RNAV Arrival

[Scott Dyer HPN/NY]

How about the KLNK ILS18 ?

Andy -- Ah, the old tear drop course reversal. Yes, I can see that may be what Bill is thinking about. I don't have Jepps for that far west but I'll bet the Jepp plate show the same thing.

[Ray Tackett]

A fouled sensor could probably be detected 99.99% of the time and problem averted.

A sensor can likely report an error status instead of data, or give a very wrong reading. As a 50 year software engineer, I doubt very much that automtive software would detect or respond appropriately to a sensor error. Defensive programming (appropriate response to bad or no input data), edge case testing, and error response testing are nearly nonexistent.

Driving a car in real traffic under real conditions is so complex that I'm not sure adequate software testing is possible. Modules can certainly be tested, but testing the integrated whole is a hard problem.

[Bill Bridges]

Andy -- Ah, the old tear drop course reversal. Yes, I can see that may be what Bill is thinking about. I don't have Jepps for that far west but I'll bet the Jepp plate show the same thing.

That is a good example. When looking for a "barb" and I get an arrow(that looks like a procedure track) it causes me to pause and think "What does Jepp want me to do?" I always knew that if I flew the Procedure Turn as a Procedure Track I would be OK.

I did lots of NDB approaches in the military and a lot of them were dual NDBs. I bet Randy has lots of good NDB approach stores.

One thing I always felt was if push came to shove and had to go to the ground because of low visibility that I would have no problem doing it with a dual NDB approach with the second NDB located at the runway. As Randy would say "You've got to have an OUT in your back pocket."

[Randy Sohn]

As Randy would say "You've got to have an OUT in your back pocket."

I surely always wish that it was me who that quote must be attributed to, "howsumevah" it was the the man that operated that particular USAF T-6 primary flight training school at Moultrie, GA. Beverly ("Bevo") Howard. He would put on an airshow there at Spence for each graduating cadet classs and I can still recall the fistfights we sometimes engaged in to be the honored cadets (2) to hold the upright cane fishpoles for his inverted ribbon cut as a finale of the show with his Buecker Jungmiester. He kept that red/white bi-plane down near the central fire station/water tower, a small hangar. The occasion that I heard him say that was once when I got up my nerve to say something to Mr. Howard about his outstanding aeronautical abiliites when he attended our class (55-N) graduation ceremonies there at Spence AB. He'd said - "Mr. Sohn, my advice is to always keep an out in your hip pocket".

best, randy

[Scott Dyer HPN/NY]

That is a good example. When looking for a "barb" and I get an arrow(that looks like a procedure track) it causes me to pause and think "What does Jepp want me to do?" I always knew that if I flew the Procedure Turn as a Procedure Track I would be OK.

I did lots of NDB approaches in the military and a lot of them were dual NDBs. I bet Randy has lots of good NDB approach stores.

One thing I always felt was if push came to shove and had to go to the ground because of low visibility that I would have no problem doing it with a dual NDB approach with the second NDB located at the runway. As Randy would say "You've got to have an OUT in your back pocket."

Bill -- I think I've discovered where I wasn't connecting with what you are saying about "procedure track". Take a look at the two plates posted here, one FAA and one Jepp, same procedure.

The FAA chart has the PT barb. The Jepp has a sample of a possible ground track depicted. I can see where, coming from a world where the thick black lines mean "ya gotta fly here", that the Jepp chart would suggest that only the PT as depicted on that chart is permissible. And, you're not wrong to do it that way. But you don't have to.

AIM section 5-4-9(a)(1) covers the point about how to make a procedure turn:

1. On U.S. Government charts, a barbed arrow indicates the maneuvering side of the outbound course on which the procedure turn is made. Headings are provided for course reversal using the 45 degree type procedure turn. However, the point at which the turn may be commenced and the type and rate of turn is left to the discretion of the pilot (limited by the charted remain within xx NM distance). Some of the options are the 45 degree procedure turn, the racetrack pattern, the teardrop procedure turn, or the 80 degree 260 degree course reversal. Racetrack entries should be conducted on the maneuvering side where the majority of protected airspace resides. If an entry places the pilot on the non−maneuvering side of the PT, correction to intercept the outbound course ensures remaining within protected airspace. Some procedure turns are specified by procedural track. These turns must be flown exactly as depicted.

And, to make matters more confusing, the Jepp chart guide doesn't contain any language that the procedure turn can only be flown as charted (as would be the case with a teardrop course reversal)...it's just something you have to know, that the Jepp charts are still interpreted in this regard in light of the 5-4-9(a)(1) language quoted above.

Going back to your original question, relating to HILPTs, AIM section 5-4-9(a)(5) provides that while generally the track must be flown as depicted, the course reversal is considered complete after the aircraft executes the appropriate entry and is established on the inbound course (so you really don't have to fly the procedure track depicted). In this regard, there's no material difference between FAA and Jepp depictions of HILPTs:

5. A holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn may be specified for course reversal in some procedures. In such cases, the holding pattern is established over an intermediate fix or a final approach fix. The holding pattern distance or time specified in the profile view must be observed. For a hold−in−lieu−of−PT, the holding pattern direction must be flown as depicted and the specified leg length/timing must not be exceeded. Maximum holding airspeed limitations as set forth for all holding patterns apply. The holding pattern maneuver is completed when the aircraft is established on the inbound course after executing the appropriate entry. If cleared for the approach prior to returning to the holding fix, and the aircraft is at the prescribed altitude, additional circuits of the holding pattern are not necessary nor expected by ATC. If pilots elect to make additional circuits to lose excessive altitude or to become better established on course, it is their responsibility to so advise ATC upon receipt of their approach clearance.

I think I've made progress in understanding your point. ;-)

[Bill Bridges]

Scott,

Thanks for going the extra mile on this subject.

It's greatly appreciated.

[Randy Sohn]

grew up on DoD plates and Procedural Tracks have a different meaning

You made me think back, guess that t I grew up/started with whatever those old 3 ring 8-1/2 X 11a in plastic were, then came the Jepps at NOR and the DOD approach chart handbook ones with the MN ANG. All diffferent! As conerns the "barb", I assume that you're talking about that symbol that depicts/prescribes a course reversal (your choice, be it a 45 degree, teardrrop, whatever?) one?

best, randy

[Bill Bridges]

You made me think back, guess that t I grew up/started with whatever those old 3 ring 8-1/2 X 11a in plastic were, then came the Jepps at NOR and the DOD approach chart handbook ones with the MN ANG. All diffferent! As conerns the "barb", I assume that you're talking about that symbol that depicts/prescribes a course reversal (your choice, be it a 45 degree, teardrrop, whatever?) one?

best, randy

That's what we've been talking about. Also the use of the term "Procedural Track" (It maybe a military term) as opposed to "Procedure Track". Scott and I have had a good discussion on this. Now all we need is a couple of dual NDB stories where the Procedure Turn was actually a Procedure Track.

[Tom Charlton]

. . . Now all we need is a couple of dual NDB stories . . .

Hi Bill,

Well . . . Reminds me of back in 1966 on my instrument pilot check ride. In an early iteration of an underpowered Beech Musketeer with only one ADF in the panel. Flying out of Reno, NV, examiner had me establish a hold, on an NDB approach. The hold fix was predicated on the use of a second NDB off to the side. Only one ADF so kept me crank’n the knobs on the ADF.

All intersections were to be treated as a compulsory reporting point. How’d that report go? Seems like it was: Time of passage and altitude over the just-crossed fix, estimated time over and name of next fix.

Regards,
Tom Charlton (Think’n I’ll stick to fly’n my Cub now . . . Day / VFR)

[Jeff Hartmann]

I had to look in my logbook, my Instrument checkride was 5-7-68. I had a VOR and an ADF...AND a 64 code transponder! The examiner told me that with that and radar contact, no more PTATEN! (Edit...Holy Crap that was 50 years ago!)

Good to have a CFII who is also a Barrister to interpret the regs! (is Barrister a bad word?)