For the pedantic like me, is that permitted by PANS-OPS? It says that procedures are based on 3 deg/s (25 deg max bank)
Pans Ops merely uses a set of assumptions so that a protection area can be constructed. One of these assumptions is that all pilots can execute a turn in IMC at 25 degrees of bank. If you are free to use a (slightly) steeper bank angle, you can be assured of remaining well within the procedure's primary protection area.
When it comes to explaining it to the examiner, your only limitation will be any limit recorded in your SOPs, or related to your particular aircraft. Besides, if one can use a slightly steeper bank angle, there's a better chance of staying on the up-wind side of the FAT, making for an easier intercept with maximum protection afforded by the procedure.
By contrast, someone performing an NDB approach to an on-airfield beacon who rolls out of the turn a mile off the FAT and, say, at 6 DME with a 5 DME FAF, is 10 degrees off the FAT, and needs to take a 25 degree upwind cut to get to 5 degrees by the FAF. Add to that the probably 15+ degrees of drift and it starts to conform to my vision of "pear-shaped"
Sure, it won't look pretty but, provided that you keep turning to intercept the FAT, you'll be protected by the procedure. This would seem to reinforce the need to monitor the turn on the ADF needle, as I mentioned before, and tighten the turn a tad, if necessary (and if the option to do so is available to you).
Bear in mind too that, inherent in the Pans Ops assumption of a 25 degrees bank angle, they refer to it as average achieved bank angle. I see nothing wrong with using 30 degrees of bank initially as it will help to account for the time the aeroplane takes to achieve the magic minimum bank angle.
But then again this is PPrune, so when has the scope of the original question ever mattered a jot...
Thanks for the confirmation - just thought that I should check!
