. The track of the route is 080.
3. The runway for landing at point B is runway 06.
4. The approach is an NDB Runway 06 Approach. The NDB is based ON the field (not 4-5 miles back). The 100nm safe is 2500feet, the sector is 2000feet, and the MDA is 1800 feet.

Question being, can you (and legally speaking) execute a small turn off of your 080 track to intersect the 060 inbound without having to perform a procedure turn since there is no need to lose a lot of altitude, and providing you stay at sector until fully established on the inbound.

[200hr Wonder]

Of course you can. You let down to 2500, then withing 25mile let down to 2000 then once established inbound and within 10nm you let down to 1800. You won't hit anything and if required are appropriately positioned to fly the missed.

[Redneck_pilot86]

In uncontrolled airspace, absolutely. I don't know why you wouldn't (assuming no traffic).

[BEFAN5]

So, if there is no traffic, and you are uncontrolled, could you make a 90degree off track turn to intercept an inbound track to avoid doing a procedure turn?

[howard40]

Well I think you can , as long as you dont bust any altitudes, but how far back are you and how do you confirm that? what is your clearance ? They still expect you to do predictable things... maybe some atc types can swing in. I always get "cleared out of controlled airspace in the vicnity of parry sound for an approach". I have rarely done a completely uncontrolled at both ends ifr, they are interesting! could be very quiet on the frequency!
what you gonna tell other aircraft on the 90 degree deal?

[BEFAN5]

Completely uncontrolled class G airspace. No airways, or anything above your airport. And using GPS/FMS to measure distance from the NDB.

I ask because some people I have spoken to will do a procedure no matter what their inbound track is. Sure if you are coming from the complete other end of the runway, a PT is probably your best option. But I am all for flying in a manner that reduces air time, saves fuel, providing it complies with air regulations and safe altitudes.

[200hr Wonder]

Well ask your self this... Is it safer to go strait in or do a procedure turn in your example? I think that will give your answer.

[BEFAN5]

Neither is safer than the other. As long as you always respect safe altitudes, there is no "safer".

[200hr Wonder]

Wow OK in a minimums environment.... flying strait in is significantly safer than doing a PT.... Go strait in with no turn >30 degrees of turning or have to complete > 360 degrees of turning as low as 500' from the ground in crap weather.... now I ask you again, what is safer?

[AOW]

No PT!!!

In your example, especially since MDA is only 200 ft lower than 25 mile safe, I would project a waypoint 5 miles from the NDB, on the approach track, and go DCT (5 mile fix) DCT (NDB). You pick up the inbound track at the 5 mile fix (and if you've programmed it right, the GPS will guide you right onto the track), drop down to MDA and (hopefully) see the airport and land. This way there is no guessing as to where you are going to intercept the inbound course, and you don't have to practice your vectoring skills.
Even if there is more altitude to lose between sector altitude and MDA, you can just move your projected waypoint further out (to a maximum of the PT limit, ie within 10 miles of sumspot NDB).

[photofly]

360 degrees of turning as low as 500' from the ground in crap weather.... now I ask you again, what is safer?

Are there really PT altitudes at 500AGL? or are you thinking of a circling approach, when you say this?

[BEFAN5]

Wow OK in a minimums environment.... flying strait in is significantly safer than doing a PT.... Go strait in with no turn >30 degrees of turning or have to complete > 360 degrees of turning as low as 500' from the ground in crap weather.... now I ask you again, what is safer?

Again. Both should be 100% safe providing the person at the controls is competent enough to hold a rate one turn.

[200hr Wonder]

Again. Both should be 100% safe providing the person at the controls is competent enough to hold a rate one turn.

And I am going to have to disagree. Each and every procedure we do flying has some inherent amount of risk. Be it taxing a 172 to a circling full procedure NDB appropach at minimums in icing at night into a black hole.

And in my books a PT has more risks associated with it than a strait in approach every day.

And yes I stand corrected 1000 feet. Brain not quite on during my day off.

[scopiton]

Wow OK in a minimums environment.... now I ask you again, what is safer?

if there's no point identified as an IF or IAF you have to do the Pt no matter what, even with a GPS.
if a procedure turn in imc is challenging you should ask your instructor to give you more training.

Be it taxing a 172 to a circling full procedure NDB appropach at minimums in icing at night into a black hole. And in my books a PT has more risks associated with it than a strait in approach every day.

in my book it's under CARs 605.30

[FurHat]

Wow OK in a minimums environment.... now I ask you again, what is safer?

if there's no point identified as an IF or IAF you have to do the Pt no matter what, even with a GPS.
if a procedure turn in imc is challenging you should ask your instructor to give you more training.

Be it taxing a 172 to a circling full procedure NDB appropach at minimums in icing at night into a black hole. And in my books a PT has more risks associated with it than a strait in approach every day.

in my book it's under CARs 605.30

I agree with this. Unless the approach has provisions for No-PT, then you must do it. It isn't the way it happens "up north" but if you foul something up on a home-brewed no-PT approach and clip a tree or something, you are going to have to answer some pointed questions from the investigators.

[sstaurus]

if there's no point identified as an IF or IAF you have to do the Pt no matter what, even with a GPS.
if a procedure turn in imc is challenging you should ask your instructor to give you more training.

I was wondering something similar to the OP's question the other day, this quote is what I thought was right... but I'm relatively new to IFR. And if there's no advisory at the field, aren't you supposed to do a circling approach to inspect the field first? (the AIM says 'should')

Not to hijack, but when VMC do any of you fly over the field first when doing a visual approach? Or do most of you just head straight-in anyway? (talking all uncontrolled here)

[200hr Wonder]

Most operators have people on field to meet them. They would then of course notify the flight crew inbound if there was a problem. IE packs of wilds dogs, un-notamed snow clearing equipment broken down in the middle of the runway, and so forth. All of which I have been warned about inbound. So the short answer is no, most operators do not do an inspection as they have ground people that pass on runway conditions. If you are unsure and can not get a reliable report it sure would be a great idea to do an inspection.

[Bushav8er]

a great idea to do an inspection

Great idea? Agreed BUT its required regardless:

At an uncontrolled aerodrome, runway conditions (including
any temporary obstructions such as vehicles) may be
determined by the pilot by:
(a) contacting the appropriate FSS or UNICOM at
the destination;
(b) a preflight telephone call to the destination to arrange
for making the necessary information available when
required for landing;
(c) a visual inspection;
(d) a NOTAM issued by the aerodrome operator; or
(e) any other means available to the pilot, such as message
relay from preceding aircraft at the destination.

A visual inspection doesn't have to be from a circling, you are in a good position (most of the time) to see if anything is on the runway on final - visual inspection done.

PT aren't inherently dangerous, circling approaches are.

[Tiny Tyke]

According to the IFR charts. You technically have to do a PT unless you are:

- being radar vectored
- on the contact
- or the plate says 'No PT'

In my mind common sense prevails. If you have equipment that reliably tells you your position then you should use it to expedite your flight if possible. I think this is one place that the regulations haven't caught up to modern technology.

Will you get in trouble if the wrong person wants to get you in trouble? - Maybe

Are there a lot of worse/stupid things being done? Very much so.

As long as it makes sense safety wise. (ie Descending after the safe outbound PT distance.) Then I dont see why not.

Anyone have a CARs reg about PT's being mandatory?

[photofly]

Anyone have a CARs reg about PT's being mandatory

They're not mandatory in Canada.

CAR602.127 says "Unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit, the pilot-in-command of an IFR aircraft shall, when conducting an approach to an aerodrome or a runway, ensure that the approach is made in accordance with the instrument approach procedure."

So ATC can clear you for any kind of approach from anywhere. What about outside controlled airspace?

See also AIM RAC 9.16:

"Intermediate fixes are usually located on the final approach track at the procedure turn distance specified in the profile view ... after passing the fix ... descent may be made to the appropriate published altitude that would apply as if a procedure turn had been completed. Pilots may begin a straight in approach from any depicted transition that intersects the final approach track inside the designated IF provided that ATC is aware of their intentions and subsequent manoeuvring is within the capabilities of the aircraft."

All NDB approaches with GNSS overlay have a waypoint on the final approach course prior to the MAP because TSO-C129a says various things have to happen there. So do they count as intermediate fixes? I believe they do. I'll fire off an email to TC to check.

[tripleseven]

No PT!!!

In your example, especially since MDA is only 200 ft lower than 25 mile safe, I would project a waypoint 5 miles from the NDB, on the approach track, and go DCT (5 mile fix) DCT (NDB). You pick up the inbound track at the 5 mile fix (and if you've programmed it right, the GPS will guide you right onto the track), drop down to MDA and (hopefully) see the airport and land. This way there is no guessing as to where you are going to intercept the inbound course, and you don't have to practice your vectoring skills.
Even if there is more altitude to lose between sector altitude and MDA, you can just move your projected waypoint further out (to a maximum of the PT limit, ie within 10 miles of sumspot NDB).

Ya, but you are not really supposed to do that. I think unless is is a GPS overlay, or has a DME associated with the procedure, youshould do a PT. However, if you know how far from the NDB you are, descend to the lowest altitude, be it 100 nm, or sector.

[KK7]

We aren't supposed to be making our own approaches or procedures. If the plate has no provisions to conduct the approach without doing a PT, then a PT has to be done, even if you fly a route that makes it seemingly more efficient or safe. The approach plate has been designed and tested to be flown as depicted on the chart. Now these days GNSS approaches or overlays being as ubiquitous as they are, most of the time there is a provision to go straight in using GPS.

[photofly]

I think it's implied in the original question that a GPS is in use, otherwise on an NDB approach you'd not know when to descend. That would mean that the approach would have to have a GNSS overlay, and therefore you could go direct the waypoint for a straight-in. But you certainly can't invent or program your own waypoints, the approach has to be loaded and activated from the DB and the GPS has to be approved yada yada yada.

[A Regulator]

The original question was that it was an NDB approach nothing was implied that you had GPS.

[photofly]

It's true that the OP didn't say he/she had GPS, but if doing an NDB approach with only an ADF and no GPS then a straight-in would be impossible (or suicide) - how would you know how far out you are, and when to descend to the MDA?