VOR-A 60R Approach -- what's the best way

[Andy95W]

To answer the original question, I have 2 answers- the first that I would give on a checkride, IPC, or if questioned by a Fed, and the second is how I would actually fly it.

Officially- fly to the VOR, toward the airport for 1 minute, left turn (protected side) back to the VOR, then the standard procedure turn.

Otherwise, request vectors to join 5-10 NM outside of the VOR and do the straight in.  If outside of radar coverage and cleared for the approach, within 25 NM (MSA) descend to 2100 direct to the VOR and do the straight in.

[McMooney]

thanks all,  sorry for not being clear, i'm all kinds of stressed ; needed clarity as to not outright fail the checkride

 

i'm thinking this approach was dreamed up by some mad person not wanting new ifr pilots in the world.

seriously, if It was really ifr, would I really want to be doing all that twisting around just to land at the airport I should've went directly to.

[Andy95W]

You'll be fine.  Stay on the protected side of the procedure and be able to explain your reasons for your actions.  The ACS/practical test standards account for a variety of techniques.  You don't have to do the procedure exactly the way someone says, you just can't break any of the ACS rules for successful completion.  

Definitely look up the standards for a non-precision approach.  If the examiner doesn't particularly care for your technique, but you don't bust the standard, he'll pass you and talk about it in the debriefing.

Good luck, let us know how it goes.

Andy

(CFI-I but I don't use it much anymore.)

edit- PS: This approach is what I would have considered very straightforward back when I got my Instrument rating almost 30 years ago.  Damn, how times have changed!

2d edit- the biggest gotcha on this approach is if the examiner has you take the hood off at the MAP and you try to dive to make the runway or fly below the MDA until you are in a position to land normally, such as turning base to final.

[midlifeflyer]

12 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

Just that extra layer of safety while ATC can't give you terrain advisories.  Obviously you still need to come back down at some point if you're going to do another approach.  If you're going to do the same approach, it makes more sense to do the published missed.

Ok, but I'd just fly the approach as published, including the missed if necessary,

[midlifeflyer]

7 hours ago, McMooney said:

thanks all,  sorry for not being clear, i'm all kinds of stressed ; needed clarity as to not outright fail the checkride

 

i'm thinking this approach was dreamed up by some mad person not wanting new ifr pilots in the world.

seriously, if It was really ifr, would I really want to be doing all that twisting around just to land at the airport I should've went directly to.

Yes you would. You really would want to ensure you were on protected published routes. And it's not that many twists.

But calm down. You are overthinking it. It just seems weird in this day if RNAV/GPS and magenta lines, but this is really a plain vanilla and extremely common VOR approach based on an off-airport VOR.

One tip and one rule. Both apply universally.

Rule: Unless you meet one of the criteria listed in  AIM 5-4-9.a, a depicted PT is required.

Tip: IAPs are not created in a vacuum. They are a way to get from the enroute structure to the runway. So the enroute structure and how you are arriving is always relevant. I've lost count of the number of questions about  "confusing" approaches the answer to which was, "look at the enroute chart."

[ijs12fly]

McMooney

14 hours ago, McMooney said:

i'm thinking this approach was dreamed up by some mad person not wanting new ifr pilots in the world.

seriously, if It was really ifr, would I really want to be doing all that twisting around just to land at the airport I should've went directly to.

Most times ATC will give you vectors as long as you are at an altitude that keeps you on their radar.  But there are also plenty of cases you will need to fly the full approach.  I do plenty of approaches into KRUT - in VT, between two mountain ranges, and ATC (Boston) clears me for the VOR or ILS at 8000 feet, and pushes me to Unicom about 15 miles out.  So from 8000 ft until the ground at 800 ft.  In this case I need to fly the entire approach on my own, no ATC, no radar, and in between mountains.  All ATC does is then prevent other IFR traffic from taking off or making an approach until they hear from me on the ground. 

Your one instructor that told you to turn to 141 told you the correct thing to do.  

This is a very simple approach

Fly to the VOR from any direction at whatever assigned altitude - must be above 2000 (per the profile view). 

Upon reaching the VOR, make a standard rate turn (2 min turn) in either direction - 100% your call

TWIST your OBS to 141,   then intercept the outbound on the 141 radial. 

Once established on the 141 and within 10 NM of the VOR - Fly the Barbed procedure turn and the rest of approach. 

 

The Rod Machado "IFR Pilot Survival Manual" discusses this very topic on PG 172. 

 

[midlifeflyer]

The important thing to remember (I forgot too) is that this is a checkride. If this is used, it might well be the partial panel one too. If that is the case, if I were coming from the southeast, I would say I would ask for vectors as good resource management but be prepared to choose the right turn to a 30 degree intercept to the outbound course unless there were a clear advantage to turning left.

Edited May 26, 2019 by midlifeflyer

[jaylw314]

18 hours ago, McMooney said:

thanks all,  sorry for not being clear, i'm all kinds of stressed ; needed clarity as to not outright fail the checkride

 

i'm thinking this approach was dreamed up by some mad person not wanting new ifr pilots in the world.

seriously, if It was really ifr, would I really want to be doing all that twisting around just to land at the airport I should've went directly to.

That's a pretty basic approach, but the confusing part is the requirement to do the procedure turn.  It's especially confusing if you're coming from the southeast, because you end up having to do the procedure turn back in the direction you just came from, then turn around again to get on final.

If the procedure turn was to the northwest, the procedure turn would seem a lot more logical, but the VOR-A approach doesn't care which direction you came from, since it's not intended to  guide you to a specific runway.

[Bob - S50]

If I were flying the approach, when I got to the VOR I would use the holding pattern entry rules to determine which way to turn.  If I ended up on the non-holding side I would attempt to get back to the radial before I needed to make my turn reversal to come back in.

For your entire flying career, do everything as if there was a check airman sitting in the seat next to you.  That will make it easy to do it the right way when there actually is one there and will also generally increase your odds of survival.

[PTK]

53 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

That's a pretty basic approach, but the confusing part is the requirement to do the procedure turn.

Before he can be cleared for the approach he must be established on a published segment. Otherwise ATC will issue an altitude to maintain until established on a published segment or IAP. For this reason a published PT is considered a segment of the IAP only when the aircraft reaches the initial fix upon which the PT is predicated. So he must fly to the VOR then turn outbound and fly PT. May seem redundant when VFR but not when in IMC.

Edited May 26, 2019 by PTK

[ijs12fly]

28 minutes ago, Bob - S50 said:

If I were flying the approach, when I got to the VOR I would use the holding pattern entry rules to determine which way to turn.  If I ended up on the non-holding side I would attempt to get back to the radial before I needed to make my turn reversal to come back in.

For your entire flying career, do everything as if there was a check airman sitting in the seat next to you.  That will make it easy to do it the right way when there actually is one there and will also generally increase your odds of survival.

Bob - maybe we are saying the same thing, I can't picture what you are presenting.

Flying it like you are entering a Holding pattern only makes sense if you are trying to set yourself up to fly a specific radial "TO" to the VOR,  not "FROM" the VOR,  which is what this maneuver is once he crosses the IAF.  This is simply a turn to intercept an outbound radial "From" the VOR.  

Once the VOR Flag swings, the most efficient way to fly outbound on 141 is determine which turn Left or Right is the smallest change of heading.  You can see that deciding between Direct, Parallel, or Teardrop has no bearing on this decision.   Its either a Direct turn Left, or a Direct turn Right.  There is no need to picture a racetrack.  Its standard VOR navigation - get to the VOR, turn to your outbound heading. 

So using the heading from the original question - coming from the E-SE heading 280 to 300,  lets just call it 291 degs.  A left turn to 141 is 150 deg turn vs Right turn of 210 degs.  To make it easy - he can just use the diagram on the PlanView to easily decide - any heading approaching the VOR from the right side of the 321-clockwise-to-141-radial should be a Left turn and any heading from 141-clockwise-to-321-radial should be a Right turn.  And by should - i simply mean the fastest / most efficient turn.  Again,  its Pilots choice which way to turn and either direction is safe and correct.

 

 

[hypertech]

22 hours ago, Andy95W said:

 

2d edit- the biggest gotcha on this approach is if the examiner has you take the hood off at the MAP and you try to dive to make the runway or fly below the MDA until you are in a position to land normally, such as turning base to final.

 This is a very good point.  You do not need to dive bomb the airport.  You do need to stay about the circling minimum until in a place to make a normal descent to landing.  So, if you take the hood off and you are too close to the runway, you can basically fly a whole traffic pattern if you want to to establish yourself on a good final.  Left turns are a good idea to keep the airport in sight and pay attention to the altitude.  Know the safe circling radius.  

[Immelman]

It does not say noPT

So unless you are vectored onto the final approach course by ATC, you must go outbound and complete the procedure turn.

But don't rake my word for it, the instrument procedures handbook spells it out clearly

"The procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of procedure turn is a required maneuver when it is depicted on the approach chart. However, the procedure turn or the hold-in-lieu-of PT is not permitted when the symbol “No PT” is depicted on the initial segment being flown, when a RADAR VECTOR to the final approach course is provided, or when conducting a timed approach from a holding fix. "

CFII / ATP / etc.

Edited May 27, 2019 by Immelman

[Bob - S50]

4 hours ago, ijs12fly said:

Bob - maybe we are saying the same thing, I can't picture what you are presenting.

Flying it like you are entering a Holding pattern only makes sense if you are trying to set yourself up to fly a specific radial "TO" to the VOR,  not "FROM" the VOR,  which is what this maneuver is once he crosses the IAF.  This is simply a turn to intercept an outbound radial "From" the VOR.  

Once the VOR Flag swings, the most efficient way to fly outbound on 141 is determine which turn Left or Right is the smallest change of heading.  You can see that deciding between Direct, Parallel, or Teardrop has no bearing on this decision.   Its either a Direct turn Left, or a Direct turn Right.  There is no need to picture a racetrack.  Its standard VOR navigation - get to the VOR, turn to your outbound heading. 

So using the heading from the original question - coming from the E-SE heading 280 to 300,  lets just call it 291 degs.  A left turn to 141 is 150 deg turn vs Right turn of 210 degs.  To make it easy - he can just use the diagram on the PlanView to easily decide - any heading approaching the VOR from the right side of the 321-clockwise-to-141-radial should be a Left turn and any heading from 141-clockwise-to-321-radial should be a Right turn.  And by should - i simply mean the fastest / most efficient turn.  Again,  its Pilots choice which way to turn and either direction is safe and correct.

 

 

What I'm saying is I would imagine a holding pattern at the VOR with an inbound leg of 321 and right hand turns (because that is the PT side of the radial).  If I arrived at the VOR with a heading of 251 clockwise through 071 I would make a right turn.  And while a racetrack pattern might work, I would probably continue to turn right past 141 to try and intercept the 141 outbound.  If my inbound heading was 071 thru 141 I might fly a teardrop but personally I would probably also just turn right to track 141 outbound.  If my inbound heading was 141 thru 251 I would turn left and continue to turn to try and intercept the 141 outbound.

[ijs12fly]

1 hour ago, Bob - S50 said:

If I arrived at the VOR with a heading of 251 clockwise through 071 I would make a right turn.  And while a racetrack pattern might work, I would probably continue to turn right past 141 to try and intercept the 141 outbound.

Lets use your worst heading as an example to compare the techniques and result

If we are heading 251 deg and turn right and continue past 141 to intercept 141 - lets say we use 30 degs intercept angle - this would be a 250 deg + 30 deg turn = 280 deg and will take 93 sec to complete.   If we turn left it would be a 110 deg + 30 deg turn = 140 deg and will take 46 sec to complete.  

Wouldn't you agree that the 46sec option is much better then the 93sec option to intercept the 141 outbound?

Also agree a racetrack might work - and actually it will work if flown correctly - but in windy conditions and in IMC it much more difficult procedure to fly.

 

Btw -  I found this very good article explaining where the "remain within 10NM" is measured from.  I never really put much thought into until I saw this:  https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/maneuvers/understanding-procedure-turn-maximum-distance/

 

 

[midlifeflyer]

7 hours ago, ijs12fly said:

Lets use your worst heading as an example to compare the techniques and result

If we are heading 251 deg and turn right and continue past 141 to intercept 141 - lets say we use 30 degs intercept angle - this would be a 250 deg + 30 deg turn = 280 deg and will take 93 sec to complete.   If we turn left it would be a 110 deg + 30 deg turn = 140 deg and will take 46 sec to complete.  

Wouldn't you agree that the 46sec option is much better then the 93sec option to intercept the 141 outbound?

Also agree a racetrack might work - and actually it will work if flown correctly - but in windy conditions and in IMC it much more difficult procedure to fly.

 

Btw -  I found this very good article explaining where the "remain within 10NM" is measured from.  I never really put much thought into until I saw this:  https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/maneuvers/understanding-procedure-turn-maximum-distance/

 

 

Exactly. Problem is that so many pilots are put off by the AIM hold entries (and go crazy over 5 degree differences), they never come to realize how much sense they make.

[Bob - S50]

8 hours ago, ijs12fly said:

Lets use your worst heading as an example to compare the techniques and result

If we are heading 251 deg and turn right and continue past 141 to intercept 141 - lets say we use 30 degs intercept angle - this would be a 250 deg + 30 deg turn = 280 deg and will take 93 sec to complete.   If we turn left it would be a 110 deg + 30 deg turn = 140 deg and will take 46 sec to complete.  

Wouldn't you agree that the 46sec option is much better then the 93sec option to intercept the 141 outbound?

Also agree a racetrack might work - and actually it will work if flown correctly - but in windy conditions and in IMC it much more difficult procedure to fly.

 

Btw -  I found this very good article explaining where the "remain within 10NM" is measured from.  I never really put much thought into until I saw this:  https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/maneuvers/understanding-procedure-turn-maximum-distance/

 

 

My goal is not to get on the ground as quickly as possible and save 47 seconds, my goal is to get on the ground as safely as possible.  While I'm not a TERPS expert, there is less protected airspace on the non-procedure side than on the procedure side.  I have no idea how much less or how it's calculated.  And in reality it is probably plenty, especially in flatlandia.  However, that may not be the case out west at places like Missoula or Bozeman.  Like almost everything else in aviation, I want to establish good habit patterns so they come naturally when they count.

And to be honest, I have not seen anything anywhere that specifies how to make that turn to start the procedure.  Not in the AIM and not in the article you wrote.  If there was such a reference we wouldn't need to debate it here.  So I guess it is up to the pilot to do what they think best.  But lacking any guidance, I think I'll stick with my plan.

[ijs12fly]

Anyone who has been interested in this discussion  - i recommend checking out this tutorial -

http://www.avclicks.com/Flash2/To_the_Rear_March/index.html

Basically agrees with both ideas presented by Bob and myself above.  This shows you the the actual details of where you are protected once you reach the IAF, and where you should begin the descent, as well as consideration for which way to turn.  At the speeds we fly approaches (120 to 90 kts) you can see we have no concerns with turning in either direction and not staying safe.

 

 

[Bob - S50]

10 hours ago, ijs12fly said:

Anyone who has been interested in this discussion  - i recommend checking out this tutorial -

http://www.avclicks.com/Flash2/To_the_Rear_March/index.html

Basically agrees with both ideas presented by Bob and myself above.  This shows you the the actual details of where you are protected once you reach the IAF, and where you should begin the descent, as well as consideration for which way to turn.  At the speeds we fly approaches (120 to 90 kts) you can see we have no concerns with turning in either direction and not staying safe.

 

 

I agree.  At our speeds no problem.  I looked in the TERPS the other day.  As shown briefly on one slide (with a little math), on the non-procedure side we have about 4 miles of protected airspace to complete our turn with 1000' obstacle clearance.  On the procedure side we have 6 miles.  This is because there is a 5 mile radius that is offset 1 mile to the procedure side.

[carusoam]

Thanks for the refresher, IJS.

I got the opportunity to discuss this procedure with IJS over the weekend... we met at Brian’s Mooney fly-in... And covered some of the challenges of flying between mountains in VT as well...

Go MS!

Best regards,

-a-

[Aerodon]

The Avclicks presentation is nice.  Page 21 says that you have the option of doing a racetrack on the barb side of the hold, even if not depicted.  If this were shown, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.  I would surmise that it is not shown, because the designers needed to put the hold differently as part of the missed approach procedure, that sets you up nicely for the procedure turn.

Here is another one (Yakima).  I don't think I could easily descend to 4500 on the outbound, but I could get to 2800 inbound.  Nice to have speed brakes.  Now my question, to make the descent more leisurely, could I enter a racetrack on the barb side and descend to 4500?  4600?.  Or should I enter the slightly offset MAP hold?

 

Don  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[midlifeflyer]

4 hours ago, Aerodon said:

The Avclicks presentation is nice.  Page 21 says that you have the option of doing a racetrack on the barb side of the hold, even if not depicted.  If this were shown, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.  I would surmise that it is not shown, because the designers needed to put the hold differently as part of the missed approach procedure, that sets you up nicely for the procedure turn.

Here is another one (Yakima).  I don't think I could easily descend to 4500 on the outbound, but I could get to 2800 inbound.  Nice to have speed brakes.  Now my question, to make the descent more leisurely, could I enter a racetrack on the barb side and descend to 4500?  4600?.  Or should I enter the slightly offset MAP hold?

 

Don  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doesn't matter so long as it allows you to do what you need to. Point is, the barbed PT give you options. It tells you only one thing - to do the reversal on the barbed side. As the AIM puts it, 

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 tear-drop procedure turn, or the 80 degree ↔ 260 degree course reversal.

personally, if it's a barbed PT, I simply do it as depicted. 10 no gives me a lot of leeway to slow down, go down, and get nicely aligned with the final approach course comfortable, slowly, and at a relaxed pace.

Edited May 29, 2019 by midlifeflyer

[Aerodon]

4 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

Doesn't matter so long as it allows you to do what you need to. Point is, the barbed PT give you options. It tells you only one thing - to do the reversal on the barbed side. As the AIM puts it, 

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 tear-drop procedure turn, or the 80 degree ↔ 260 degree course reversal.

personally, if it's a barbed PT, I simply do it as depicted. 10 no gives me a lot of leeway to slow down, go down, and get nicely aligned with the final approach course comfortable, slowly, and at a relaxed pace.

One of the things that troubled me about this thread is the number of well meaning opinions, surely it can't be that difficult.  You have provided the clearest reference, and the avclick article provides a lot of refresher training on the protected area.

Now it's a 'no brainer'for me as it should be for IFR flying - if approaching from the 'right side' for a PT, do a PT.  If the turn at the VOR looks at all difficult (approaching from the wrong side for a PT) just follow the rules for a racetrack entry on the maneuvering side.

All sorted in my mind, thanks.

Don

 

[ijs12fly]

48 minutes ago, Aerodon said:

One of the things that troubled me about this thread is the number of well meaning opinions, surely it can't be that difficult.

 

Don, 

I echo your thought here - too many options can complicate these approaches and when in the soup who wants added work of having to choose.

I have a similar VOR approach into my home airport - the discussion above shows that there is ample room to safely turn in either direction.  I would fly this approach the same way coming from any direction - this keeps it simple for me.  While approaching the VOR I look at the DG and split the DG in half (12 o'clock to 6 o'clock) mentally -  if the 141 is on the Left side of the DG I turn Left (shortest turn to the outbound), and if the 141 heading is on the Right side I turn Right (again, the shortest turn to the outbound),  I then intercept the 141 radial "From" and then fly the "drawn" 45/180 PT.  There is nothing to think about for me,  its just fly to VOR,  and Turn to 141.

As Einstein once said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler".

 sf

 

 

 

[midlifeflyer]

6 hours ago, ijs12fly said:

Don, 

I echo your thought here - too many options can complicate these approaches and when in the soup who wants added work of having to choose.

I have a similar VOR approach into my home airport - the discussion above shows that there is ample room to safely turn in either direction.  I would fly this approach the same way coming from any direction - this keeps it simple for me.  While approaching the VOR I look at the DG and split the DG in half (12 o'clock to 6 o'clock) mentally -  if the 141 is on the Left side of the DG I turn Left (shortest turn to the outbound), and if the 141 heading is on the Right side I turn Right (again, the shortest turn to the outbound),  I then intercept the 141 radial "From" and then fly the "drawn" 45/180 PT.  There is nothing to think about for me,  its just fly to VOR,  and Turn to 141.

As Einstein once said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler".

 sf

 

 

 

My personal oft-repeated rant is that the most unfortunate thing in instrument training is the tendency to over-complicate simple procedures. We do it with hold entries (something I got completely screwed up about in training and didn't fix until after I got my CFII-a true "duh!" moment) , DME arcs, even the most clutter-free approach charts.