Odd requirement on an approach

[Pieces]

Hey everyone,

I was looking through approaches the other day and I stumbled upon a pretty basic VOR/DME approach. Doesn't sound very exciting, and it doesn't look very exciting. Take a look yourself: http://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1305/pdf/06252VDA.PDF.

After a basic overview, I noticed that the HILPT is required, even if you're cleared for the approach from OKK. I can't figure out any good reason to fly the hold from the feeder. You're already lined up, you're already at the correct altitude. It simply doesn't seem necessary. Can anyone shed some light on why the HILPT is required there?

[Mark Hargrove]

I can't see any reason for it either, other than the fact that nothing allows us NOT to do it (other than a "straight in" approach clearance from ATC). I looked at the MEAs around OKK to see if perhaps we'd be too high to always get down in time, but given that the MEA for airways leading to OKK are only about 100' higher than the MEA from OKK to the IAF at SOUSE and you have 17 miles to descend from whatever altitude you were flying, unless you were at FL350 when you reached OKK, you could safely descend to 2500' by the time you reached SOUSE.

So I agree with you, this doesn't make sense. If I was cleared for the approach from OKK I would definitely request permission from ATC to bypass the HILPT if they didn't clear me for that right away.

That does, though, raise the question for me: what is the standard language that ATC would use to grant permission to bypass a HILPT on any approach when receiving VTF?

-M.

[Pieces]

I found another approach in the same area that is very close to the same. Differences are this one does not have a feeder, and it has a straight in approach. http://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1305/pdf/06452V34.PDF

This one does tell you that the HILPT is NA when you're coming from the south(ish). Still no idea why the first approach requires it. Keith mentioned that maybe feeder routes cannot be marked NoPT (only initial segments). That may be the case, but if it were, I think the approach could be marked like this MQJ approach.

[rgrazian]

Hi Reece,

This is a good one. This is how I interpret the rules.

The FARs state (91.175): (j) Limitation on procedure turns. In the case of a radar vector to a final approach course or fix, a timed approach from a holding fix, or an approach for which the procedure specifies ‘‘No PT,’’ no pilot may make a procedure turn unless cleared to do so by ATC.


The way I interpret the official rules is that when “No PT” is on the IAP, the PT or HILPT is forbidden without clearance from ATC. Therefore, in this case it’s not forbidden even if you were coming in from OKK. I agree with you and don’t see any logical reason to do it. I can’t find any regulation saying you are “required” to do the HILPT if no course reversal is necessary (maybe I just can’t find it).

Anyone else care to weigh in…???

[jtek]

AIM*, section 5-4-9 states:

The holding [in lieu of procedure turn] pattern maneuver is completed when the aircraft is established on the
inbound course after executing the appropriate entry

In this case, if you're coming in on that feeder route, you're making a direct entry into the hold. If you're making a direct entry, that entry is finished executing as soon as you reach the holding fix for the first time. And if you're reaching that fix for the first time while already established on the inbound course at the correct altitude, I would argue that the maneuver has been completed and you can keep on truckin' without making an unnecessary turn in the hold.


*The AIM is not technically regulatory, but it IS published by the FAA so I have to assume that it reflects the way they'd like us to fly.

[Pieces]

Josh: that sounds like a good argument but if that is the case why would the 5I4 approach be missing the NoPT markings when the very similar approach at MQJ has NoPT marked for situations with a direct entry?

[jtek]

To answer that would require someone with deeper knowledge of TERPS than I possess

[rgrazian]

Hi Josh,

It sounds like the AIM by defining the completed HILPT also supports not making an unnecessary lap around the hold. I would interpret that the same way.


BTW - While we’re at it… I have another fun one for you guys. I actually fly this approach... Take a look at the MSA. The airport is outside of the MSA coverage. Tell if me that makes any sense...?

http://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1305/pdf/06644VDA.PDF

[Keith Smith]

Rob, it's rare, to be sure, but it makes sense to me. Think about when you USE the MSA...(lost comms while being vectored). If you're being vectored for the approach, where are you likely to be? Somewhere outside the FAF....an area which is covered by the MSA.

[Ryan Geckler]

For those wondering the phraseology for straight in approaches, it is as follows:

"CLEARED STRAIGHT IN (type) APPROACH".