bookworm:
But doesn't this miss the point a bit? Pilots aren't supposed to have to consider where protected airspace is in deciding which way to turn (granted, it's a useful thing to know about to stay alive, but the system doesn't require it). There are supposed to be only two methods of assuring terrain clearance under IFR.
I don't see that I am missing the point at all. In the context of this thread the point is: how does a pilot get onto the approach from the charted TGO holding pattern without ATC providing radar vectors.?
A) I'm radar identified and either on a vector or on a direct clearance where ATC is assuring the terrain clearance
or
B) I'm following a procedure that has been designed to be safe.
I stated that there is some procedure and some technique aspects. The procedural aspect is that the holding pattern is a right turn holding pattern. The technique part is: what is the point in that right-turn holding pattern where you turn to intercept the TGO 254 radial? Further, there are two procedural minimum altitudes for this transition from the holding pattern to the TGO 254 radial; 5,000 for any portion of the holding pattern and 4,000 once tracking westbound on the TGO 254 radial. The MVA chart has no application whatsoever in this case; in fact, it appears to me that a portion of the holding pattern is in radar airspace of 5,000.
I find it hard to believe that having missed an approach, the only way out of the TGO hold is by radar vectors or an ATC-assured direct.
As well you should find it hard to believe because your premise is incorrect.
1) It's up to the procedure designer to check that I can make a left turn from TGO with adequate terrain clearance
There is no such requirement. The holding pattern is a right-turn pattern and the inbound course of that pattern melds with the centerline of the TGO VOR at the VOR.
At EDDM, the procedure designer did design an alignment turn to depart the holding pattern. This could be because of separation requirements set forth to the designers by Munich ATC; or it could have been a better designer at Munich, or Stuttgart ATC didn't want such a left turn maneuver because it would impinge on critical airspace. we have no way of knowing.
It's not up to the procedure designer to check that I can make a left turn from TGO, and the "procedure" requires me to make a right turn of the sort that you describe.
Repeating myself, it is procedurally a right-turn holding pattern. That means all turns to the right to remain within holding pattern protected airspace.
If the procedure requires a right turn, I'd like to see where in PANS-OPS that's described (I'm not challenging you, aterpster). If the procedure allows me to make a left turn, surely the appropriate "technique" is to make a left turn, because it's shorter -- I don't normally make 270 degree turns just for fun.
Neither PANS-OPS nor TERPS permits a left turn in these circumstances. The technique part is whether you elect to return to first return to TGO to make the requisite right turn, then continuing around to intercept the 254 radial (two separate maneuvers, procedurally), or whether you turn right to intercept while already established outbound in the holding pattern (a more economic maneuver if already outbound when approach clearance is received, rather than returning to TGO.)
In this particular case, the MVA in the area of a left turn is only 3500 ft, so it is a terrain-safe manoeuvre. But I don't know if it would be in general.
The MVA chart is not a pilot navigation chart and, in any case, the MHA is 5,000 and a portion of the pattern is in three different MVA sectors, the highest of which is 5,000.