NZ RNAV procedure turns

[hellcheez]

On the Wanganui RNAV approach plate for runway 11, I notice that if you come in from the IAFs from the SW or NE (i.e. not DUDED), there isn't a noPT (see here: www.aip.net.nz/pdf/NZWU_45.1_45.2.pdf ).

I normally would see this on FAA charts (see here for example: flightaware.com/resources/airport/KBGR/IAP/RNAV+(GPS)+RWY+33 ).

I'm assuming you wouldn't be expected to do the procedure turn when starting at BUPKA or AVLOR? Any idea why the CAA doesn't indicate you don't need to do the PT?

[drpixie]

Not quite sure what you're asking, but in Australia the charts look pretty much the same. You can: #1 honour the RNAV capture region, or #2 make whatever sector entry is appropriate (using the sector LSA) an any entry point.

I certainly do not make a hold without a good reason (delay). If you're a student/low-time IFR pilot, you might be thinking that holds are normal. Not the case, they're very abnormal - it's a long time between holds - only made if required because you need the time or to delay ... why burn expensive holes through the air when you could go straight there.

If you do make a hold without telling Centre, you'll get all sorts of confused questions They expect training aircraft to do that stuff as part of "airwork" but not real IFR flights.

[Corkey McFuz]

I'm not sure what you're asking either. You don't need to do any procedure turn, you just fly to the most appropriate iaf and do the approach

[Rudder Sir]

He's asking why the term 'noPT' is not displayed in on the legs between the initial and intermediate fixes.

Firstly, CAA don't publish the NZAIP, but that's semantics.

The reason you don't see 'noPT' - you won't find 'noPT' on any New Zealand chart - I don't think it's actually a PANS OPS term. It shouldn't matter anyway, because from a practical standpoint, you couldn't make a procedure turn even if you wanted to - they are used for reversing direction (when you're talking straight-in approaches like this), and there is no way you can fly this approach that would require a reversal.

[hellcheez]

Thanks, Rudder Sir. That's what I was looking for. Agree with the others that it'd be impossible to make that course reversal otherwise. The noPT must be an FAA special from low-time instrument pilots who've tried to crank in unneeded turns.

To your point that they're for reversing course though, if you come straight in, you'd also be expected to make the procedure turn? I understood they can also be to lose altitude.

[JPJP]

Originally Posted by hellcheez

The noPT must be an FAA special from low-time instrument pilots who've tried to crank in unneeded turns.

Ironic, considering your question. It means that you’re not protected if you attempt one.

‘No PT’ means exactly what it says - a procedure turn is not permitted. If it’s not there, then a PT is permitted. If the PT is depicted, then it’s required unless you’re on radar vectors.

To your point that they're for reversing course though, if you come straight in, you'd also be expected to make the procedure turn? I understood they can also be to lose altitude.

Read this:

Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) - Page 351

[hellcheez]

Originally Posted by JPJP

Ironic, considering your question. It means that you’re not protected if you attempt one.

‘No PT’ means exactly what it says - a procedure turn is not permitted. If it’s not there, then a PT is permitted. If the PT is depicted, then it’s required unless you’re on radar vectors.

I probably wasn't too clear. I was (in my head) wondering why the NZ charts don't display noPT in places where the FAA would display them. Maybe it's to make it clear that a PT is not to be done because people were incorrectly trying to do them in the past. For whatever reason, the NZ chart designers feel this isn't needed to be so explicit.

Read this:

www.faraim.org/aim/aim-4-03-14-351.html]Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) - Page 351

indeed this confirms that a procedure turn is for course reversal. The fact that a procedure turn is still applicable if your IAF is the middle waypoint (but you aren't under radar control, say) gives an indication there is an additional purpose.

[/quote]

[Corkey McFuz]

No, even if it's there you don't have to do it. Don't confuse USA rules and procedures to NZ, they are not the same country.

The T layout / multiple IAFs are there so you can come from any direction and fly straight in. That's the beauty of RNAV in that it's point to point. Not referenced to only one point.

The only time I can think of having to do a procedure turn on an RNAV is if there is only one central IAF and you are not coming straight in. I know there used to be a few RNAV approaches in NZ like this as I had to do them, but this was a long time ago in the more infant stages of RNAV approaches in nz. I doubt there are any (or many) around like that still.

Originally Posted by hellcheez

The fact that a procedure turn is still applicable if your IAF is the middle waypoint (but you aren't under radar control, say) gives an indication there is an additional purpose.

The purpose of the published holding pattern is that it is there to be used if NEEDED. This may be for various reasons such as waiting for another aircraft to do the approach, waiting for a dirty great thunderstorm to bugger off, getting your sh*t sorted before conducting the approach (perhaps you are in an abnormal situation) or even loosing height if needed. Another significant reason is that many missed approach procedures (including the NZWU above) direct you to track to this waypoint (or another with a holding pattern). In this case, DUDED, you will have to carry out a reversal on entry because of the direction you are coming from. Likely once you have done the reversal procedure you will remain in said holding pattern so you can sort out your stuff, divert, wait for weather to clear etc. But under normal operations, its not used unless needed.

[hellcheez]

Originally Posted by Corkey McFuz

No, even if it's there you don't have to do it. Don't confuse USA rules and procedures to NZ, they are not the same country.

Thanks for the clarification and the rest of the detail. Being a completely optional turn is very different to the US.

[JPJP]

Originally Posted by hellcheez

Thanks for the clarification and the rest of the detail. Being a completely optional turn is very different to the US.

Mc Fuz alluded to this a little. However; the piece of the puzzle that you may be missing is this - The U.S. bases it’s procedures on TERPS. NZ and Oz use PANS-Ops. They’re very different, but look similar enough to be easy to mistake as the same thing.

States (nations) choose a design standard. The two most common are ICAO PANS - Ops and TERPS.