It was deliberate
keithl!
There
MIGHT be a problem with the size of the procedure protection area. Non-precision procedures are designed for a commencement altitude that
should equate to MSA (or the highest relevant sector MSA), but I've known of some procedures that have not completely accounted for it.
Therefore, if the aircraft is starting the descent from a higher altitude, the TAS will be higher. This means that the aircraft might travel further on the outbound leg, in the given time, and then have a larger turn radius in the reversal manoeuvre. All of this
could take the aircraft outside the protection area.
The other problem is that the manoeuvre you propose could result in a higher rate of descent than the limits provided in the procedure design. This is because Pans Ops specifies maximum ROD for both Initial and Final segments. Thus, if the pilot must use a higher ROD to reach MDA, there is a greater risk of an excursion below MDA or, at very least, a higher cockpit workload than normal.
All my procedures are protected for the very highest sector MSA, so that issue isn't a problem here for leg length and reversal. My procedures also allow a pilot to intercept the outbound leg by no later than the end of the outbound time, but this only recognises that aircraft within the 30 degree sector might not be established on the outbound track when passing over the IAF. The rule for that here, which is enshrined in our CARs, states that the pilot must have established an intercept angle that is allowing the aircraft to close on the outbound track.
As you can see, this is very different from remaining at MSA until within 5 degrees of the outbound track. The problem with this is, of course, that the longer it takes to reach that stage, the less time is available for descent - thus necessitating a very high ROD. It could even mean that there isn't enough time available to reach MDA, thereby potentially wasting more time than would've been used in establishing within the 30 degree sector in the first place.
I don't think that any State would even contemplate allowing it in any circumstance other than the one I described above. And, of course, other States might not even allow that little bit of flexibility that we allow. The reason why we allow it is because we can be sure that the aircraft will always be contained within the procedure's protection area and have the full time available for descent on the outbound leg.
So... the full application of Pans Ops criteria will allow the things that we're allowing. We apply Pans Ops fully but maybe other States have implemented it slightly differently and, thereby, are not in a position to allow it in their own legislation. The thing that needs to be remembered, as I've said on other topics, is that Pans Ops has no legal standing of its own - the necessary legal coverage is provided by the way each State describes its own implementation of it in its regulations and AIP.