Seeking General Opinions on a NonPrecision Approach

[golfpilot]

I don't know what the I-7 requires you to do but here is my opinion on what you did.

You should have been failed for not flying the chart.

Reality is, if you were really flying the airplane you would have gone straight down the final approach course and circled to land when you were through the cloud layer.

I can't think of any practical reason someone would want to fly procedure turns from your situation. The "whole approach" is from the IAF to 2220-1. A PT is not a part required part of the approach unless you are unable to make the turn.

It is on there as a published way for someone to get turned around that is not able to turn the inbound leg when reaching RIGLI.

By making that right turn at Rigli, flying off the bold line, and inventing your own approach, you busted the REGs.

[Talan2000]

Hi Andrew

Thanks for the feedback.

Can you give me a reference for how to enter a VOR approach that has no specific entry procedure defined?

The approach starts at RIGLI and procedes with an outbound course of 352. The chart doesn't depict at what specific heading one MUST fly to enter RIGLI.

Read through the above to get more data/perspectives.

IF the FAA wanted to they could put a Hold Entry pattern on this approach and voila you now have a "procedure turn" entry to this approach that is specific and required. Short of that, you can do it how you want - legally.

[Scott Medeiros]

What an excellent discussion with so many good points! Circling maneuvers are rare in real world flying, especially for pilots who fly mostly into airports with an ILS. Yet, as we can see these can be the most hazardous type of approaches, especially in hard IMC near mins. This topic is an excellent review of many points easily forgotten after the IFR/CFII checkride, and good insight of procedures and their reasons from the ATC side. The pilot ratings are such a great learning tool. A flight can be flown, then reviewed, dissected, and critiqued, using the map and ATC and other pilot feedback which leads to a discussion which everyone can learn from. An easier, safer, and cheaper lesson than a letter of investigation or accident report.

This ^^^ is the reason PE is such a great tool for all pilots from the VFR private pilot hopefuls learning how to transition a Bravo to the real world commercial pilots who can shoot an ILS with their eyes closed but non-precision IFR procedures may be a bit rusty.

[Keith Smith]

The approach starts at RIGLI and procedes with an outbound course of 352. The chart doesn't depict at what specific heading one MUST fly to enter RIGLI.

IF the FAA wanted to they could put a Hold Entry pattern on this approach and voila you now have a "procedure turn" entry to this approach that is specific and required. Short of that, you can do it how you want - legally.

You can fly any headings or maneuvers you want for the course reversal, but you should remain WEST of the final approach course during that maneuver and within 10nm of RIGLI.

If you'd like to see an example of real world circling, at minimums, here is a video from a flight I did a few years ago. I've circled exactly twice in IMC, this was the first: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaVs2fDaClU

[golfpilot]

Hi Andrew

Thanks for the feedback.

Can you give me a reference for how to enter a VOR approach that has no specific entry procedure defined?

The approach starts at RIGLI and procedes with an outbound course of 352. The chart doesn't depict at what specific heading one MUST fly to enter RIGLI.

Read through the above to get more data/perspectives.

IF the FAA wanted to they could put a Hold Entry pattern on this approach and voila you now have a "procedure turn" entry to this approach that is specific and required. Short of that, you can do it how you want - legally.

How do you plan on getting to RIGLI without radar vectors? The only point that can be flown to without radar vectors is the VOR which isn't even a IAF, but it does give you a route to RIGLI.

I can only relate to real life and I guarantee you a controller would EXPECT you to continue straight in unless you need the reversal to enter the inbound leg, or you told him. If you just go about flying an unnecessary course reversal you will upset ATC and the guy behind you. If you aren't comfortable just doing it and think the controller is out to get you, then ask him to clarify that it is direct Rigli cleared straight in.

I don't know if you have flown in actual IMC or not, but when you are in the soup doing 180 degree turns is not fun and it is stressful. and if you don't have a GPS aboard, trying to make a 160 degree turn to intercept on outbound leg sounds like a good way to get lost. Your number one priority is to get on the ground safely and fiddling around with massive turns while in the soup, isn't safe.

[Keith Smith]

Andrew, for clarification, the objective of this rating is to have them fly the full approach including the procedure turn. This is why we have them approach RIGLI from the southeast to make the procedure turn worthwhile (from SXC, specifically, to highlight the utility of the feeder route).

Regarding the straight-in vs procedure turn, the letter of the law is that you only make a straight-in if:
- timed approaches are in use (almost never), or
- you're on a segment marked NoPT, or
- you're receiving radar vectors to the final approach course, or
- you're cleared for a straight-in approach by ATC

So, if ATC cleared you direct RIGLI (/G), or provided "vectors to RIGLI" (/A), you'd still need to make the procedure turn. An exception would be if they specified that they were vectoring you to the final approach course (which would much more likely, granted). Bear in mind, the MVA (for us at least) is 3200 from 3.5nm outside of RIGLI, all the way to the 4.5nm SE of the SE corner of the island. So if we're vectoring you while you're close to the gate, 3200 is as low as we can get you....however, if you're vectored from further out, there's no reason ATC couldn't either clear you for the straight-in explicitly, OR, they could specify that it's a vector to the final app course.

[Ryan B]

Andrew, for clarification, the objective of this rating is to have them fly the full approach including the procedure turn. This is why we have them approach RIGLI from the southeast to make the procedure turn worthwhile (from SXC, specifically, to highlight the utility of the feeder route).

Regarding the straight-in vs procedure turn, the letter of the law is that you only make a straight-in if:
- timed approaches are in use (almost never), or
- you're on a segment marked NoPT, or
- you're receiving radar vectors to the final approach course, or
- you're cleared for a straight-in approach by ATC

I'm just gonna add my ATC two cents here... 90% of pilots I work in our airspace will fly straight in EVEN with a published hold assuming they're turn to final is less than 90 degrees (and EVEN if we don't say "Cleared XYZ approach straight in). I'm sure in mighty socal it's a little different on what is expected but professional pilots typically wouldn't just do the hold on a straight in angle... again our airspace controls the class D in KDLH and we have about 6 satellites all uncontrolled... just a teency weency different that socal

I work with a lot of veteran guys "that's slang for old -but I can't say that as it's a protected class ha" - anyway that verbiage "straight in" is pretty foreign over here. Not sure why but that's how it is. The pilots that fly in duluth understand that there's zero reason why we would want them to make a course reversal even on a published hold when coming straight in. In my experience those holds are to allow the pilot to descend to a good altitude in order to get to minimums in time. The FAA should address this (again), because the questions occassionally still pops up in our airspace. Pilots should not have to do the hold on anything less than 90 deg (straight in), even if it's published... it's just stupid!

[Keith Smith]

Ryan, in mountainous terrain, the MVA can be considerably higher than the altitudes on the approach. So, even if someone is approaching the fix at a relatively shallow angle, the controller can only have them cross the fix at the MVA, which might be well above what the approach calls for, so operationally (and legally), the HILPT is useful.

Rather than have pilots need to make a judgement call as to whether they need to do it the HILPT or not, the rules are pretty clear on the pilot side. Also, new guidance was introduced not that long ago by the FAA in the .65 to require ATC to be more clear about when the straight-in is expected.

I did have a case in NY airspace recently where the controller cleared me direct to the IAF/IF and cleared me for the approach. He had me at about an 80 degree angle. I made the straight-in because I knew that's what he wanted, based on past experience, but technically, he should've specified 'straight-in' on the clearance. To cover myself, I should've read back 'straight-in' my read back to clarify my intentions but his workload was through the roof dealing with TEB finals and I didn't want to be "that guy" who trys to prove a point in a passive way...at least not when he was that swamped, so I just did a super short read back and flew the straight-in.

I'm guessing this has been an issue ever since the rise of RNAV.

[Ryan B]

I understand all that... I'm just writing the difference between technical and what really happens in some areas (DLH is not alone but I'm guessing it happens mostly at smaller tracon facilties)

I would almost be upset if a pilot didn't fly straight in AND I accidentally omitted "cleared straight in..."

Anyway since this is PE, and the technical part is more appropriate I'll just leave it at that to say the guidance in the 65 is correct but still could use some re-wording imho.

[Keith Smith]

Ryan, it's definitely the case where pilots still need to learn to read between the lines. You're not wrong, it absolutely does happen in the real world, and it's definitely not limited to smaller TRACONs. It's the exception rather than the rule at NY TRACON, they're fairly old school.