Question about entry into Reversal Procedure
 

Hello everyone,

ICAO DOC 8168 PANS-OPS Figure I-4-3-4 shows a diagram that has a +/- 30 degree segment where you can go straight into the outbound leg for a 45/180 Reversal procedure. The remaining 300 degree segment has a note that says:

"Arrivals from this sector must enter the holding prior to the reversal procedure"

My question is whether a hold entry manoeuvre, eg flying a teardrop or parallel entry to then be established on the inbound track towards the beacon satisfies "enter the holding", or whether it is required to complete the entry, and then actually go once around the hold, before commencing the outbound leg of the reversal procedure.

I've read before the debates/questions on entry into Racetrack procedures, but couldn't find anything specifically about Reversal procedures.

Many thanks,
Shortcut

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/a...4-3-4entry.png

It's not necessary to fly another circuit once the entry into the alignment hold has been completed.

Think about it -- once you're headed back to the fix following the entry, aren't you established in the "direct" sector?

:ok:

Agree with Zeffy.

However, the real issue is: what do you do when there is no depicted holding pattern, only the reversal procedure?

minimumunstick:

Do you have an example?

make sure you reverse course on the procedure turn side.

know the terrain

if a holding pattern is depicted along with the above instructions, there is probably a darn good reason...mountain for example.

I get a kick out of your european terms, yet in one of the diagrams it is called, wwhat we call it: a procedure turn

45/180 reversal indeed...though you could probably do a 90/270 if you like.

also, the holding pattern is nice as you get a chance to determine the winds...assuming you don't have a magic box doing the thinking for you.

As far as operating in the US and associated areas is concerned as long as you accomplish a reversal on the correct side within the alloted distance (unless a specific entry type is depicted, and a 45/180 is not a "specific" entry, it's just a guideline) you can do any sort of entry you like, personally I prefer a teardrop starting over the fix if the hold is on the "far" side from me or a 90/270 if its on the same side.

You guys are missing the point. Zeffy posted the PANS-OPS illustration. PANS-OPS (not TERPS) requires that a holding pattern first be entered to properly align with the procedure turn (typically a base-turn) unless you are approaching the base-turn within 30 degrees.

Neither sevenstrokeroll or aviatorhi understand PANS-OPS instrument procedures. Say what you about "European terms", PANS-OPS are different and until you learn the difference, may I humbly suggest you not fly outside the US.

Aterpster

I don't have an example handy, but it is possible not to have either a hold or a routing that puts one on the correct track to the course reversal. I'll look

GF

Are you gonna ban me from flying into places which are within US oversight and US regulations apply but are outside the US as well?

I prefaced my statement with where it would apply, and whenever I go to a place where non US regs are in place I review the Jepps for any pertinent procedural information. :ok:

I don't think the original question had anything to do with how you enter a hold, rather it had more to do about when you are established in the hold, the conversation had drifted towards the direction of entry.

I did not suggest, in any way, banning anyone from anywhere. To the OP, the question was about accomplishing the holding entry to be aligned with the course reversal track. The answer to which s once aligned with the outbound course, that is within 30* of the course reversal track and cleared for the approach, there is no need to fly the hold. Conventional holding entry procedures apply.

GF

gf:

Here is the directive to the designers in PANS-OPS:

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/a...ersalEntry.jpg

aviatorhi, sevenstrokeroll -- perhaps you've answered a question that is different from the OP's?

Please forgive if this appears to be advice on how to suck eggs, but honestly, I don't think that the Jeppesen Chart Legend pages provide adequate guidance on how PANS OPS procedures are flown.

As aterpster, gf and upper air have noted, in a non-radar environment, PANS OPS procedures may require an alignment hold that is flown prior to the course reversal.

The requirement to fly or not-fly the alignment hold is dependent on the direction of arrival at the specified fix.

If the arrival route is outside of the "direct" entry sector -- i.e., "Entry Sector" and "Sector 1" below, the alignment hold becomes a mandatory part of the Initial approach segment.

Following are the figures cited in aterpster's "red boxed" directive.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/a...tryI-4-3-5.png

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/a...ureI-4-3-6.png



The following charts illustrate alignment hold concepts.

Prior to Base Turn (not required from TISAD):
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/a.../LRSM_16-1.png



Prior to "Procedure Turn":

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/a.../LFRD_13-3.png


If your FMS is approach-capable, it's important to note that the approach in the database won't contain the alignment hold. When required, the hold pattern will have to be manually inserted into the active route by the pilot and flown prior to executing the specified course reversal.

These PANS OPS concepts are frequently omitted in TERPS/USA IFR training so it's not surprising that the core of the OP's question may have been missed.

Thanks, Zeffy

As an addendum, using PANS-OPS procedures, in a non-radar environment, there is no using FAA "holding" entries for the course reversal. The pilot MUST fly the course reversal as charted, whether it is a procedure turn, 80-260, base turn or racetrack. US pilots frequently miss this requirement.

GF

aterpster

At your request.

I am a little short on time but found this one in a hurry.

https://www.ippc.no/norway_aip/curre...NDU_5-6_en.pdf

I don't expect you to be familiar with this type of chart so in case you are wondering the dotted line is a holding pattern, not a racetrack.

How do you enter the approach if you come in outside the base turn entry limits?

minimumunstick:

Quote:

---

aterpster

---

As a matter of fact I am familiar with that airport, having just done a bit of TAWS assessment there.

I read Jepps a lot better than AIP source. Here is the Jepp for the IAP you reference and for the VOR IAP in the opposite direction. Note the second chart uses the same holding pattern, which makes a better fit for alignment prior to entry into the base leg. Nonetheless, the designers presumed the holding pattern "is suitable" for alignment to the base leg for either of these two IAPs.

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/a...pster/13-2.jpg

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/a...pster/13-1.jpg

gf:

Not if they are properly trained in international procedures.:)

If they have to first use the alignment holding pattern to properly align for the base leg or procedure turn reversal, they certainly can use the FAA/ICAO recommened pattern entries into the alignment holding pattern.

As an aside, anyone who really understands TERPS and its containment assumptions does not buy into the FAA's AIM garbage about the various options for flying a standard procedure turn in a TERPS IAP. It should be flown with positive course guidance both outbound and inbound. But, I digress.

You are correct -- the holding pattern is not a racetrack. However, the holding pattern is depicted for the purpose of alignment when arriving outside of the direct entry sector for the base turn.

And your original question is now more clear -- i.e., "once the holding entry has commenced, will it be necessary to fly a circuit in the alignment holding pattern?"

Perhaps scaling of the holding pattern on the Norway AIP version is a bit confusing -- aterpster has kindly provided the Jeppesen chart.

If arriving from outside of the "direct" entry sector for the base turn, one should enter the published alignment hold.

The base turn leg is joined from the outbound track of the alignment hold. This is accomplished by turning beyond the 109-deg outbound track to intercept the (Cat C/D) 089-deg radial.

Thus the requirement to simply fly the holding entry and join the 089 radial or to return to the VOR and begin the base turn will depend upon the method used to enter the alignment hold.

For examples: Arriving from the North on the 360 radial, use a "Parallel" holding entry and return to the VOR -- arriving from the East on the 090 radial, use a "Direct" entry and turn to intercept the 089 radial to begin the base turn.

Thanks guys. So basically you would enter the hold, and when turning outbound you just continue until you intercept the baseturn outbound leg?


Another question just to clarify:

When flying in the US doing a procedure turn (I always do the 45/180), even though ICAO rules say you must be within 30 degrees of the outbound leg, is it ok not to be? I am a little confused on this.

When I flew in the states everyone would just turn to intercept outbound leg no matter where they came from.. is this legal / the proper way to do it?

minimumunstick:

That is correct with TERPs in the U.S. The only restriction is descent to procedure turn completion altitude where a minimum altitude is shown in the profile view over the procedure turn fix. In that case that altitude is the minimum altitude until established outbound in the procedure turn; i.e., the entry maneuver is completed.

More and more FAA IAPs that have course reversals are using holding patterns instead of conventional procedure turns. In that case, the holding pattern rules apply both as to entry and speed limits.

There are a few(very few actually) FAA IAPs with teardrop procedure turns. Those must be flown exactly as shown.

Thanks, that clarifies my doubts!

Another question I have never really seen a proper answer to written anywhere:

Let's say you are on a long final for a straight in approach. You have not reached the IAF yet but you are on the inbound course. On the approach plate there is a racetrack procedure depicted (I use racetrack for this example, might as well be any type of procedure turn or baseturn) to get you established on the inbound course.

If ATC clears you for the approach, without having to clarify with ATC, are you cleared to continue straight in from the IAF, assuming you are already established at the correct altitude? Or are you still required to complete a lap in the racetrack, as it is "bolded out" on the chart and thereby a mandatory part of the approach procedure?


I have heard so many different versions on this, but what I hear most often is that you must actually do the racetrack unless specifically allowed by ATC to continue straight in. But to me that seems a bit odd as you are already established and doing a lap in the racetrack would just take up extra time and fuel..

Thanks once again

minimumunstick:

Your present position would presumably be on an unpublished extension of the final approach course. It is difficult to comment without an example IAP. In the U.S. ATC would be required to provide you an altitude to maintain until entering a published segment of the IAP. If this was in fact an extenstion of the final approach course presumably this would be a vector to "the final approach," which would supercede the course reversal, also presuming an altitude compatible with the altitude inbound from the course reversal.

Minimumunstick,

As the following phases constitute an instrument approach (arrival, initial, intermediate, final and missed) you have not started the initial approach until you cross the IAF, so you must continue to the IAF and join the racetrack accordingly unless you can ask for and are given a visual approach or vectors.

Sciolistes, you will cross the IAF, it's just that instead of wasting a lap in the racetrack which is completely unnecessary as you are already established on course and altitude, you continue straight in.

There is absolutely no valid reason to complete a racetrack or course reversal procedure if you are already established on the desired and depicted track and altitude to continue an approach. This is not even a discussion, the question is whether it is legal to do so or not as the racetrack is depicted as part of the approach procedure on the approach plate.


aterpster:

I understand your example, but it does not necessarily have to be vectoring. Just to give you an example let's say you are on an airway somewhere or whatever (doesn't really matter) and ATC says "descend to X feet (altitude for final approach segment) proceed direct to X (name of IAF), cleared X approach" and as a complete coincidence when you turn direct you see you are established on the exact inbound course. You maintain this inbound course as you navigate towards the IAF which also is the start of a course reversal procedure to establish you on the course you are already on.

Assuming these conditions, would you complete a lap in the racetrack or not?

Well no you are not required to do a lap if you can cross the IAF and follow the initial track without manouevering. The reacetrack is a reversal procedure and not required if aleady on track.

Edited to add that I used the term "reversal" too glibly. There are reversal procedures and there are racetracks.

Also this is what ICAO says:
So, strictly speaking, your example not their intended use.

Anyway, I thought the answer was obvious, but ICAO does not specify, I presume assuming the above quote. So strictly speaking you should do a lap! But that defies common sense when clearly a 30º cone entry is safe for a reversal procedure, it must be safe for a racetrack too (again, assuming the altitude criteria are met).

minimumunstick:
Again, I can only speak for FAA-dom. Here is what I believe is an example that is on point. The graphic below shows both the VOR or GPS-A IAP for KEMT (east of LAX), and the associated airway structure, which is in very busy airspace. Often, a peashooter arrives from the east on V-264.

Case A: The aircraft is assigned the MEA (6,000) and simply cleared for the shown IAP. Can the pilot go straight-in or does he have to do the course reversal holding pattern (called HILPT in FAAese)? 6,000 is not compatible with the procedure so the pilot is obligated to do the HILPT. But, he had better well advise approach control of his intentions, otherwise the pilot and the controller won't be on the same page. They should be, but FAA ATC, especially in busy radar terminal airspace, tend to invent their own "rules."

Case B: 15 miles east of POM on V264 ATC clears the pilot to descend to and maintain 4,000. This is "legal" because the minimum vectoring altitude along the airway in this area is 4,000. (Of course, this invokes the fine point: can the pilot fly the airway below its MEA or does he have to be provided a direct-to-POM clearance? Not resolved for many years). In any case, at 4,000 everything is set up for a straight-in approach from POM. But, is it legal since it is not a "vector to final?" No, it isn't. It will be one of these days for ground-based IAPs (it is now for RNAV IAPs) but only if the clearance is to a charted intermediate fix (IF). There isn't any charted IF on this IAP. There should be, it is POM. But, this IAP is so old that that it was last issued before the FAA was charting IFs.

Would I go straight-in in Case B? Yes, it would be "counter-productive" not to, even though technically not "legal." But, what if I were receiving a check ride from a disgruntled FAA inspector? Well, in that case I would query ATC, "Am I cleared for a straight-in IAP from over POM?" If the controller's response was ambiguous I would then advise him that I have to do a circuit in the HILPT. He would probably go a bit nuts at that point. But, he also may then resolve the issue by saying, "maintain present heading for vectors to the final approach course."

I know for a fact these ambiguities go on all the time with this particular IAP. Some controllers (but not all by any means) vector the aircraft slightly south of POM, descend them to 3,000 and then point them at the segment between POM and FLYIN, which is clearly a vector to the final approach course. (although it should be at 3,700, not 3,000, but that is another issue for another day.)

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/a...ter/EMTPOM.jpg

Begging pardons for thread drift here, but how could I ascertain that MVA is 4000 on V264 from that chart?

What sort of clearance would you get if descended to 4000'? It could not be on the airway. I would shoot for a requirement for a clearance "maintain the 073 radial route POM cleared to POM" (or words to that effect) at 4000ft (with an MEA of 6000) and since POM is an IAF I would have thought you would then be OK for the approach?

BOAC:

Unlike most ICAO-compliant member states, the FAA refuses to provide MVA charts to pilots. So, you have to take it on faith that ATC is not giving you a bad altitude.

A clearance at 4,000 via the 073 radial or simply direct would be acceptable. And, once you arrive at POM the IAF is for purposes of the course reversal. Note that PRADO fix and PDZ VOR are also IAFs, but with NoPT annotated on the route between them at POM.

When accepting direct to clearance the obstacle clearance responsibility rests with the PIC, I wouldn't descent below MEA unless radar vectored.:ok:

9.G:

Caveat: I am speaking only of U.S./FAA procedures. When ATC initiates a descent clearance below MEA, that becomes a direct clearance and ATC is clearly responsible for terrain clearance. That does not negate, however a pilot check/verification at an unfamiliar location.

In other jursidictions, especially the mountainous areas of Latin America such operations probably won't occur, but if they do pilots are best left to not accept them.

Dude
 

Yes, but...

The problem with over-reliance on ATC is that due to any number of factors (training, difficulties with language, cultural issues etc.) ATC may inadvertently approve an illegal or unwise clearance.

"...Can American 965 go direct Rozo and the Rozo One Arrival?..."

An approach procedure may only be "amended" by a properly-issued radar vector or direct-to clearance.

There have been countless examples of illegal direct-to clearances here in the U.S. -- the proliferation of GPS/RNAV seems to be increasing the temptations and opportunities.

FAA MVAs in vicinity of POM VOR:

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/a...ter/POMMVA.jpg

Aterpster

What is curious about the MVA overlay is, why can't a MOCA be established on the inbound radios to POM? Set a waypoint or DME fix and lower the minimum altitude nearing the VOR. I am not sure though about the secondary zone for airway obstacle clearance, might be a problem on the north side of V264

GF

GF:

Difficult to say without an obstacle assessment. The primary area of the airway has to have not less than 2,000 feet of ROC because this area is within a Designated Mountainous Area. OTOH, the MVA over flat areas like this needs only 1,000 feet of ROC.

The fact the MCA for V-264 from the west side of POM is 5,600 for V-264 on the east side of POM tells me there is an obstacle issue. Then again, the MCA for V-197 NW of POM is 11,800, which makes no sense at all.

Added: I see now the 11,800 is for minimum turn area. That would be interesting if your clearance was to climb to and maintain 11,000.

As long as one respects the altitude for the procedure, how is that unwise or illegal?

Given that we operate around lots of cumulus-granitus, it's been always promoted by flight schools and enforced by airlines that we should brief MEA's and MSA's when operating into airports in mountainous terrain. We also have in hand MVA charts and since we already briefed the MEA, if we ever get a vector with an altitude below the MEA we confirm the instruction is correct via the MVA.

- not really - happens all the time in some places. Initial clearance climb and maintain xxx which is below MEA/MSA whatever. Quite common around the Alps. If you argue you stay on the ground, so you get airborne and ensure you are cleared higher when necessary. Just airmanship.

Escape path
The example was paraphrased, but IIRC, it's pretty close to the CVR transcript.
American Airlines Flight 965 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I had assumed that the requested clearance would be recognizable to pilots familiar with the accident.

BOAC:

Thanks for the airmanship assistance. But, that isn't the issue here. The MEA is 10,500, the altitude assignment is 11,000, but the MTA is 11,800 if turning from V-264 to the west to V-197 to the NW. Do they have MTAs in the Alps?

Zeffy
 

I am familiar with the accident indeed, since I am Colombian and obviously I have flown lots of times into Cali. I'm just objecting your example given that it bears no relation with the topic of this thread nor with what you stated in your previous post:

"The investigation examined the performance of the Cali approach controller to determine what role, if any, he may have played in the cause of the accident. The evidence indicates that he provided clearances in accordance with applicable ICAO and Aeronautica Civil rules and requirements, maintained separation of the aircraft he was controlling, and sequenced flights expeditiously and efficiently. His offer to AA965 to land on runway 19 was consistent with standards of safety and airspace management."

"Consequently, Aeronautica Civil concludes that the Cali controller neither caused nor contributed to the cause of this accident."

"Aeronautica Civil determines that the probable causes of this accident were:

1. The flightcrew's failure to adequately plan and execute the approach to runway 19 at SKCL and their inadequate use of automation.
2. Failure of the flightcrew to discontinue the approach into Cali, despite numerous cues alerting them of the inadvisability of continuing the approach.
3. The lack of situational awareness of the flightcrew regarding vertical navigation, proximity to terrain, and the relative location of critical radio aids.
4. Failure of the flightcrew to revert to basic radio navigation at the time when the FMS-assisted navigation became confusing and demanded an excessive workload in a critieal phase of the flight."

From:

Cali Accident Report

Best regards,

Escape Path :ok:

Apart from LAX, SNA, ONT and LGB most traffic in the LA area is general aviation/flight training. To accommodate all that traffic and keep separation from the flows into the major airports it's always radar vectors and rarely any procedural flying. At some point you simply have to rely on ATC's altitude assignments for it to work. It can be very busy at times. Good local knowledge of terrain helps, even though it shouldn't be necessary. The MSA's are usually quite useless since many of them are in the order of 10-11000 ft, esp for bugsmashers. Due to the mountains north of LA. I second that ATC in the area, although good at "pushing tin", has annoying tendency to invent their own procedures. Often leaves pilots in the unknown.

While quick little entries can work under ideal conditions, I could put a guy in a jet at 250kts and 10k, 3 miles N of POM and say 'cleared direct to POM, cleared for the approach'

it happens, and would be fun to see him try to scrub off 6k and 100 kt in a tear drop that over POM at 250kts to stay in protected airspace, he has to start turning right away in bound for the intercept.

Chances are he will be flying down the approach high and fast, and might not make the FAF at gear speed. Throw in a little malfunction, turn up the heat, and he might be wishing he took the circuit to slow down, read a checklist, get set up for the circle to land, get some winds, oops, didn't turn on the runway lights...thats why he couldn't find the runway...

I might add that if ATC has someone on the approach, and you hot dog it, ATC might slow you down having expected the circuit....I might also add that if you are a charter, or corporate, and this is a new approach with mountains all around, maybe single pilot, it wouldn't hurt my feelings to take things slow, and go around once to make sure your set up right, especially if it's down to minimums and the runway is short.

And on that note, I had a client that told me that he didn't want me using speed brakes, scared the kids, so there ya go...dropping in at 5k a minute with the plane chattering isn't in his program.....and you take the circuit if your high.