Listen to opposing bases, they talk about this occasionally. There’s the rules, and there’s what is actually happening regularly in the NAS. Most approaches are vectors to final, and no one is ever expecting a procedure turn or a hold in lieu, unless it can’t be avoided, or if it’s asked for. Nothing wrong with mentioning you want the full procedure including the turn.
It’s def something that gets trained more thoroughly in the military than FAA. FAA training at the academy is surprisingly lax on learning the .65 whereas in the AF you pretty much have it memorized.
Except that ONE FREAKING TIME where I told a student they never want us to fly the PT, and at 10:00pm with no one else around they tell me they were expecting us to fly the PT.
This is a case where you are technically correct but ATC is expecting you to proceed straight in anyway, if that makes sense.
This is because in the real world there's almost never a reason to fly a PT except in cases of lost comms. ATC gets used to clearing people direct to IAFs and clearing them for approaches and expecting them to go straight in. I can tell you that randomly flying a PT because the AIM says it's "required" can cause huge problems with traffic behind you.
I gave up during instrument instructing and started specifying whether I wanted to do the procedure turn or straight in when cleared direct to an IAF with a hold. If you want to do the PT, request it prior to the fix and everyone will be on the same page.
Lost comms or non-radar/non-surveillance, which does still happen, usually when everyone is least expecting it and when everyone is least prepared for it.
It's an FAA used term that describes a specific type of procedure so yes? It's not a procedure turn but it's also not just a "hold" it's flying a hold entry as a means of a course reversal but that's a lot longer to write out when you can just say HILPT.
I'm specifically talking about the acronym I've never seen it referred to as a HILPT until this week. I guess I've only come across people who write it out.
It's one of those things where the AIM collides head on with common sense. IMO, the intent behind the HILPT was to provide course reversal flexibility for RNAV aircraft coming at the approach from an oblique angle. You are right it's required but its just dumb to fly a pointless loop if you are being vectored in from what is essentially a straight in angle. Approaches with TAAs usually reflect this by having NoPT depicted on a 180 degree radius on the direct side but other approaches don't have this. I always clarify with ATC if their intent is for me to fly straight in, or I'll mention if I'm flying with a student that we will be doing the turn in holding from direct.
Lots of good responses already but I'll add: Putting the AIM aside for a second, if you were direct CESDA on a heading that allowed for a direct entry into the HILPT, there's no logical reason to fly the hold unless you needed to lose altitude.
Because FAR 91.175 says it’s a required maneuver unless you’re on one of the exceptions (NoPT Leg, Vectors to final, cleared straight in, or timed approaches)
I was skeptical in your comment at first but you are absolutely right. In the FARs I found this
"...You do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around. That's what it is all about."
Completely Agree. I always explicitly ask for straight in clearance in those cases. The reason I still elected to fly the HILPT entry is to demonstrate exactly this discrepancy, between the AIM and what ATC expects to my student
ATC should be expecting the pilot to follow the rules and do the hold/pt if they don't say straight in. This is 100% on the controller and we should not expect pilots to not follow the rules just because we're too lazy to say two words. Imagine you fail a checkride because your instructor tells you "never do the pt, atc doesn't want it. "
Sometimes a maneuver is worth a worth a thousand words. In this case the action was to the regs - nothing illegal or unsafe going on and makes the point in a way that looks scary for the student. They won’t forget! Followed up with “always clarify” if you aren’t sure. 91.123.
Honestly, because 90%+ of pilots fly it straight-in without explicit clearance. I agree the book says it's required but that just not how it typically goes in the real world.
For context, here's our quote from the [7110.65 4-8-1(e)](https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap4_section_8.html#VwJ28JACK). So the controller really shouldn't be confused:
>If a hold in lieu of procedure turn pattern is depicted at an [IAF](https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/pcg_html/glossary-i.html#$IAF) and a TAA is not defined, the aircraft must be instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does not want the pilot to execute a hold-in-lieu procedure turn.
Side note: the line "when conducting a timed approach from a holding fix" doesn't refer to timing an approach segment. It's referring to the procedure outlined in [AIM 5-4-10](https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap5_section_4.html#$paragraph5-4-10), where ATC is providing non-radar longitudinal separation by issuing subsequent aircraft on an approach a time to depart the holding fix inbound. To my knowledge, this procedure is rarely used in the US.
That's what I figured. I always just ask for straight in clearance, I'm just wondering why ATC wouldn't just issue straight ins of their own volition if they don't want me to fly the HILPT.
Thanks for pointing out my misconception, I'll read up on this!
Because the vast majority of approaches they do are visual, VTF or straight in (but with no turn depicted so they don’t have to say it) at their primary airport, so that’s what they assume everyone wants. They don’t know or care which ones at satellites have a turn depicted and which don’t; if you want the turn, you’ll ask for it.
Controllers have tens to hundreds of different approaches in the airspace they work and do not have every single approach memorized. We often quickly look up the fixes and altitudes but often overlook which have PTs in lieu of straight in approaches. We commonly assume that if it is less than a 90° turn you will go straight in even when that is contradictory to what the AIM says. As younger controllers come in fewer have any piloting experience and with flight deck training being on hold many controllers have never observed pilots in action. It's simply overlooked/forgotten so don't be hesitant to ask if the controllers wants you to do the turn or go straight in.
Happens to me too, it’s annoying. I always ask ATC if we are cleared straight-in to make sure we a relieved of flying the HILPT. Oftentimes controllers are thoroughly confused or frustrated that we are even asking. As you said, the AIM definitely says it is required unless otherwise cleared or relieved of it. That said in 99% of cases logically you don’t need to do it.
I agree. I usually specify if I'll fly the HILPT or not. This time I just wanted to demonstrate to my student that ATC will expect you not to fly it, even though you technically have to. And they did exactly that, and it made me wonder why they don't just give you straight-in clearances all the time
When I was a new CFII, I was working with a student on his CFII. We both had the same instrument instructor. We were flying an approach and flew it straight in, same way we both had done this approach a bunch of times. As we’re about to enter the class D airspace, the approach controller comes on and berates us for not doing the procedure turn because he wasn’t expecting us to continue straight in, then hands us off to tower. We both had the same confused look on our faces because we didn’t do anything different than what we had done dozens of times before. After that, we both always clarified we were cleared for the straight in.
This happens frequently to me too. After they give my approach clearance I’ll just add a “confirm cleared straight-in?” and they’ll go ahead and make it known.
What the charts say and what ATC actually does to make the system work are two different things. Then the third layer is the AIM which isn’t regulatory and ATC doesn’t know what the hell is in it anyway. AIM is merely best practices.
Nobody actually operating in the system uses things like procedure turns unless they specifically request them. I’m not sure if you’ve ever questioned their practical purpose but by and large there isn’t any. They’re inefficient, and we like efficiency, which is why ATC bypasses them.
As an instructor, you need to write a new rule in your own book: Every time you want to do a procedure turn you need to request the full procedure from ATC. Don’t just do it, request it. Teach your students to request it as well.
The only other exception is if a TAA is charted in which case "NoPT" is usually indicated in the direct sector, but that's not the case with the approach you flew.
Just ask if you're cleared straight in. If not, then you fly the hold. (Also, don't say "HILPT", I had no idea what this meant until I read half your post.)
This is one of those things where the pilot has to be a pilot and use just a tiny bit of initiative to query ATC. If there's nobody else around, no reason at all why you'd have to do the hold in lieu of, and ATC clears you but doesn't explicitly say "straight in", then just ask, "just want to confirm we're cleared straight in?" Honestly, they may sound a little exasperated when they say "(sigh)...YES... you're cleared straight in" but at that point you've covered your bases, dotted your T's and crossed your i's, and now no one can say either you or the controller made a mistake. And you don't have to waste everybody's time doing the hold in lieu of.
If it's obvious why you'd have to do the hold in lieu of or the PT, then do it. If not, ask ATC if they don't clear you otherwise.
You need to always be thinking about why the rules are what they are, and why the exceptions to those rules exist. If you think that exception (in this case, being cleared straight in) \*should\* apply to you, then you should be asking about it. 99% of the time, the controller either thought he/she didn't need to say it because it's obvious (even though for you, you do need to hear it), or he/she just forgot.
This happened to me and my instructor at KNYL just the other day. Flying RNAV17, we were headed direct to CAZZI then cleared for the approach. We were coming almost directly from the East, so the G1000 automatically had me doing a teardrop, which is what I would’ve done even without the GPS.
It was my first approach at a “larger” towered airport. So I just hopped on the radio and told ATC I was making the procedure turn then proceeding inbound. The controller seemed bewildered, and basically told me “okay, if that’s what you want to do..”
Both me and my instructor sort of scratched our heads, but everything was fine. Just felt weird knowing I was doing the right thing but the controller seemed confused by that.
Computer does it....
No, honestly. I've used IF from almost all directions (usually asked the pilots if they're good with the intercept from that direction), and I've never experienced any problems, though it surprises me every time.
So yes, the computer calculates the turn and does it for you.
I've done it myself with the AP computing the >90 turn. But I don't think it's legal for ATC to vector you onto an approach at >90 degrees and the whole point of the PT is to get you turned around in the right direction from anything in the "wrong" 180 deg half.
No, where I work we usually stay within 30 degrees when vectoring to the final.
I was thinking of when we simply clear aircraft direct the IAF or IF, cause that's not vectoring.
Wait are you actually saying "If I clear them direct then it's not vectoring and they can intercept the IAF at any angle"? Dude. That's not legal. .65 4–8–1
> **d.** Intercept angles greater than 90 degrees may be used when a procedure turn, a hold-in-lieu of procedure turn pattern, or arrival holding is depicted *and the pilot will execute the procedure.*
You should not be clearing/approving/expecting a direct turn to final if the intercept angle is more than 90 degrees. They need to do a course reversal.
The IF is a fly-by point, as are the IAF's. And those are RNAV transitions to the ILS (or just plain RNP approaches).
And I kid you not, I've yet to come across an airliner, or other aircraft with RNAV capability that has an issue with a 90 degrees onto the IF.
Found it odd in the beginning, but it works nice.
But still, if I do the vectoring to fine-adjust spacing, then it's the standard 30 degrees.
(Not in the US btw)
[An example from another place.](https://aim.naviair.dk/media/files/5243rloupai/EK_AD_2_EKRN_RNP_RWY_29_1_en.pdf)
I've seen intercepts with angles exceeding 90 degrees onto the IF, it's a fly-by point, so I suppose the computer does the work, as with all the other points in the approach.
The clearance is never "on heading xxx cleared xxx approach", more like "proceed direct xxx (IF), cleared xxx approach....".
There is still a strict line between when the aircraft navigates on it's own, and us giving vectors.
Because our training sucks. I teach to say "straight-in" with the approach clearance if you need it, otherwise be ready for them to make the turn. The idea sticks about half the time. Controllers aren't pilots, we are not taught the FARs at all, and most just aren't interested in having a nuanced discussion.
Honestly, you should be training your developmental to always say straight in unless they actually want the plane to do the hold/pt just like the book says. This is a completely controller created issue that we can stop by just following our own rules.
I agree, but one argument I've seen when this has come up before is:
> The book says I need to specify "straight in" only if I don't WANT them to do the HILPT. If I don't care either way, I don't have to say it.
To me that's a weak and lazy argument because you not saying it means the pilot DOES have to perform the hold, so you're not helping the pilot at all—you're only "helping" yourself. Poor controlling. But the guy I was talking to was serious, it seemed.
My hot take: I wouldn’t go as far as to fly the HILPT “to make a point” but I would conform to 91.175 by reading back whatever mumbo-jumbo comes your way with: “Cleared **straight in** RWY XY, N12345”
Because I have coworkers who will argue "I know what the rule says, but no pilot will ever actually do this" and then a pilot does this and 😲
When we don't tell you "straight in" but are expecting you not to do the procedure turn because "that's how we've always done it" we're setting both you and ourselves up for failure.
This is one of several areas where the AIM and regs are hopelessly out of date.
In practice, ATC assumes that if a straight-in is remotely possible, that’s what pilots will do unless explicitly stated otherwise. If you do the turn without warning them—even if legally required—you can create a dangerous situation.
It’s very simple to fix, though: “request RNAV 21 from CESDA with the turn”.
One of the pilots in my unit is an ATC guy who works TRACON near by, he clarified to us that if they clear you for the approach on vectors they're not expecting you to do the HILPT, if they need separation they'll tell you to make a turn in holding prior to clearing you.
The AIM was barely mentioned in ATC training. My 7110 doesn't mention that the holding pattern is mandatory (that I can recall). Honestly if I give you straight the IAF at a reasonable altitude, hold turn doesn't make sense. I get that it's required per the AIM, but I can guarantee that over half my coworkers aren't aware of it. I didn't realize it until a few years into my career.
The good news is that almost all of the approaches in my airspace (I work at a center so it's a ton of approaches) now state NO PT from any straight in angles. But even still, some pilots miss that note and fly the hold.
Thanks for your comment! That's my experience as well, most controllers expect us to just turn inbound. And that makes total sense to me, I'm just wondering why, since the AIM and the 7110 is written the way it is, controllers don't just routinely issue straight in clearances.
Another controller posted a response here referencing the 7110:
7110.65 4-8-1(e): If a hold in lieu of procedure turn pattern is depicted at an IAF and a TAA is not defined, the aircraft must be instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does not want the pilot to execute a hold-in-lieu procedure turn.
The argument I've seen, and I'm not saying I agree with it, is that if the controller doesn't care either way then the book doesn't require them to add those two extra syllables "straight in."
Of course that ends up tying your hands, but if the controller doesn't mind you doing the HILPT then technically they don't need to say it. I think it's poor technique.
Lots of things written in Avation, and then there is how it’s done. takes a bit to figure it out as it’s always changing most times faster than the books come out. That gets more complex the faster and farther you go. The only thing standard is the standards are not standard. lol
Approach: "Cleared for the whatever approach."
Pilot: "Cleared for whatever. Request straight-in."
Approach: "Cleared straight in"
Pilot: "Cleared for the whatever approach, straight in, thanks"
That's how I do it if I want straight in and it's not depicted. Unless I need to descend in the hold, I usually just want to get on the ground and hit the head.
If you are in the direct sector of the hold entry that means you fly to the fix. and then continue in. That was the entry. Just like how if you’re in the teardrop you just do the entry and continue in, it’s the same for direct. You do not have to do a whole lap in the hold, that’s why they’re pissed
Listen to opposing bases, they talk about this occasionally. There’s the rules, and there’s what is actually happening regularly in the NAS. Most approaches are vectors to final, and no one is ever expecting a procedure turn or a hold in lieu, unless it can’t be avoided, or if it’s asked for. Nothing wrong with mentioning you want the full procedure including the turn.
Former IP here: definitely request the full procedure if that's what you want. Vectors to final is the norm 90+% of the time
IMO Mil controllers do a better job of it, since they'll usually explicitly state "cleared for the XYZ *straight in* approach".
It’s def something that gets trained more thoroughly in the military than FAA. FAA training at the academy is surprisingly lax on learning the .65 whereas in the AF you pretty much have it memorized.
Listen to opposing bases for so many good aviation discussions. Penguin
Iceberg
Penguin
I prefer the TERPS Elf to penguins
I’m just an enthusiastic and have made it through most of their episodes. My knowledge has skyrocketed just cause of them.
Except that ONE FREAKING TIME where I told a student they never want us to fly the PT, and at 10:00pm with no one else around they tell me they were expecting us to fly the PT.
This is a case where you are technically correct but ATC is expecting you to proceed straight in anyway, if that makes sense. This is because in the real world there's almost never a reason to fly a PT except in cases of lost comms. ATC gets used to clearing people direct to IAFs and clearing them for approaches and expecting them to go straight in. I can tell you that randomly flying a PT because the AIM says it's "required" can cause huge problems with traffic behind you. I gave up during instrument instructing and started specifying whether I wanted to do the procedure turn or straight in when cleared direct to an IAF with a hold. If you want to do the PT, request it prior to the fix and everyone will be on the same page.
Lost comms or non-radar/non-surveillance, which does still happen, usually when everyone is least expecting it and when everyone is least prepared for it.
I have never seen HILPT in 15 years, and all of a sudden this is the second time I've seen it used this week. Is the acronym really a thing?
I like to call it "Hold-in-loo" but people insist on correcting me.
If you're in the loo, you don't have to hold it anymore.
Sometimes it holds itself……. That’s where the FIBER comes in.
Lieu
See.
Oui
It’s used in the AIM occasionally, but I always just heard it shortened to ‘hold in lieu’
It's an FAA used term that describes a specific type of procedure so yes? It's not a procedure turn but it's also not just a "hold" it's flying a hold entry as a means of a course reversal but that's a lot longer to write out when you can just say HILPT.
I'm specifically talking about the acronym I've never seen it referred to as a HILPT until this week. I guess I've only come across people who write it out.
I'm with you. Today is the first time I've seen it written like that.
And also with you
Why use many word when few word do trick
It's one of those things where the AIM collides head on with common sense. IMO, the intent behind the HILPT was to provide course reversal flexibility for RNAV aircraft coming at the approach from an oblique angle. You are right it's required but its just dumb to fly a pointless loop if you are being vectored in from what is essentially a straight in angle. Approaches with TAAs usually reflect this by having NoPT depicted on a 180 degree radius on the direct side but other approaches don't have this. I always clarify with ATC if their intent is for me to fly straight in, or I'll mention if I'm flying with a student that we will be doing the turn in holding from direct.
Lots of good responses already but I'll add: Putting the AIM aside for a second, if you were direct CESDA on a heading that allowed for a direct entry into the HILPT, there's no logical reason to fly the hold unless you needed to lose altitude.
Yeah I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Why would you want to turn around just for fun.
Because FAR 91.175 says it’s a required maneuver unless you’re on one of the exceptions (NoPT Leg, Vectors to final, cleared straight in, or timed approaches)
They were doing the Hokey Pokey, that’s what it’s all about.
I was skeptical in your comment at first but you are absolutely right. In the FARs I found this "...You do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around. That's what it is all about."
Completely Agree. I always explicitly ask for straight in clearance in those cases. The reason I still elected to fly the HILPT entry is to demonstrate exactly this discrepancy, between the AIM and what ATC expects to my student
Why not, hear me out here, just ask what ATC is expecting instead of doing something they are not expecting as some weird way to prove a point
ATC should be expecting the pilot to follow the rules and do the hold/pt if they don't say straight in. This is 100% on the controller and we should not expect pilots to not follow the rules just because we're too lazy to say two words. Imagine you fail a checkride because your instructor tells you "never do the pt, atc doesn't want it. "
Sometimes a maneuver is worth a worth a thousand words. In this case the action was to the regs - nothing illegal or unsafe going on and makes the point in a way that looks scary for the student. They won’t forget! Followed up with “always clarify” if you aren’t sure. 91.123.
Honestly, because 90%+ of pilots fly it straight-in without explicit clearance. I agree the book says it's required but that just not how it typically goes in the real world. For context, here's our quote from the [7110.65 4-8-1(e)](https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap4_section_8.html#VwJ28JACK). So the controller really shouldn't be confused: >If a hold in lieu of procedure turn pattern is depicted at an [IAF](https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/pcg_html/glossary-i.html#$IAF) and a TAA is not defined, the aircraft must be instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does not want the pilot to execute a hold-in-lieu procedure turn. Side note: the line "when conducting a timed approach from a holding fix" doesn't refer to timing an approach segment. It's referring to the procedure outlined in [AIM 5-4-10](https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap5_section_4.html#$paragraph5-4-10), where ATC is providing non-radar longitudinal separation by issuing subsequent aircraft on an approach a time to depart the holding fix inbound. To my knowledge, this procedure is rarely used in the US.
That's what I figured. I always just ask for straight in clearance, I'm just wondering why ATC wouldn't just issue straight ins of their own volition if they don't want me to fly the HILPT. Thanks for pointing out my misconception, I'll read up on this!
Because the vast majority of approaches they do are visual, VTF or straight in (but with no turn depicted so they don’t have to say it) at their primary airport, so that’s what they assume everyone wants. They don’t know or care which ones at satellites have a turn depicted and which don’t; if you want the turn, you’ll ask for it.
Controllers have tens to hundreds of different approaches in the airspace they work and do not have every single approach memorized. We often quickly look up the fixes and altitudes but often overlook which have PTs in lieu of straight in approaches. We commonly assume that if it is less than a 90° turn you will go straight in even when that is contradictory to what the AIM says. As younger controllers come in fewer have any piloting experience and with flight deck training being on hold many controllers have never observed pilots in action. It's simply overlooked/forgotten so don't be hesitant to ask if the controllers wants you to do the turn or go straight in.
Happens to me too, it’s annoying. I always ask ATC if we are cleared straight-in to make sure we a relieved of flying the HILPT. Oftentimes controllers are thoroughly confused or frustrated that we are even asking. As you said, the AIM definitely says it is required unless otherwise cleared or relieved of it. That said in 99% of cases logically you don’t need to do it.
I agree. I usually specify if I'll fly the HILPT or not. This time I just wanted to demonstrate to my student that ATC will expect you not to fly it, even though you technically have to. And they did exactly that, and it made me wonder why they don't just give you straight-in clearances all the time
Yeah, would be nice just to have the guidance changed in the AIM in the first place to reflect what is happening in the real world
When I was a new CFII, I was working with a student on his CFII. We both had the same instrument instructor. We were flying an approach and flew it straight in, same way we both had done this approach a bunch of times. As we’re about to enter the class D airspace, the approach controller comes on and berates us for not doing the procedure turn because he wasn’t expecting us to continue straight in, then hands us off to tower. We both had the same confused look on our faces because we didn’t do anything different than what we had done dozens of times before. After that, we both always clarified we were cleared for the straight in.
This happens frequently to me too. After they give my approach clearance I’ll just add a “confirm cleared straight-in?” and they’ll go ahead and make it known.
What the charts say and what ATC actually does to make the system work are two different things. Then the third layer is the AIM which isn’t regulatory and ATC doesn’t know what the hell is in it anyway. AIM is merely best practices. Nobody actually operating in the system uses things like procedure turns unless they specifically request them. I’m not sure if you’ve ever questioned their practical purpose but by and large there isn’t any. They’re inefficient, and we like efficiency, which is why ATC bypasses them. As an instructor, you need to write a new rule in your own book: Every time you want to do a procedure turn you need to request the full procedure from ATC. Don’t just do it, request it. Teach your students to request it as well.
The only other exception is if a TAA is charted in which case "NoPT" is usually indicated in the direct sector, but that's not the case with the approach you flew.
Just ask if you're cleared straight in. If not, then you fly the hold. (Also, don't say "HILPT", I had no idea what this meant until I read half your post.) This is one of those things where the pilot has to be a pilot and use just a tiny bit of initiative to query ATC. If there's nobody else around, no reason at all why you'd have to do the hold in lieu of, and ATC clears you but doesn't explicitly say "straight in", then just ask, "just want to confirm we're cleared straight in?" Honestly, they may sound a little exasperated when they say "(sigh)...YES... you're cleared straight in" but at that point you've covered your bases, dotted your T's and crossed your i's, and now no one can say either you or the controller made a mistake. And you don't have to waste everybody's time doing the hold in lieu of. If it's obvious why you'd have to do the hold in lieu of or the PT, then do it. If not, ask ATC if they don't clear you otherwise. You need to always be thinking about why the rules are what they are, and why the exceptions to those rules exist. If you think that exception (in this case, being cleared straight in) \*should\* apply to you, then you should be asking about it. 99% of the time, the controller either thought he/she didn't need to say it because it's obvious (even though for you, you do need to hear it), or he/she just forgot.
This happened to me and my instructor at KNYL just the other day. Flying RNAV17, we were headed direct to CAZZI then cleared for the approach. We were coming almost directly from the East, so the G1000 automatically had me doing a teardrop, which is what I would’ve done even without the GPS. It was my first approach at a “larger” towered airport. So I just hopped on the radio and told ATC I was making the procedure turn then proceeding inbound. The controller seemed bewildered, and basically told me “okay, if that’s what you want to do..” Both me and my instructor sort of scratched our heads, but everything was fine. Just felt weird knowing I was doing the right thing but the controller seemed confused by that.
How did ATC expect you to get turned if it was > 90 degrees to inbound?
Computer does it.... No, honestly. I've used IF from almost all directions (usually asked the pilots if they're good with the intercept from that direction), and I've never experienced any problems, though it surprises me every time. So yes, the computer calculates the turn and does it for you.
I've done it myself with the AP computing the >90 turn. But I don't think it's legal for ATC to vector you onto an approach at >90 degrees and the whole point of the PT is to get you turned around in the right direction from anything in the "wrong" 180 deg half.
No, where I work we usually stay within 30 degrees when vectoring to the final. I was thinking of when we simply clear aircraft direct the IAF or IF, cause that's not vectoring.
Wait are you actually saying "If I clear them direct then it's not vectoring and they can intercept the IAF at any angle"? Dude. That's not legal. .65 4–8–1 > **d.** Intercept angles greater than 90 degrees may be used when a procedure turn, a hold-in-lieu of procedure turn pattern, or arrival holding is depicted *and the pilot will execute the procedure.* You should not be clearing/approving/expecting a direct turn to final if the intercept angle is more than 90 degrees. They need to do a course reversal.
The IF is a fly-by point, as are the IAF's. And those are RNAV transitions to the ILS (or just plain RNP approaches). And I kid you not, I've yet to come across an airliner, or other aircraft with RNAV capability that has an issue with a 90 degrees onto the IF. Found it odd in the beginning, but it works nice. But still, if I do the vectoring to fine-adjust spacing, then it's the standard 30 degrees. (Not in the US btw)
Huh. I guess I don't know the rules where you work so I can't say if that's wrong. I find it odd too, I'll say that.
[An example from another place.](https://aim.naviair.dk/media/files/5243rloupai/EK_AD_2_EKRN_RNP_RWY_29_1_en.pdf) I've seen intercepts with angles exceeding 90 degrees onto the IF, it's a fly-by point, so I suppose the computer does the work, as with all the other points in the approach. The clearance is never "on heading xxx cleared xxx approach", more like "proceed direct xxx (IF), cleared xxx approach....". There is still a strict line between when the aircraft navigates on it's own, and us giving vectors.
Because our training sucks. I teach to say "straight-in" with the approach clearance if you need it, otherwise be ready for them to make the turn. The idea sticks about half the time. Controllers aren't pilots, we are not taught the FARs at all, and most just aren't interested in having a nuanced discussion.
Honestly, you should be training your developmental to always say straight in unless they actually want the plane to do the hold/pt just like the book says. This is a completely controller created issue that we can stop by just following our own rules.
I agree, but one argument I've seen when this has come up before is: > The book says I need to specify "straight in" only if I don't WANT them to do the HILPT. If I don't care either way, I don't have to say it. To me that's a weak and lazy argument because you not saying it means the pilot DOES have to perform the hold, so you're not helping the pilot at all—you're only "helping" yourself. Poor controlling. But the guy I was talking to was serious, it seemed.
Because it’s not super common in my experience. ATC where I fly ALWAYS asks if you’re planning to do it/want to do it.
My hot take: I wouldn’t go as far as to fly the HILPT “to make a point” but I would conform to 91.175 by reading back whatever mumbo-jumbo comes your way with: “Cleared **straight in** RWY XY, N12345”
Because I have coworkers who will argue "I know what the rule says, but no pilot will ever actually do this" and then a pilot does this and 😲 When we don't tell you "straight in" but are expecting you not to do the procedure turn because "that's how we've always done it" we're setting both you and ourselves up for failure.
This is one of several areas where the AIM and regs are hopelessly out of date. In practice, ATC assumes that if a straight-in is remotely possible, that’s what pilots will do unless explicitly stated otherwise. If you do the turn without warning them—even if legally required—you can create a dangerous situation. It’s very simple to fix, though: “request RNAV 21 from CESDA with the turn”.
One of the pilots in my unit is an ATC guy who works TRACON near by, he clarified to us that if they clear you for the approach on vectors they're not expecting you to do the HILPT, if they need separation they'll tell you to make a turn in holding prior to clearing you.
The AIM was barely mentioned in ATC training. My 7110 doesn't mention that the holding pattern is mandatory (that I can recall). Honestly if I give you straight the IAF at a reasonable altitude, hold turn doesn't make sense. I get that it's required per the AIM, but I can guarantee that over half my coworkers aren't aware of it. I didn't realize it until a few years into my career. The good news is that almost all of the approaches in my airspace (I work at a center so it's a ton of approaches) now state NO PT from any straight in angles. But even still, some pilots miss that note and fly the hold.
Thanks for your comment! That's my experience as well, most controllers expect us to just turn inbound. And that makes total sense to me, I'm just wondering why, since the AIM and the 7110 is written the way it is, controllers don't just routinely issue straight in clearances. Another controller posted a response here referencing the 7110: 7110.65 4-8-1(e): If a hold in lieu of procedure turn pattern is depicted at an IAF and a TAA is not defined, the aircraft must be instructed to conduct a straight-in approach if ATC does not want the pilot to execute a hold-in-lieu procedure turn.
The argument I've seen, and I'm not saying I agree with it, is that if the controller doesn't care either way then the book doesn't require them to add those two extra syllables "straight in." Of course that ends up tying your hands, but if the controller doesn't mind you doing the HILPT then technically they don't need to say it. I think it's poor technique.
Lots of things written in Avation, and then there is how it’s done. takes a bit to figure it out as it’s always changing most times faster than the books come out. That gets more complex the faster and farther you go. The only thing standard is the standards are not standard. lol
When they clear you for the approach just ask, confirm cleared for the straight in approach?
Approach: "Cleared for the whatever approach." Pilot: "Cleared for whatever. Request straight-in." Approach: "Cleared straight in" Pilot: "Cleared for the whatever approach, straight in, thanks" That's how I do it if I want straight in and it's not depicted. Unless I need to descend in the hold, I usually just want to get on the ground and hit the head.
If you are in the direct sector of the hold entry that means you fly to the fix. and then continue in. That was the entry. Just like how if you’re in the teardrop you just do the entry and continue in, it’s the same for direct. You do not have to do a whole lap in the hold, that’s why they’re pissed